{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_745","title":"SWAT visits","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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["SWAT visits"],"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/745"],"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\n1999 School Visit Schedule Tuesday, August 24 Sherwood El. Pinewood El. Sylvan Hills El. Jacksonville Middle \u0026amp; Jr. Jacksonville High A A B B A\u0026amp;B ^-Hall High - Pulaski Heights Middle Wednesday, September 1 A\u0026amp;B Horace, Gene Wednesday, August 25 Baker El. Lawson El. --ALC S* and Apperson Williams Magnet El. txFair High A A B B A\u0026amp;B Lakewood El. Parkhill El. Poplar Street Middle Crestwood El. NLRHS West A A B B A\u0026amp;B Thursday, September 2 Thursday, August 26 '-Mitchell El. ^ibbs Magnet El. (xParkview Magnet High *-\u0026lt;}entral High A B A\u0026amp;B A\u0026amp;B --Southwest Middle -AVilson El. X^loverdale Middle AMabelvale Middle -AdcClellan High A A B B A\u0026amp;B Team A: Horace and Melissa Team B Gene and Margie Friday, August 27 Fuller Junior Mills Margie, Mel. Margie, Mel. I Monday, August 30 Tolleson El. Arnold Drive El. PCSSD Alternative Jacksonville Alternative North Pulaski High Tuesday, August 31 Forest Heights Middle \"Henderson Middle \"IJorace Mann Middle HDunbar Middle A A B B A\u0026amp;B A A B B1999 School Visit Schedule Tuesday, August 24 Wednesday, September 1 Sherwood El. Pinewood El. Sylvan Hills El. lacksonville Middle \u0026amp; Ir. lacksonville High A A B B A\u0026amp;B Baker El. Lawson El. ALC 8 and Apperson Williams Magnet El. Fair High A A B B A\u0026amp;B Wednesday, August 25 Thursday, September 2 Lakewood El. Parkhill El. Poplar Street Middle Crestwood El. NLRHS West A A B B A\u0026amp;B Mitchell El. Gibbs Magnet El. Parkview Magnet High Central High A B A\u0026amp;B A\u0026amp;B Thursday, August 26 Team A: Horace and Melissa Team B: Gene and Margie Southwest Middle Wilson El. Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle McClellan High A A B B A\u0026amp;B Friday, August 27 WRITING DAY Monday, August 30 Tolleson El. Arnold Drive El. PCSSD Alternative North Pulaski High A A B A\u0026amp;B Tuesday, August 31 Forest Heights Middle Henderson Middle Horace Mann Middle Dunbar Middle Hall High A A B B A\u0026amp;BOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 27, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: As you know, each fall as the school year gets underway, ODM briefly and informally monitors some of the schools in all three districts. The observations we make are in the same vein as those of parents, students, and staff as they enter a building to start the new year. That's why we pay attention to the aspects of a school that are most likely to initially impress those entering it, such as the condition of the grounds, building upkeep and cleanliness, displays and furnishings, student and staff conduct, and so forth. This year, during the week beginning August 26\\ we dropped in on 18 LRSD schools: Gibbs, Mitchell, Williams, and Wilson Elementaries\nall the middle schools (Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mabelvale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest)\nall the high schools (Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview)\nand the Alternative Leaning Center. We did not go into individual classrooms except at Mitchell, where we followed up on some of the observations we had made about the buildings condition this past summer. Attached is a list of what we observed at each school. While we were pleased to note some fine preparations for the beginning of the year, we were disappointed in the number of problems we found and hope the district will move expeditiously to address them. We intend for these comments to give you, your administrators, and the principals of these buildings the benefit of our impressions. Therefore, as has been our custom, we will not publish or file these observations at this time, although we might eventually factor them into some aspect of a report. I hope the enclosed information is helpful. Please dont hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. cc: Sadie Mitchell Building principalsGibbs Foreign Languages/International Studies Magnet Elementary School JEe were pleased to note that:  Attractive shrubs and trees surrounded three sides of the building, creating a welcoming atmosphere for students and visitors.  The large, paved play area in back of the building contained well-maintained playground equipment and basketball courts.  Sturdy metal benches attached to the back wall of the building were convenient to the playground.  Consistent with the schools international studies magnet theme, the interior halls were decorated with flags of foreign countries. One display read Welcome in several languages. Another, in a glass case, featured the culture of Greece.  The small media center was attractively furnished and offered six on-line computers for students to use.  The book collection was inviting and the reference collection was up to date.  The cafeteria floor was clean and waxed and furnishings were in good repair.  Restrooms were clean and well supplied.  Mini-posters in the girls restrooms provided helpful hygiene reminders, and the girls restroom in the intermediate wing had a disposal for feminine hygiene products. We also noted some areas that needed attention:  No flags were flying from the flagpole.  The gate on the fence around the play area was in disrepair and compromised the security it was designed to provide.  Three portable buildings housed some of the instructional programs.  The cafeteria ceiling was cluttered with detached wires, once used for hanging displays, that created an unsightly appearance.  Stacks of folding chairs were propped against the wall in the cafeteria.  Many of the ceiling tiles in the cafeteria were broken, loose, cracked, or tom.  The kitchen was very small and crowded. Serving carts and other equipment exacerbated already crowded conditions in kitchen traffic areas.  Missing floor tiles behind the cafeteria serving line created a safety hazard, and a black, gooey substance was oozing through the floor tiles near the pantry.  The dishwasher was broken, forcing the staff to use paper plates.  The odor of natural gas emitted from the oven. A cafeteria worker explained that the pilot light would not stay lit.  Some of the stall doors were missing in both of the girls restrooms that we monitored.  Stall doors in one girls restroom were defaced with graffiti.  One of the sinks in a girls restroom appeared to be on the verge of sliding down the wall.  Holes and gouges in the wall tile, coupled with poor attempts to cover some of them with a cement-like substance, made the girls restrooms very unattractive.  Girls restrooms were not handicapped accessible.Mitchell Elementary School We were pleased to note that:  The campus was free of litter, and district workers were repairing a damaged section of the chain link fence that borders Roosevelt Road.  An easel in the foyer displayed a group portrait of the school staff.  Attractive bulletin boards, flags, and banners brightened the entryway.  Floors were clean, waxed, and shiny, and the carpeting throughout the building was generally clean and in good condition.  The principal indicated that the director, as well as workers from the LRSD Facility Services Department, had been to the school to evaluate the buildings problems.  According to the principal, new covers were being ordered for the flourescent light fixtures.  Students evacuated the building in an orderly fashion during a fire drill.  The media center was well lit and attractively decorated with various book displays. A single computer station provided access to the Internet for staff or student research.  A bulletin board outside the cafeteria recognized all student birthdays for the month of August. We also noted some areas needing attention:  No flags were flying from the school flagpole.  A very strong, unpleasant odor permeated the area where an addition adjoined the original structure. The principal said that district workers had called an exterminator to deal with an infestation of bats in the attic, which presumably was causing the strong smell. The exterminator was expected to eliminate the bat population and remove any carcases.  Overflowing water, apparently from clogged gutters, had damaged the roof overhang and decorative brackets.  The covered walkway between the main building and the four-year-old classroom had a damaged roof. The roofing shingles were missing, and the exposed decking was rotten in some spots.  A large tree limb had fallen to the ground near the K-1 building.  The air conditioning in a portion of the building was not working\nonly four of six upstairs rooms were cooled.  Paint was peeling from the ceilings in passageways throughout the building, and several classrooms had paint peeling from their ceilings.  Room 103 had serious water damage to the southwest comer of the room.  Room 204, which is directly above 103, had water damage on its south wall.  The math room, which is in the addition attached to the main building, had water damaged walls.  Pronounced water damage was evident in the stairwell at the north end of the building. A large section of plaster had fallen away, revealing the underlying brick. The surrounding area also showed signs of water damage\npaint peeling back to bare wood, eroding plaster, and wood rot.  The hall carpet at the top of the stairs was frayed and loose.  In the four-year-old classroom and some rooms in the K-1 building, the carpet was stained, worn, and unsightly.Mitchell Elementary School Page 2  The hall paint was worn in spots.  The hall ceiling above the library office area was marred by a large metal plate that had been attached to cover, rather than correct, some ceiling problems.  The media center, though clean and attractive, was extremely small and crowded. Carpet near the windows was tom and the ceiling showed residual stains from leaks.  The cafeteria floor near the waste barrels was wet with milk from breakfast.  The textured ceiling in the cafeteria was in a deplorable state with areas where the textured material was entirely missing and others where the material hung perilously over the tables.  The girls restroom on the second floor landing lacked soap, was not accessible to the handicapped, had one sink with very low water pressure, and the toilet paper rolls were simply propped up rather than being placed on the roller.  The boys restroom on the second floor landing still had an odor problem, which has been chronic.Williams Traditional Magnet School We -were pleased to note that:  The large playground surrounding the school offered many options for student recreation, including a soccer field, paved play area with well-maintained play equipment, a grassy hillside, and many trees.  Well-tended flowering shrubs decorated the grounds in tfont of the school.  The interior corridors were clean and tidy. School displays and potted plants decorated the entry foyer, and cases in the hallways featured interesting exhibits,  Attractive banners outside the classrooms identified the teachers.  Students were very friendly and quick to offer assistance.  The staff were dressed in a very professional manner.  The combination of new furniture, good-looking carpet, and an attractive book collection created an inviting media center.  The media center had four on-line computers available for student use.  The stainless steel appliances in the kitchen sparkled like new.  The kitchen ceiling was freshly painted, giving the area a clean, bright appearance.  The restrooms were clean and supplied with soap and paper products. We also noted some areas needing attention:  The building was not secured, as side entries were unlocked.  Both main entries to the building lacked wheelchair ramps.  Four portable buildings were in use in the back of the main building. The fibre board underpinning for one was rotted, broken, and unsightly.  The area near the folding divider that separated the gym and the cafeteria was cluttered with carts, electric wires, sound equipment, and stacks of folding chairs.  The stage was cluttered with folded tables, desks, and boxes.  The cafeteria floor was missing several tiles, and the ceiling had several loose tiles.  The picnic-style tables were flush with the cafeteria wall at one end, creating possible traffic problems.  Rolling carts and large pails impeded traffic circulation in the food preparation and serving areas.  One stall in a girls restroom had an out of order sign.  Graffiti was present in a girls restroom in the primary wing.  The girls restrooms were not handicapped accessible.Wilson Elementary School lEe were pleased to note that:  The grass was mowed and the campus was free of litter.  Blooming crape myrtles and a neatly edged flower bed enhanced the exterior of the school.  The interior floors were clean, waxed, and shiny.  The main hall was brightened by three attractive, large murals that had been designed by an LRSD artist and painted by the teachers.  A large map of the revised LRSD elementary attendance zones hung near the office.  The main office area was attractively decorated, bright, and welcoining.  The school secretary greeted visitors in a very warm and engaging fashion.  Displays in the media center created an attractive and inviting environment.  The media center gave students access to word processing and the Internet.  The cafeteria was exceptionally clean and featured a good balance of artificial and natural light.  The boys restrooms were very clean and in good repair. We also noted some areas needing attention:  No flags were flying from the pole in front of the school.  The school had no parking lot for staff or visitors.  An asphalt play surface was cracked and covered with tree debris and rocks.  The campus included two very bedraggled portable classroom buildings. The portable labeled reading clinic had a hole in its metal shell and the metal skirting was ripped and loose.  The P.E. class for four-year-olds was being conducted in a developmentally inappropriate manner. The instructor spoke to the children harshly, continually reprimanding them and shaking his finger at them. The children were not engaged in organized games or play. The instructor had them run around the perimeter of the playground twice and then allowed them to play on the equipment. The children were treated like a high school football squad rather than a group of pre-school students.  The diminutive size of the media center placed a premium on student work space and storage space.  While the girls restroom off the main hall was clean and supplied, it was not handicapped accessible, water pressure in two of the sinks was very low, and the wall near the door had a gaping hole.  Toilet paper and paper towels were missing from the boys restroom nearest the intermediate level classrooms.Cloverdale Middle School Academy We were pleased to note that:  Both the U.S. and the Arkansas flags were flying in front of the school  The grounds featured many stately oak trees, providing shaded areas for students. Flowering crape myrtles graced the entire front of the building.  The exterior ramps were covered with awnings, and the lockers lining the walls were in good repair.  Security personnel were clearly visible on campus.  Furnishings in the media center were of good quality, and a dropped ceiling was a great improvement over the old ceiling.  Five on-line computers were available for student use in the media center.  Air temperature in the cafeteria was mercifully cool on an extremely warm day\neven the kitchen was air conditioned.  Restrooms were clean and free of litter, and the girls restrooms had fragrance dispensers.  One girls restroom was handicapped accessible, including two rails. We also noted some areas needing attention:  Litter and broken furniture were visible on much of the campus.  The awnings over the exterior corridors were cluttered with numerous exposed intercom wires.  Some of the students (and adults) seemed confused about a buzzer signaling the end of the physical activity portion of gym class. Several students from other classes headed toward their next class and had to be instructed to return to their rooms.  Carpeting on the stage was soiled, tom. and stained. Tape residue clung to one portion of the carpet. Also, clothing, large, trash-filled bags, broken pieces of Styrofoam, and pieces of classroom furniture littered the stage.  Several discarded cardboard boxes were stacked against one wall in the cafeteria.  A water fountain in the cafeteria was inoperable.  Wood logs were scattered at the back door of the cafeteria.  The girls restrooms were not completely stocked with paper products or soap and lacked disposal units for hygiene products.  The lights were out in one girls restroom.  The walls in one girls restrooms were badly stained, marred, chipped, and scratched. One wall had a very large crack along the door jamb.  Some of the stalls in a girls restroom had graffiti.  One girls restroom was not handicapped accessible, and the restroom next to it, marked with a handicapped sign, was locked.  One restroom on a back ramp was not labeled as to gender.Dunbar International Studies/Gifted Talented Education Magnet Middle School iVe were pleased to note that:  Campus doors were locked, except for the main entrance.  Parts of the campus were well tended and featured flower beds and flowering shrubs alongside new and widened walkways.  The terrazzo floors near the main entry were shiny and attractive.  Adults were visible during class change.  The media center contained several models representing student work. The book collection was extensive and attractive and was supplemented by four on-line computers.  Furnishings in the cafeteria were in good repair.  The restrooms were amply supplied with paper products and soap.  The stalls in the girls restrooms had disposal units for feminine hygiene products.  One girls restroom had a handicapped accessible stall with two handrails. We also noted some areas needing attention:  No flags were flying from the flagpole in front of the school.  The front of the building, which was the only entrance with unlocked doors, was not wheelchair accessible.  The bed of plants at the main entrance needed weeding.  Security officers were not immediately visible during our visit.  Walkways near the Wright Avenue side of the campus were broken and hazardous, and others were overgrown with grass.  A pile of broken and discarded furniture sat outside the band room.  The non-shp covers on the stair treads and risers were broken in many places, and thus unsightly as well as hazardous.  The large, glass-enclosed exhibit cabinet in the east foyer (which in previous years had held vibrant displays related to the school theme) was completely empty, and the small bulletin board in the west foyer was blank.  The clock suspended by the main office did not tell the correct time by several hours.  A locker door on the first floor was missing, and numerous lockers throughout the school were defaced with black smudges and marks.  A window in the bank of interior hall windows on room 201 was broken. Most of the small, interior hall windows throughout the building were dusty and smudged, if not outright filthy.  Fire extinguisher cases in the corridors were empty, and no fire extinguisher was visible in the cafeteria,  Several walls and classroom doors were defaced with graffiti and marred by extraneous dirt.  The veneer on some classroom doors was split or missing in pieces.  The media center carpet was stained, frayed, and soiled.  A large area of ceiling panel was missing outside of the cafeteria.  Several floor tiles and ceiling tiles in the cafeteria were broken, cracked, or gouged,  Windows in the cafeteria were filthy.Dunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Education Magnet Middle School Page 2  Some floors were neither clear nor waxed\nothers were waxed, but the wax had been applied over dirt or, in the case of the cafeteria, dark, ugly scuff marks.  The kitchen tile around two large floor drains was cracked and broken.  Carts and containers created traffic flow problems in the food preparation and serving areas.  Sanitation problems in the kitchen included a missing ceiling vent cover and evidence of rodents.  Due to a lack of ventilation in the kitchens laundry room, the walls were covered with mildew and stains.  The identifying signs were missing from the girls restrooms located on the second and third floors.  A strong sewer smell emanated from the girls locker room.  Shower stalls in the girls locker room were corroded, stained, filled with trash, and covered with graffiti, as were the lockers, walls, and many other surface areas. The locker room looked like a garbage dump.  The girls locker room was not handicapped accessible.  The boys locker room contained huge swaths of material hanging from over half of the ceiling and a vertical crack, approximately 1/2\" wide, reached down an entire wall. Other structural cracks were noted in other parts of the locker room.  Shower stalls in the boys locker room were so stained and corroded that they were unusable.  Graffiti was rampant in the boys locker room and the facility contained no soap or paper products.  A staff person reported leaks in an area above the gymnasium floor.Forest Heights Middle School We were pleased to note that:  The campus was free of litter and the grass was mowed.  The terraced planting beds added five years ago were filled with healthy greenery that greatly enhanced the entry to the school.  The five-year-old main building looked as neat, clean, and attractive as it did at the dedication ceremony.  Security personnel were visible throughout the school.  Floors were clean and waxed to a mirror-like shine.  A spacious stair landing had been transformed into an attractive student art gallery.  Posters with encouraging and inspirational sayings were present throughout the building.  The teaching staff were especially friendly and helpful.  Banners that identified the middle school learning teams were found throughout the building.  The sixth grade area of the building featured a wealth of displays and examples of student work.  The sixth grade wing included displays featuring team names (such as New Centurions, Shooting Stars, and Aviators) that gave evidence of the middle school teaming concept.  The media center was in excellent condition and had attractive furnishings. Computer work stations provided students with word processing capability, as well as Internet access.  The gymnasium was clean and in good repair. The basketball floor was shiny and well maintained.  The cafeteria was clean and the tables and chairs were in good repair.  The boys restrooms were well supplied, clean, odor-free, and handicapped accessible.  The girls restrooms were clean, odor free, supplied with paper products, and accessible to the handicapped. We also noted some areas needing attention:  We found no flags flying.  Above the checkout desk in the media center, two flourescent tubes were not working.  The doors to the cafeteria were badly scarred and in need of paint.  Ceiling tiles near the cafeteria exit were marred and insulation was clearly visible where several tiles were missing entirely.  Carpet in one classroom was clean but terribly wrinkled, causing a tripping hazard.  Paint was peeling from the ceiling of the boys restroom adjacent to the gymnasium.  One girls restroom lacked soap, and one of the sinks had no running water.Henderson Middle School We were pleased to note:  The U.S. flag was flying from the schools flagpole.  Security personnel greeted visitors at the front door.  Student team names appeared on a bulletin board near the main office as evidence of the teaming aspect of the middle school concept.  Students greeted us in a friendly manner.  The main interior hallway was bright due to the natural light from skylights and relatively new paint. The sponge-painted accents in the hallway provided tor a nice overall effect.  Students were quiet and orderly during a class change.  Some hallways had student work on display.  The media center was roomy enough to provide for adequate student seating, as well as space for computer work stations.  The media center contained computers that students could use for Internet research and also for word processing.  The cafeteria was clean and the design provided for good traffic flow.  Boys restrooms were generally clean with sinks, toilets, and urinals operating normally. We also noted some areas needing attention:  The campus was not properly secured\nseveral exterior doors were propped open.  A few areas of the campus were littered. While the soccer field had some trash barrels, the number is not adequate during soccer season, when the fields are used by the school and the YMCA.  The courtyard areas, which could be very attractive if better maintained, were filled with weeds, debris, and fallen leaves.  During the class change, a security guard bellowed at the students who attempted to go to their lockers. While the school does restrict student access to lockers, security guards should endeavor to present a pleasant demeanor, rather than acting like drill sergeants.  Paint was badly peeling from an exterior wall in one of the courtyards.  The blue paint on the exterior doors was faded.  Beyond the sixth grade area, teaming was not as visually apparent as in other parts of the school.  On one hallway, pictures used to represent various careers depicted women in non-traditional roles, but showed very few African-Americans.  Gum residue was stuck to the hallway floors.  The carpeting in the media center was clean but so worn that it was taped together in several places.  In several hallways, fire extinguishers were missing from their recesses.  The boys restrooms lacked paper towels and the lights were not on in the boys restroom nearest the main office.  The girls restroom nearest the office was pitch dark. The ceiling fixture was not working, and a monitor could not locate a light switch. Since the room had no windows or skylights, it was impossible to monitor and nearly unusable (although we observed a few brave souls emerge from the dark room). Another girls restroom was locked.Mabelvale Middle School We were pleased to note that:  The campus was secured and security personnel were visible.  The brick exterior of the building was in good repair, and the walks and ramps were in good condition.  The posts supporting the ramp awnings were color-coded so that students teams could easily identify the areas of their classrooms.  Lockers lining the walls of the ramps were in excellent condition.  Glass blocks framed the office door and provided an attractive accent.  The one-way traffic flow pattern helped to ensure orderly class changes free of congestion.  The media center was an attractive workplace for students and offered sLx on-line computers.  Students attending an assembly in the cafeteria were attentive and very well behaved.  Furnishings in the cafeteria were clean and in good repair.  Ceiling fans in the cafeteria provided some relief from the summer heat.  An attractively decorated display board featured the names of the cafeteria workers.  The restrooms were adequately furnished with paper products.  Restrooms were clean\nmirrors and sinks sparkled. We also noted some areas needing attention:  No flags were flying from the flagpole.  The campus was littered with paper, especially around the dumpster, and several landscaping timbers had been left in a pile near the front entrance.  On August 26, the marquee was still featuring an August 4-5 registration announcement.  The exposed wiring along the awnings over the ramps was unsightly.  The courtyard contained a lone, wrought iron bench with sagging wooden slats, creating a desolate scene.  Floors in the cafeteria were gouged and several areas of tile were missing, while other areas were covered with mismatched tiles.  Metal facing on a cafeteria door was cracked and broken.  The cafeteria lacked sufficient seating to accommodate students during lunch, and crowding of the tables congested the traffic flow.  The small kitchen lacked sufficient aisle space, creating traffic problems during food preparation and serving, and lighting was poor.  One of the girls restrooms was poorly lit.  Swaths of mismatched paint had been applied to the walls in one girls restroom, while in another restroom, large areas of the finish had been scoured off the metal stall dividers.  The girls restrooms lacked soap.  One girls restroom, which was designed for wheelchair accessibility, had only one side rail in the stall.Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet We were pleased to note that:  State and national flags were properly displayed from the flagpole.  Security personnel were visible.  Grassy courtyards, furnished with benches and well-trimmed shrubs, created a welcoming appearance for students and visitors,  Displays were very colorful and eye catching.  Large murals painted on the brick exteriors showcased the arts theme.  The media center contained five on-line computers for student use.  The cafeteria was well ventilated and cool on a very hot day.  The large cafeteria provided plenty of space for good traffic flow.  Several murals, mostly celebrating racial diversity, provided a pleasing backdrop during meals.  The girls restrooms were clean. We also noted some areas needing attention:  The campus was not secure: exterior gates were open or unlocked.  Although a covered walkway extended from the main building to the auxiliary building, the walkway was not wheelchair accessible.  Parts of the campus were littered and unkempt.  The back driveway had a series of potholes.  The exterior masonry walls were seriously cracked in several places.  The entiy doors to the English annex were damaged and dirty.  The plexiglass windows at the auditoriums entrance were scratched, ugly, and barely transparent.  Some classrooms had evidence of ceiling leaks.  Most drinking fountains were not operable.  Despite decent-looking carpet and ceiling tiles, the media center appeared shabby. The furniture was a mixed collection of hand-me-downs, some with imitation walnut finish and others with a blond veneer. The book collection looked seedy and the reference collection was outdated. AV equipment covered the tables in the reading room.  Some tables in the cafeteria were chipped, gouged, or broken\ntape reside marred the table tops.  The ceiling leaked in the cafeteria, and several ceiling panels in the cafeteria were missing.  Recent patch jobs on the kitchen ceiling had not been painted, creating an unfinished appearance.  None of the three girls restrooms located in the main building or in the auxiliary building were handicapped accessible.  Water pressure was extremely low in the girls restrooms.  Several stalls in a girls restroom had no toilet paper, and three of the four restrooms had no paper towels.  Two girls restrooms were missing stall doors.  Although all of the light fixtures in the entry to the girls restrooms had bulbs, none of them were operating. When queried, a custodian remarked, Those lights arc not necessary,  Two boysrestrooms were locked. Two others should have been\neach was smelly, only partly functional, and had no soap or paper products.Pulaski Heights Middle School IVe were pleased to note that:  Much of the original brick floor was still attractive and in good repair.  The hallways were clean, well lit, and free of litter.  Bulletin boards and posters gave evidence of middle school teaming.  A book fair was in progress, so the media center was more cramped than usual, but still provided a pleasant atmosphere.  Seven on-line computers complemented the substantial book and reference collection in the media center.  The auditorium was clean and in good repair, since persistent leaks had been stopped and fresh plaster and paint applied to the walls.  The gymnasium was clean and bright.  The basketball playing floor had been recently refinished and the bleachers were in good repair.  The cafeteria was generally clean and the walls had been recently repaired and painted in the school colors.  The restrooms were functional and well supplied. We also noted some areas needins attention:  No flags were flying from the flagpole near the main entry.  The brick structure near the main entrance, designed to serve as a ground-level marquee, was devoid of the schools name, and the planters on either side sported nothing but dead weeds.  A pile of broken and discarded furniture cluttered a back courtyard.  The protective coverings on the stair steps were broken and hazardous in several areas.  The space created for the media center was too small for the size of the schools enrollment.  Several flourescent tubes were not working in the cafeteria.  Some ceiling tiles in the cafeteria were marred, broken, or entirely missing.  The floor was noticeable gouged in the cafeteria near a serving line and at the entrance to the auditorium.  Wall tiles on two of the boys restrooms were missing, leaving unsightly exposed plaster.  One boys restroom was littered.Southwest Middle School iVe were pleased to note that:  The grass was mowed and the campus was free of litter.  The hall floors were clean and shiny.  Security personnel were visible.  The school mission statement was prominent in several locations in the building.  Bulletin board and shadow box displays featured student organizations such as the Gentlemens Club.  Middle school teaming was evident through bulletin boards and hallway displays.  The media center was well organized, clearly labeled, and had adequate student work space.  Computer stations in the library provided students with word processing and Internet access.  The cafeteria was large enough for a smooth flow of student traffic during the lunch period.  The boys restrooms were generally clean.  The girls restrooms were clean and fully supplied. We also noted some areas needing attention:  No flags were flying from the school flagpole.  The school was not landscaped, but a few mature trees dotted the perimeter of the campus.  The metal windows were rusted in spots.  The campus was not secured: some exterior doors (other than the front door) were unlocked and some classroom doors were propped open.  Several hallway flourescent lights were burned out.  The cinder block wall at the south end of the main hall showed signs of water damage.  Wall paint in the 500 hall appeared old and dingy.  The ceiling tiles nearest the assistant principals suite were gouged.  Several cafeteria tables were worn and badly chipped.  Toast, milk cartons, and other breakfast refuse littered the lunch line area,  The physical condition of the boys restrooms varied. The restroom at the far end of the main hallway had gouged walls, broken wall and floor tiles, peeling paint, and was not well lit. The restroom nearest the gymnasium was clean and well supplied, but had a constantly running urinal and rusted heating unit.  Not all of the boys restrooms were adequately supplied with toilet paper and soap.  A girls restroom lacked adequate lighting, and the walls and stalls were defaced with graffiti. In this same restroom, the toilet paper dispenser was missing from the handicapped stall.Central International Studies High School We were pleased to note that:  Both the state and national flags were properly displayed on flag pole in front of the school.  The grounds were very attractive. The grass was mowed and we noted only a few pieces of litter on the entire campus. A wealth of blooming crape myrtles accented the front of the school, and the planting beds were neat and filled with shrubs and ornamental grasses.  Security personnel and equipment were visible throughout the building. Security measures included cameras in the corridors and kiosks strategically situated throughout the main level.  Colorful banners and posters promoting school spirit were displayed in many areas of the building.  Shadow boxes on the main level featured student artwork.  The interior corridors were well lit and lined with lockers in good repair.  Floors were clean and polished.  The stonework in the foyer had been repaired.  The media center included a large bank of computers for students to use for on-line research and word processing.  Appropriate spirit symbols decorated the gymnasium.  The gyms fold-away bleachers appeared to be in good repair, and the hardwood playing surface had a good, shiny finish.  The cafeteria was well ventilated and comfortably cool on a very warm day.  The cafeteria was clean and furnishings were in good repair.  Newly installed serving rails provided an orderly flow of traffic in the cafeteria.  The cafeteria ceiling paint was in excellent condition, giving the appearance of having been recently done, although a custodian indicated that it hadnt been painted in six years.  The kitchen area was very spacious and free of clutter.  Girls restrooms had paper products and were free of litter immediately after lunch period.  Both of the girls restrooms monitored were handicapped accessible, including two handrails. We also noted some areas needing attention:  The shell of a wrecked car, apparently used in a senior bash, remained in one comer of the student parking lot. The vehicle, which consisted of jagged metal, broken glass, and scribbled obscenities, posed a safety hazard and was unsightly.  The area around the school dumpsters was cluttered with discarded furniture and cardboard boxes.  The rubberized covering on the landing of the main entry steps was cracked, tom, and unattractive.  The campus was not secured: monitors entered through an open door in a custodians shop\nanother door at the back of the school also was propped open.  Few adults were present during a class change.  The two-way traffic flow on the stairs created serious congestion during class changes.  Many surfaces in the corridors were defaced by graffiti.  Trophy cases were covered with dust, and the trophies were grimy and tarnished.  Large sections of ceiling panels were missing on the lower level.  In numerous locations throughout the building, wall paint had bubbled and plaster flaked due to moisture. Many corridor walls on the third level had been damaged severely by moisture.Central International Studies High School Page 2  Plexiglass windows in various parts of the building were so marred by scratches, tape residue, and past cleaning attempts that they had been rendered opaque rather than transparent,  Several hallway flourescent lights were inoperative.  The media center was plagued by leaks and the resulting deterioration of plaster. The problem was particularly severe in the media center boys restroom.  The ceiling had peeled severely in a maintenance room and the carpet was soiled and mildewed.  The concrete block building attached to the west side of the gym was badly cracked and in danger of falling.  Window panes in the back of the gymnasium had been replaced with plywood that was peeling and unsightly.  The handle and overhead sill of the auditorium door were broken.  The auditorium carpeting was soiled and the stage was littered.  No fire extinguishers were found in the cafeteria.  A section of tile near a kitchen floor drain was badly cracked, chipped, and broken.  Large sections of paint were peeling from the walls in the kitchen, indicating moisture problems.  Disconnected pipes from a former drinking fountain protruded from a support column.  Neither girls restroom observed had soap or disposal containers for feminine hygiene products.  A toilet in one girls restroom was inoperable and a toilet in another was stopped up.  One of the girls restrooms showed evidence of water damage, especially around the window casing.  One girls restroom had a missing ceiling panel and push-down faucets that were very difficult to operate\nanother had a large section of broken wall, exposing sewage drain pipes.  A third floor boys restroom had been vandalized: the Formica edging around the counter top had peeled off, and the cover to the flushing mechanism for the urinals was missing, leaving a gaping hole in the wall.J. A. Fair High School IVe were pleased to note that:  The U.S. flag was displayed on the flagpole in fi'ont of the school.  The grass was mowed and the campus was free of litter.  Doors throughout the campus were locked, security cameras were mounted in the corridors, and security personnel were visible.  Staff\" members greeted us in a friendly fashion.  The entry foyer and interior corridors were clean and free of litter and debris.  Most corridors were lined with lockers in good repair.  A mural with a musical theme adorned the wall adjacent to one of the music classrooms.  The media center, which featured automated checkout, had computers available for word processing and Internet research.  The media center was replete with student projects on display.  The cafeteria was clean and fi'ee of litter.  Traffic flow in the kitchen during lunch hour was smooth.  Both gyms were clean and ready for use\nseveral championship banners decorated the walls.  The bleachers in the varsity gym were clean and in good repair.  The restrooms were fiee of litter and well supplied. We also noted some areas needing attention:  While the large planting bed near the entry had the potential to be attractive, it was choked with weeds and drought-stricken annuals.  Although security personnel questioned each one, several students were in the corridors well after the class change.  Some of the hall ceiling tiles were stained and ripped.  Floor tiles in one section of the hallway were cracked.  Some hall drinking fountains were inoperable.  Several ceiling tiles in the hallway to the auxiliary gym were damaged or missing.  The louvered door to one gym dressing room was damaged to the point of allowing anyone to see into the area.  In the media center, the addition of computer stations significantly decreased the already limited amount of student work space.  In a work area adjacent to the media center, leaking water pooled inside the cover of a flourescent Ught fixture.  Tables in the cafeteria were chipped and gouged.  One serving counter was propped on a wooden board.  The floor was buckled in Ifont of the serving counter\ntiles were chipped, cracked, and broken.  In the kitchen, water damage was evident in the pantry area, and some ceiling panels were loose, missing, or food-splattered.  A cafeteria worker reported evidence of rodents.  The air conditioning was broken in the kitchen area and the air temperature was stifling.  Walls and stalls in the girls restrooms were scuffed, stained, and marred.  One girls restroom was not handicapped accessible.  One of the toilets in a girls restroom was stopped up by a discarded sanitary napkin. Although the restrooms had disposal units for feminine hygiene products, they were inconveniently located outside of the stalls.  While the girls restrooms were supplied with toilet paper, the rolls were lying on the floor. The restrooms also lacked soap dishes. As a result, scummy soap residue had accumulated in all areas surrounding the sinks.Hall University Studies High School We were pleased to note that:  Security personnel were visible.  Many of the planting beds were filled with masses of blooming annuals.  The grass was mowed and the campus was free of litter.  The interior corridors were clean and shiny in both buildings.  Students were fnendly and helpful to us.  Lockers were in good repair.  Hallway displays, posters, and banners proclaimed school spirit.  The media center was spacious and attractive.  The media center, which was in the process of implementing an automated checkout system for materials, also had computers that students could use for Internet research and word processing.  The gymnasium was clean and bright and made good use of school colors to enhance its appearance.  The hardwood basketball court was refinished and clean.  Furnishings in the cafeteria were in good repair.  Air temperature in the cafeteria and kitchen was excellent.  Floors and walls in the girls restrooms were clean.  Girls restrooms contained disposal units for feminine hygiene products. We also noted some areas needing attention:  No flags were flying from the schools flagpole.  One security guard was observed with his arm around a female student, and a police officer was seated alone in a parked squad car with a female student. Security personnel and resource officers should exercise great care in their interaction with students and the appearance of their behavior.  Electrical wires laid in a tangle near the football field.  The temporary bleachers near the football field were broken and hazardous, due to exposed and jagged metal edges.  The tennis courts were in a state of pronounced decay with flaked and rough concrete and a sagging net.  The ceiling tiles in the 700 building were sagging and broken.  Some fire extinguisher cases were empty.  Several ceiling tiles were missing in the hallway near the journalism class.  Sections of baseboards were worn and loose in several areas of the building.  Students traveling in four directions in the area outside the cafeteria during the lunch transition period created serious congestion. Students entering and exiting from the same doors created bottlenecks.  Cafeteria tables were placed too close together, compromising movement and severely limiting egress during an emergency.  The cafeteria lacked sufficient seating for the number of students present\nas a result, some students were five or six minutes late for third period class.  A water leak over the kitchens vent-a-hood created a safety hazard.Hall University Studies High School Page 2  Narrow food preparation lanes, coupled with loose and broken floor tiles, created safety hazards.  Flaking ceiling material over the serving counter created a health hazard.  One floor drain was stopped up, another drained slowly, and a stool covered a large open drain in the food preparation area, causing a safety hazard.  Cafeteria workers reported electrical overload problems and evidence of rodents.  The kitchen door contained a large hole and one window pane was cracked.  A section of floor tile was missing from around the sink in the kitchen.  None of the girls restrooms inspected was handicapped accessible.  One girls restroom lacked soap and not all stalls had toilet paper.  The stall dividers in one girls restroom were covered with graffiti.  The boys restroom near the library had been vandalized: sink handles were broken and a stall door was missing.McClellan Business/Communications Magnet We were pleased to note that:  The grass was mowed and the campus was free of litter.  The security staff was visible,  A student-drawn mural of cell division decorated the science hall.  The business education hallway was filled with colorful, attractive displays and the myriad of business education awards received by students.  The media center provided adequate seating for classes of students.  Materials checkout in the media center was automated and the facihty had computers with Internet research and word processing capability.  Drawings of authors from diverse cultural backgrounds (such as Maya Angelou and Mark Twain) decorated the media center.  The gymnasium was colorful and clean, and the bleachers appeared to be in good repair.  Spirit emblems lent a festive atmosphere to the gym.  The cafeteria floor was gleaming.  Cafeteria furnishings were well spaced, leaving ample room for lunch traffic.  Student portrait art added a nice touch to the surroundings in the cafeteria.  The girls restrooms were supplied with paper products.  Girls restroom stalls had disposal units for feminine hygiene products.  Although it was lunch period, the girls restrooms were free of litter. We also noted some areas needing attention:  No flags were flying from the flagpole.  The large planters in front of the school were filled with dying shrubs and weeds.  Corridors were very congested during class change, exacerbating the noise level.  The corridors were bleak and unattractive due to dirty concrete floors, metal roofing with lots of visible wire and ducts, and general neglect.  In the cafeteria, several ceiling panels were tom or loose and several floor tiles were cracked and chipped.  Some of the tables in the cafeteria were badly chipped or gouged.  In the serving area, a missing ceiling panel and a large floor drain created health and safety hazards.  The floor tiles in the kitchen were cracked, chipped, gouged, or broken.  Graffiti covered nearly all the wall space in the girls restrooms.  A student indicated that she and her classmates had painted the restrooms, but the job was characterized by poor brush strokes, insufficient coverage, and paint splatters, which were among the best things that could be said about the girls restrooms.  In one girls restroom, some stalls had no doors, including the one for handicapped students.  Walls and sinks in a girls restroom were dirty and stained and one restroom had dried tissue wads dotting the ceiling.  A metal grate had been pried from the wall in a girls restroom.  Girls were smoking in one restroom.  The boys restrooms had been markedly abused: the stark red-and-blue walls, messy paint, vandalized paper holders, litter, and graffiti all combined to create an unappealing whole.Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet We were pleased to note that:  The U.S. and Arkansas flags were flying from the flagpole in front of the school.  The grass was mowed and the campus was free of litter.  Security staff was visible throughout the building.  Interior corridors were clean and their design allowed easy movement for students during class changes.  Thematic murals appropriate to the disciplines decorated the halls near the music, art, history, and science departments.  Some hallways displayed student artwork.  The gymnasium playing surface was gleaming and in excellent condition. The bleachers were in good repair and free of graffiti. The gymnasium temperature was bearable despite outside temperatures in the mid-90's.  The south cafeteria had a colorful mural that brightened the facility.  Floors in both cafeterias were clean and waxed.  Air temperature in the cafeteria was excellent on a very warm day.  The addition of a lunch period resulted in fewer students per shift, thus eliminating crowding in the eating areas and long waits in the serving lines.  Girls restrooms were clean and litter free right after lunch.  Stall in the girls restrooms had disposal units for feminine hygiene products. We also noted some areas needing attention:  Some of the sidewalks were cracked and effaced.  Exterior trim paint was faded and weathered.  The school was crowded. The enrollment increase had caused the school to use all possible classroom space, and the district had brought in three portables for additional classrooms: a single portable was located on the upper campus and two double portables were located on the lower end of the campus. The lack of space is a particular concern due to some of the specialized types of courses offered at Parkview.  The concrete steps adjacent to the gymnasium leading to the lower campus were effaced.  The empty display cases in one area of the building were very unappealing.  A front panel was missing from a hall fountain.  Most of the plexiglass windows were scratched and ugly.  Wires to the intercom were strung along the corridor ceiling without benefit of ductwork. Although it had 22 computers for research and word processing, the media center was not fully usable due the construction of the adjacent dance studio.  The north cafeteria was dull and institutional in appearance.  The picnic-style tables were flush against the wall at one end of the cafeteria, creating limited egress in case of an emergency evacuation.  The kitchens food preparation area was narrow and congested, and loose ceiling tiles created a health hazard.  In the girls restroom, one vent cover was hanging from the ceiling and another was missing.  Girls restroom #203 was locked.  Sinks in the girls restrooms needed scrubbing.  Water pressure in one girls restroom was very low and the feminine hygiene products dispenser was inoperable.  A stall door in one of the girls restroom was too small and fit only halfway across the front of the handicapped accessible stall, eliminating all semblance of privacy for the user.  Two of the boys restrooms were in a state of serious disrepair and neglect. One of the restrooms had large, gaping holes in the walls.  Neither of the boys restrooms monitored were clean or supplied with paper towels.LRSD Alternative Learning Center (ALC) We were pleased to note that:  The exterior doors to the facility were locked.  Security personnel were highly visible throughout the building.  The brick exterior of the building was in good repair, grass and shrubs were neatly tended, and a new security fence had been installed on the north side of the campus.  Four huge magnolia trees shaded the west side of the building.  Interior corridors were immaculate and the concrete floors glistened.  Instead of a conventional media center for the nontraditional program, the school used computers in every classroom for programmed instruction and Internet research.  The cafeteria floor was gleaming and furnishings were in good repair.  The restrooms were clean and supplied with paper products and soap. We also noted some areas needing attention:  Asa former elementary school, the ALC had a flagpole, but no flags were flying.  The school did not have a ramp for handicapped access.  The carpet in the entry to the office was tom and frayed, due to the door constantly dragging across it.  Exposed intercom wires were stmng along the ceiling of the main corridor.  The kitchen area was in poor repair: the sink was stopped up, dead water bugs were present, the milk cooler was not operating, the mixer was broken, and the temperature was stifling.  Evidence of water damage was prevalent in several places on the kitchens ceiling and walls.  Walls in the cafeteria was stained, scuffed, and marred.  The cafeteria did not have a fire extinguisher.  The stage was cluttered with folding tables and chairs, and stage curtains were stained, tom, and faded. The wall at the base of the stage had a large hole.  The girls restrooms were not handicapped accessible.  In one of the girls restroom, pipes and fittings protmded from the walls where fixtures had been removed, and graffiti defaced one wall.  Ceiling tiles in a girls restroom were cracked, walls were water-damaged, and a sewer pipe cover was detached from one wall.  The boys restrooms had been vandalized, resulting in a missing stall door and unusable paper holders.Date: June 14, 2000 To\nAll Associates From: Re: AnrTH------- L End-of-School SWAT Visits Since vacations are beginning to scatter us, please finish the write-ups on your end-of-school visits by the close of the day on this coming Friday, June 16. Use the same format as on the beginning- of-the-year SW.AT visits, and collate them all together on one disc. Polly can help if needed. TH be reviewing them when I return from my trip next Monday, and will pass them on to the appropriate superintendents. Thanks.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 15, 2000 Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: You 11 recall that every year as the new term gets underway, we make informal visits to a few schools, write up our observations in a brief format, and share them with you. As we once again prepare for this same type of fall monitoring for the coming school year, I find that I have neglected to give you a bit of information that we generated as the 1999-2000 school year was drawing to a close. I apologize for my oversight. Before school ended last June, we made a return visit to some of the LRSD schools that we had monitored in the fall and in which we noted some facility problems. Our purpose was to see whether the deficiencies we saw earlier in the year had changed by the time school year was about over. Enclosed are those observations. I hope they will prove useful to you. Best wishes for an exciting and rewarding new school year. Sincerely yours, CJktA Ann S. Brown Enc.Mitchell Elementary School Fall 1999: Selected Areas of Concern Spring 2000 Findings  No flags were flying from the school flagpole.  The U.S. flag was flying from the pole in front of the school.  A very strong, unpleasant odor permeated the area where an addition adjoined the original structure. The principal said that district workers had called an exterminator to deal with an infestation of bats in the attic, which presumably was causing the strong smell. The exterminator was expected to eliminate the bat population and remove any carcases.  According to the principal, bat removal had been successfully completed prior to the Thanksgiving holidays. Eliminating the bats also eliminated the odor problem.  Overflowing water, apparently from clogged gutters, had damaged the roof overhang and decorative brackets.  The covered walkway between the main building and the four-year-old classroom had a damaged roof. The roofing shingles were missing, and the exposed decking was rotten in some spots.  Exterior trim and brick work still suffered from water damage, but repairs are reported to be scheduled that include waterproofing the brick.  The air conditioning in a portion of the building was not working\nonly four of six upstairs rooms were cooled.  The air conditioning had been repaired.  Room 103 had serious water damage to the southwest comer of the room.  Room 204, which is directly above 103, had water damage on its south wall.  The math room, which is in the addition attached to the main building, had water damaged walls.  Pronounced water damage was evident in the stairwell at the north end of the building. A large section of plaster had fallen away, revealing the underlying brick. The surrounding area also showed signs of water damage: paint peeling back to bare wood, eroding plaster, and wood rot.  Damaged walls in the hall landing and the classrooms had been repaired and repainted.  The hall carpet at the top of the stairs was frayed and loose.Mitchell School Page 2  In the four-year-old classroom and some rooms in the K-1 building, the carpet was stained, worn, and unsightly.  No improvements in the carpet, but carpet slated for repair or replacement beginning in the summer.  The cafeteria floor near the waste barrels was wet with milk from breakfast.  The textured ceiling in the cafeteria was in a deplorable state with areas where the textured material was entirely missing and others where the material hung perilously over the tables.  The cafeteria was spotless, and the custodian was busy cleaning the ceilingheight window sills.  The cafeteria ceiling had been repaired.  The girls restroom on the second floor landing lacked soap, was not accessible to the handicapped, had one sink with very low water pressure, and the toilet paper rolls were simply propped up rather than being placed on the roller.  The boys restroom on the second floor landing still had an odor problem, which has been chronic.  Bathrooms on the second floor were clean and free of odor. Additional findings:  A poster was on display that outlined the improvements Mitchell was to receive from the recently passed bond issue. The school is to undergo a large range of repairs and upgrades, which are budgeted at roughly $900,000. Some of the major repairs are to begin in summer 2000.  The kitchen area was crowded with large food storage units which impeded traffic flow.  Although the cafeteria was in need of repair, the principal was not sure whether remodeling the dining area was included on Mitchells list of improvements.Dunbar Magnet Middle School Fall 1999: Selected Areas of Concern Spring 2000 Findings  No flags were flying from the flagpole in front of the school.  The front of the building, which was the only entrance with unlocked doors, was not wheelchair accessible.  The bed of plants at the main entrance needed weeding.  Security officers were not immediately visible during our visit.  Walkways near the Wright Avenue side of the campus were broken and hazardous, and others were overgrown with grass.  A pile of broken and discarded furniture sat outside the band room.  The non-slip covers on the stair treads and risers were broken in many places, and thus unsightly as well as hazardous.  The large, glass-enclosed exhibit cabinet in the east foyer (which in previous years had held vibrant displays related to the school theme) was completely empty, and the small bulletin board in the west foyer was blank.  The clock suspended by the main office did not tell the correct time by several hours.  A locker door on the first floor was missing, and numerous lockers throughout the school were defaced with black smudges and marks.  A window in the bank of interior hall windows on room 201 was broken. Most of the small, interior hall windows throughout the building were dusty and smudged, if not outright filthy.  Fire extinguisher cases in the corridors were empty, and no fire extinguisher was visible in the cafeteria.  Several walls and classroom doors were defaced with graffiti and marred by extraneous dirt.  The veneer on some classroom doors was split or missing in pieces.  The media center carpet was stained, frayed, and soiled.  None of the items we listed in the findings from our fall visit had been addressed. No one had even bothered to remove the jagged, broken window pane from the interior hall window.Dunbar School Page 2  A large area of ceiling panel was missing outside of the cafeteria.  Several floor tiles and ceiling tiles in the cafeteria were broken, cracked, or gouged.  Windows in the cafeteria were filthy.  Some floors were neither clear nor waxed\nothers were waxed, but the wax had been applied over dirt or, in the case of the cafeteria, dark, ugly scuff marks.  The kitchen tile around two large floor drains was cracked and broken.  Carts and containers created traffic flow problems in the food preparation and serving areas.  Sanitation problems in the kitchen included a missing ceiling vent cover and evidence of rodents.  Due to a lack of ventilation in the kitchens laundry room, the walls were covered with mildew and stains.  The identifying signs were missing from the girls restrooms located on the second and third floors.  A strong sewer smell emanated from the girls locker room.  Shower stalls in the girls locker room were corroded, stained, filled with trash, and covered with graffiti, as were the lockers, walls, and many other surface areas. The locker room looked like a garbage dump.  The girls locker room was not handicapped accessible.  The boys locker room contained huge swaths of material hanging from over half of the ceiling and a vertical crack, approximately 'A\" wide, reached down an entire wall. Other structural cracks were noted in other parts of the locker room.  Shower stalls in the boys locker room were so stained and corroded that they were unusable.  Graffiti was rampant in the boys locker room and the facility contained no soap or paper products.Dunbar School Page 3  A staff person reported leaks in an area above the gymnasium floor. Additional findings:  A sign had been placed in front of the school to congratulate the schools winning Math Counts team.  A flower bed near the entrance was planted with pansies.  Students were roaming the halls freely without any adult supervision during class time.  Some classroom doors were propped open rather than being secured as required by LRSD security regulations.  The sidewalk leading from the main parking lot to the front door was scattered with sharp gray stones, which had been used as a ground cover under a tree and formed a tripping hazard.  One of the main electrical circuit boxes was unlocked, and the door was open, providing great temptation for any one of the numerous roaming students.  Classroom doors lacked identifying signs\nrather the room numbers were written directly on each wooden door in a shoddylooking fashion.  The clock in the upstairs hall was still on Central Standard Time rather than Daylight Savings Time.  An unused display case in the third floor hall was a filthy eyesore.  A large section of wooden molding was missing from the area outside Room 302.Mann Magnet Middle School Fall 1999: Selected Areas of Concern Spring 2000 Findings  Although a covered walkway extended from the main building to the auxiliary building, the walkway was not wheelchair accessible.  Handicap accessibility continues to be a deficiency.  Parts of the campus were littered and unkempt.  The exterior masonry walls were seriously cracked in several places.  The plexiglass windows at the auditoriums entrance were scratched, ugly, and barely transparent.  None of the three girls restrooms located in the main building or in the auxiliary building were handicapped accessible.  The campus was almost litter free.  The structural deficits in the building were unchanged from a previous visit.  The badly-marred plexiglass windows at the auditorium entrance had been covered with paper to make them less unsightly than previously.  No change.  Water pressure was extremely low in the girls restrooms.  Several stalls in a girls restroom had no toilet paper, and three of the four restrooms had no paper towels.  Two girls restrooms were missing stall doors.  Although all of the light fixtures in the entry to the girls restrooms had bulbs, none of them were operating. When queried, a custodian remarked, Those lights are not necessary.  Two boys restrooms were locked. Two others should have been: each was smelly, only partly functional, and had no soap or paper products.  Though clean and supplied with paper, restrooms were still unsightly. Additional findings:  The murals overlooking the exterior courtyards were attractive and gave the school an academic aura.Hall High School Fall 1999: Selected Areas of Concern Spring 2000 Findings  No flags were flying from the schools flagpole.  Both the state and national flags were flying from the pole on the east side of the building.  One security guard was observed with his arm around a female student, and a police officer was seated alone in a parked squad car with a female student. Security personnel and resource officers should exercise great care in their interaction with students and the appearance of their behavior.  The ceiling tiles in the 700 building were sagging and broken.  A water leak over the kitchens vent-a- hood created a safety hazard.  Narrow food preparation lanes, coupled with loose and broken floor tiles, created safety hazards.  Flaking ceiling material over the serving counter created a health hazard.  One floor drain was stopped up, another drained slowly, and a stool covered a large open drain in the food preparation area, causing a safety hazard.  The kitchen door contained a large hole and one window pane was cracked.  A section of floor tile was missing from around the sink in the kitchen.  Cafeteria workers reported electrical overload problems and evidence of rodents.  None of the girls restrooms inspected was handicapped accessible.  One girls restroom lacked soap and not all stalls had toilet paper.  Security staff were visible throughout the campus.  No change.  No change.  No change.  No change.  No change.  No change.  No change.  The electrical problem in the kitchen had been resolved.  No change  The girls restroom near the media center had two stalls with no toilet paper holders.Hall High School Page Two  The stall dividers in one girls restroom were covered with graffiti.  The graffiti had been painted over, but the white paint did not match the beige walls and stalls. Additional findings:  The school featured a variety of attractive displays appropriate to a high school setting.  Students and staff members were friendly.  During our visit, the seniors were involved in taking semester tests, and the halls were quiet and students were in their classrooms.  Signs throughout the school welcomed students in a variety of languages and celebrated the schools diversity of population, marking it as a true welcome center.  The exterior was generally neat, but we noticed a small amount of litter.  The kitchen area included a number of problems: the floors were sweating and slippery because the air conditioning was not in use\nthe filter on the deep flyer was inoperative and the staff had to manually lift and empty the hot grease\na metal plate protruded from the floor in the doorway to the serving area.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1508","title":"Testing: Reading and language comparative data, 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":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Reading and language comparative data, 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/1508"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["60 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_689","title":"Transition report guidelines","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Transition report guidelines"],"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/689"],"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\nLRSD 1999 Transition Report Areas Assigned to Associates School Construction - Melissa Alternative Education - Margie Equitable Allocation of Resources - Skip Extracurricular \u0026amp; Enrichment Activities - Horace Student Participation - Horace Incentive Schools - Melissa Learning Environment - Horace Magnet Schools - Gene Mathematics - Melissa Staffing - Horace Middle School Conversion - Margie Policy Compliance - Gene Program Assessment - Gene Reading and Language Arts - Horace Remediation - Gene Student Assignment - Gene/Melissa Student Discipline - Margieid, ' ti - a Guidelines for LRSD Transition Report March 3, 1999 Condense and paraphrase the language of the provisions, preserving the key words and eliminating extraneous language thats not pertinent to the findings that will follow (e.g., a plan reference to a certain ODM report). Provisions should not be quotations from the plan. Avoid the use of shall or and or\nwrite 40%, not forty percent. Organize the provisions in any way that helps you present your findings most logically and clearly. For example, you can break the provisions into segments and immediately follow that segment with the relative findings. Or, consolidate certain provisions into a related cluster that forms the basis for broader findings. Place the provisions flush with the left margin, and double the space between them. Reference the plan provision at the end of each one. For example: Implement a policy of promotion within. (Pg. 342.2.5.) E, when paraphrasing, you combine two provisions, use a semicolon between the references. Write a short paragraph of introduction to the findings (or make the first paragraph introductory or background in nature) to help set the stage for what follows and thus help readers get their bearings. Findings should be written in narrative, not outline, form. Eliminate bullets except for short lists of items. Make sure that all aspects of any provision or part of a provision are covered in the findings, and, when appropriate, note the source of the information. If a person is the source, state the position of the person instead of the name. If the source of the information is your own experience as a member of a work group, say so. When applicable, you must reference the mid-year report in your findings. Differentiate the factual findings from your own opinions, hopes, or desires and put them in the appropriate sections. Findings are to consist only of information gleaned from interviews, document review, observations, etc. Relegate your opinions, exhortations, worries, etc. to the Conclusions or Recommendations as appropriate. Dont assume that readers know more than you tell them. While our intention is to hit the high points, be sure to include enough information to paint a clear, complete picture. Dont risk sacrificing understanding for brevity. When in doubt, fill it out. Avoid introducing new information into the summaries that doesnt appear in the findings. If you use examples in the summary, make sure the examples are used in the findings. Since many of the findings are brief, the corresponding summaries will be similarly short, containing just the main points. Since they are probably the only thing many of our audience will read, the summaries must contain a condensation of the most important findings in concise language.Include a budget component or reference everywhere it could possibly be relevant. For example, budget implications are inherent in training costs, new positions, new programs, etc. What corresponding budget provisions has the district made, plans to make, has yet to make, or failed to make? Diversify language to help retain reader interest and avoid overusing certain phrases and words, especially provide, regarding, and according to. Begin each recommendation with an action verb.Date: March 19, 1999 To: All Associates From\nRe: Team edit Attached are some of the draft reports on the LRSD transition. They are ready to to through the team editing process. Polly would have distributed them yesterday, but we know why she didnt. Im aware of the schedule and deadlines on your remaining reports, and the team edit doesnt supplant that schedule. Do the editing at those times that youre not able to make headway on your remaining reports (waiting on futher interviews, information, etc.) With Polly out sick, bad bugs threatening the health of us all, and the D .C. trip imminent, please make good use of your time and fold the editing into your day as you can. i3 4 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEV-O August 24, 1999 AUG 2  'iSa OFRCtCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nThe August 11** Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division! department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student! school retention and reduced suspension ! dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD. especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 4 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented. * ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, .e^e V. amine Superintendent of SchoolsDate: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Gamine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Gamine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Gamines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting\nhe asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree' If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. I may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 September 9, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research, I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 11. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, ------- Ann S. Browni S rL To: From: Subj: Ann Brown and ODM Staff Bonnie Lesley Report on LRSD Transition Activities Date: August 4, 1999 RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 omcEOh DESEGREGATION MONITORIMa The following are my comments in response to the draft document that you sent to my office on the afternoon of August 3. Program Assessment I think the findings on this section are far too nanow to reflect the work that occurred during 1998-99. We understand, of course, that it is very difficult to gather enough information to have a complete picture of a years worth of work in only a few interviews. Our staff looked, for instance, at the performance of every elementary school and the district as a whole as a part of the process of making the necessary changes in Reading and Language Arts that were other obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concluded, of course, that a big part of the problem (the problem being defined as only about 30 percent of the students are performing at the proficient level or above) was that LRSD really didnt have a reading/language arts program, that individual teachers and individual schools were making decisions based on their best information on curriculum and instruction. Part of our program evaluation was hearing from teacher after teacher and principal after principal that a big problem in the district was lack of consistency in the language arts program. This lack of focus and alignment with the state curriculum framework handicapped all students who were mobile, but especially African American children who are more likely to come from poverty in this community. Our assessment of current practice also revealed: * * * * * * * * lack of in-depth professional development for teachers too many pull-outs and other distractions from the language arts block insufficient time allotted to teach the language arts as many as twelve different phonics programs school practices such as silent cafeterias that discouraged the social use of language no written guidance for teachers on the curriculum standards and benchmarks a proliferation of programs without a clear focus of what they were supposed to achieve no congruence between Title I programs and the regular curriculum/ instruction program. Our program evaluation resulted in clear conclusions that what we were doing was not working, especially for African American children. The District plan that we constructed was totally research-based and is reflected in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan that was provided to ODM staff. We tried to model in this process and in our written plan the process of using data for decision-making, of using research to shape program design, of aligning programs with state frameworks and assessments, of constructing systemic designs, not just tinkering at the edges, and planning ahead for assessment and program evaluation. We are very proud of the fact that our PreK-3 plan included strategies for restructuring Title I programs, for instance, not just the regular program.We have since your last interviews established the formal program evaluation agenda for 1999-2000, and it will go to the board in August: 1. PreK-3 Literacy Program 2. ESL 3. Middle School Transition 4. National Science Foundation Project To the extent possible, data will be collected and analyzed relating to other programs, but our plan is to create an evaluation cycle so that over five years we can at least provide data for decision-making on the core programs. We also intend to require that all future grant proposals include a set-aside budget to fund the evaluation activities so that our district staff do not get consumed doing grant-funded evaluations and never get to the core programs of the district.Reading and Language Arts I have several corrections to make in this report. 1st paragraph: Our staff development this year in reading and language arts focused on the following: * * * * * * * * * * * * Implementation of Smart Start, the states initiative. We attended the ADE conferences, used their materials and videotapes with faculties, trained central staff and principals, etc. We obtained a state waiver to provide three restructuring days at the end of the 1998-99 school year for training to prepare for implementation of new programs in fall 1999. Elementary teachers focused on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics\nmiddle school teachers focused on transition issues\nand high school teachers focused on strategies for teaching in the block. Began training a cadre of school-level literacy coaches in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)~the professional development that provides teachers with training on research on teaching reading and specific strategies that are effective in teaching all children how to read. More than 100 primary-level teachers have received the first level of ELLA training (prior to starting school in August). Others will be trained at the basic level by November 1. We sent several staff members to the training of trainers for Effective Literacythe professional development for grades 3-5 teachers. This training will be provided to District teachers as quickly as possible in fall 1999. Approximately 40 grade 4 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July on reading/writing connections-specific strategies to help students perform well on the state grade 4 benchmark examination. Approximately 40 grades 6-8 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July to prepare them to teach the new Reading and Writing Workshop. On July 23 we provided a full-day of training for principals on the new curriculum/instruction/assessment programs to be implemented in fall 1999. One session for elementary principals gave them an overview of the new ELLA program and what to expect when observing teachers. We have provided several books to each elementary school on various aspects of developing high levels of literacy among primaryage children. School staffs are encouraged to establish study groups to read and discuss these materials and make decisions on ways that the ideas ctm be incorporated into their lessons. On August 9-10-11 the grades 6-8 teachers will meet with Linda Rief, author of a book called Seeking Diversity on how to implement the Reading and Writing Workshop. On August 16-17 the kindergarten teachers will receive training in the implementation of the new phonemic awareness program. Animated Literacy. On August 12, 13, and 16, high school English teachers will experience three days of training on the reading and writing connections appropriate for adolescent students. A special emphasis will be on preparing students for the end-of-level Literacy Examination in April of grade 11.* During August Preschool Inservice, elementary teachers will again focus on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics, middle school teachers on middle school transition and instructional strategies, and high school teachers on discipline-specific strategies aligned with the newly published secondary curriculum standards and benchmarks. Last paragraph on page 2 under Findings. We didnt really present to the Board a policy. We presented to the Board for their review the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, which serves as administrative regulations on the structuring of the school day. We have a draft of formal administrative regulations for elementary, middle, and high schools, but these drafts are not yet quite ready for board review. A major accomplishment during 1998-99 was the development of a curriculum map for each of the four curriculum areas. These maps include the alignment of district grade-level and course benchmarks with the state curriculum frameworks, the SAT9, and with adopted textbook materials. Teachers have in one document for each grade level all this information. ACSIP (the new name for Arkansas accreditation) requires teacher-level curriculum maps, so all the Little Rock teachers will have to do is align their lesson plans with the district documents. Also, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year all we had was K-5 standards. Now we have K-12 standards and grade-level and core course benchmarks. Elementary teachers received their documents during the June 2-3-4 inservice, and secondary teachers will receive theirs on August 16. The report does not mention all the work we have done this year to restructure the middle school language arts programs. Regular-level students will take a two-period block called the Reading and Writing Workshop. We will begin implementation in fall 1999 of the Nanci Atwell model. Teachers will need considerably more training than the one week we could provide before school started to be able fully to implement the model, so realistically we will be phasing in this new approach to teaching language arts. Students at the Pre-AP level will have the same course, but in a one-period block. There is an optional second-hour courses called Research and Writing, which some middle schools have encouraged all Pre-AP students to take. In addition, some new language arts electives have been added to the middle level: * * * Expressions! (a speech/drama course available at all three grade levels)\nWrite On! (a journalism course available at grades 7-8) TV Writing and Production (available at grade 8) On our plate for 1999-2000 will be the restructuring of the high school language arts programs, including a new curriculum for the required Communications I course.Another major effort to improve literacy has been in the restructuring of our PreK-12 ESL program for fall 1999. Some of our actions were also in process when we under-went a compliance review from OCR in March. In fall 1999 we will implement the following changes: * * * * *  * * Begin serving PreK children in the ESL program. Added ten teachers to the elementary Newcomer Centers so that class-size could be reduced in the classrooms serving ESL students. We used our allocation from the Class-size Reduction funds from the federal government to pay the teachers this year. Brady1 Chicot3 Romine2 Terry-2 Washington-2 Added Terry as a Newcomer Center since they expect approximately 40 ESL students in fall 1999. Added new ESL courses in the core curriculum at the middle and high school levels. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed in August to oversee the program. We have budgeted funds for a big emphasis on professional development for all teachers teaching ESL children, including a tuition-reimbursement program so that teachers can secure their ESL endorsement. Program procedures will be developed where necessary, formalized, training provided on implementation, and processes to monitored to ensure compliance with OCR guidelines. Funds have been budgeted to provide translations of critical documents into the languages of parents. Note also that the District CRTs that were administered in 1998-99 also included reading. Our assessment plan for 1999-2000 includes these changes: * * * the addition of a kindergarten literacy test, especially to test phonemic awareness, since that knowledge is the best predictor of a students learning to read in grade 1 the addition of a grade 1 literacy test the administration of new District-adopted CRTs for grades 2-11 in reading/ writing literacy and mathematics. These tests will be administered each quarter so that teachers can quickly identify students who need remediation and so that teaching strategies can be adjusted to ensure more success. I did not find mentioned anywhere in your report the work we did to enhance graduation requirements. These new standards are important in understanding the overall plan for improvement. The new expectations are outlined in the curriculum catalog, which we provided you, but please call if you need more information. Successful School Restructuring by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage says that one of the most important things a high school can do to improve achievement is to expose all students to a rigorous common core. That was our intent in designing the new graduation requirements.Mathematics Page 2the paragraph on math specialists: We have funded additional mathematics specialists to support the implementation of the new mathematics curricula in the following ways: * * Two specialists were funded from the professional development portion of the Class-size Reduction funds provided by the federal government\nOne specialist was funded from Title VI\nSee Dennis Glasgows responses for other details. I was not able to spend time with him today to get the details that I needed, but I know that he is going to have more assistance in 1999-2000 to accelerate the implementation, to provide classroom coaching, and to provide follow-up training for teachers who need it. Again, our regulations on the school day are drafted, but have not yet been presented to the board. The District CRTs that we administered in mathematics in 1998-99 were also administered in reading.Middle Schcxjl Transition See Linda Young Austins report on the training provided to schools during June 2-3-4, during the June Middle School Academy, and during the August Preschool Inservice.Student Participation Second paragraph under Findings\nActually, we do NOT plan to implement AVID in 1999-2000unless the GEAR Up grant is funded for the four targeted middle schools. Third paragraph: We will in spring 2000 make another attempt at the Javits grant to fund high school programs. If the funds were made available this year by the Department of Education, never saw the announcement or the RFP. we We have done much on this obligation without any funding beyond the NSF money, and we^Imow already that enrollment in upper-level courses will improve considerably in fall * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Associate Superintendent met with teachers and counselors in each school to discuss the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the NSF project, to hear from teachers what they need for support, and to plan strategies for enrolling more students for fall 1999. We re made accessible a great deal of training for teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses-in curriculum, instruction, vertical teaming, and strategies to ensure more student success. We have a new board policy on Pre-AP and AP courses and on the GT program. The High School Curriculum Catalog includes a section on the importance of these obligations and encourages the schools to ensure higher levels of enrollment. Each high school principal and each middle and high school counselor received training on this information. Some of the high schools have scheduled a tutoring period to support student success in 1999-2000. We have published this years enrollment data, and Vanessa Cleaver has met with staff at each school to make them aware of their cunent enrollment and to work with them on increasing enrollment in upper-level science and math courses. We added an AP English III courses to the curriculum for 1999-2000, so now students can take two AP English courses. We added a regular-level Calculus course to encourage a broader group of students to enroll in Calculus, not just AP Calculus. The addition of the University Studies program at Hall High has added new opportunities for enrollment in advanced courses and to earn college credit while in high school. Our new Quality Indicators in our accountability plan include a performance standard on Enrollment of Students in Pre-AP or AP Courses. This standard will apply to both middle and high schools. Another Quality Indicator measures the percent of students who complete Algebra I by grade 8. In order for students to have time in their schedule to take Calculus in high school, they need to take Algebra I in grade 8. Our new graduation requirements include Physics I, Biology I, Chemistry I, Algebra I-II, and Geometry for every student. These courses are essential to prepare students for upper-level mathematics and science courses. Our new elementary literacy and mathematics programs have also been designed with the importance in mind of preparing many more students well for the Pre-AP and AP courses.We, of course, would love to implement AVID because we think it would be ideal to address our students needs, but there is much we can do without AVID, and we are examining other program options, such as those promoted by the College Board, writing a local program design, and forming more partnerships with the universities in the area. One restructuring model that we have looked at is the Talent Development Schools promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Some of these schools are operational in Baltimore and other eastern cities, and we think there may be some interest in this model in Little Rock.Remediation Second paragraph under Findings: I remember our discussion on this, and I remember telling the team about my experience in Waco where students were ability grouped: basic, regular, advanced. Little Rock did not have those three levels-to my knowledge. The curriculum included regular-level courses. plus a variety of courses labeled gifted/talented, 99 honors, enriched, advanced, and AP. The staff was vague at all levels on how these different labels distinguished instruction, so we made the decision to have only two levels of courses at the secondary schools: regular and either Pre-AP or AP. 99 tf What I think I said was that it is apparent that the only students being exposed to the tested curriculum in many schools are those taking the Pre-AP or AP courses. Teachers tell me that in too many cases the regular level courses are rather consistently taught below-level, and the Pre-AP courses rarely go beyond what we would consider grade-level. That is why standards and grade-level benchmarks are so important, and that is why the frequent assessment of student performance through the District CRTs is so important. We have got to know whether we are teaching the tested curriculum, and we have got to know early if individual students need remediation. We do have a draft policy and regulation on the elimination of racial disparities with clear procedures laid out. Those documents will probably move forward to the Board in the next month or two. Title 1 There are big changes in Title 1 for fall 1999. All elementary schools, except the magnet schools, will be Title 1 schools in 1999-2000, including Terry. Elementary schools will receive approximately $450 per eligible student in 1999-2000, but since the schools are smaller with the movement of grade 6 to the middle schools, some schools will receive less funding in 1999-2000 than in previous years. Since a great majority of Title 1 schools failed to meet their improvement goals last year, they were identified for improvement. One of the mandates when a school is identified is that they can no longer do what they were doing. They have to construct a plan that has a better (research-based) chance of ensuring the academic success of increasing numbers of students. We have worked hard on that. Please dont forget that Success for All is the largest remedial program at the elementary level. We have that program in nine schools. Another school, Washington, uses Direct Instruction, as its intervention. Cloverdale Middle School and Southwest Middle School will receive extensive funding since they each are anticipated to have more than 75% poverty. The other five middle schools (excluding Mann since it is a magnet) will collaborate in using their funding to insure the successful implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop and to provide teachers with strategies for ensuring more student success. All three middle school grades will be assessed: grades 6 and 8 with the state benchmark exams and grade 7 with the SAT9. Pulaski Heights will pilot in 1999-2000 a new remedial reading program based on the Shriner dyslexia strategies, and Mablevale will pilot Project Read. We will study these two approaches to determine whether we should advocate wider implementation of either or both. We are also looking at a new program for secondary students called Read Right, but we dont have much information on it as yet.The district hosted during the week of July 26 two different Institutes for the principals and Campus Leadership Teams from each school. A big part of the training emphasized the imperative to improve student achievement. Schools will now submit one School Improvement Plan that will satisfy the requirements of the district, of Title I, and of ACSIP (accreditation). Each participant received a training notebook and a copy of the Handbook for Campus Leadership Teams, which included a copy of ACTAAP (state accountability system) and the districts new system for Collective Responsibility. A new publication. Guidelines for School Improvement Planning, will be published the week of August 2 for the schools to use. An important remediation program in the district is summer school. We served more district students this year since the policy was changed to not admit out-of-district students until all district students were guaranteed access. (Sadie Mitchell has the reports on this summers programs.) We also developed a model for an after-school Reading Clinic for elementary and middle school students (recommended in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan as an appropriate intervention). Another important remediation program is the new ACC program-Accelerated Learning Center-for high school students who are overage and credit-deficient. This program graduated many students in 1998-99 who probably would not have graduated otherwise, enabled many more to earn GED certificates, and served more than 200 in the summer school program. A third ongoing remediation program is the evening high school. I know that you are familiar with it. Each schools School Improvement Plan will include a series of interventions under 3-5 priority areas. The schools have been instructed to include among their priorities the improvement of achievement in reading/writing literacy and the improvement of achievement in mathematics. The interventions under each of these areas will be the strategies that the school will design to remediate student achievement so that the school achieves its mandated improvement goals. (FII attach to this a copy of our draft document on how they are to do this for your information.) These sets of interventions will be school-level remedial programs, for the most part. Youll find the step on designing interventions to be helpful to this report, I think. Arkansas needs to fund compensatory education. Otherwise, we dont see a consistent source of revenue to fund the kinds of remedial program, K-12, that are needed for the diversity of students that we serve. The new Poverty Index funds are a start in this direction, but not all schools have access to these dollars.In General There is much more to tell-all aligned and coherent with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We had 51 priorities in our Divisions work plan last year, and we achieved 49 of them, plus several others that we didnt know would be on our plate. The nature of education is that there is always so much more to do than we have time and resources to accomplish, but we feel that we made giant steps forward in 1998- 99. Our major focus in 1999-2000 is to ensure as much success in implementation as possible. We are so confident in the quality of our designs and in our professional development programs that we know that we will see some improvement in our test scores this year. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to react. If I can answer further questions or provide copies of other documents, please dont hesitate to ask.To: From: Subj: Ann Brown and ODM Staff Bonnie Lesley Report on LRSD Transition Activities Date: August 4, 1999 RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 OFFICE 01- DESEGREGATION MONITORIKG The following are my comments in response to the dral't document that you sent to my office on the afternoon of August 3. Program Assessment 1 think the findings on this section are far too narrow to reflect the work that occurred during 1998-99. We understand, of course, that it is very difficult to gather enough information to have a complete picture of a years worth of work in only a few interviews. Our staff looked, for instance, at the performance of every elementary school and the district as a whole as a part of the process of making the necessary changes in Reading and Language Arts that were other obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concluded, of course, that a big part of the problem (the problem being defined as only about 30 percent of the students are performing at the proficient level or above) was that LRSD really didnt have a reading/language arts program, that individual teachers and individual schools were making decisions based on their best information on curriculum and instruction. Part of our program evaluation was heanng from teacher after teacher and principal after principal that a big problem in the district was lack of consistency in the language arts program. This lack of focus and alignment with the state curriculum framework handicapped all students who were mobile, but especially African American children who are more likely to come from poverty in this community. Our assessment of current practice also revealed * * * * * * * * lack of in-depth professional development for teachers too many pull-outs and other distractions from the language arts block insufficient time allotted to teach the language arts as many as twelve different phonics programs school practices such as silent cafeterias that discouraged the social use of language no written guidance for teachers on the curriculum standards and benchmarks a proliferation of programs without a clear focus of what they were supposed to achieve no congruence between Title I programs and the regular curriculum/ instruction program. Our program evaluation resulted in clear conclusions that what we were doing was not working, especially for African American children. The District plan that we constructed was totally research-based and is reflected in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan that was provided to ODM staff. We tried to model in this process and in our written plan the process of using data for decision-making, of using research to shape program design, of aligning programs with state frameworks and assessments, of constructing systemic designs, not just tinkering at the edges, and planning ahead for assessment and program evaluation. We are very proud of the fact that our PreK-3 plan included strategies for restructuring Title I programs, for instance, not just the regular program.We have since your last interviews established the formal program evaluation agenda for 1999-2000, and it will go to the board in August: 1. PreK-3 Li teracv Program 2. ESL 3. Middle School Transition 4. National Science Foundation Project To the extent possible, data will be collected and analyzed relating to other programs, but our plan is to create an evaluation cycle so that over five years we can at least provide data for decision-making on the core programs. We also intend to require that all future grant proposals include a set-aside budget to fund the evaluation activities so that our district staff do not get consumed doing grant-funded evaluations and never get to the core programs of the district.Reading and Language Arts I have several corrections to make in this report. 1st paragraph: Our staff development this year in reading and language arts focused on the following: * * * * * * * * * * * * Implementation of Smart Start, the states initiative. We attended the ADE conferences, used their materials and videotapes with faculties, trained central staff and principals, etc. We obtained a state waiver to provide three restructuring days at the end of the 1998-99 school year for training to prepare for implementation of new programs in fall 1999. Elemental^ teachers focused on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics\nmiddle school teachers focused on transition issues\nand high school teachers focused on strategies for teaching in the block. Began training a cadre of school-level literacy coaches in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)-the professional development that provides teachers with training on research on teaching reading and specific strategies that are effecti\\ e in teaching all children how to read. More than KX) primary-level teachers have received the first level of ELLA training (prior to starting school in August). Others will be trained at the basic level by November 1. We sent several staff members to the training of trainers for Effective Literacy-the professional development for grades 3-5 teachers. This training will be provided to District teachers as quickly as possible in fall 1999. Approximately 40 grade 4 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July on reading/writing connections-specific strategies to help students perform well on the state grade 4 benchmark examination. Approximately 40 grades 6-8 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July to prepare them to teach the new Reading and Writing Workshop. On July 23 we provided a full-day of training for principals on the new curriculum/instruction/assessment programs to be implemented in fall 1999. One session for elementary principals gave them an overview of the new ELLA program and what to expect when observing teachers. We have provided several books to each elementary school on various aspects of developing high levels of literacy among primaryage children. School staffs are encouraged to establish study groups to read and discuss these materials and make decisions on ways that the ideas can be incorporated into their lessons. On August 9-10-11 the grades 6-8 teachers will meet with Linda Rief, author of a book called Seeking Diversity on how to implement the Reading and Writing Workshop. On August 16-17 the londergarten teachers will receive training in the implementation of the new phonemic awareness program. Animated Literacy. On August 12, 13, and 16, high school English teachers will experience three days of training on the reading and writing connections appropriate for adolescent students. A special emphasis will be on preparing students for the end-of-level Literacy Examination in April of grade 11.* During August Preschool Inservice, elementary' teachers will again focus on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics, middle school teachers on middle school transition and instructional strategies, and high school teachers on discipline-specific strategies aligned with the newly published secondary' curriculum standards and benchmarks. Last paragraph on page 2 under Findings. We didnt really present to the Board a policy. We presented to the Board for their review the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, which serves as administrative regulations on the structuring of the school day. We have a draft of formal administrative regulations for elementary, middle, and high schools, but these drafts are not yet quite ready for board review. A major accomplishment dunng 1998-99 was the development of a curriculum map for each of the four curriculum areas. These maps include the alignment of district grade-level and course benchmarks with the state curriculum frameworks, the SAT9, and with adopted te.xtbook materials. Teachers have in one document for each grade level all this information. ACSIP (the new name for Arkansas accreditation) requires teacher-level curriculum maps, so all the Little Rock teachers will have to do is align their lesson plans with the district documents. Also, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year all we had was K-5 standards. Now we have K-12 standards and grade-level and core course benchmarks. Elementarv teachers received their documents during the June 2-3-4 inservice, and secondary teachers will receive theirs on August 16. The report does not mention all the work we have done this year to restructure the middle school language arts programs. Regular-level students will take a two-period block called the Reading and Writing Workshop. We will begin implementation in fall 1999 of the Nanci Atwell model. Teachers will need considerably more training than the one week we could provide before school started to be able fully to'implement the model, so realisticallv we will be phasing in this new approach to teaching language arts. Students at the Pre-AP level will have the same course, but in a one-period block. There is an optional second-hour courses called Research and Writing, which some middle schools have encouraged all Pre-AP students to take. In addition, some new language arts electives have been added to the middle level' *  * * Expressions! (a speech/drama course available at all three grade levels)\nWrite On! (a journalism course available at grades 7-8) TV Writing and Production (available at grade 8) On our plate for 1999-2(XX) will be the restructuring of the high school language arts programs, including a new curriculum for the required Communications I course.Another major effort to improve literacy has been in the restructuring of our PreK-12 ESL program for fall 1999. Some of our actions were also in process when we under-went a compliance review from OCR in March. In fall 1999 we will implement the following changes: * * * * * * * * Begin serving PreK children in the ESL program. Added ten teachers to the elementary' Newcomer Centers so that class-size could be reduced in the classrooms serving ESL students. We used our allocation from the Class-size Reduction funds from the federal government to pay the teachers this year. Brady-1 Chicot3 Romine-2 Terry-2 Washington-2 Added Terry as a Newcomer Center since they expect appro.ximately 40 ESL students in fall 1999. Added new ESL courses in the core curriculum at the middle and high school levels. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed in August to o\\ ersee the program. We have budgeted funds for a big emphasis on professional development for all teachers teaching ESL children, including a tuition-reimbursement program so that teachers can secure their ESL endorsement. Program procedures will be developed where necessary', formalized, training provided on implementation, and processes to monitored to ensure compliance with OCR guidelines. Funds have been budgeted to provide translations of critical documents into the languages of parents. Note also that the District CRTs that were administered in 1998-99 also included reading. Our assessment plan for 1999-2CXX) includes these changes: * . . .. . - the addition of a kindergarten literacy test, especially to test phonemic * * awareness, since that knowledge is the best predictor of a students learning to read in grade 1 the addition of a grade 1 literacy test the administration of new District-adopted CRTs for grades 2-11 in reading/ writing literacy and mathematics. These tests will be administered each quarter so that teachers can quickly identify students who need remediation and so that teaching strategies can be adjusted to ensure more success. I did not find mentioned anywhere in your report the work we did to enhance graduation requirements. These new standards are important in understanding the overall plan for improvement. The new expectations are outlined in the curriculum catalog, which we provided you, but please call if you need more information. Successful School Restructuring by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage says that one of the most important things a high school can do to improve achievement is to expose all students to a rigorous common core. That was our intent in designing the new graduation requirements.Mathematics Page 2-the paragraph on math specialists: We have funded additional mathematics specialists to support the implementation of the new mathematics curricula in the following ways: * * Two specialists were funded from the professional development portion of the Class-size Reduction funds provided by the federal government\nOne specialist was funded from Title VI\nSee Dennis Glasgows responses for other details. 1 was not able to spend time with him today to get the details that 1 needed, but 1 know that he is going to have more assistance in 1999-2000 to accelerate the implementation, to provide classroom coaching, and to provide follow-up training for teachers who need it. Again, our regulations on the school day are drafted, but have not yet been presented to the board. The District CRTs that we administered in mathematics in 1998-99 were also administered in reading.Middle School Transition See Linda Young Austins report on the training provided to schools during June 2-3-4, during the June Middle School Academy, and during the August Preschool Inservice.Student Participation Second paragraph under Findings: Actually, we do NOT plan to implement AVID in 1999-2000unless the GEAR Up grant is funded for the four targeted middle schools. Third paragraph: We will in spring 2000 make another attempt at the Javits grant to fund high school programs. If the funds were made available this year by the Department of Education, we never saw the announcement or the RFP. We have done much on this obligation without any funding beyond the NSF money, and we know already that enrollment in upper-level courses will improve considerablv in fall 1999. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Associate Superintendent met with teachers and counselors in each school to discuss the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the NSF project, to hear from teachers what they need for support, and to plan strategies for enrolling more students for fall 1999. We re made accessible a great deal of training for teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses-in curriculum, instruction, vertical teaming, and strategies to ensure more student success. We have a new board policy on Pre-AP and AP courses and on the GT program. The High School Curriculum Catalog includes a section on the importance of these obligations and encourages the schools to ensure higher levels of enrollment. Each high school principal and each middle and high school counselor received training on this information. Some of the high schools have scheduled a tutonng period to support student success in 1999-2(X)0. We have published this years enrollment data, and Vanessa Cleaver has met with staff at each school to make them aware of their current enrollment and to work with them on increasing enrollment in upper-le\\'el science and math courses. We added an AP English III courses to the curriculum for 1999-2000, so now students can take two AP English courses. We added a regular-level Calculus course to encourage a broader group of students to enroll in Calculus, not just AP Calculus. The addition of the University Studies program at Hall High has added new opportunities for enrollment in advanced courses and to earn college credit while in high school. Our new Quality Indicators in our accountability plan include a performance standard on Enrollment of Students in Pre-AP' or AP Courses. This standard will apply to both middle and high schools. Another Quality Indicator measures the percent of students who complete Algebra I by grade 8. In order for students to have time in their schedule to take Calculus in high school, they need to take Algebra I in grade 8. Our new graduation requirements include Physics I, Biology I, Chemistry I, Algebra I-Il, and Geometry for every student. These courses are essential to prepare students for upper-level mathematics and science courses. Our new elementary literacy and mathematics programs have also been designed with the importance in mind of preparing many more students well for the Pre-AP and AP courses.We, of course, would love to implement AVID because we think it would be ideal to address our students needs, but there is much we can do without AVID, and we are examining other program options, such as those promoted by the College Board, writing a local program design, and forming more partnerships with the universities in the area. One restructuring model that we have looked at is the Talent Development Schools promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Some of these schools are operational in Baltimore and other eastern cities, and we think there may be some interest in this model in Little Rock.Remediation Second paragraph under Findings: I remember our discussion on this, and 1 remember telling the team about my experience in Waco where students were ability grouped: basic, regular, advanced. Little Rock did not have those three levels-to my knowledge. The curriculum included regular-level courses. plus a variety of courses labeled gifted/talented, honors, enriched, advanced, and AP. The staff was vague at all levels on how these different labels distinguished instruction, so we made the decision to have only two levels of courses at the secondary schools: regular and either Pre-AP or AP. 'C What I think I said was that it is apparent that the only students being exposed to the tested curriculum in many schools are those taking the Pre-AP or AP courses. Teachers tell me that in too many cases the regular level courses are rather consistently taught below-level, and the Pre-AP courses rarely go beyond what we would consider grade-level. That is why standards and grade-level benchmarks are so important, and that is why the frequent assessment of student performance through the District CRTs is so important. We have got to know whether we are teaching the tested curriculum, and we have got to know early if individual students need remediation. We do have a draft policy and regulation on the elimination of racial disparities with clear procedures laid out. Those documents will probably move forward to the Board in the next month or two. Title I There are big changes in Title I for fall 1999. All elementary schools, except the magnet schools, will be Title I schools in 1999-2(X)0, including Terry. Elementary schools will receive approximately $450 per eligible student in 1999-2000, but since the schools are smaller with the movement of grade 6 to the middle schools, some schools will receive less funding in 1999-2000 than in previous years. Since a great majority of Title I schools failed to meet their improvement goals last year, they were identified for impro\\ ement. One of the mandates when a school is identified is that they can no longer do what they were doing. They have to construct a plan that has a better (research-based) chance of ensuring the academic success of increasing numbers of students. We have worked hard on that. Please dont forget that Success for All is the largest remedial program at the elementary level. We have that program in nine schools. Another school, Washington, uses Direct Instruction, as its intervention. Cloverdale Middle School and Southwest Middle School will receive extensive funding since they each are anticipated to have more than 75% poverty. The other five middle schools (excluding Mann since it is a magnet) will collaborate in using their funding to insure the successful implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop and to provide teachers with strategies for ensuring more student success. All three middle school grades will be assessed: grades 6 and 8 with the state benchmark exams and grade 7 with the SAT9. Pulaski Heights will pilot in 1999-2000 a new remedial reading program based on the Shriner dyslexia strategies, and Mablevale will pilot Project Read. We will study these two approaches to determine whether we should advocate wider implementation of either or both. We are also looking at a new program for secondary' students called Read Right, but we dont have much information on it as yet.The district hosted during the week of July 26 two different Institutes for the principals and Campus Leadership Teams from each school. A big part of the training emphasized the imperative to improve student achievement. Schools will now submit one School Improvement Plan that will satisfy the requirements of the district, of Title I, and of ACSIP (accreditation). Each participant received a training notebook and a copy of the Handbook for Campus Leadership Teams, which included a copy of ACTAAP (state accountability system) and the districts new system for Collective Responsibility. A new publication. Guidelines for School Improvement Planning, will be published the week of August 2 for the schools to use. An important remediation program in the district is summer school. We served more district students this year since the policy was changed to not admit out-of-district students until all district students were guaranteed access. (Sadie Mitchell has the reports on this summers programs.) We also developed a model for an after-school Reading Clinic for elementary and middle school students (recommended in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan as an appropriate intervention). Another important remediation program is the new ACC program-Accelerated Learning Center-for high school students who are overage and credit-deficient. This program graduated many students in 1998-99 who probably would not have graduated otherwise, enabled many more to earn GED certificates, and served more than 200 in the summer school program. A third ongoing remediation program is the evening high school. I know that vou are familiar with it. Each schools School Improvement Plan will include a series of \"interventions under 3-5 priority areas. The schools have been instructed to include among their priorities the improvement of achievement in reading/writing literacy and the improvement of achievement in mathematics. The interventions under each of these areas will be the strategies that the school will design to remediate student achievement so that the school achieves its mandated improvement goals. (T11 attach to this a copy of our draft document on how they are to do this for your information.) These sets of interventions will be school-level remedial programs, for the most part. You 11 find the step on designing interventions to be helpful to this report, I think. Arkansas needs to fund compensatory education. Otherwise, we dont see a consistent source of revenue to fund the kinds of remedial program, K-12, that are needed for the diversity of students that we serve. The new Poverty Index funds are a start in this direction, but not all schools have access to these dollars.In General There is much more to tell-all aligned and coherent with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We had 51 pnorities in our Divisions work plan last year, and we achieved 49 of them, plus several others that we didnt know would be on our plate. The nature of education is that there is always so much more to do than we have time and resources to accomplish, but we feel that we made giant steps forward in 1998- 99. Our major focus in 1999-2000 is to ensure as much success in implementation as possible. We are so confident in the quality of our designs and in our professional development programs that we know that we will see some improvement in our test scores this year. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to react. If I can answer further questions or provide copies of other documents, please dont hesitate to ask.RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 Division of Instruction Work Teams 1999-2000 OFRCEOI- desegregation MONITORING The Division of Instruction will be organized in 1999-2000 into several multidisciplinary work teams to which the Work Plan Priorities will be assigned. The way we work will reflect Dr. Terrence Roberts fifth level of commitment, I will do whatever it takes to help schools help children learn. There will be essentially four kinds of teams: 1. 2. 3. 4. Existing departments. Current departments will continue to carry on some of their traditional assignments. For example, the Mathematics/Science Department will continue with their work of implementing the NSF project, as well as providing leadership in curriculum development, standards implementation, discipline-specific professional development, textbook adoptions, etc. The Department of Exceptional Children will continue with their current functions in running that program. Work Teams. Six new work teams will be established, three reporting directly to the Associate Superintendent and three reporting to the Assistant Superintendent of School Improvement. School-Level Teams. Three additional teams will be formed composed of elementary, middle, and high school experts to coordinate and articulate the curriculum and other programs and to provide more specific support to schools. Audit Teams. We are committed to conducting School Improvement Audits and Curriculum Audits for schools identified for improvement. (See Handbook for Campus Leadership Team, pp. 53-54, for definitions.) Everyone in the Division will be assigned from time to time to serve on these audit teams. Training will be provided in how to conduct an audit. In addition, everyone will continue to serve as brokers and as members of assigned Campus Leadership Teams. The Division will keep its former organizational structure for now, as will other District divisions. All staff will continue to occupy their current offices and reporting relationships. This team organization is transitional. In two to three years the Division will be reorganized, shifting more and more staff to roles more directly supportive of school improvement as the curriculum is better established and as instructional strategies are more institutionalized. The following teams shall be established directly under the Associate Superintendent for Instruction:PreK-12 Teaching and Learning Team (Team Leaders to be Assigned According to Tasks) Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver, Director of NSF Project Marie McNeal, Director of Social Studies TBN, Director of Secondary Language Arts Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy TBN, Coordinator of ESL and Foreign Language Carol Green, Director of Career and Technical Education Patty Kohler, Director of Exceptional Children Mable Donaldson, Supervisor of Gifted/Talented Education Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs Ray Gillespie, Director of Athletics and Physical Education Lucy Neal, Director of Libraries/Media Centers and Instructional Technology Barbara Barnes, Special Education Supervisor Susan Chapman, Special Education Supervisor Planning and Development Team Linda Young Austin, Director of Planning and Development, Team Leader Randy Glenn, Special Education Supervisor Parent and Community Involvement Team Debbie Milam, Director of VIPS, Team Leader TBN, Coordinator of Title I Parent Involvement Parent Involvement Liaison, Title I Elna Hasberry, Special Education Supervisor Paulette Martin, Director of Adult Education Marion Baldwin, Director of Community Education Department of School Improvement The team leader for the three teams in School Improvement will be Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent. This new department pulls together a multi-disciplinary group of people, all of whom are responsible to support school improvement and collective responsibility. Depending on the work that needs to be done, all may be working on professional development, test administration, program evaluation, or other assigned tasks, yet each team includes the necessary levels of expertise and specialization to provide leadership in the assigned areas. The School Improvement Teams will work closely with those reporting directly to the Associate Superintendent, and, as appropriate, members will be recruited from other teams to accomplish a task.Testing and Program Evaluation Team Ed Williams, Supervisor, Team Leader TBN, Program Evaluator for Title l/ESL TBN, Program Evaluator for NSF Yvette Dillingham, Testing Specialist Kathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Supervisor Professional Development Team Marion Woods, Coordinator, Team Leader Selma Hobby, Specialist Sue Walls, Specialist Gary Smith, Special Education Supervisor Eunice Smith, Special Education Supervisor Technical Assistance Team Mona Briggs, ACSIP (formerly COE) and CDP Coordinator, Team Leader Eddie McCoy, Title I Specialist Cassandra Steele, Special Education Coordinator1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: III. B (1) Continuum of Knowledge and Skills Major Tasks/Activities 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline April 1999 January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Linda Young Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORINfi End-of-Year Report *Reviewed existing Board policies and Administrative Directives to determine needs for revision and new policy statements. *Obtained copies of NSBA model policies for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Revised graduation policy for Board approval in December 1998. Reviewed 1991 Curriculum Audit for suggestions on necessary curriculum/instruction policies. Reviewed Arkansas Accreditation Standards. See also Priority I\nDesegregation and Education Plan/ A. Policies, #9. Drafted a new policy on Credit-by-Examination to be submitted to the Board of Education in February 1999. Drafted new regulations on elementary to middle school and from middle school to high school promotion to be submitted to the Board of Education for information at January 1999 meeting. Completed revision of 35 policies for the Boards first reading in June 1999\nremaining ones will be presented in July 1999, along with complete administrative regulations. Middle school program standards drafted, presented to the Board, and approved for use in developing core curriculum standards in October 1998. Teacher committees appointed to complete curriculum/program standards for reading/language arts and for ESL courses for grades 6- 12 (completed in June 1999). Social studies curriculum standards drafted for grades 7-12 (work completed March 1999). Standards in mathematics and science completed for grades 6-12 (work completed in March 1999). Dissemination of secondary curriculum standards/benchmarks is scheduled for August inservice.Major Tasks/Activities 3. Construct curriculum maps of LRSD standards/benchmarks with Arkansas standards, SAT9 testing objectives (plus other tests as appropriate), and instructional materials. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon End-of-Year Report *K-6 language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 reading/language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *K-6 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *CuiTiculum maps for science and mathematics, grades K-4, have been completed and submitted to the Assoc. Supt. *Curriculum maps for science and mathematics, grades 5-8, have been completed.Major Tasks/Activities 4. Review and revise middle and high school Curriculum Catalog\nconduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. 5. Develop specific plan for implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan. Strategy 2 Timeline December 1998 February 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler End-of-Ycar Report *Notified central and school-level staff of deadline of October 16, 1998, for submitting proposed new courses. *Worked with school-level staff (teachers, counselors, registrars, principals) and with central curriculum staff in October, November, and early December to ensure accuracy of documented curriculum. Middle school curriculum committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Middle School Steering Committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Board approval of new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Published middle school course selection sheets for each of the eight middle schools in December 1998. Decided to publish triple-fold brochure on middle school curriculum for students and parents instead of a curriculum catalog\navailable in January 1999. Board approval of new high school courses and new high school curriculum in November 1998. Published High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998\ndistributed to Board members at December meeting. Published high school course selection sheets in December 1998. Published High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for principals, counselors, registrars, and teachers) in December 1998. Submitted new course numbers for middle and high school courses to technology department. Staff orientation meetings scheduled for elementary counselors, middle school principals and counselors, and high school teams during early January 1999. K-3 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted and revised. First draft presented to Board in March 1999\nfinal draft presented in June 1999. 4-5 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted in June 1999\nwill be submitted in late summer. First dissemination and inservice for implementation of curriculum standards/benchmarks conducted in June 2-3-4 inservice for grades K- 5. Dissemination and inservice for grade 6 will occur in August 1999. Conducted one week of training for trainers of ELLA during week of June 21, Scheduled one week of training on teaching reading/writing for grade 4 teachers during week of July 11.Major Tasks/Activities 6. Pilot new science curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 7. Pilot new mathematics curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 8. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 9. Publish Middle and High School StudentZParent Curriculum Handbooks. 10. Define and establish Delivery Standards. 11. Align school schedules, PreK-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan, Desegregation Plan, and Smart Start. Plan Reference NSF Project Goals 2000 NSF Project Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategics Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5.4 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 and 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 521., 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 Timeline 1998-99 1998-99 October 1998 January 1999 January 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Leon Adams Marion Woods End-of-Year Report Science and Technology for Children kits were piloted during the school year at Rockefeller, Franklin, Wakefield, and Chicot. Investigations in Data, Time, and Space were piloted during the school year at Romine, grades K-5. Connected Math Project has been piloted as a replacement module in all grade 6 and 7 classrooms in the District. See #4 above. Board approved middle school program standards in October 1998. Board approved new middle school curriculum in November 1999. See also Priority I. Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School #4, #5, and #10. Board approved funding for curriculum development in March 1999. New curriculum guides for middle school courses completed in June 1999.______________________________________________________ See #4 above. High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) published in December 1998. Middle school curriculum brochure scheduled to be published in January 1999. Plans made to publish a Middle School booklet for students in parents in fall 1999 for 1999-2000 registration. Reviewed research syntheses on delivery standards for Far West Lab. Conducted preliminary conversations on what Delivery Standards for LRSD might look like, This project was delayed until late summer or fall 1999 and will be embedded in the Professional Development Plan.__________________ K-3 Literacy Committee met on Aug. 31, Sept. 16, Oct. 30, Dec. 17, and Jan. 8. Draft report of recommendations was completed on Dec. 18,1998. Report includes the following: Review of current District curriculum, assessment, and implementation. Review of Arkansas Smart Start Initiative to identify possible gaps between the Initiative components and the Districts curricular focus. Identification of all supplemental reading programs currently in use in primary level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative. (continued on next page)Major Tasks/Activities 12. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 13. Develop in collaboration with Linda Watson a list of behavior standards\nadopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 14. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of the core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy! Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.3, 5.3.1,5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 10 Goals 2000 State law Strategy Plan: Strategy 2 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 5.4 Goals 2000 Timeline November 1998 March 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Leon Adams Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marion Woods Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elson Patty Kohler Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Bonnie Lesley End-of-Year Report Comparison of District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. Summary of key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Outline of recommendations. Proposed budget for 1999-2000. Drafted administrative regulations for Elementary Schools. The mathematics curriculum has been revised by a teacher committee to include a smaller number of concepts at each grade level. Training for teachers on the revised curriculum has begun and continued training will occur as the NSF standards-based math curricula are phased in over the next few years. CRTs are being developed for use each quarter in grades 2-6 to measure student mastery of the mathematics grade-level standards and benchmarks. 'NSF grant strategies are underway to improve student performance in * Algebra I and to increase enrollment and success rate in upper-level mathematics courses. The extended-year Algebra I program will take place during summer 1999 to help students achieve better in Algebra I. *Drafted adminstrative regulations to be presented in late summer. Conducted research on model classroom management programs. Exchanged information with Linda Watson. Scheduled a representative from each school to attend the ADE conference on Character-Center Teaching and Learning on January 26, 1999. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to consult with the District on this initiative on January 26,1999. Submitted grant proposal in May 1999 to fund training for nine elementary schools to pilot the Child Development Project. Submitted grant proposal in May 1999 to fund training for all secondary staff in Fred Jones Positive Discipline program. Scheduled to participate in training of trainers sessions in July sponsored by ADE. Board approval of new graduation policy in December 1999. Published new graduation policy in High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998. Published new graduation policy in High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for staff) in December 1998. Conducted orientation meetings on new graduation policy and high school curriculum for staff in early January 1999.,Major Tasks/Activities 15. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Algebra I\nAP examinations\nnew teacher training\nVital Link\nand Family Math/Science programs. Plan Reference NSF Project Timeline September 1999 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver End-of-Year Report *Extended Year Algebra ITimeline has been established and Algebra I teachers were invited in January to participate in planning the implementation of the Summer 1999 program. A possible collaboration with New Futures was discussed. Initial meeting was held in December 1998\nanother in late January. Students have been identified and invited to participate in the institute during July 26August 6,1999. Teachers participated in a planning session on June 15. A parent meeting was conducted on June 15* for potential SMART participants. Proposed CERTL application includes a collaboration with Philander Smith College for the Summer Readiness Program scheduled for July 19Aug. 6. Eight follow-up sessions are planned for SMART students, in collaboration with PSC, during the regular school year. They are designed to reinforce and expand algebraic skills. *AP ExamsDrafted proposed new policy in November 1998 to require all students who take AP courses to take the corresponding AP exams. Item was withdrawn for more work. *New Teacher TrainingFirst-year secondary mathematics and science teachers received four days of training on Oct. 13 and Dec. 10, 1998, and March 10-11,1999, * Vital LinkPlanning began on January 15 for recruiting additional Vital Link sites that focus on careers in the field of mathematics and science. Businesses with a math/science focus were identified. Overview of NSF grant presented uring the Vital Link teacher inservice as well as the inservice for businesses. Family Math/Science~Planning occurred for teams of teachers from seven schools to participate in the February 8-9 training. Teams of teachers from 5 schools participated in the Family Math/Science inservice on Feb. 8-9. Each team of teachers held 3 family math/science nights at their respective schools. Advisory Committee MeetingsCommittee met on Sept. 22, Oct. 27, Dec. 8, Feb, 23m Narch 23, April 27, and May 25 to review and discuss student performance data and upcoming grant activities. Plans are in progress for an advisory committee retreat. Definition of roles, as well as strategic planning, will be the focus of the retreat. Management Team MeetingsCommittee met monthly with the exception of December. Management Team will plan and implement the retreat for the advisory committee. (continued next page)Major Tasks/Activities Plan Reference Timeline Responsibility End-of-Year Report *Math/Science Vertical TeamsRegistered teachers for College Board sponsored vertical teams conference on Feb. 5-6 (mathematics) and Feb. 19-20 (science). Two mathematics vertical teams have met monthly. Mathematics Vertical Teams Steering Committee was established to set long- and short-range goals for the district. The steering committee met twice and set a time to meet monthly during the 1999-2000 school year. High School VisitsMet with principals and counselors of high schools to review and discuss first quarter data and to set improvement targets. Parent/Community InvolvementPresented an overview of the NSF project to the Christian Ministerial Alliance, Little Rock PTA Council, and the VIPS board. Year 2 plans include Brown Bag lunches at local businesses to inform working parents and the general public about this initiative. A dissemination brochure will be produced and distributed to parents, community, and business people. SECME9 teachers representing 5 schools will participate in the SECME Summer Institute June 20July 2,1999, at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. SECME programs will be implemented in the 5 additional schools beginning fall 1999. Strategic Plan/Professional Development PlanDeveloped a five- year strategic plan along with a comprehensive professional development plan to guide the work of the LRPMSA. Standards-Based CurriculaTraining was provided for mathematics and science teachers who will be using Investigations, Science and Technology for Children, Connected Mathematics Project, and Active Physics. Follow-up sessions are planned for pre-school conference as well as during the regular school year. * Lead TeachersSubmitted a proposal to NSF to add 4 lead teachers who would work with clusters of elementary schools providing technical support for math and science teachers. Proposal also submitted to add (or assign an existing position) a high school math coordinator, middle school math specialist, a middle school science specialist, and a high school science specialist. *CERTLProposal submnitted to NSF for Centers of Excellence for Research, Teaching, and Learning. CERTL involves subcontracts with PSC, UALR, and LRSD for Active Physics training. UALR activities include a Summer Science Institute for 4* and 5* grade students\nUALR Student Research Camp will provide an opportunity for students to participate in real research projects\nPSC will offer the Summer Algebra Readiness Training which is a three-week summer institute for rising 9'* graders who show academic promise to be successful in Algebra I. LRSD will offer, in collaboration with UALR, a four-hour graduate credit course on Active Physics.Priority ill. B. (2): Personalized Education Major Tasks/Activities 16. Develop Early Childhood Education Plan for fall 1999, to include plan to implement any grant-funded early childhood initiatives. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 and 5.1 Goals 2000 Timeline February 1999 Responsibility Pat Price Marian Shead- Jackson Patty Kohler Carol Green Aleecia Starkey End-of-Year Report Attended meetings of the collaborative partners involved in Headstart. Discussed the feasibility for expansion. Applied for and was awarded funds for continuance money from Arkansas Belter Chance. Early Childhood Task Force met on Nov. 23, 1998. Agenda items included overview of the program, quality status, and the need for expansion. District sponsored reception for representatives and senators to discuss 1999 legislative issues, such as early childhood funding, on Jan. 7,1999. Early Childhood Task Force meeting held on Jan. 25,1999. Agenda included discussion of issues which may initiate policy discussion and action by the Arkansas General Assembly, such as (1) funding for child care/ eliminating the low-income working waiting list\n(2) additional funding for the Arkansas Better Chance program.Major Tasks/Activities 17. Develop K-12 talent development plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success (e.g.. Project AVID). Plan Reference Strategic Plan objectives Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.6, 2.6.1, and 2.6,2 NSF Project Timeline November 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elson Marion Woods End-of-Year Report K-23 Talent Development Committee was established in August 1998 to develop a plan\nresearch assignments were made\nand the committee moved to endorse the implementation of Project AVID as the centerpiece of this plan. Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and the Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for the 1999-2000 school year (approved by Board in November 1998). Made all AP courses (except Music Theory AP) available to all high schools for 1999-2000. Changed admission standards so that students with a grade of at least C in a prior Pre-AP or AP courses can enroll in the next level without teacher approval. Working on new policy/regulations relating to AP examinations to be submitted to the Board in summer 1999. *1 'Surveyed all honors, enriched, Pre-AP, and AP teachers to determine what training they had had so that a professional development plan could be designed. *Conducted study of current percentages by school who are performing in the top quartile\npercentages of students taking the ACT\npercentages of students enrolled in AP courses\npercentages of students passing AP courses by school\netc. Paid fee for Mable Donaldson to participate in the first year of training for Project AVID directors. Investigated two potential grants to fund the Project AVID initiative: Gear-Up and Javits federal grants. Applied for Gear-Up funds in collaboration with UALR to implement AVID in four middle schools, if funded, in fall 1999. Conducted one-half day of training on Project AVID for representatives of the curriculum staff, high school principals, high school counselors, parent representatives, and community advocates in October 1998. Conducted one evening of training for members of the Board of Education on Project AVID in October 1998. Distributed information on the Talent Development Middle School to all middle school principals for restructuring ideas. Continued research on effective strategies to close achievement gaps\nread new book on the Black-White Test Score Gap by Jencks.  Met with representative teachers and counselors at three of the five high schools to hear what they believe they need to support the goal of increasing AP enrollment. Discussed with E\u0026gt;r. Angela Sewell, Dean of Education at UALR, the possibility of a university partnership relating to Project AVID.Major Tasks/Activities 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with COE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 19. Complete planning for middle schools and smooth transitions from elementary and to high schools. Plan Reference Strategic Plan. Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy?. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 3.4 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 December 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Kathy Lease Linda Young M.S. Committees End-ofYear Report Met with ODM staff to discuss Project AVID and its potential benefits to LRSD students. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to discuss Project AVID on Jan. 26, 1999, Submitted Gear-Up grant proposal during March 1999 in collaboration with UALR to fund Project AVID in four middle schools\nSouthwest, Mablevale, Henderson, and Cloverdale. Conducted a meeting with Leon Adams on August 5,1998, to discuss several proposed changes and improvements in Title I. Conducted a meeting on the morning of September 4,1998, to review Title I regulations and laws\na team approach to approve Title I plans\nways to embed Title I accountability into the Quality Index\nand ways to align Title I with Campus Leadership. Conducted a meeting on the afternoon of September 4,1998, to discuss needs for a menu of research-based and district-approved programs for Title I schools to choose from\nprocedures for District approval of Title I plans\nalignment of Title I with Smart Start. Conducted meeting on Sept. 18 to discuss proposed changes in the Title I parent program. Conducted input all fall from parents, teachers, and principals on the Title I program and ways that it could be better aligned with other District initiatives and, thus, be more productive. Reviewed with and obtained input from the Cabinet on Jan. 11, 1999, general areas for change and improvement of the Title I program. Embedded Title I changes in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Conducted meetings with principals in April 1999 to discuss changes in 1999-2000 Title I program. Summarized changes in Title I program in principals meeting during May 1999. Met several times in May-June with Cabinet members to make decisions relating to changes in Title I. Met with representative Title I parents in May 1999 to discuss proposed changes in Title I. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #3, #6.Major Tasks/Activities 20. Complete planning for ninth grade curriculum aligned with new graduation requirements and the districts standards. 21. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Review special education programs, policies, and/or procedures to ensure no racial discrimination in referral and placement. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 And Strategy 3 State laws Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.4 Timeline November 1998 June 1999 December 1998 Responsibility Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Patty Kohler End-of-Year Report *See #4 above. *Board approval of new high school curriculum, including grade 9 courses, in November 1998. *See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #10._______________________________________________________ *Committee chair appointed to gather data for program/needs assessment. *ESL program representative attended statewide program planning conference. Committee appointed to develop ESL program standards and to identify budget needs. Committee appointed to develop ESL curriculum standards. Met with representative of ADE on needs of LRSDs ESL program. Hosted compliance review by OCR in March 1999 relating to ESL programs and services. Proposed that Class-Size Reducation Allocation be used to hire 10 elementary ESL teachers for 1999-2000. Proposed that the District employ an ESL Coordinator to oversee and provide leadership for the K-12 program. *Tridistrict assessment committee meets regularly to review testing procedures and to make sure that they are free of bias. *Department of Exceptional Childrens strategic plan updated in Dec. 1998\nincludes procedures and equity issues. *Completed an administrative procedures manual in Dec. 1998 for all special education staff to ensure equity in administration of procedures\ncontains checklists to evaluate staffing needs\nsupervisory goals, including equity issues\nLRSD policies that address graduation, which are bias-free\nand other procedures.Major Tasks/Activities 23. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. Plan Reference Arkansas initiative Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Ann Freeman End*of-Year Report Dr. Doug Reeves presented early concepts of Smart Start standards and assessments to a small group from the Division of Instruction in September 1998. Kevin Penix from ADE presented an overview of the Smart Start Initiative to the Division of Instruction on Oct. 14,1998. Bonnie Lesley and Les Gamine attended a session with Dr. Doug Reeves at a state conference in October 1998 on Smart Start. Ann Freeman was reassigned to assist Pat Price with coordination of Smart Start programs and services for LRSD during November 1998. Eisenhower Professional Development grant application aligned with Smart Start submitted to ADE in November 1998. All elementary principals and a facilitator from each school attended two days of Smart Start training sponsored by ADE during the week of Nov. 9-12, 1998, Bonnie Lesley presented session on how Smart Start aligns with Title I, COE, and Campus Leadership at the November principals meeting. Pat Price and Ann Freeman presented an overview of the Smart Start Summit to the Division of Instruction on Nov. 24,1998. Work sessions on standards and assessments conducted by the Division of Instruction on Dec. 14,1998. Presentation of a one-day Data-Driven Decision-Making session for all elementary principals is scheduled for Jan. 19-20-21, 1999. All principals were invited to attend a one-day conference on Character-Centered Teaching and Positive Classroom Discipline Conference, sponsored by ADE, on Jan. 26,1999. Ten satellite teleconferences relating to Smart Start were held at the IRC during year. District representatives attended the NSCI conference on reading and mathematics in New Orleans during January. Frequent information regarding Smart Start implementation was provided principals and other staff through Learning Links during spring 1999.Priority III. B (3): Professional Development Major Tasks/Activities 24. Complete planning and begin implementation of middle school professional development program. 25. Conduct in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell and her staff the Year One training for Campus Leadership Plan. 26. Restructure the districts professional development program and services so that they build professional learning communities at the district and school levels. 27. Implement Year One of ASCDs UPDI project with focus on school change and improving achievement in reading and mathematics. 28. Provide training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.12 Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 7 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.61., 2.12, 5.2.1j, 5.2.2g, 5.2.3c. 5.3.1 Campus Leadership Plan NSF ASCDs UPDI ASCDs UPDI Revised Desegregation and Education, section 2.12 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.12 and 2.12.1 Timeline January 1999 June 1999 October 1998 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Linda Young Marion Woods Mona Briggs Kathy Lease Prof. Dev. Committee Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Gene Parker Kathy Lease Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Director, Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Dir., Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Marion Woods City of Little Rock End-of-Year Report See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #4 and #12. The responsibility for this activity was transferred to Sadie Mitchell and her staff. Broker and principal training sessions were conducted in December 1998, January and February 1999. Principals Institute, to include representatives of Campus Leadership Teams, scheduled for week of July 26,1999. Invited by ASCD in August 1998 to apply to join the Urban Professional Development Initiative (UPDI). Presented idea to Cabinet for approval to join UPDI in August 1998. Submitted application to join UPDI to ASCD on August 20, 1998. Presented information item to Board of Education about UPDI in August 1998. Formed a special team to restructure LRSD professional development program and to oversee UPDI activities\nfirst meeting held on Sept. 3, 1998. Four people attended UPDI Network meeting in Alexandria, VA, on Nov. 12-14, 1998. Received official letter of invitation from ASCD to participate in UPDI, Nov. 20,1998. Staff meeting scheduled to begin discussion of professional development plan on Jan. 25,1999. Site visit from ASCD for UPDI conducted on Feb. 1-2,1999. End-of-Quarter Report submitted to ASCD on March 30,1999, Professional Development Plan to be completed during summer 1999.______________________________________________________ See #26 above. Five two-day workshops serving 94 teachers were presented on the following dates: Aug. 4-5\nSept. 14 and 21\nOct. 19 and 22\nNov. 16 and 19\nand Jan. 6 and 13. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts on Jan. 26,199^, to discuss professional development issues. Workshop conducted for high school teachers on June 4,1999. Tri-District staff development committee and state coops met ten times during year to compile information for districts catalogs, resource guides, and professional libraries.Major Tasks/Activities 29. Consolidate COE, Campus Leadership, Title I, and Instructional Technological planning requirements in collaboration with cluster assignment\ndesign and plan training for Campus Leadership Teams. 30. Develop menus of research-based and approved schoolwide change models and instructional/ curriculum interventions to guide schools in improvement efforts. 31. Assemble a library of reference folders on a wide variety of topics related to school improvement to send to schools upon request. 32. Write and prepare for Fall 1999 distribution a Beginning Teachers Handbook. 33. Provide focused and appropriate training for certified staff in Division of Instruction to improve productivity and leadership. 34. Provide appropriate technology and general training for clerical staff of Division of Instruction to improve productivity and communication. Plan Reference COE Campus Leadership Plan Title I Instructional Technology Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 6 Goals 2000 Goals 2000 Campus Leadership Plan Strategic Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Smart Start Title I COE Strategic Plan Timeline January 1999 February 1999 January 1999 May 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell and her cluster teams Leon Adams Lucy Lyon Director, Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Marion Woods Selma Hobby Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Lucy Lyon End-of-Year Report This work was assigned to one of the clusters to complete. Leadership for these tasks was assigned to Sadie Mitchell. Conducted two meetings in September 1998 to begin the discussion of criteria to identify research-based programs. Recommended best practice books which summarize research to schools through Learning Links. Approved literacy programs were included in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, Books on research-based programs provided to principals by Division of Instruction. Approximately 75 information folders on a variety of topics related to school reform have been compiled and are available to principals and Campus Leadership Teams. Videotapes and books on middle schools were identified for middle school principals and teachers to check out. Outline for Beginning Teachers Handbook compiled in August 1998. Committee on Teacher Induction, chaired by Dr. Kathy Lease, appointed in spring 1999. Draft of Beginning Teachers Handbook completed in June 1999. 1 *ADE-sponorsed workshop on curriculum mapping by Heidi Jacobs attended by most curriculum staff members in September 1998. Presentation by Dr. Doug Reeves (the state consultant on Smart Start) to curriculum staff members in September 1998. Presentation on Smart Start by Dr. Kevin Pennick from ADE at a Division of Instruction meeting on October 14,1998. Data-Analysis Training (related to Smart Start implementation) presented at meeting of Division of Instruction in December 1998. Four people attended class on Microsoft Word on Oct. 20-22. Four people attended class on PowerPoint on Oct. 26-27. Eight people attended class on Excel on Oct. 19-26. *1 *A number of courses were scheduled for February 1999. *Summer technology classes are being offered.Major Tasks/Activities 35. Provide training for teachers and counselors to improve minority student access and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.6.2 NSF Project Timeline November 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elston Marion Woods End-of-Year Report *Conducted one-half session on Project AVID for high school counselors and others in September 1998. *Conducted curriculum orientation meetings for principal and counselors at each high school, including discussion of this priority, in January 1999. *Conducted curriculum orientation session for elementary counselors, including discussion of this priority, on Jan. 20,1999. *Conducted curriculum orientation session for middle school counselors, including discussion of this priority, on Jan. 20,1999. *Developed a plan to ensure that teachers of Pre-AP and AP have equal access and opportunity to participate in College Board professional development workshops during the summer.Priority III. B (4): Building Community Support Major Tasks/Activities 36. Design plan to collaborate with the business community to deliver the Arkansas Scholars program in grade 8 during spring 1999. 37. Restructure the districts parent/ community programs and services to align with the Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Campus Leadership Plan, the NSF Project, Smart Start, and the requirements of Title I. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (sections on enriched, honors, gifted, and advanced placement courses). Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 And Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.8 and 5.7 Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Timeline December 1998 December 1998 Responsibility Debbie Milam Linda Young Gene Parker End-of-Year Report 'Meeting held on Sept. 24, 1998, with Lee Gordon, ABEA, Bonnie 1 Bonnie Lesley Debbie Milam Leon Adams Catherine Gill Linda Young Patty Kohler Pat Price Paulette Martin Marian Shead- Jackson Marian Baldwin Vanessa Cleaver Lesley, Gene Parker, Linda Young, and Debbie Milam. *Meeting held on Oct. 15,1998, at Chambers Education Committee. Lee Gordon asked for support in recruiting business volunteers to make the Arkansas Scholars presentations to all 8* graders in the three Pulaski County school districts. Meeting held on Dec. 7, 1998, between Debbie Milam and Linda Young to discuss a timeline for LRSD implementation. Meeting scheduled for Jan. 15,1999, between Debbie Milam, LRSD, and Joe Swaty and Sandy Bradley of the Chamber to discuss feasibility of implementing Arkansas Scholars in spring 1999. Arkansas Scholars program implemented in spring 1999. Discussed with Catherine Jordan of SEDL the possibility of Little Rocks participation in their Collaborative Action Team (CAT) training. Conducted a meeting including staff, some community/parent representatives, and Catherine Jordan on November 2 for initial discussion of possible partnership to assist us in restructuring our parent/community programs. Conducted second meeting of committee on November 20,1998, to discuss whether to apply to SEDL for CAT participation\nwrote mission statement for group. Sent application in December 1998 to SEDL to participate in CAT training. Conducted third meeting on January 14,1999, to discuss focus for our work\nparent education/involvement. Fourth meeting and expanded committee membership will be decided upon after conversation with Catherine Jordan about training. Two representatives attended SEDL training in late January 1999. Two SEDL representatives conducted a site visit in Little Rock on April 27 with a cross-section of staff, parents, and community members. Notifed in May 1999 of selection to participate with SEDL in Collaborative Action Team planning. Began implementation of plan to restructure and re-align Title 1 parent program.Priority III. B. (5): Communication Major Tasks/Activities 38. Communicate curriculum standards so that all parents and students understand the expected knowledge and skills by grade level and course. 39. Communicate aspects of middle school planning to students, parents, and community for fall 1999. 40. Provide second-language translations of key documents for students and parents. 41. Implement Learning Links, a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction. 42. Publish at lease six issues of a newsletter for teachers from the Division of Instruction. 43. Conduct twice-a-month meetings for staff in the Division of Instruction. 44. Conduct quarterly meetings of all clerical staff in the Division of Instruction. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Student Success Model Student Success Model Timeline May 1999 May 1999 May 1999 September 1998 June 1999 June 1999 August 1998June 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Anita Gilliam Regina Moore Marian Baldwin Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley and designated staff End-of-Year Report Committee appointed to develop action plan for communicating curriculum standards to the community. Action plan presented to Strategic Plan Steering Committee and approved in November 1998. Committee appointed to complete identified action steps in approved action plan.  ' 'Designed an audio-visual presentation to communicate the new graduation standards\nto be completed by early Feb. 1999. (This video not yet completed.) Planning established to publish curriculum standards for parents in summer 1999. Draft documents completed in June 1999. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/B. Middle School, #6, #14. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/C. Marketing and Communication, #1, #2. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ D. Student Assignment, #8, #13. State-developed computer software discs acquired with translations of key documents for ESL students and parents. Budgeted for 1999-2000 the costs of translations of key documents. Learning Links has been published weekly since the first week in October 1998 for principals\nit has also been distributed to Cabinet members, most department heads, and members of the Division of Instruction. Meetings conducted with Public Information Office to determine cost and deadlines for publishing a teacher newsletter\nproject delayed due to costs and time restraints. This project delayed until 1999-2000. Staff meetings are scheduled for the second and fourth Wednesdays each month at the IRC\nthey are attended by all the department heads in the Division of Instruction, as well as other staff as appropriate. Monthly meetings conducted in spring 1999. Two meetings were conducted with the clerical staff of the Division of Instruction.Priority III. B (6): Assessment Major Tasks/Activities 45. Design and administer CRTs for fall 1998 in reading and mathematics. 46. Design refined CRTs for reading, mathematics, science, and social studies for piloting in spring 1999 and for implementation in fall 1999. 47. Establish Performance Standards in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. 48. Reinvent PRE programs and services to support the Campus Leadership Plan. 49. Refine the Quality Index indicators and develop district and school profiles according to the proposed Quality Index. 50. Embed Title I and Smart Start accountability requirements into the Quality Index. 51. Begin transition plan for a way of reporting to parents on student progress toward meeting the standards and develop plan to redesign the student grading and reporting system to reflect the standards- based focus of the district. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.2.1g, 5.2.2e,5.2.3r, and 5.3.2 Campus Leadership Plan NSF Title I and Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Title I requirements Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Timeline September 1998 December 1998 February 1999 December 1998 February 1999 February 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Kathy Lease Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Leon Adams Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson End-of-Year Report CRTs have been designed, produced, disseminated, given, scored, and reported. Tests were given in reading and mathematics at all elementary schools. Instructional division staff met in January to review first semester CRT experiences and begin planning for the third and fourth quarter tests in all core subject areas with the addition of the second graders. Planning still in progress for 1999-2000 CRTs. A meeting was scheduled in February to work on this goal. This project was delayed until decisions were made about 1999-2000 CRTs. New staff hired in order to begin to refocus the work of PRE. Staff assignments made to support Campus Leadership, the Strategic Plan, and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Public relations campaign instituted to promote idea that PRE is a service department whose focus is to assist schools and central office staff to reach the goals of the Campus Leadership Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. *1999-2000 Reorganization Plan establishes new concept for department. See Priority II: Quality Index (2) Student Achievement and Value- Added Incentives. See Priority II: Quality Index (2) Student Achievement and Value- Added Incentives. This work on a new grading system has not begun as yet. Discussions conducted during the first semester on student data management systems capacities and deficiencies. 'Primary Grades Committee established in May 1999 to make recommendations, as per PreK-3 Literacy Plan.Major Tasks/Activities 52. Design waiver form and process for schools seeking waivers from policy relating to Campus Leadership. 53. Redesign end-of-year climate survey to include items relating to measuring progress of reform. 54. Design for Board approval an agenda for evaluation of the Districts academic programs. Plan Reference Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7.1 Campus Leadership Plan Timeline October 1998 February 1999 March 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley End-of-Year Report________________________________ Waiver Application forms distributed via Learning Links in December 1998. *Work in progress with Cluster A and PRE staff. Drafts scheduled for completion in February. Two work sessions with Dr. Steven Ross (consultant) have been completed on initial planning. PRE staff researched program evaluation options. One-day planning meeting scheduled with numerous stakeholders in May 1999. Proposed Board policy developed and submitted to the Board for first reading in June 1999.Priority: Quality Index: (2) Student Achievement and Value-Added Incentives Major Tasks/Activities 1. Identify specific achievement indicators. 2. Identify specific standards/ benchmarks. 3. Identify value-added incentives. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7,5.2.1,and 5.3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7, 5.2, and 5.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.8 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B End-of-Year Report *Conducted first meeting of Cluster B on Nov. 20,1998. Reviewed charge, draft of Campus Leadership Plan, and resource documents\ndiscussed and approved proposed work plan for completion of tasks. *Conducted Internet search and purchased other resources to determine practices in other states and districts, especially those with value-added approaches. *Drafted preliminary list of academic indicators for elementary, middle, and high schools for the Quality Index to use for discussion purposes, Jan. 1999. Met with Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis on Jan. 15, 1999, to discuss Tennessees value-added accountability system and preliminary LRSD draft of academic indicators. Second meeting of Cluster B scheduled for Feb. 15,1999. Third meeting of Cluster B conducted on May 6-7,1999. Discussed with Dr. Steve Ross (see #1 above) ways to assign weights of importance and ways to assess progress toward standards at Jan. 15, 1999, meeting. Consulted research documents on practices in other states and districts. Met with Dr. Steve Ross in May 1999 to continue discussion of academic indicators for Quality Index. Submitted Dr. Ross recommendations to Dr. Camine for feedback. Final report submitted in June 1999. Conducted preliminary research on practices in other states and districts. Final report submitted in June 1999.i RECEP' A  } Collective Responsibility for Student Achieverhent AUG 5 1999 Office OF Definition of Collective Responsibility , OESEGREGATfON MONrrOfl.NP Collective Responsibility means that all the adults in the District arfd at each school hold themselves accountable for all the students meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks and other outcomes established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the collective responsibility for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff\nannual work plans\nDistrict-level processes and school-level parameters for decision-making\npersonnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems\nand the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the Districts progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. District Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the Quality Indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. School Performance Reports The state-mandated School Performance Reports shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education, but also school data relating to the Districts Quality Indicators. School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the 1performance of the school and planned short- and long-range improvements. The District may disseminate school-level supplements to the School Performance Reports to include data relating to District-selected Quality Indicators. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for school improvement, as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or nonaccredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the School Performance Report. Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant-funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. School Improvement Plans Although there are multiple state and local indicators, Campus Leadership Teams should select, based on their data analysis, three to five priority improvement goals as a focus for the School Improvement Plan. (See the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning process.) 2State Quality IndicatorsTier I The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing. Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators based on performance goals for Tier I: State Indicator______ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)_______________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. Secondary School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12^^ grade.__________________ Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%.________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher._______________________ 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually.___________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Grades 7-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 3State Quality IndicatorsTier II The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators for Tier II. Tier II indicators are based on trend and improvement goals. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students, and improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students over time. State Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)_______________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion- referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, and 8 Secondary 4Tier IISchool Selected Indicators (Schools Select Any 5) State Indicator Drop-outs Average Daily Attendance__________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Goal (Definition)_______________ Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12**^ grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.____________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher.________________ Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts.________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Grade Level(s) Secondary All levels All levels All levels All levels All levels 5Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators (based also on both performance and trend/improvement) have been established by the Little Rock School District. Value-Added Goals or Improvement Goals The District-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured each semester. Only those scores of students who were in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains (or improvement). The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value through individual students' gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the proficient level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency during that year. Both trend and improvement data will be tracked as well. LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test Goal (Definition)______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Grade Level(s) Kindergarten Grade 1 The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 6LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition)_______________ 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. ,th Grade Levelfs) Grades 5, 7, 10 The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50*^ percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics. Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 7LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition)_______________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Performance on District-Adopted Criterion-Referenced Tests The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Grades 2-11 8LRSD Indicator Goal (Definition)_______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. Grade Level(s) Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. Grades 6-12 Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. Grade 8 Honors Seal on High School Diploma The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grades 9-12 9LRSD Indicator Taking the ACT Goal (Definition)_______________ 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. Grade Level(s) Grades 11-12 Performance on the ACT The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0659","title":"Oral history interview with Katushka Olave, December 9, 1998","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Rouverol, Alicia J., 1961-","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862"],"dcterms_creator":["Olave, Katushka"],"dc_date":["1998-12-09"],"dcterms_description":["Inspired by the leftist political traditions of her native Bolivia and by her mother's political activism, Katushka Olave brought her devotion to social and racial justice to Durham, North Carolina. There she worked to promote these values through volunteering and work in community organizations. In this interview, she shares her opinions on social activism, aid organizations, and Latino cultural identity. Olave offers insight into race, identity, and activism, including her effort to bridge the gap between the African-American and Latino communities in Durham.","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":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","Oral histories of the American South (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project))"],"dcterms_subject":["Hispanic American women--North Carolina--Durham","Social reformers--North Carolina--Durham","Hispanic Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Political activity","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Relations with Hispanic Americans","Community-based social services--North Carolina--Durham"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Katushka Olave, December 9, 1998"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"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-0659/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 Nov. 25, 2008).","Interview participants: Katushka Olave, interviewee; Alicia Rouverol, interviewer.","Duration: 01:01:36.","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":["Olave, Katushka"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1677","title":"Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''","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":["1998-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''"],"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/1677"],"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":["154 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion in Limine; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) joinder in LRSD's motion in Limine; District Court, joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' prehearing submission on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION IN LIMINE 1-, ,ue.,,,~ . RECEIVED - DfC 4 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This court's decision in favor of the three Pulaski County school districts on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance was affirmed by th~ ' Eight_?,. C,j,rcuit Court of Appeals on July 1, 1998. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to this court \"to decide exactly what relief is appropriate.\" 2. Noting that the Eighth Circuit \"directed it to decide what relief is appropriate for the distric~s, this court scheduled a hearing \"on this issue\" for January 5, 1999. Order, November -3, 1998. 3. On July 20, 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and the districts filed simultaneous briefs concerning the r emedy issue. ADE submitted one method for calculating the remedy, '... -:' f' the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) submitted ,. another method ; the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and ,,.. ..:. \\ ' LRSD agreed that 11AnE,~.s submission seems to present an acceptable - method of calculating the remedy which is consistent with the decisions of this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" 3. The parties filed simultaneous reply briefs on August 19, 1998. The three districts agreed \"that ADE's [July 20] submission provides (1) acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 Equalization Funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts argued, however, that because districts outside Pulaski County received one hundred seven percent (107%) of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs, the districts should be paid that same percentage of their actual costs in order to meet the requirements of the Eighth Circuit's order. PCSSD filed a II supplemental submission\" in which it reserved the right to argue its proposed methodology and outcomes \"if the court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD. 11 ADE filed a response to PCSSD's July 20 submission arguing that the method for calculating the remedy proposed by PCSSD is flawed. 4. The only issue separating ADE from LRSD and NLRSD is whether ADE should be required to pay one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Aside from that issue, LRSD and NLRSD have expressed their willingness to accept ADE's proposed method for calculating the remedy. The question of whether the award should be calculated on the basis of one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of actual costs is a legal one, the resolution of which would not require the court to decide any disputed factual 2 issues. ADE, NLRSD and LRSD are willing to present this sole remaining issue to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The reason that this simple and expeditious method of resolving the remedy issue among these three parties has not been presented to the court is that PCSSD suggests a different method for calculating the remedy and ADE desires a single method of calculation for all three districts. 5. On September 8, 1998, PCSSD filed a motion and brief to enforce the Settlement Agreement as regards MFPA. PCSSD's motion is based partly upon the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance but, unlike those issues, PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 claim has not been litigated and there has been no determination of ADE' s liability with respect to the 11 MFPA11 claim. PCSSD' s motion seeks to recover the entire difference between the funding it now receives under Act 917 and the funding it claims it would have received under Act 34. PCSSD's motion is not limited to the damages caused by ~he State's change in its method for distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. 6. LRSD understood that the hearing scheduled for January 5, 1999 was to be for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues remanded by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As outlined above, there are relatively few issues separating the parties with respect to the remedy. The resolution of PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 issue requires a liability hearing, not a remedy hearing. The 11 MFPA11 issue would be more properly 3 - combined with the outstanding special education, loss funding and other issues which have yet to be tried on the merits. 7. In order to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the remedy hearing by the litigation of liability issues only marginally related to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue, LRSD seeks an order expressly limiting the January 5 hearing to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue and excluding the issues presented by PCSSD's \"MFPA\" claim. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the January 5, 1999 hearing to the question of the appropriate remedy for ADE's adjudicated violation of the Settlement Agreement with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and excluding other issues, particularly those related to PCSSD' s \"MFPA\" claim. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, EDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. ----- By::-: i==h~~..I,J.'t~~LJ~~#::.( C Bar No. 81083 4 --- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion In Limine has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of December 1998. JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 5 RECEIVED DEC 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OffiCE(f DESEGREGATION MONm1iJE ,,,. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS   '. ' WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT N0.1, ei al. PLAINTIFF .DEFENDANTS ADE'S TOINDER IN LRSD's \"MOTION IN LIMINE\" Like the LRSD, ADE understands that the hearing currently scheduled for January 5, 1999, is for the purpose of presenting evidence and argument concerning the appropriate \"remedy\" for the teacher retirement and health insurance issues discussed in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 opinion. For the reasons discussed below, ADE joins in LRSD's motion to exclude from the January 5 hearing any evidence or testimony concerning PCSSD' s purported \"MFP A claim.\" Following the Eighth Circuit's decision, this Court set a briefing schedule for the ' parties to submit their arguments concerning the remedy on the teacher retirement and health insurance issues. Pursuant to the Court's briefing schedule, as amended, the parties filed briefs on Jly 20 and August 19, 1998. None of those briefs submitted by PCS.SD on those dates argued or even suggested that the appropriate remedy on the retirement/health insurance issues ~ould require a comparison of total state aid - outcomes between what the Act 917 system produced and what the Act 34 system 1 -- ---  \"would have produced\" if it would not have been eliminated in the 1995 legislative session. However, on September 8, 1998, well outside the established briefing schedule for the teacher retirement/health insurance \"remedy\" issue, PCS5D filed a pleading it styled as a \"Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA.\" In that motion PCSSD purports to compare the total amount of state funding it received under the Act 917 system and the total an\\ount of sta!e fonding it claims it would have - received if the Act 34 system would not have been changed. PCS5D' s motion does not -i~entify any provision of the Settlement Agreement it contends has been breached. Rather, PCSSD's motion is based exclusively upon the \"remedy\" language in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance.1 Like the LRSD, ADE believes that PCSSD may attempt to introduce evidence at the January 5 hearing regarding purported total state aid outcomes under the Act 917 system and what PCSSD and the other Districts allegedly \"would have received\" if the Act 34 system had not been repealed. Such evidence and argument should be excluded from the January 5, 1999 hearing for two reasons. First, evidence and argument concerning an alleged Act 34/917 comparison should be excluded because this method of calculating a remedy was not presented to this \u003c;~urt in any of the briefs PCSSD submitted pursuant to this Court's briefing 1 In its motion in limine, LRSD states that PCSSD's motion .. is based partly on\" the remedy language in the Eighth Circuit's July I, 1998 opinion. ADE disagrees with LRSD_on this point. An examination of PCSSD's motion  makes cJear that PCSSD's bases its claims exclusWe(y upon the remedy language of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. PCSSD's motion does not cite_t9 ariy .provision of the Settlement Agreement  2  - schedule on the remedy issue. Had PCSSD wished for this Court to consider such a comparison as the appropriate rei:nedy on the retirement .and health insurance issues, PCS.SD should have advanced this theory in its opening remedy brief on July 20, or in its reply brief on August 19. Second~ PCSSD's proposed Act 34/917 comparison is not an appropriate \"remedy\" on the retirement and health insurance issues as a matter of law, and any ' evidence or argument concerning such a compa.Iison would therefore be L.-;:elevant. The appeal which resulted in the Eighth Circuit's July 1 opinion dealt only with the changes in the manner in which teacher retirement and health insurance matching obligations of school districts were paid by the State. Neither this Court nor the Eighth Circuit has found that the State is in violation of the Settlement Agreement in any other respect, yet PCSSD's Act 34/917 comparison plainly seeks relief beyond those damages  that might have been caused by the State's change in its method of distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion authorizes such a comparison as an appropriate method for calculating the damages on the narrow retirement and health insurance issues. Permitting  PCSSD to. present clearly irrelevant evidence and argument concerning its . purported Act 34/917 comparison. at the January 5 hearing would unnecessarily prolong and complicate the resolution of the remedy issue. Accordingly, ADE joins in LRSD's request for an order excluding from the January 5 hearing any evidence or argument concerning PCSSD's purported Act 34/917 comparison. 3 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General  Assistant Attorn y General ; . ~23 Center Street, Suite 200  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, T~othy Gauger, certify that _on D~ember 7, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing qocument to be served by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III 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 Richard Roachell . 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller . i'.riday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark . 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol  Little Rock, AR72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 5 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 JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for their Joint Motion for Summary - Judgment With Regard to the Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy state: 1. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to the appropriate methodology for determining the three Pulaski County districts' (the \"districts\") damages with regard to teacher retirement and heal th insurance. All parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable. 2. The only dispute concerning ADE's methodology is whether the districts damages' should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. The parties have already submitted br.iefs on this issue. This dispute presents a legal question which can be resolved as a matter of law. 3. LRSD and ADE's memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, LRSD and ADE pray that the Court adopt ADE Is proposed methodology and decide as a matter of law whether the ---- -- districts' damages should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE By: John c. Fendley, Jr,. I V I. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this 9th day of December, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 - --- -- 3   , RECEIVE,:, //411..f-/\"l./1 I Y'GflJ, f!ye_ ~ DEC 1 0 1998 \" ' t. 2. .., ...,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/Nr, 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 I. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY Introduction. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS This Court has scheduled a hearing for January 5, 1999 on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. Two issues stand to be resolved. 1 First, this Court must determine the appropriate methodology to be used in determining the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding received by the three Pulaski ~ounty districts under Act 917. Second, this Court must determine whether the three Pulaski County districts' damages should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to either of the above issues. Accordingly, the moving 1 See Joint Motion in Limine filed December 3, 1998. Docket No. 3223. parties pray that this Court resolve these issues as a matter of law. II. The Methodology. On August 19, 1998, the three Pulaski County school districts -- --- . (the \"districts\") agreed that the Arkansas Department of Education's (\"ADE\") Submission Concerning Remedies on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Heal th Insurance provided an acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. Docket No. 3187. Only the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") proposed an alternative to ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. However, PCSSD's pleading simply reserved the right to argue for its methodology should the Court reject ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. 2 Under ADE's proposed methodology, all three Pulaski County districts recover more damages than under PCS SD' s methodology. Districts' Brief filed August 19, 1998. See Exhibit 1 to the Therefore, since all parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable and since that methodology provides the greatest benefit for the students of each district, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology as a matter of law. 2The three Pulaski County districts do not agree at this time that ADE's methodology would be applicable to possible future pending claims regarding MFPA, special education and loss funding. F: \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-bri-sju .tea 2 or III. Actual Costs Versus Percentage of Costs. While the three Pulaski County school districts agree that ADE's methodology is acceptable, the districts contend that ADE has stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. ADE's proposed remedy provides the districts with 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts contend that this remedy falls short of complete relief because other districts in the state received more than 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and heal th insurance. The districts seek to recover the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. ADE denies that the districts should receive more than their actual costs. Whether the districts should receive their actual costs or the same percentage of their costs as other districts in the state presents a legal issue which can be resolved by this Court on summary judgment. No material fact needs to be resolved for the Court to decide this issue. Resolution of this issue simply requires an interpretation of Eighth Circuit's decisions in this case. The districts and ADE have already submitted briefs stating their respective positions on the issue. Accordingly, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court decide the issue as a matter of law. IV. Conclusion. LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology and decide whether the districts' damages F: \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\ LRSD\\de 3-bri -3 ju. t ea 3 should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. If the Court resolves these two issues, LRSD and ADE are confident that the remaining details can be settled and that the January 5, 1999 hearing will be unnecessary. f : \\HOME\\fENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-bri-sju.tea Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE 4 . ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this 9th day of December, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 J F: \\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSO\\des-bri-sju. tea 5 ', ~ECEIVED DEC 15 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEC 14 1998 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.JAMES ','i ;\\ :cCOR,'lir\\CK, Cl..ErK WESTERN DIVISION By: 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GcP. CLEi,K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S MOTION IN LIMINE INTRODUCTION The PCSSD understands that the hearings scheduled for next January are for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues. However, the PCSSD disagrees with LRSD's analysis concerning the MFPA issue. For reasons which will be fully explained below, the PCSSD submits that the MFPA analysis it has submitted to the Court is, on the one hand, an independent claim being pursued by the PCSSO. However, and most importantly, on the other hand, the PCSSD MFPA analysis resides at the heart of the remedial tasks directed by the Court of Appeals as regards teacher retirement and health insurance. INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS As an initial matter,' the Court of Appeals has directed the District Court: \"On  remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what . ' . . ' : . . . . ' . . , . .  relief is appropriate.\" 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at p. 30 72098 1 t This the parties have done by their submitted calculations regarding their claimed teacher retirement and _health insurance shortfalls. In this respect, the submissions of the PCS SD differ from those submitted by the State_ and embraced by the LRSD.1 However, the submissions of the other parties ignore the remain.der of the Court of Appeals instructions. The Court of Appeals went on to direct that: The three Pulaski County Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at pp. 30-31 This directive of the Court of Appeals cannot be ignored. While the other parties have paid lip service to this requirement, only the PCSSD has submitted an analysis comparing the effects of the old system to the new as required by the Court of Appeals. Whether this be currently characterized as an independent claim by the PCSSD or as simply its effort to assist the Court in complying with the instructions of the Court of Appeals is of no practicable 1 To the extent it ever agreed, the PCSSD can no longer support the calculations of the State. This will be more fully explained in PCSSD's Response to the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment served upon the PCSSD on December 11, 1998. 72098 2 moment for hearing purposes, since whatever description is given the analysis, it is the same for either purpose.2 THE RULES AND CASE LAW REQUIRE THE PARTIES AND THIS COURT TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS' INSTRUCTIONS Twenty-eight USC 2106 requires in pertinent part that: The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm ... any judgment...and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment...or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances. The case law from this Circuit supports this proposition. In Bethea v. Levi Strauss \u0026 Co., 916 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1990) the court of appeals had occasion to explain what is required of a district court after remand. On remand, a district court is bound to obey strictly an appellate mandate. (citation omitted) If the district court fails to comply with an appellate mandate, the appellate court has authority to review the district court's actions and order it to comply with the original mandate. llL at 456 See also Chambers v. Armantrout, 16 F .3rd 257 (8 th Cir. 1994) and West v. United States of America, 1995 US Appellate Lexis 5294 (8th Cir. 1995). CONCLUSION As its resubmitted analysis will demonstrate, the PCSSD is entitled to a full recovery for its teacher retirement and health insurance shortfalls since its losses under the new funding system far exceed its claims for teacher retirement and health insurance. A full award of its current claim will thus neither result in a 2 Because the labeling issues obviously concern the LRSD and the State, the PCSSD is separately submitting its own funding analysis which it believes complies with that required by the Court of Appeals. (Please see attached Exhibit A, three pages) 72098 3 r .I , - double recovery nor a windfall and, as explained above, this analysis must be performed by this Court whether or not any other party assists by submissions to this Court. 72098 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By-~::;__---:+------=~-:-:-:----- y Special School \\ 4 1' ,. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December /J , 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following.  Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 72098 M. ( Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger .A.ssistant 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 ones, Ill / I 5 NA I c ... r :.. I NOS\u0026v !MFPA CA1.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 3\"' FOR H-97. 97-91 \u0026 91-N ACT J.4171. ww.. I OISTIUCT L.RSD UWJ LRSO LASO I UHE SCHOOL YEA11 199 .. 11111-el 11117-M 19a.. NO. CHNIGIMTa 0.0271 0.0315 0.031M 0.1131M 1 WAOIIOATA 2 REG. 3 QNJM 22.JM.as 22.231.54 22,439.31 23,133.39 l SPEDWNJM' 1,700.72 1,7'00.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 , VOCWNJM' 825.81 529.61 8.28.61 !21l.61 5 VOCCWN)M  TT.9/5 TT.9/5 n,ge n .9tJ 6 GITWAOM 2.53.7S 253.75 253.75 253.75 71 LOSS FD WAOII 533.51 311..20 0.00 0.00 I TOT. WAOII am ... 25.401.M K ..... 29.H2A ----OUT 10 s1EJ1- ,.,. \"TION8 11 ST ATE l'\\JN0S $Q63.200.2,41 $983,.200,24' $1,\"8.684.101 S1, 111,111,171 12Nit0..M'(AOJEJ SQ ... g....,,;: . ... ' iiiiii 13 TOTAL ST. SSIII.U00.241 $1,!Ma, .. , 101 $1,111,717,171 S1, 147.290,11111 14 AVNIT. $11,015.9118.ffl $11.371.121. s1u1e. 1M.511 $20,alXJ.232,515 150iMGERATI: 0.0271 OJXl15 0.03111 0.0319 19 TOTAL AV OiO $473,044,7 S571.-.m SG2.929.253 $M4,455.2,47 17 TOTAL MISC. FOS. S!.215..3311 15.171 70Z '-A 739, 1111 S7 209247 11 TOTAi. Rl!SOURSU $1441-~ s1.a:n..1112.m s1m~ $1 11 ut25.355 11 TOT. WADII 171112'  SZ1 7l1 11,~ 1:111..a1 !lX.1IO 20 saa tt7S4.IO tt 14\u0026..21 '3.331.ff S3,\"5UI 21 DIFfUEHC2 U91.II $1- SUUI 22 AV!. LOC. RES. SN7 11111 Sf.:21111 $1..:za:I 2l IIIIFIIA CAL.CtJLAT10N 24 TOTAL AV. $1 ,So\u0026e,039.71'1 S1 ,712,311.Z20 $1,947,375,174 S1 ,9\u0026l,n7,1547 25 XCHG. 145.7~.101 SSJ. 837. 803 SG.1111,1115 sa2,753,401 291 MISC. REV. 75\" $102. 158 S1-47,11M S132.386 27/LOCAL RES. $,45,834,284 $53,i:37,803 $82.3'4.37'9 $62,M5,7S7 28 NO. M. D. 29 M.O. CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $45,834.26' $53,937,803 $82.l4e.379 SS2,885,787 31 LOC. RES. RATE s1.ns.oe $2.123.37 $2.42:ll.07 $2,419.38 32 SaeR $2.75U0 $3, 1-4e.2S $3,331.97 $3,456.e.5 JJiTABlE RATE $978.54 S1 022.90 $905.90 $1 037.47 341 TOT. MFPA 'l:ll 172..1%1 ~11\u00261.74 $23 2IO 152 $:21 9M.3TT 3SiMfPACHAHGe $110121 (ll.701.!M $3 SN.22.S 31/ADDmOHAL. FUNDING 37 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL.TH INS. COST $11 ,511.5111.00 S 13,802,731.00 $1-4,481 ,9'2.00 $15,933,618.50 38 AT RISK S 1,228.252. OIi $1.229~00 S 1.2:Ze.252.00 $1.229.252.00 39 TRANS $1 ,653 753.00 S1 . 653. 753.00 $1553753.00 $1 653 753.00 40 TOT. ADO. STAn FUNDI 114.lU.. ... $11.112.741 $17 341.M7 $1111312.4 41 TOT. STATE fUfjDI $31571 417 $G ll\u0026L.tlllll $40.122.0N $45 710.000 42 TOT Al. CHAHGI $3.~ , .. ., ..... - S! 157.101 431 S.EQA/GWTHIGWT. FCJD.SJINC. $4350,510 $43.233.011 t.\u00265.941~ 44/TOTAL MOR OR (LESS) THAH ACT 34 I u.u.0211 12110 NZ $161,313 EXHIBIT I A ; ... ~c - , 2 ,,. ' MFPA CAL.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR N-e7 97-81 \u0026 91-81 A.CT3,q71.-. OISTlaCT NUt\"2 NUSD NLASD ~ LINE ............. Y!AII 1~ 199M1 1917-tl 1 ..... NO. CHNtG! IIATI!   0.0271 0.0315 IJ.Ol1M 0.03114 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QAOM 9,079.25 ll.9C.111 9,094.2' 9,231 .07 3 SPEDWNJM  1,111l.78 1,11ua 1,119.78 1,1111.78 4 VOCWNJM' 310.71 310.71 310.71  310.71 5 VOCCWN)M 8.15 8.15 6.15 8.15 S GATWMlM 0 107.75 107.75 107.75 107.75 7 LOSS FU W.ADII 140.13 11~ 0.00 4.00 I TOT.WAOII 10 7M.l5 10.131.71 10,131.G 10.nSM ,....,..our 10 ~ CM.CULAnoNa 11 ST A Tl! l'U.\"C\u003eS S983..200.241 S883,200.241 St,048.1594,101 St .111 ,717,171 12AMOlMTADOED so) , . .,,..,!I,:,!: 13 TOTA\u0026. ST. $803..200.241 11 ,IMl,e\u0026M, 101 11,111,717,171 11,1-47.280,8111 14AVMr. S17,015,ll11U75 S11.l71.721. 119,111. 194,517 120 1113 232 515 15 CHARGE RATE 0.0271 0.0315 0.0318 0.0319 111 TOTM.AVCHG $-473,044,7N $571,a\u0026l,953 $832,i29,l5J SilM,465,247 17 TOTAL MISC. FDS. S5.215 335 $5 171 702 U739111 S72011-.247 11 TOTAL RESCIUltlEI 11 ~1.--.:i\u0026.I S1 ICD. 7n.n1 $1751..-..- SU11~ 11 TOT. WAOII m- 521731 518.2.111 ~a1 521,1 saa S2.7S\u0026.IO Sl.1\"\"-21 S2.331.ff H ,,.  .,. 21 DIFFRENC2 mi.II S1ISJI 112'.II Z2 AW. L0C. IIU. SI01' 11111 11.2111 $1-2EI 2l IIFPA CALCUUTION 24 TOT M.A. V. $-41,,333.275 $-4:ZS,'11.491 $-471 ,402.- $-475.a:!4.,220 25 XCHG. $11 ,511,485 $13,400,C s1s,cee.111 $15.201 ,020 215 MISC. R\u0026. 75\" S12.8511 12.m $0 27 LOCM.RES. $11,531,120 $13,400,462 S15.0S.311D $15..201,020 2S NO.M.O. 211 M.D.CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $11,531 ,120 $13,400,462 115.09,390 $15.201,020 31 LOC.. RES. RA TE $1,071.24 $1.2~.47 $1,415.54 $1,410.71 32 S8ER $2,754.80 SJ,1-44.28 S3,l31.J7 $3,456.85 33 TASLS RATE $1 613.38 $1 588.11 $1918.'3 S2 048.t, 3' TOT.WPA S1L120 Ga ~079.2117 S203U14'1 !22 !ML 071 35 IIIFPAatAHGe $1H.l..124 $312-.lla $159.nt 3' .ADOfflONAL FUNDING 37 TEAC\u003eER RET. 6 HEM.TH INS. COST \"' 107,741.00 $4.'53,571 .00 $-4,681, 1 !M.00 $4,937,917.00 JI AT RISK $-478. 197.00 $478,197.00 $478,197.00 $478.197.00 39 TR.AHS S5 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1687","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, joint motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a February 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to join motion; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School facilities","School employees","School integration","Students","Student assistance programs","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, joint motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a February 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to join motion; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management 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/1687"],"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":["37 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.  RECEIVED NOV C 1998 Orf!CE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * Defendants. * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. OISTR1crcouRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOVO l 1998 - JAMES W/ McGO~MACK, CLERK By: \\ , C::hl (\\ MUC\\ ' DEP Cl.ERK . On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties have now submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. Accordingly, a hearing on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, January 5, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this J ~ay of November 1998. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON l/-.!1;98 BY :n:: _ 1 The Court contacted a majority of the counsel in this case in an attempt to set an earlier hearing date but was infonned that counsels' schedules prevented such an earlier hearing. The Eighth Circuit has previously indicated that it expects some kind of hearing to be held on many of the issues in this case. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Spec. School Dist., 60 F.3d 435, 436-67 (80, Cir. 1995). 2 - HERSCHEL H . FRIDAY 11922 - 199-41 WILLIAM H . SUTTON , P. A . JAMES W . MOORE BYRON M . EISEMAN , JR .. P.A . JOE O. \u0026Ell , P. A . .. C. ECHOLS, P. A . SA . BUTTRY , P. A . ERICK$ . URSERY , P. A . RE . DAVIS , JR ., P. A . JAMES C. CLARK , JR ., P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT , P. A . J OHN DEWEY WATSON , P. A . PAUL B, BENHAM Ill , P. A . LARRY W . BURKS , P. A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P. A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M . SA X TON , P. A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P. A . DONALD H. BACON , P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P . A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P. A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST , JR ., P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY , P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH , P. A . ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P. A . DIANE S. MACKEY, P. A . WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P.A . KEVIN, A . CRASS , P. A. Wlllf:A.M A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 501 - 376 -2011 FAX NO . 501 - 376 -2147 November 12, 1998 NO\\J 13 1998 Qff\\CEOf o~sa;RtGA1\\0N MOtt\\lOR11'G Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Amended Fee Petition Dear Tim: SCOTT J. LANCASTER , P. A . M . GAYLE CORLEY , P. A . ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR ., P. A . J . LEE BROWN , P. A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR .. P.A . HARRY A. LIGHT , P. A . SCOTT H . TUCKER , P. A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH , P. A . GUY ALTON WADE , P. A . PRICE C . GARONER , P. A . TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 . WILSON , P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF , P. A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR ., P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR TON Y L. WILCOX FRANC . HICKMAN BETTY J . DEMORY BARBARA J . RAND LYNDA M . JOHNSON JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, J R. ALLISON J . CORNWELL TODD A . GREER ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N . RA YDER JASON B. HENDREN SUSANN . CHILDERS BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT Of COUNSH WILLIAM J . SMITH 8 . S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H. T . LARZELERE , P. A . WRITER 'S OIRl!CT NO. (501) 370-1506 I have enclosed our amended fee petition concerning the teacher retirement and health insurance issues . Much of my time was mistakenly left out of the original petition. The problem became apparent to me as I reviewed Sam's and Steve's fee petitions. It took some time for me to retrieve the time records from a general billing number. I apologize for the delay. CJH/k cc: All Counsel Ann Brown - ---- - --- - - Heller 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 l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED NOV 1 3 1998 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONffORINS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS For its amended motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS 1. LRSD is the prevailing party with respect to the teacher retirement and health insurance issues and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD, together with the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District, moved for summary judgment because the State of Arkansas changed its method of funding teacher retirement and health insurance to their detriment and in violation of the settlement agreement in this case. This court granted summary judgment. On July 1, 1998, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this court's order. 2. LRSD now seeks its attorneys' fees and costs expended presenting these issues. LRSD respectfully requests that this court award it reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 3. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously held in this case that fees should be awarded to LRSD for successful litigation enforcing the terms of its settle~ent agreement with the State of Arkansas. Little Rock School Dist. v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 1997). 4. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark has historically billed the Little Rock School District at significantly discounted rates. LRSD is nevertheless entitled to an award of reasonable fees at the rates normally charged by the attorneys who work on behalf of the district. Little Rock School Dist. v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 693, 697-98 (8th Cir. 1997); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 959 F.2d 716 (8th Cir. 1992). 5. LRSD should be awarded the following fees in accordance with the accompanying Affidavit: Christopher Heller - 114.75 hours x $170.00 = $19,507.50. 6. The district court has previously awarded fees to counsel for LRSD at the rate of $160 per hour for work done in 1994 and 1995. Order, December 31, 1997, Docket No. 3101. The fees sought in this petition are calculated at the regular rates for LRSD's lawyer for 1997 and 1998. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has awarded fees to LRSD's lawyer at the rates requested in this petition. 7. LRSD's previous motion for attorneys' fees and costs related to these issues contained significant omissions which were brought to counsel's attention upon the filing of the North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District fee Affidavits. Counsel for ADE was promptly notified that the previous fee petition was incomplete and that an amended fee petition would be filed. F:IHOME\\KATHY\\APPEAL\\1794USDCFccsAmdMot 2 WHEREFORE, LRSD prays for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees of $19,507.50 as set forth in the accompanying Affidavit. 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs has been served on the following on this 12th day of November, 1998: Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIKATHYIAPPEAL\\179-IUSDCFeesAmdMot 3 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 510 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 Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 F:IHOMEIKATHYIAPPEAL\\1794USDCFecsAmdMo\u003c 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL AFFIDAVIT I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: REC IVED NOV 1 3 1998 OFFICE OF l\u0026GREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS 1. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark's billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked on the teacher retirement and health insurance issues as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements has been billed to the Little Rock School District and those bills have been paid. 2. I have been engaged in the private practice oflaw at Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark for seventeen years. My normal hourly billing rate for the period oftime covered by these issues was $170. 00. That rate is in line with the rates typically charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. I was recently awarded fees at this rate for work on these issues in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark-has historically billed the Little Rock School District at significantly discounted rates. For the period of time covered by these issues, the highest hourly rate charged by any partner in the firm for any work on behalf of the Little Rock School District was $125.00, regardless of the partner's experience, ability or regular billing rate. 4. Based on the hours devoted to these appeals multiplied by the regular hourly rates of the participating lawyers, LRSD is entitled to the following fees: Christopher Heller - 114.75 hours x $170.00 = $19,507.50. By: - County of Pulaski) )ss. State of Arkansas) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary Public in and for the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas on this ;.;,... ti- day of November, 1998. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT F:IHOME\\KA THY\\APPEAL11794USDCFeesAmdAlf 2 - - FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs has been served on the following on this 12th day of November, 1998: Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIKATHY\\APPEAL\\1794USDCFccsAmdAff 3 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 Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 F:IHOME\\KA THY\\APPEALll 794USDCFecsA111Aff 4 LETTER TO DR. ROSSELL ENCLOSING DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDRY LEE RE: HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA 4/29/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS RE: TEST SCORE DISPARITY/LOAN ISSUE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STACEY PITTMAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS VARIOUS MATTERS RE: UNITARY STATUS 4/29/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DAVID BESON RE: MEETING 4/29/96 JLM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. LEWIS RE: MGMT TOOL TRAVELED TO LRSD; CONFERRED WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: MGMT TOOL; RETURNED TO OFFICE 4/30/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS (2 CALLS) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUSS MAYO RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED INFORMATION RE: SCALE TEST SCODES; ADE LOAN AGR MEMO FROM DR. MAYO RE: HEARINGS ON COMPLIANCE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED REVISED BUSINESS CASES REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS AND OLD FILES RE: 6 YEAR PLAN ARGUMENT CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: MEETINGS AND MOTION RE: PLAN TERM (2) 4/30/96 JCF FAX FROM DR. MAYO RE: INTERNAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ROSSELL RE: RESEARCH ON ORFIELD AND WALBERG 4/30/96 JLM PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING; CORRESPONDENCE; REVIEWE AND FINALIZED; VARIOUS MATTERS RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL 5/01/96 CJH LETTER FROM ELIZ TURNER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROJECT MGMT TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: ADE MEETING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.00 .25 .25 .25 .25 .75 .25 .25 1.00 .50 .25 .50 .25 .75 1. 25 .50 .25 .50 1.00 .25 .so 27 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH Gi) (Continued on page 28) 5/15/96 CJH 5/15/96 JCF 5/16/96 CJH 5/16/96 JCF 5/17/96 CJH 5/17/96 JCF 5/17/96 RSS WILLIAMS RE: INTERVENTION IN DESEG. CASE REVIEWED ARMOR ARTICLES AND CASES IN WHICH TESTIFIED; PREPARATION FOR TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR PREPARATION AND COURT HEARING EXPERT WITNESS DAVID ARMER; CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL; PREPARATION BRIEF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: ARMOR TESTIMONY PREPARATION OF MOTION TO END JURISDICTION ATTENDED HEARING RE: TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. MAYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY WALKER; THEN WALKER AND J. WRIGHT; CALLS TO SAM AND STEVE; CALL TO WILLIAMS AND MAYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STACY PITTMAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANNA RE: BEACH REQUEST TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. MAYO RE: DOCUMENTATION OF SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE AREAS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF BRIEF RE: COMPLIANCE; JURISDICTION REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS RE: SIX YEAR ARGUMENT PREPARATION OF MOTION FOR END OF JURISDICTION MEETING WITH ADE, PCSSD, NULRSD AND LRSD RE: NEW STATE FUNDING FORMULA: THEN CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT COUNSEL RESEARCHED AND FINAL PREPARATION AND REVISION OF MOTION AND BRIEF RE: FED. CT. JURISDICTION; REPORTED TO CLIENTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SCOTT TROTTER'S OFFICE PREPARATION OF MOTION TO END JURISDICTION REVIEWED DRAFT BRIEF Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 2.00 2.50 9.50 .so .so 4.75 3.00 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .so 8.75 1.50 8.00 6.25 .25 7.50 .75 34 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 35) 5/29/96 JCF 5/29/96 JLM 5/30/96 CJH 5/30/96 JCF 5/31/96 CJH FEES LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: COMM-CASE PREPARATION FOR ORFIELD TESTIMONY; REVIEWED ARTICLES AND CASES; CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL; AND TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES CONFERENCE WITH KRIS BABER LETTER FROM JOINT WALKER RE: DEPOSITIONS LETTER FROM JOINT WALKER RE: DEPOSITIONS CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: HEARING PREPARATION REVIEWED ARTICLE BY ORFIELD RE: PREPARATION FOR HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARDI WATTS RE: ORFIELD TRANSCRIPT CONFERENCE CALL WITH DR. ROSSELL, CJH AND ATTY. SAM JONES RE: HEARING PREPARATION REVIEWED HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT NUMBERS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: DATA ENTRY TRAVELED TO LRSD; ATTENDED MEETING RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL: RETURNED TO OFFICE PREPARATION AND APPEARED AT TRIAL - EXPERT TESTIMONY OF GARY ORFIELD; THEN HEARING RE: DISCOVERY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: PCSSD CLAIM LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: M TOM ISSUE CONFERENCE WITH JUDGE WRIGHT RE: DEPOS. OF DR . WILLIAMS AND DR. MAYO ATTENDED HEARING; TESTIMONY OF DR. ORFIELD; LUNCH MEETING WITH CJH; ATTY. JONES REVIEWED MILLIKEN OPINIONS; CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PREPARATION FOR TESTIMONY Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .25 8.50 .25 .25 .25 1.50 4.50 .25 1.25 1.25 1.00 9.75 .25 .25 .25 .75 7.00 OF ORFIELD 1.75 38 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH PREPARATION AND APPEARED FOR HEARING G) RE: ADE FUNDING ISSUE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD FOIA REQUEST 5 (Continued on page 39) RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: JOSHUA RESPONSE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLERK RESEARCHED POSSIBLE CLAIMS VS ADE ER BREACH OF SETTLEMENT; CALL TO MARK MILHOLLEN 5/31/96 JCF ATTENDED HEARING RE: SCHEDULE ON FUNDING ISSUES ORGANIZED MATERIALS FOR EXPERT FILES USE DURING HEARINGS CONFERENCE WITH ATTY. STEVE JONES RE: FILING JOINT MOTION ON FUNDING ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BOB CONNOLLY RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARINGS 5/31/96 JLM PREPARATION OF PLEADING AND CORRESPONDENCE; VARIOUS MATERS RE: Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 39 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH ~~ ~ .25 .25 .25 PROJECT MGMT TOOL Total Services 1.00 897.75 $86053.75 ANDREW T. TURNER CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER DEBORAH K. MOORE JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY JERRY LEE MALONE JANE MARIE WEISENFELS ROBERTS. SHAFER WALTER A. PAULSON WILLIAM H. SUTTON BINDING EXPENSE COURT REPORTER DISBURSEMENT RE: DEPOSITION EXPENSE EXPRESS MAIL COPY CHARGES FILE PREPARATION - - 1. 75 494.00 26.00 321.75 26.75 3.00 21.50 .50 2.50 X 85.00 = 148.75 X 105.01 = 51874.94 X 45.00 = 1170.00 X 85.00 = 27348.75 X 105.00 = 2808.75 X 45.00 = 135.00 X 105.00 = 2257.50 X 105.01 = 52.51 X 105.01 = 262.53 108.25 1371.00 17.00 2528.40 16.80 2335.20 126.00 {Continued on page 40) - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM \u0026 IZARD STREETS LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PULASKI CTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST NO. 1 5/28/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION AND BRIEF 6/02/96 JCF REVIEWED BUSINESS CASES AND TENTATIVE 96-97 BUDGET 6/03/96 CJH LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROJECT MGMT TOOL PREPARATION AND MEETING WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: CLAIM AGAINST STATE: CONFERENCE WITH JCF RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: FEES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED DOCUMENTS FROM MILHOLLEN; RESEARCH AND PREPARATION OF CLAIM AGAINST STATE 6/03/96 JCF FAX FROM DR. ROSSELL RE: SERVICES CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: NEW FUNDING FORMULA ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BOB CONNOLLY RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA PREPARED FORMAT FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA; FAXED TO BOB CONNOLLY 6/04/96 CJH LETTER TO DR. JOEL ANDERSON LETTER TO BILL BEAVEN CONFERENCE WITH STEVE ENGSTROM RE: WALKER FEES; REVIEWED FILE; EXCHANGED INFORJATION; RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FEE DOCUMENTS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF MOTION AND BRIEF OF ADE Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .so 2.50 .25 .so e 65 2.50 .25 . 25 .so .25 .25 1.50 8 1 -129263 7/30/96 . 000090-CJH (Continued on page 2) 6/04/96 JCF 6/05/96 CJH 6/05/96 JCF 6/06/96 JCF 6/07/96 JCF 6/10/96 CJH 6/10/96 JCF PREPARATION AND MEETING WITH BIRACIAL COMM. PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EXCUSE RIGGS FROM BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF LAST BUDGET HEARING; PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF LRSD MOTION AND BRIEF; CALL TO SAM JONES; DON STEWART; MARK MILHOLLEN, REVIEWED AND REIVSED; FILED RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION TO EXTEND RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED BUDGET AND BUSINESS CASES; PREPARATION OF OUTLINE FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND RECRUITMENT MATERIALS; PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING ATTENDED BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED BUSINESS CASES; CONFERENCE WITH MR. MILHOLLEN RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED JOSHUA'S MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS LETTER FROM SAM JONES WITH REVISED BRIEF RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION AND BRIEF LETTER FROM MR. GANS RE: ADE APPEAL RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORY RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION FOR HEARING ON JOSHUA FEE ISSUE REVIEWED ODM AND JOSHUA REPORTS CITED IN JOSHUA MOTION - PREPARATION OF RESPONSE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: BUDGET HEARING PRINTED NEW 8TH CIR. OPINION RE: BURDEN Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.25 .25 3.75 G .25 .75 6.00 1. 50 6.75 .50  .25 @) 2.25 3.00 .25 2 -129263 7/30/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 3) INCENTIVE SCHOOL OBLIGATIONS 6/26/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ED JACKSON; CLAY FENDLEY; REVIEWED DESEG. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF FEE PETITION VARIOUS MATTERS RE: UNITARY STATUS DATA; MONITORING REPORTS: RESPONSE TO WALKER; REVIEWED NEW CASES 6/26/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH DEANA RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL RESPONSE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL REVIEWED PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL FOR FY 97 AND FY 98 REVIEWD SUMMARY OF INCENTIVE SCHOOL OBLIGATIONS PREPARED BY DEANA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. LEWIS RE : PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL 6/27/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FAX FROM TIM GAUGER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. GAUGER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FAX FROM BOB MORGAN CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY RE: SERVICEMASTER BRIEF PREPARATION OF MOTION RE: ATTORNEY FEES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TERESA CALDWELL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY KOWLER'S OFFICE 6/27/96 JCF PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOY SPRINGER RE: JOSHUA MONITORING REPORTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH FRETA ROGERS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA 6/28/96 CJH LETTER FROM ANGEL JONES WITH NOTICE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE MOTION 6/28/96 DKMP REVIEWED SUMMARY OF MONITORING REPORT Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .75 2.25 1. 75 1.50 .50 1.00 3.50 .25 6 -129263 7/30/96 .000090-CJH db .25 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 0 (Continued on page 7) - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM \u0026 IZARD STREETS LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PULASKI CTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST NO. 1 7/01/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES 7/01/96 DKMP PREPARATION OF SUMMARY OF REPORTS 7/01/96 JCF RECEIVED AND REVIEWED ACHIEVEMENT DATA FROM FRETA ROGERS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA FROM AUDREY LEE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH FRETA ROGERS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT REPORTS 7/02/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: ADE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: FEE PETITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES REVIEWED EXPERT TRANSCRIPTS 7/03/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: ODM RECOMENDATIONS VARIOUS MATTERS RE: PLAN MODIFICATIONS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; RESEARCHED APPEAL ISSUES R:E MOTION TO DISMISS/ SERVICEMASTER 7/03/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: KANSAS CITY AGREEMENT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MO. AG'S OFFICE 7/05/96 CJH REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS RE: PLAN MODIFICATION 7/08/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JIM HATHAWAY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DIXON FLAKE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: HEARING REVIEWED INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 YR OLD AND KINDERGARTEN INFORMATION; CALL TO Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .so 6.00 .25 . 25 ci95 d!, I 5 1.00 3.25 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .25 (Continued on 1 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH page 2) CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: MEETING TO DISCUSS MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN CONFERENCE WITH CJH AND JULIE WIEDOWER RE: MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ARMOR RE: PREPARING NEW STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN REVIEWED STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN; PREPARED DRAFT MODIFICATIONS BASED ON EXPERT HEARINGS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JULIE WIEDOWER RE: MEETING TO DISCUSS MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN REVIEWED MONITORING REPORTS; PREPARATION OF OUTLINE OF OBLIGATIONS RE: SCHOOL THEMES, MULITCULTURAL EDUC., FOREIGN LANG., SCIENCE LABS AND FIELD TRIPS 7/18/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER VARIOUS MATTERS RE: CREATION OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF UNITARY STATUS; PLAN MODICIATIONS  TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RESEARCHED AMEND 59, AMEN. 1 AND OTHER SCHOOL FINANCE ISSUES; CONFERENCE WITH SCHOOL DISTRICUT COUNSEL AND FINANCE OFFICIALS CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: MOTIONS AND SCHEDULING 7/18/96 JCF REVIEWED AND REVISED OUTLINE OF OBLIGATIONS PREPARED BY DEANA RESEARCHED IMPACT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON TERMINATION OF CONSENT DECREE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANA RE: PRINTING AUDIT RESULTS BY DOCUMENT PAGE NUMBER 7/19/96 JCF REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCHED POWER OF FEDERAL COURT TO Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .75 1.00 1.25 .25 3.25 .25 1. so .25 .25 4 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH @ .25 4.25 2.75 .25 .75 (Continued on page 5) SUA SPONTE MODIFY CONSENT DECREE REVIEWED ODM REQUIREMENTS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND CORROLATED WITH LRSD OBLIGATION ID NUMBERS REVIEWED ORDER RE: JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS; PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS 7/22/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ANDERSON 7/23/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCHED INTERVENTION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE REVIEWED FURTHER REVIEW OF ADE DISCOVERY RESPONSES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DRAFT INTERROGATORIES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE MOTIN TO DISMISS/ABSTAIN WITH BRIEF 7/23/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PATTY KOHLER RE: RESCHLEY REPORT AND LRSD DATA 7/24/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JULIE WEIDOMIER RE: S/A INFORMATION; LAIDLAW SOFTWARE FOR MANIP. S/A DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCHED AND CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL RE: INTERVENTION; ROSS. DISCOVERY; RESPONSE LETTER FROM SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS 7/24/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON RE: BUDGETING TOOL 7/25/96 CJH LETTER FROM ANN BROWN RE: LRSD BUDGET LETTER FROM STEVE JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION AND BRIEF 7/26/96 CJH RESEARCHED WHITE FLIGHT ISSUES; NEW Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1. 75 4.00 .50 GJ .25 0 .25 ~ .so 1.25 .25 .25 .75 ey .75 .25 .25 .25 .so 5 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 6) 8TH CIR. CASE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: ENDING ISSUES; INTERVENTION RESEARCHED ADE REGS AND STATUTES RE: SCHOOL FUNDING CONFERENCE WITH JCF (2) RE: RESEARCH ISSUES 7/28/96 CJH LETTER TO DR. ANDERSON RE: NLR MOTION REVIEWED DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY ADE CONTINUED REVIEWED STATE PLEADINGS AND FILES RE: ADE FINANCIAL ISSUES 7/29/96 CJH RESEARCHED AND REVIEWED DOCUMENTS AND ADE PLEADINGS RE:O FUNDING AND INTERVENTION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES MEMO FROM SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ANALYSIS OF ARK. SCHOOL FUNDING PLAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE 7/29/96 JCF REVIEWED GREY BOOK; REVIEWED FY 97 AND FY 98 BUDGET TOOL 7/30/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES VARIOUS MATTERS RE: ADE FUNDING ISSUES; COMPLIANCE; ODM REPORTS; GOOMED REPORT 7/31/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ANDERSON LETTER FROM SAM JONES LETTER FROM GUS TAYLOR RE: MEDIATION PREPARATION OF MOTION TO RELEASE SEATS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: LAKE VIEW BUDGET 7/31/96 JCF PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING OF BUDGET TOOL CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: BUDGET TOOL REVIEWED INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM; REVIEWED AUDIT OF OBLIGATIONS RE: PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 8/01/96 CJH REVIEWED AND FINALIZED MOTION LETTER FROM ELIZ TURNER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROD MGMT TOOL Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.00 G \u003c9 .50 .25 G;; ~ ~ .25 ~--2~0 1. 75 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 1.25 2.75 .50 .25 .50 6 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 7) RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DRAFT RESPONSE 8/01/96 JCF RESEARCHED APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT DECREE REVIEWED AUDIT OF DESEG. OBLIGATIONS RE: PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 8/02/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH GRAM JONES; RECEIVED REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; REVIEWED AND CORRECTION; CALL TO SAM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BARRY WARD RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MEM. BRIEF OPPOSIVE END . OF FED JONES; CONFERENCE WITH JCF 8/02/96 JCF REVIEWED JOSHUA RESPONSE TO MOTION TO END JURISDICTION PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PREPARATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO JOSHUA RESPONSE TO MOTION TO END JURISDICTION 8/05/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION TO CLARIFY 1993 ORDER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MOTION, BRIEF IN SUPPORT; ANS RESPONSE TO ANSWER FILED BY POTENTIAL INTERVENTOR CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: RESPONSE TO JOSHUA RE: COMPLIANCE (2) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DENT GITCHER LETTER TO DENT GITCHER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: ORFIELD TRANSCRIPTS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED BIRACIAL, COMM. MONITORING INST. VARIOUS MATTERS RE: RESPONSE TO JOSHUA OTIONS; RESEARCHED; PREPARATION OF RESPONSE 8/05/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL RESPONSE Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS Q 2.25 2.50 G 1.50 1.00 6.50 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .50 3 . 25 .50 7 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 8) 8/06/96 CAAC 8/06/96 CJH 8/06/96 JCF 8/07/96 CJH 8/07 /96 JCF 8/08/96 CJH RESEARCHED STANDARD AND REMEDIES FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT COPIED CASES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION AND BRIEF RE: CLASS BRIEFS PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO WALKER PLEADINGS; REVIEWED DRAFTS; CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD RESPONSE TO ADE; BRIEF REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING RE: JUNE 5, 1992 ODM REPORT PREPARATION OF DRAFT RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARATION OF BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTIONS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCHED WHETHER FINDING OF CONTEMPT REQUIRED FOR COURT TAKE ENFORCMENT ACTION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STERLING INGRAM LETTER FROM TIM GAUGER RE: PRIVILEGE DOCUMENTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BEVERLY (2 CALLS) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BARRY WARD TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCH CLASS ACTION ISSUES REVIEWED FY 96 BUDGET HEARING TRANSCRIPT RE: SPANISH PROGRAM PREPARATION OF BRIEF RE: JOSHUA MOTION ON ODM RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCHED BURDEN OF PROOF ISSUE RE: JOSHUA MOTIONS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS TELEPHONE CONFERNECE WITH STERLING INGRAM RE: MEETING ON JOSHUA MOTIONS AND SPANISH PROGRAM PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO WALKER PLEADINGS RE : INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND ODM, CONFERENCE WITH JCF AND REVIEWED AND REVISED DRAFTS Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 4.75 .75 .25 .so 1.00 GP 1.50 1.50 2.50 4.00 .25 .25 .so .25 1.00 .75 4.25 3.50 .25 1.00 8 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH {Continued on page 9) RECONSTRUCTING SOFTWARE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA OPPOSITION TO PCSSD MOTION RE: CLASS STILES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE. - INTERVENTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: VARIOUS MOTIONS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED KNIGHT MOTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD FEE MOTION; BRIEF; AFFIDAVIT RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD SUPPLEMENTAL TO PLAN MOD. MOTION EXHIBITS 8/20/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM DAVIS RE: STATE HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KENT GITENER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ED JACKSON RE: BIRACIAL ADK, REVIEWED FILE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORFIELD TRANSCRIPT AND SENT COPY TO DENT GITCHELL, LARRY BARWAY 8/21/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE TO PCSSD WITH BRIEF REVIEWED FOR AND PREPARATION FOR LAKEVIEW HEARING RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MANUAL FOR FEES AND COSTS 8/22/96 CJH ATTENDED CLASS CERT HEARING IN LAKE VIEW CASE; CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2); REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS 8/22/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH LARRY BURKLEY RE: STATUS PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING 4TH QUARTER PBD TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SHIRLEY LEWIS RE: 4TH QUARTER PBD REVIEWED AND SUMMARIZED VOLUME I OF TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID ARMOR 8/23/96 CJH CONFERENCE WITH LR ADVANCE RE: VARIOUS DESEG AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT ISSUES; Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .50 .50 .50 .25 .50 .75 10 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (35 .75 .50 1. 75 .25 .50 .25 .25 2.50 (Continued on page 11) 8/23/96 JCF 8/25/96 CJH 8/26/96 CJH 8/26/96 JCF 8/27 /96 CJH CONFERENCE WITH JCF CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED 1996-1997 FINAL BUDGET RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF BUDGET HEARING RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED LRSD STATUS AND PROGRAM PLANNING DOCUMENTS PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: ZONE BLOCK MAPS REVIEWED AND SUMMARIZED VOLUME II OF TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR CONFERENCE WITH CJH, STACEY PITTMAN AND BAKER KURRUS RE: IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATION OF ALLIANCE VARIOUS MATTERS RE: CLAIMS VS ADE; RESPONSES TO INTERVENORS; LAKE VIEW AND BUDGET ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES; REVIEWED DRAFTS LETTER TO STERLING  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1391","title":"Report: ''Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1998-10-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School integration","School management and organization","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1391"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["117 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1675","title":"Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to PCSSD's motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, report of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) assessment of the equitable allocation of resources; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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":["1998-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to PCSSD's motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, report of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) assessment of the equitable allocation of resources; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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/1675"],"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":["21 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.  RECEn,eo RECEJVE,:, - OCT 8 1998 JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 8 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ~\\ EASTERN I\u003eISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  .  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v.   No~ LR-C-82-866 : PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  .... . . .. l .  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. -DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S   .. ; ... _ - . _. . . . . . . \" 'MOTIO. N T. .O . EN-F.O RC.E T. HE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT   - AS REGARDS MFPA\" . On September 8, PCSSD filed a \"Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement As - Regards MFPA.\"'  Attached to PCSSD's motion is an-unauthenticated exhibit that . purports to demonstrate that PCSSD received less state aid during fiscal years 1997 through 1999 than PCSSD \"would have received\" if the States' public school funding system had not been changed during the l995 legislative session and thereafter.1 In the purported motion, PCSSD does not cite to a single provision of the Settlement Agreement th~t has allegedly bee:. violated.  Instead, PCSSD -relies exclusively on language in the Eighth Circuit's July l, 1998 opinion concerning the . narrow issues of teacher retirement and health insurance funding and argues that, \"to . '. PCSSD~s \"motion~.does not contain any affidavit o~ declaration explai~ing who created the exhibit, explaining the ,- -~urce ~ta'or method6logy used, or explaining ~hat assuritptioris were made.in arriving at the alleged\" Act 34 . :     . , ~t~orri~~ for fiscaryears 1_997 through'. i999: f.s: such, even if P\u003c;Ssps m~tioii were in the nature of a motion for . ..  summary judgmen~ ~ibit A to PCSSD's motion could not~ con~idered ~ evidence and could not be relied upon ... , ~to support any)t~ding ofliability on ih~ part of ADE . See Wright, ~1iller \u0026 Kime, .Federal Practice and Procedure:  Civil 3d 2723; -.,~-390 ( 1998) (\"{T]he court may riot take cognizance of positions regarding the facts based on 1  ,' comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals,\" PCSSD must be held harmless from any alleged adverse effect of the overall change in the funding system. Thus, although it is styled as a \"motion,\" PCSSD's latest filing is in fact a thinly-veiled attempt to file yet another brief on the \"teacher retirement\" and \"health insurance\" remedy issue currently . pending before this Court, in contravention of this Court's established briefing schedule. PCSSD's \"motion\" should therefore be stricken as untimely and not considered by the Court. In its earlier submissions to this Court, ADE has presented its arguments as to the appropriate method for calculating the \"remedy\" on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance. However, in the event.this Court accepts PCSSD's latest filing as an additional submission on the teacher retirement and health insurance \"remedy\" issue, ADE requests that it be given the opportunity to submit evidence and argument concerning the accuracy and appropriateness of PCSSD' s \"Act 34\" calculations for fiscal years 1997 through 1999, and concerning the appropriateness of PCSSD's suggested method for calculating an appropriate teacher retirement and health insurance \"'remedy.\"  Finally, even if the Court were to treatPCSSD's submission.as a motion separate and apart from the pending . proceedings on the retirement and health insurance remedy, . PCSSD's motion should be summarily denied. As noted earlier, PCSSD's motion does not identify a single provision of the Settlement Agreement that has :exJ.tibits that arc merely part of the brief and have not been otherwise verified or supported.\").; see also Fed. R. Evid. 801,802 and 901. 2 allegedly been violated, and therefore the motion fails to state a claim upon which relief niy be granted as against ADE. Further, PCSSD's latest motion appears to be a rehash of the unsuccessful motion for summary_ judgment PCSSD filed late last year. See PC5.5P's \"Separate Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of the State Funding Formula,\" filed September 2, 1997. This Court denied that motion on January 12, 1998, because 1'there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding fon;nula\" (see Docket Entry No. 3104), and PCSSD's most recent motion should be denied for the same reason.  Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMOT Assistant Attorney General : 323- Center Street, Suite 200 ,_, - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for  :Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I, Timothy qauger, . certify that on October -6, 1998, I caused a copy of the .. foregoing . document to be  served by first class U.S. Mail~ postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated:  M. Samuel Jones, III . Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings ~-\\ . .\" 2000 NationsBank Plaz.a .  200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. . 1723 Broadway     Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell    401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock; AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 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 Ann Brown -; _ Office of.Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 I .OCT 7 Fil r.:p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .. L-: --' -~~Glr llB8WireBAllomMIDI~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANsAs9n OCT - 7 PN L. WESTERNDMSION J.t'.f;'~-.:: l, , ,.. \" I  19 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATIIBRINE KNIGHT, ET AL REPORT OF LRSD'S ASSESSMENT U ::  .. , . I ,!,t. n ~r' 1 ~., . .). u;-; , ,. c\" .  '.!,/, , r, ;\",, [( v , ~, f C -'1 -r \"'\"- L. l \\ f\\ BY .J ,1 I , AR. ---s~-U' 1 7:~~~IFF '\" '  l, Lt.RK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS OF THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Report ofLRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") requires that LRSD assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district and report the results of this assessment within 180 days of the district court's approval of the Revised Plan. Revised Plan 2.9.2. The district court approved the Revised Plan on April 10, 1998. Docket No. 3144. Accordingly, LRSD's report of the assessment of the allocation of resources was to be completed on or before October 7, 1998. LRSD files this report in compliance with the Revised Plan. 2. LRSD assessed the allocation of its resources by way of a committee composed of district administrators and staff persons and representatives of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\").1 The committee first worked to determine what \"resources\" should be assessed. In this regard, the committee looked to available research in the area of school resources. Based on the available research and the committee's collective education and experience, the committee decided to assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district by examination often factors: (1) pupil/teacher ratio; (2) pupil/staff ratio; (3) square feet per pupil; ( 4) percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; (5) the turnover rate of certified staff; (6) school size; (7) the computer/pupil ratio; (8) per pupil expenditure; (9) volunteer hours per pupil; and, (10) donations per pupil. 3. Pupil/Teacher Ratio. Research indicates that smaller class sizes (15 or less to 1 ) may improve achievement of minority students. See,~ Nye, B.A, Achilles, C.M., Zaharias, J.B., Fulton, B.D., Wallenhorst, M.P., Small Is Far Better, Paper presented at Mid-South Educ. Res. Ass'n, Knoxville, Tenn. (Nov. 13, 1992). The committee measured its pupil/teacher ratio using October 1, 1997 enrollment and certified staff at the school excluding administrators, counselors and librarians. The committee decided to exclude four-year-old classes, which have a smaller pupil/teacher ratio, because not all LRSD schools have four-year-old classes. 4. Pupil/Staff Ratio. The committee also wanted to include a measure which would recognize the importance of school administrators and other support staff at a school. In addition to certified teachers, this factor includes all other school based personnel with the exception of 1The committee members were as follows: Dr. Victor Anderson, Associate Superintendent for Operations; Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Services; Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services; Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services; Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services; Brady Gadberry, Special Assistant to the Superintendent; Dr. Ed Williams, Research Specialist and Statistician; Ann Brown, Federal Desegregation Monitor; Skip Marshall, Associate Federal Desegregati9n Monitor; and, Gene Jones, Associate Federal Desegregation Monitor. 2 federal and food service employees. As with teachers, a lower pupil/staff ratio is considered more favorable with the goal being equity in the staffing formula. 5. Sguare Feet Per Pupil. The committee found that the school overcrowding can have a negative impact on student achievement. The Council of Education Facility Planning standards recommends 90 sq. ft. per pupil for elementary schools, 120 sq. ft. per pupil for middle schools and 145 sq. ft. per pupil for high schools. Using 3D International's 1995 Facilities Master Plan Study, the committee assessed schools based on the number of square feet per pupil with the assumption that the more space the better. Students in schools below the standard may not have adequate instructional space. 6. Percentage of staff with a masters degree plus and nine. In a 1990 study, researchers found that African-American student performance improved when teachers had strong language skills, nine or more years of experience and a master's degree or higher. Ferguson, R, Racial patterns in how school and teacher quality affect achievement and learning, In Challenge: A Journal of Research on Black Men (1990). Based on this study, the committee decided to measure the allocation of quality teachers by considering the percentage of teachers at a school with at least a masters degree plus nine years of experience. A higher percentage of being more favorable. 7. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff. Low turnover among certified staff plays an important role in building a strong and committed teaching staff and a strong base of parental and community support. High turnover, on the other hand, often results in an inexperienced teaching staff. See,~ Newmann, F.M. and Wehlage, G.G., Successful School Restructuring (1995). The committee calculated the turnover rate by comparing the number of new teachers at a school 3 (both new hires and transfers) to the total number of teachers at a school. The schools were then ranked based on the percentage of new teachers with the assumption that low turnover was most favorable. 8. School size. Recent studies indicate that school size, like class size, may impact student achievement. See,~ Howley, C.B., Synthesis of the effects of school and district size, What research says about achievement in small school and school districts, 41 Journal of Rural and Small Schools 2 (1989). Small schools promote better personal relationships between staff, students, parents and the community. Student morale tends to be higher because of a feeling of belonging. Teachers communicate better with each other and know students better allowing them to teach in a more individualized way. In assessing school size, the committee simply looked at the each school's enrollment and ranked the schools under the assumption that smaller was better. 9. Computer/Pupil Ratio. The committee developed the computer/pupil ratio as a proxy for assessing technological resources as provided for in the Revised Plan. LRSD has already begun implementation of its technology plan designed to bring the district in line with state and national technology standards. The ratio includes only network compatible computers in schools by September 22, 1998. A higher computer/student ratio was considered more favorable. 10. Per Pupil Expenditure. Pouring money into a school provides no guarantee of improving improved achievement. Even so, per pupil expenditure is perhaps the most commonly used factor for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. The committee calculated each school's per pupil expenditures based on the school's discretionary funds. This excluded expenditures for salaries, benefits, utilities and federal funding provided under Title I and for food 4 service. To prevent outliers based on extraordinary expenditures, the committee used a three year moving average for expenditures. 11. Volunteer Hours Per Pupil. Volunteer hours per pupil indicate the degree of parental and community involvement at a school. Authorities recognize the importance of parental and community involvement in school success. See. u., Graue. M.E . Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H.J., School Based Home Reinforcement Programs: A Quantitative Synthesis, 76 Journal Educ. Res. 351 (1983). Volunteer hours by school were obtained from the LRSD VIPS department. 12. Donations Per Pupil. Like volunteer hours. donations indicate the degree of parental and community involvement at a school. Donations may also fill in gaps left due to inadequate discretionary funding provided to a school by the district. Only donations accepted by the LRSD Board of Directors were considered. 13. Exhibit 1 contains the results of the committee's assessment of each of these factors for each school in the district. 14. The committee also undertook to determine whether any relationship existed between the resources allocated to a school and the percentage of African-American students attending a school. The committee enlisted Dr. Ed Williams ofLRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department to determine if such a relationship existed. Using statistical measures, Dr. Williams combined the ten factors in order to assign each school a composite score. See Exhibit 2, \"Equitable Allocation Worksheet\" and \"Composite School Scores.\" Dr. Williams then compared each school's composite score to the school's percentage of African-American students. See Exhibit 2. \"Correlations.\" Dr. Williams concluded that there was no significant 5 relationship between the racial makeup of a school and the amount of resources allocated to the school. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 6 stopher Heller (#81083) C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 7th day of October, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Banlc Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A 425 W. Capito~ Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 EQUITY INDICATORS 1. Pupil/ Teacher Ratio Less Than 15 2. Pupil/ Starr Ratio Less Than 9 3. Sq. Ft./ Pupil : Elem 90, Jr 120, Sr 145 4. % or Starr w/ 9 yrs \u0026 Masters Degree 5. Turnover Rate or Certified Stafr 6. School Size 7. Computer/ Pupil Ratio 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 9. Volunteer Hours / Pupil 10. Donations / Pupil -... 1 ,I.D.. I  ::z: X Ill 1-.-.... .,,.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ... - . ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES   - - . 10-07-98  -  -.  OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLLMENT . TOTAL TEACH PUP-PIK PUP-PIK -   -  PIK  K  T 12 tor TOT-PIK sL  WH 0TH roT 0/4BL % WH o,,;;OTH F.T.I~:- F.T.E. i STAFF \"{TEACH HIGHSCHOC\u003eLS .  - -   .. .. .. -    . ........ .  -  -     -- -.. ---- - -- ... - ---            - -  -  -- -       --- --- -- -- . .  - - -- . . - - - -- - - ....    --- --  -- -- - - - . CENTRAL 34 1821 1855 1855 1101 705 49 1855 59% 38% 3% 147.94 100.14 HALL ...  . .... . .. -  --  - 7  783 790 790 561 179 - -so ... 790 . 'h0io -23/~ --- .6io --- .. g-,fgQ 62.70    - - - - - - -  ---   .    --   - --  - - -------- - .. - - .. - - - --- . FAIR 757 757 757 612 137 8 757 81% 18% 1% 82.50 53.20 9.18 McCLELLAN -----  -- -  .. -  935 ___ _ 935 935 790 121 ... 24 -  g35 84i~ --faiii., ____ .. 3% ____ ___ 98.'fo _ .. __ 65.90 - .  9.53 PARKVIEW ... ... -... . ...... - - - 9f1 .... 'gd 911 464 403 44  911 51% 44/~ --- s0/o ---ag~io. - S!'i.40 10.21 12.54 8.32 18.52 12.60 14.23 14.19 TOTAL   ... .. . -- - ---  - o 41 5207 -524.8 5248 3528 1545 175 \"52,ia 6ii'lo - 29%  ' \"310 - sh64 341 .34 10.24 15.34 jiJNioR HIGH-sdfo'6U,-- -- -.. _.. ---.. .. - . - .   -- -   ---- -- -   - ..  -  -...  - .. ___ 15. 37 DUNBAR -  -- - .. --        - 771 771  .,_771 442 ... 282 - 47 771 57% 37% 6o/o .... . 70.io- FOREST HEIGHTS . .. . .... _  648 648 648 452 178 18 648 70% 27% 3% 73.90 PULASKfHEIGHTS - -    - -- - - - -  -767 --757 --  i67 - 437 315 - 15  - 757 . 57/~ -41% -- 2/4 .. _. 76.80 soui'i-lWEst  -  - ---.. -- - -- -- -- -- - --- -5fo .... sfo --s10 --- ,i2i5 -.... 65 ----19 - .. . 5fo . 84% 13% - 4/0 -- 6Ci.o6 HENDERSON-- --- ... __________ ___ -   - . 724 --124 .  - 724 624 83 11 . ---724 . 86% . 11% 2% . --1tf i:m CLOVERDALE   . . .. .. . .. - ..... -- -  622 622  -  622  - 552 36 34 622 89% .. .... i3/4  - ... 5% . ... 53jm- MABELVALE .. . . - _,. - .. -  .. 506 506 506 380 119 7 506 75% 24% 1% .. . . 61.36 MANN .  ....  - . .. ... ... - -    - - 85a - a58 858 446 375 37 858 .. sioj~ ---44% 4/0 . - . iff!i.1f totAL ... ...  - -     -   - -- a --o 5406 5406  -- s,foi3 3159 1453 rn4 5406 10% 21% 4% 564.90 ELEMENTARY SCHoocs -.. -   -- - . - .. - . - -- . - -- - - --- . .. . . ...... - . --- .. - .. .. .. 48.80 51 .30 56.30 42.40 53.30 44.80 41 .90 58.30 397.10 BALE ..  --   - 35  s1 . -216 362 327 265  11  26 362 73% 20% . . 1% .. 42.20 23.30 BRADY .. .. . ........ ----- -- - - - ---;a --56 - 298 .372 ....... .. 354 \"\"235 ....... 94 .. 43 - 372 \"tbii/4 - -25/o --f2% --- 35~io 20.30 BADGETT - . . ....... --  ---- ---- -31 ---jg ---163 233 -- -202  -214 -Tg ..... - i:33 \".92% -- --a;~ -- ---c:i'0/4 --- - 2O.io  15.30 McDER.MOTT ...... ... .. ...... ...    54 423 ,iii  \"\"4f7 .... 273 181 ... 23 ---- 4ii -s1io -- 380/o - .... s0;; .. .. 43.30 26.90 BASELINE :: : :~::;: -.-~:.::::~: -~::.~_: -~~5 ::-:~~ _=_2_~4 .: - -323  2aa -267  38 -  10  - Jij  83/o ---120,,~ ---- 5io . .. 3cf96 . 18) 0 FAIR .. PARK 36 36 176 248 -- -i12  ---188 50 10 248 75iij.  -20% 4% 27.00 1:i:ifo . FOREST PARK  -  .... ...    .. .. Si  373 430 430 205 219 6 430 48% 51% . . 1/~ 38.00 23.00 CHIC6T - .. . . ...... -- -- --.. - js -sg ---,i43 5j7 ------ --soi 370 . T21 46 537 -69% ---23i~ .... 9% ---- s9-:fo .. -29:40 WESTERNHILLS ...  - - .. -- - -jg --216 .... jfa --- 315 ... 222 91 2 315 70% 29% 1% -- 29~30  - 1 i:1O JEFFEl'fsoN ,   - --    --   Ka  --455 - sfa ....  ... 5f3  221 219 1 54% 1% 44 .oo 21.10 CLOVERDALE . .. . .... .. -35   ii 404 512 476   469  3ci 13 6% 3% 41 .10 .. 24 .30 6'600 -   -- .. _.   - ......  - 2.; :2oci  224 ----- 224 145 14 5 \"J3i~ -  iii. --- 30:cio 11.30   -  --    -   -    --- . - ........ .. - - -  . . . . . . - - -  [,~~:~:!:::$ r ~! i ;i I~: :~ mm 2 ~: H ~;m :~ !;!i ~rn 513 44% 512 92% 224 65% 332 79% 658 54% 316 75% . .1..0 .98 8.77 9.99 8.50 9.41 9.73 8.25 10.48 9.57 7.75 9.78 7.14 - --1-1 .02 7.80 7.05 ...1.. 1 .32 8.48 10.75 11 .66 .1.1. .58 7.47 10.18 8.36 8.26 15.80 12.63 13.62 12.03 13.58 13.88 12.08 14.72 13.61 14.03 17.44 . . - ~ . . .. - 13.20 17.73 15.40 15.25 18.70 17.07 18.42 18.93 19.59 12.95 17.95 14.68 16.73 LITTLE ROC. . K.. ..S CHOOL DISTRICT  - . ... -..   -  ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98   - .. OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLiMEt-ii'         TOTAL TEACH PUP-P/K PUP-P/K   -     PIK K 1-12 TOT TOT-PiK al wH 0TH TOT % BL % WH 0;{ 0TH F.T.E. F:t.i:. I STAFF /TEACH PULASKI HEIGHTS     -   ... 4.0 424   464 464 254 193   17 464 55%  42io  - 4io  . 39.20 22.90 11.84 20.'26 ROMINE - - -    35  6i - 230 --328  . 292 206 ... 78  ~f4  328 .. fa% ... i4% 13% .. . jgjij 23.00 7.47 . - 12.70 WASHINGTON      - - - - --5j --83 --s24 --fiifo -- 607 --352 -2fa 95 660 53% 32% 14% 80.10 46.60 7.58 ... -1io3 wiLsoN --     -- -- :;a  --s4 - -fgo - Ji32  - 344 -297  s3 12 - 362 a2io -1s0i; - ':loio - -ja.Jo 23.10 8.98 14.89 woobihiFF     - - -- . 34  40 -2fo   284  i5o  201   15 8   20-1. 71 i~ --26/o 3% 32.40 17.80 7. 72 . . .. 1fci4 MABEL.VALE. -    - -  15 - .. s-1 h1 -  407 . - 391 299  92   fo  407 1:Wo -~i:3,i.; ---~f -- 4cY.i3if --23~9if - -- g:53 16.36 TERRY    -    -    - ys 435 -sf1 - Kf1 2j5  243 .. 33 511 46% 48% 6% 47.20 28.20 10.03 10.12 FUCBRIGHT        69 426 495 495 240 246 9 495 480/o 50i~ -- 2i~ . . 51.90 28.80 9.54 17.19 OTTER CRE.Ek'          J6 -2~i\"2 -Ji8 . -  320 -1s1 167 10  320  46% s1% - - - 3% .... 30.10 16.60 .10.90 19.76 WAKEFiELt\u003e\"      ---  - - -52 - - j21 -373 373 -322 . 32  19  373 . a50io  gcy~ -siii~ . - :foji .. 2cf5ci 10.26 ..  1a .2ff WATSON    - ... - -- - 36 73 384 493 457 - 441 40  12 -- - 493 - 89/o ---8/o  . 2%. - 43)5 - 25.90. F.RANKLIN-     72 77 3f5 --464 - 392 --427  -24  13 -464 g2i~ - -5% - 3   73_-96 .. jif5O GARLAND     --  fa  -34 -219 --2if  -- 253 -253  -3 ... 15 ... 271 . g:foj. .. - 1o/~ - -6)~ ..... 47:30 I1 .ao MITC.HELC      -  ~1a -37 ---1ai -- i42   2i4 223  -- g ... fo  242 .!)2/o .... 4/4  4 . .. 4{:fo .. 21 .90. RocKEFELLER. --  -   - s3 ..... 53  299 -- 405  -3s2 :fai na   3o  ;:fris 59% 34%  - 1o;;.   19.90 32.90 R1i3Hri;ELi:.      --     fa 39 - fai -- 249    -231 234 9 6  2-19  94% 4%  2% 39.50 21 .00 EJOOKER        -- -     16 --s21 sg1  --597 Joa 251 . ia - 597 si0i~  44oj~ - so,,; ... 5:ffo .... 44 .50 CARVER  -  -    -  -- -   60 536  595  - sg5  --:i12 ... 259 25 .... 596 52/o 43%  4% - 63.90 39.20 Gies-s  -       -   --   - 39 -212  311  \"jfl - 161 133 17 .. . 511 -52o/o 43% 5% 40.30 . 25.30 WILLIAMS       -     - .. .. cio --419 479 -  479  240 214 17 479 52% 45% 4% 52.30 31 .10 TOTAL --    704 fiia4 11583 14171 13467 9335 4151 685 .14171  66% -29%    s 0io f.575j4 ai33.4O     -    0  0 -  o O --- - - ---   - - 0   ---  --  -   -  . .. .. . .. . --  -  0 0 0 0 0 -  - - H o --    0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0  00 0 00 00 0,0  --H o   - -    - 00  -     .. ,o , o 0  0 0  o o o   0 0000 -0 0  --- .. ---- .. .. 10.45 17.64 . ....   - 5.30 - 10.74 .. - 5.35 11 .61 5.07 10.23 - -- - - .. . 4.41 10.70 5.85 11 .00 9.37 13.42 9.33 15.20 7.72 12.29 9.16 15.40 8.54 15.24      -       ----- ------ -- - ---- - - - - ------ ---- ------ -- ----- -      - -  -- - - .. -- . - . . -  - ----------- --- -  --- -- - - ----. - . - . - -   .... - . - ... -      704 1925 22196 24825 24121 16622 7149 1054 24825 67% 29% 4% 2653.88 1621 .84 9.09 14.87 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  -  --ALLocATION OF RESOlJRcEs----- - ..   -- .. . ... .. . ..... -- - ... . 10-07-90 ENROL[ . s60ARE SITE -   --. 10-1-97 -- FOOTAGE. AtREAGE CENTRAL   -  ----    1:oss   - 266,023  16.50 i-ii\\LC  --  --. --- .... . .. .. 'foci . - - 1s2,:i4ff  - -- \":if:10 FAIR   151   fai;ioo ----so.oo McCLELLAN 935 129,000 29.60 PARKVIEW - -  911 166,477 30.00 rnTAL - --  ------ -sj4a   --o-i 'i:cioa  -fs'(20 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS  - --   .. - ---- ---  SOFT/ .ENRoi..C 174.75 130.05 102.74 161.40 DUNBAR  771  --gfj97 - --  --5.\"cio\" 1 :z8~92 FOREST HEIGHTS 640 70,207 26.00 -------1-.0 8.47- i\u003eDLAsi\u003ci Heie,Rrs - - --- -    - 16i.    fa.ifo  - ----,foo =-=:y.s~jI SOUTHWEST 510 02,960 30.00 162.60 HENDERSON 724 103,212 46.36 142.56  CLOVERDALE 622  0 1--,-0--9--7  --- --- ------8.-0 0- - ---- -1--3-1--.6--7-- - ------- ------ --- ----- -- -- MABEL VALE 506 62,030 12.00 122.60 MANN  050 113,013 . - 12.29 - --fafii TOTAL 5,406 ao6,o2o   ..143.65 -126:oci ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS -  -   --- - -- -  BALE  - 362    33,626 - - - -:10.\"{iff -----g:fj39 BRADY -  372     _35,259 .  . ....... . tiio 97.47 BADGETT  233 23,404 .  -- \"f\u003cfoO. - - -- ffio:45 McDERMOTT 477 -  ,fo.02() --10:ifo --100:57 BASELINE 323 50,455 4.00 156.21 FAIR PARK 240 20,067 4.20 116.40 FOREST PARK 430 31,914 2.10 74.22 CHICOT   537  - ifo:Goi - --1 0:4\"6 ---f1Ll5 WESTERN HILLS 315   -- -10,iiTf    - -14:00  - 34.64 JEFFERSON -.  - 513 43,546 12.00 -- 04.00 crovi:RoAT.E - -   - --   - 512 33,263 a.oo - --134:01 DODD  224 46,71i  ----!Qfo . --208~54 MEADOWCLIFF 332 36,931 9.60 - 111.24 l\u003cING -- - - -  -  --  :-553  - -15,ooo - - 4:so -  113.98 GEYER SPRINGS 316 41,700 4.30 132.22 PULASKI HEIGHTS    - -  -464  -- s11.2si ---soo - ---125.54. ROMINE    --- ----- - ---320  -- 4i;j14 . 20:00 ---faifo1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES . . . . . - .. .... - . 10.07.90 sciLiARE wASHINGTON .. .. . ... . .. - - . . ... 660 o!i,ifoo WILSON . . .. . .... . . .. - ..... --   36i 37,075 WOODRUFF - 204 -- - :30,000 MABEL.VALi~- --  -   - 407 55,568 rEFfRv-------------------- ----------  -s11 -- --- ---- - 4!;:312 FULBRIGHT  495 . ........ 66:892 OTTER CREEK 320 36,551 WAKEFIELb - -  - . .. . . . ..........  373 Ji,395 WATSON   -  493 - - - ifa:ii,fo SITE --- so FT/ ACREAGE -  -ENROLL. 5:!io  ....... faifos -   s.ai'i' --10f4i 2.10 10.00 15.00 19.00 8.90  1f.:io 133.00 136.53 08.67 135.14 111:;i\"4 100.25 --- - ----  ... --- ------- . - .. -- -. FRAN1\u003ci..1~.;- - - ----      464 - so.soo 12.20 109.22 GARLAND  211 30,632 --- f :fo MITCHELL 242    .:i9,ioo 4.20 10.00 147.63 142.55 161 .98 159.41 1sf12 124.04 103.52 119.73 ROCKEFELLER 405     .6{ Sih RiGi-h'sECC - -         .  ... . -  .. 2,iri - -- 37 ,630 BOOKER 597 74,530 CARVER . --  -- -       - .. 596 - .. .. 61 ,695 GIBBS  311  :i7,237 wid:.1AMs     ..  479 47,200 6.30 2.10 12.00 s:oo 15.00 ....  gifs-1 TOTAL .    \" 1{ 171  1,GJ0,5i55  ---- -------- -.. . _ - - - - - - -- . . --  - ....... - ...     - . -- --- . . . . . - ......3 -0.5.. .90- . - ... -1- .1. .5.. .-0--6. -- - -- -.. ..... ________ ----. - .   .. . GRAND TOTAL 24 ,025 3, 163.siff 606.75 127.44 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   -  - - --ALLocAfi6t.f6F RESOURCES - - - -- -  - . - - -.  -  ---- - -  . --- -. -- .. . . - -- . -- ... . -- - .. ----- -- -- --- ....... ------- - - --- 100798 ENROLL MASTERS + 9 TEACH % --   ---- -- - . - --- ----       - - - ---  - ........ --- - ---HIGH SCHOOLS  --- - -- ------- ----- - ------- 10197 F.T.E. CENTRAL 1,855 56 107.14 52% HALL 790 32 66.70 48% FAIR  - --------- -- - - --- - - ---------  - -t---- McCLELLAN 935 29 70.90 41 % 757 30 57.20 52% PARKVIEW - 911  35 ---5:f4()- -------553/0 TOTAL   ..... - -5.2~;-8 .. --- - - .. 182 -355_34 50% JUt-ii6rf\"i;i\"GHScHo6Ui .. ...... .  .. .......... . ...... - .  - -- DUNBAR 771 23 52.80 44% FOREST HEIGHTS 648 23 54 .30 42% PULAsi\u003cfl-iEiGHts  - .    --;67      22  si:fo 31o;o SOUTHWEST   510.  ---  19  -4s:40  --,f2 HENDERSON - - -    - 12,f - 20 57.30 35% -- --- - -- - -- -- --------- -- ----- ....... __ -- -    --------------- . . -- - -- - -- -- -  - . CLOVERDALE 622 14 47.80 29% MABEL VALE 506 13 44.90 29% MANN 858  30 62.30   - -~18/o TOTAL 5,406 164 424.10 39%  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS --   ---- - -  - .. - . - - -- BALE -- - - - - -  -- ----35i --------14 --2s-:-30 ---55)0 BRADY-  - ---- -  - . J'i2 . . - --- 1s -2i30  ---- Bi% BADGETT - -  -  - -  - . faj 8 17.30 46% McDERMOTT 477 9 29.40 31% BASELi~iE - 323  11 20. 10  53% FAIR PARK 248 10 15.90 63% FOREST.PARK 430 .  -- -- - ---11 - is:oo --44o/o CHICOT - -   537     --- 14 31 .90 - 44/o WESTERN HILLS 315  - ---- --- ------1- 0 - - 1-9.1-0- - --  -- 5--2--%- JEFFERSON 513 20 29.60 68% CLOVERDALE 512 13 26.80 49%   -- - - -- --  ------------  -- -   - - - .. - - ... -- ... . - -- -- --~  . DODD 224 9 19.30 47% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   ALlOCATibN OF RESOUFfCES - - . --  ........     -- - -- ---- -- .. . . 10-07-98  ---  -   --- -- ... -- --- -  - -- - ENROLL MASTERS + 9  TEACH % - ---- ----  - - -- .. - --- - -- -  ... - - .. . ..   10-1-97 F.T.E. MEAi56WCLi\"FF---------- ------- -332 11 20.so 54% Ki NG - --- -- -  -  . .. . - 658 ..... ......... 17 . \" - -,b.oo -- -40%    - GEYER SPRINGS 316 - -----------10- ----- --1--8- .--8---0- 53% PULASKI HEIGHTS 464 12 25.40 47%  --- --- -----. ---------- -- - - .. - --- - --- ------- -    . -- -  - _ ,. __ ... . . . - ---- ------- ROMINE 328 10 25.00 40% WASHINGTON-- - -- -    -iiicf - - 11 - -50:16 -- ----3-4iij~ WILSON 362 19 25.10 76%  WOODRUFF - -- - . 284 . -- - . 5 ...... 1ti:ao .  ---30io MABELVALE 407  - -    6 --  25~90.  -  -23.0/o T-E R-R--Y--- -- ---- --- ------- -------- -- - -- ---- -- ------  .. - - "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_242","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1998-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"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/242"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n. '-~ ' ..,., I\"'' JAN 2-0 19gq October 1 State Department Enrollment Report(LRSD INTERNAL R~~TI0N MONITOai~ !AnE nrolled Students: ll-Nov-98 001 CENTRAL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total IO 123 133 181 220 1 4 6 1 0 1 670 11 117 129 156 236 4 1 2 0 0 0 645 12 103 139 114 157 2 0 4 4 0 0 523 KF 0 I 1 12 ~'1 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 'fi7, 34 TOTAL FOR CENTRAL: 34wo2 461cv!J4 7 5 .-)12 5 0 1 ,~~~ ?'1\u0026gt;7 002 HALL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total IO 36 27 131 81 10 9 4 2 0 0 300 11 21 28 75 92 6 5 4 6 0 0 237 12 27 32 72 71 2 3 6 3 0 1 217 KF 0 0 0 8 17 9 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0I 17 s 3 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 .. TOTAL FOR HALL: 81 11~89 2:Aaf55 18 17 ~, 14 11 0 1 ~~g G 003 MANNM/S Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 65 77 59 82 0 0 2 3 0 1 289 08 73 55 79 77 1 1 1 2 0 0 289 09 52 68 60 75 1 0 2 1 0 1 260 TOTAL FOR MANN MIS: 19woo 198 234 ..I,~\n) 2 1 t' 5 6 0 2 838 15 005 PARKVIEW Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 52 88 69 92 1 1 3 7 0 0 313 11 52 97 66 88 3 0 1 2 0 0 309 12 65 71 83 78 2 2 1 2 0 0 304 TOTALFORPARKVIEW: 16U56 21~58 6 3 ~55 11 0 0 926 ~, 7,. 006 BOOKER Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 19 24 21 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 87 02 17 21 15 25 1 2 0 0 0 0 81 03 16 19 18 26 1 1 2 0 0 0 83 04 20 27 21 25 0 0 2 0 0 0 95 05 18 25 21 27 0 1 0 0 0 93 06 22 25 26 21 0 1 1 0 0 97 KF 14 24 17 18 1 2 0 0 0 0 76 TOT AL FOR BOOKER : 12~l65 139 164 3 8 ,i ~ 6 1 0 0 612 _$o7p 007 DUNBAR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Services Department 1 IAnE nrol.le d Students: 1 J-Nov-98 07 38 47 93 67 2 6 3 3 0 0 259 08 49 38 64 74 4 2 3 2 0 0 236 09 44 50 64 73 1 5 3 3 1 1 245 f/l(o TOTAL FOR DUNBAR: 13~~35 221Ml4 7 13 i:!'.91 8 1 1 740 008 FAIR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 27 22 118 114 4 2 0 1 0 1 289 11 18 12 105 76 0 1 0 0 0 0 212 12 11 17 75 86 2 1 1 0 0 0 193 s 3 4 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 TOTAL FOR FAIR: 5911~55 31w83 6 4 ,~ 1 1 0 1 720 3~)0 009 FORST HT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 56 40 89 85 2 6 3 1 0 0 282 08 38 43 88 76 2 5 1 3 0 1 257 09 39 21 61 78 0 2 0 0 0 202 s 4 3 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 TOTAL FOR FORST HT: 13kPl 07 248-41,243 5 1! ,:,.1_ 6 4 0 1 762 r,-\u0026gt;/7o 010 PULHTJ Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 33 36 97 72 0 0 1 0 0 240 08 50 52 84 76 1 1 2 2 0 0 268 09 48 49 74 66 0 0 0 2 0 0 239 s 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 TOTAL FOR PUL HT J : 134-P40 258~~15 1 1 {Q 3 5 0 0 757 G,\n)-7 011 SOUTHWST Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 11 4 55 56 0 1 1 0 0 0 128 08 9 3 49 69 3 1 0 0 0 0 134 09 12 10 62 47 0 4 0 1 0 0 136 s 1 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 TOTAL FOR SOUTHWST : 33.5o 17 178?\u0026gt;~4 3 6 ii 1 1 0 0 413 ira7~ 012 MCCLELLA Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 12 21 156 137 3 2 0 0 0 0 331 11 18 18 109 122 0 3 1 0 0 0 271 12 13 19 108 100 0 2 2 1 0 0 245 s 3 3 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 TOTAL FOR MCCLELLA: 46 161 38875862 3 7,d 3 1, 0 0 871 si?o /0 013 HENDERSN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Services Department 2 -\nz J/, :IJ 1,~3 3,~?8' /:S5 ~--4S-~ 70~ 01),0.1- 1-!yl __,, /45'/.:S 3,\u0026lt;J.5 Hv 5, _\n./C: t:77o !All Enrolled Students: JJ-Nov-98 07 10 10 75 70 2 1 0 0 1 170 08 9 6 82 93 1 2 2 0 1 0 196 09 12 9 90 105 0 1 2 2 0 0 221 s 0 0 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 TOTAL FOR HENDERSN : 31~25 253).g75 2 5 l\u0026lt;., 5 2 1 1 606 \u0026lt;g\"67 015 CLOVRJR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 06 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07 10 6 95 95 5 6 2 0 0 0 219 08 7 3 85 74 4 3 1 0 0 178 09 7 7 117 79 2 4 0 0 0 0 216 s 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 TOTAL FOR CLOVR JR: 24 16 30~J50 11 13~ 3 1 0 0 618 i17, 016 MABELJR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 20 12 56 56 1 0 0 2 0 148 08 20 20 65 72 0 1 0 0 1 0 179 09 21 13 64 57 0 0 0 0 2 0 157 s 2 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 TOT AL FOR MABEL JR : 63 ti/ 48 189~f92 1 2 0 0 5 0 500 1, .. 017 BALE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 6 16 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 47 02 2 4 14 25 3 1 0 0 0 0 49 -- . 03 5 7 20 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 51 04 0 4 17 13 0 1 0 0 0 36 05 4 5 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 06 8 9 12 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 46 E 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 6 5 17 25 2 2 2 0 0 0 59 PK 2 ,, 9 8~ 15 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 e,.~'r37 1~-\nb TOTAL FOR BALE: 35~49 12~,149 6 8 3 ii 1 0 0 373 018 BRADY Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 2 21 21 0 2 0 0 0 50 02 7 5 26 23 1 2 0 0 0 65 03 6 8 22 17 2 3 3 0 0 62 04 5 6 24 13 1 0 0 0 51 05 4 4 17 12 3 7 3 0 0 51 LRSD Information Services Department 3 -r\nI ~ :\n.91 t-l?t\n~lo/ JI\nI 1J r,1/o IAn Enrolled Students: J J-Nov-98 06 5 7 13 7 1 2 0 0 37 E 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 8 12 16 16 3 1 2 0 0 0 58 PK 1 .5 4 6 C/ 3 1 0 ~ 1 2 0 0 $Q?o18 ~~7 .. TOTAL FOR BRADY : 411-(/) 49 14~~l12 10 11~r\n.s 9 0 0 399 019 BADGETT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 1 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 02 0 1 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 03 0 1 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 04 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 05 4 1 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 06 1 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 E 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 KF 0 0 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PK 0 0 0 8 I~ 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~~18 c:\nJJ~ TOTAL FOR BADGETT: 8 ,~ 4 10!~\u0026lt;2100 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 (2. 020 MCDERMOT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 14 11 18 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 70 02 18 11 25 11 3 2 0 1 0 0 71 03 9 11 21 29 1 2 0 1 0 0 74 04 7 14 22 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 62 05 14 10 18 16 1 3 0 0 0 63 06 14 4 25 20 2 0 0 0 0 66 KF 17 14 15 13 0 0 0 0 0 60 llo TOTAL FOR MCDERMOT : 931,2'. 75 14!\nn432 8 7 3 3 0 1 466 .\nl\ni... 021 CARVER Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 17 12 14 23 0 0 2 0 1 0 69 02 26 17 21 24 0 0 1 1 0 0 90 03 25 18 20 25 0 0 1 2 0 0 91 04 19 21 30 20 0 0 0 1 0 0 91 05 29 14 32 19 0 1 1 3 0 0 99 06 21 25 29 16 0 1 1 1 0 0 94 KF 19 9 18 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 fi(/:\u0026gt; TOTAL FOR CARVER: 15.6, ,\n::a6 164 138 0 2 l'J. 6 8 1 0 591 ~\u0026lt; 022 BASELINE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 6 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 52 LRSD Information Services Department 4 IAn Enrolled Students: I J-Nov-98 02 3 3 23 19 1 0 0 0 1 0 50 03 1 3 13 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 04 0 2 15 16 0 1 1 0 0 0 35 05 0 2 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 06 2 1 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 E 2 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 KF 6 5 33 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 PK 1 ~ 3 12 0 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 8~7~3 6 \u0026lt;j41- TOTAL FOR BASELINE : 19-$1._2 5 14~~6 2 2 8' 2 0 1 1 334 023 FAIRPRK Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 2 16 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 02 4 5 11 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 03 3 1 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 04 2 2 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 05 3 3 6 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 23 06 2 3 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 KF 4 6 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 PK 8 I~ 8 9 ,i 9 0 0 ~o 2 0 0 67 36 13 7\"' TOTAL FOR FAIR PRK: 28.5~30 73 l'2::Z94 1 1 i 0 2 0 0 229 024 FORST PK Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 12 11 15 15 0 0 1 1 0 0 55 02 20 14 14 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 03 18 18 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 04 16 16 13 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 56 05 13 18 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 06 8 15 12 17 0 0 0 1 0 0 53 KF 18 24 8 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 59 ~-f(J.o, TOTAL FOR FORST PK: 105 p6 921~199 0 0 2 3 0 0 417 ~do .5 025 FRANKLIN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 1 0 27 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 02 0 2 28 36 0 0 0 2 0 0 68 03 1 0 38 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 04 1 0 27 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 05 1 1 28 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 06 0 1 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 E 0 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 KF 4 2 29 41 0 1 0 2 0 0 79 LRSD Information Services Department 5 !AnE nrolled Students: 1 J-Nov-98 PK 6 I 4 31 27 0 2 ~ l l 0 0 1 i 72 TOTAL FOR FRANKLIN : 14a110 23~~g59 0 3 'j_ 1 5 0 0 526q.)(fa 026 GARLAND Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF  IF Total 01 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 0 0 34 02 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 38 03 1 0 14 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 04 0 16 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 33 05 0 0 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 39 06 0 0 18 14 1 2 0 0 0 0 35 E 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 KF 0 0 10 20 2 2 1 0 0 0 35 PK 0 0 0 5 ,5. 10 1 2 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~i718 ~7c TOTAL FOR GARLAND: 2 .a. 1 118 138 10 7 1:8 1 0 0 0 277 6j ~~ 027 GIBBS Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF  IF Total 01 10 13 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 02 16 7 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 11 9 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 44 04 14 7 14 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 47 05 6 13 17 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 47 06 11 10 10 13 1 1 0 0 0 47 KF 10 8 11 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 38 j\n/o. TOTAL FOR GIBBS : 781~67 84/5/e.72 3 4 ,o. 2 1 0 0 311 028 CHICOT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF  IF Total 01 6 6 30 20 5 5 0 0 0 0 72 02 8 10 27 21 3 5 0 0 0 0 74 03 6 3 23 28 6 5 0 0 0 0 71 04 9 4 33 30 4 0 1 0 0 0 81 05 7 4 28 19 3 1 0 0 0 0 62 06 6 11 32 21 5 1 0 0 0 0 76 E 4 2 9 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 21 KF 7 4 23 22 2 1 0 1 0 0 60 PK 5 Id\"' 7 8 I 13 3 0 0 0 0 O ~'67-36 11(\" TOTAL FOR CHICOT : 58 ~51 213 ~ 179 31 185~ 1 0 0 553 10 ,a\nl 029 WESTHIL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF  IF Total 01 7 7 22 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 50 02 3 8 16 15 0 0 0 0 0 43 LRSD Information Services Department 6 IAn Enrolled Students: 1 J-Nov-98 03 5 5 13 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 5 7 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 05 8 1 21 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 43 06 9 7 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 KF 2 7 13 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 1~r1., TOTAL FOR WEST HIL: 39 g142 119 ~7 2 1 -I 0 1 0 0 321 -\\3 A 030 JEFFRSN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 21 20 13 15 1 0 1 0 0 0 71 02 11 16 18 23 0 0 0 1 0 0 69 03 23 18 23 9 0 0 0 0 0 74 04 22 15 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 05 16 19 19 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 06 23 22 24 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 83 E 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 KF 26 15 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 .)1}0 TOTAL FOR JEFFRSN : 14~t..f6 125 ~3 1 1 4, 2 1 1 0 502 ~~ 031 CLOVREL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 1 2 29 29 0 2 0 0 0 0 63 02 2 1 36 34 2 2 0 0 0 0 77 03 2 1 32 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 04 1 0 36 21 1 3 0 0 0 0 62 05 2 1 30 34 0 1 0 0 0 0 68 06 3 1 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 KF 2 0 37 36 0 1 1 0 0 0 77 PK 0 1 16\u0026gt; 1 15 2 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 7\"35 qalt) TOTAL FOR CLOVR EL: 13~0 7 24~l.K28 4 11 L~ 1 0 0 0 504 032 DODD Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 7 4 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 33 02 8 2 12 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 36 03 8 11 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 04 4 3 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 05 5 5 12 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 35 06 2 8 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 E 5 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 KF 5 9 11 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 32 PK 4 ~ 5 4 cp 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~7* 18 ~(.,-i TOTAL FOR DODD : 41 44 92 85 4 2 0 0 0 0 268 LRSD Information Services Department ~5 ,1, (, 7 IAn Enrolled Students: 1 J-Nov-98 033 MEADCLIF Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 5 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 02 5 6 19 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 03 5 5 23 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 04 4 21 19 1 0 0 0 1 0 47 05 6 2 19 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 45 06 4 3 17 21 2 0 0 0 1 0 48 KF 4 5 10 19 0 0 0 0 0 39 7'!) TOTAL FOR MEADCLIF : 34 l#.l27 12?\nwS18 5 1 g 0 0 2 0 314 034 MITCHELL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 1 2 18 16 1 0 0 0 0 1 39 02 1 1 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 03 0 0 18 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 04 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 05 0 0 11 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 06 3 0 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 E 1 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 KF 0 1 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 PK 0 0 0 7 I 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11)'()'},18 c,~7' TOTAL FOR MITCHELL: 6 t9 4 12~~16 1 o~o 0 0 1 248 035 ML KING Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 21 21 30 22 0 0 0 0 0 95 02 28 26 28 29 1 0 0 1 0 0 113 03 22 20 19 22 0 0 0 1 0 0 84 04 14 22 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 78 05 18 14 21 14 1 0 3 0 0 72 06 16 14 25 17 1 1 0 3 1 0 78 KF 19 21 32 23 1 0 0 2 0 0 98 PK 16 16 15 'tl.t 21 0 0 ~ 2 2 0 0 ~07,72 TOTAL FORM L KING : 154~54 19ld69 4 1~~ 4 13 1 0 690 1- 036 ROCKFELR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 13 10 16 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 57 02 11 11 9 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 47 03 9 10 15 21 1 0 0 1 0 0 57 04 15 10 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 05 9 8 12 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 52 LRSD Information Services Department 8 !AnE nrolled Students: J l-Nov-98 06 6 11 12 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 41 K.F Sr J-tf? 10 14 13 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 PK i~ 28 19 20 30 0 1 0 1 0 0 99 TOTALFORROCKFELR: 101 '~93 11~~45 4 3 12 1 2 0 0 464 ~(,, 7 .. 037 GEYERSP Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 3 25 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 48 02 4 3 18 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 2 3 13 24 0 0 0 0 0 43 04 3 4 16 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 05 3 3 18 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 50 06 2 2 11 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 KF 6 6 11 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 40 PK 6 ,,-6 10 ,~12 0 2 ?'O 0 0 O (,I 7 36 '1t 7. TOTAL FOR GEYER SP: 29~'.f 30 12~138 8 4 l\n)- o 0 0 0 331 038 PULHTE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 10 13 9 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 42 02 8 12 24 23 0 0 1 1 0 0 69 03 12 9 15 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 04 16 13 19 20 0 1 0 1 0 0 70 05 21 19 25 12 2 0 2 0 0 0 81 06 17 11 25 25 0 0 1 0 0 80 KF 15 10 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 TOTAL FOR PUL HT E : 99,~7 126~14 2 1 ll 5 3 0 0 437\n{af. 039 RIGHTSEL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 0 0 14 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 02 1 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 03 0 0 19 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 04 0 1 18 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 05 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 06 0 1 19 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 39 E 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 0 0 17 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 PK ~ 3 12 ~~ 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 ~~734 q~? ... TOTAL FOR RIGHTSEL : 2 2 5 12~Jt1 2 Id_ 0 1 0 0 275 040 ROMINE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 7 3 24 18 4 3 1 0 0 0 60 LRSD Information Services Department 9 IAH Enrolled Students: J J-Nov-98 02 5 4 18 10 2 3 0 0 0 0 42 03 7 5 10 10 4 1 1 0 0 0 38 04 9 3 15 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 41 05 4 5 8 12 1 3 0 0 0 0 33 06 6 7 8 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 31 E 1 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 KF 6 2 13 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 47 PK 8 .~ 5 9 tCjf 9 2 .5. 1 1 0 0 ~436 TOTAL FOR ROMINE : 53g8'35 115,_~99 20 17 ~l 3 1 0 0 343 G,~ 042 WASHNGTN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 14 8 31 18 6 5 3 0 0 0 85 02 16 14 18 22 3 3 1 0 1 79 03 22 14 26 22 3 1 2 0 0 0 90 04 16 13 21 27 3 0 1 3 0 0 84 05 20 10 20 14 2 2 2 0 1 0 71 06 19 13 25 10 6 0 2 0 0 76 E 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 16 13 22 19 4 3 2 0 0 80 PK 14\n\u0026gt;.\\ 7 15)1 12 2 0 (\n, 2 2 0 0 f 07s4 137:a~c?3 18~i47 29 14,~14 9 1 1 626 ~ 7. TOTAL FOR WASHNGTN : 043 WILLIAMS Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 19 14 15 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 68 02 14 15 14 20 0 0 1 0 1 66 03 17 14 17 19 0 0 1 1 0 0 69 04 16 14 21 19 0 0 2 0 1 0 73 05 13 20 17 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 06 16 17 16 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 KF 12 15 19 11 0 0 0 0 0 58 TOTAL FOR WILLIAMS : 10~,~09 11~28 0 0 l~ 5 3 1 1 473 ~\n,7,. 044 WILSON Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 1 3 31 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 50 02 2 1 26 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 46 03 3 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 04 1 2 16 31 0 0 0 0 1 52 05 4 5 27 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 06 4 2 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 E 3 1 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 LRSD Information Services Department JO !AnEn rolled Students: l l-Nov-98 KF 4 9 22 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 PK 2 ~ 2 8 I~ 5 0 0 0 0 o ir718 TOTAL FOR WILSON: 24:n25 18~3 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 378 g~?- 045 WOODRUFF Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 5 12 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 02 1 5 14 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 37 03 3 5 17 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 04 4 3 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 05 1 0 16 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 06 5 3 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 KF 1 5 9 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 PK 8 l~ 7 8 :)Q 12 0 0 0 0 0 ,Sl.].36 7~7- TOTAL FOR WOODRUFF: 26.5~ 33 10:h_lJ108 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 279 046 MABEL EL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 10 20 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 54 02 16 10 24 17 2 0 0 1 0 0 70 03 11 6 24 25 1 0 0 0 0 68 04 8 7 13 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 48 05 5 6 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 06 6 8 18 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 51 E 2 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 KF 9 4 30 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 PK 5 \" 4 3 q 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ 7. 18 TOTAL FOR MABEL EL: 661~6 15~fl635 6 18 0 1 0 0 420 ~~/ 047 TERRY Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 21 12 26 22 1 0 3 0 0 86 02 16 17 19 19 0 0 1 2 0 0 74 03 19 19 13 17 0 2 1 3 0 0 74 04 23 14 19 19 0 0 2 3 0 0 80 05 11 14 12 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 56 06 20 17 16 26 0 1 2 1 0 0 83 KF 14 9 28 17 0 0 0 2 0 0 70 TOTAL FOR TERRY : 12~02 13~1138 1 4~~6 15 0 0 523 \u0026amp;~7-- 048 FULBRIGH Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 13 15 26 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 71 02 10 20 22 27 0 0 0 0 0 80 LRSD Information Services Department 11 !AnE nrolled Students: JJ-Nov-98 03 9 22 27 9 0 0 1 1 0 70 04 18 23 24 17 1 0 0 1 0 0 84 05 11 16 18 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 06 11 12 22 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 60 E 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 KF 14 13 23 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 69 TOTAL FOR FULBRIGB : 89~1}122 16~25 1 1 :i_ 3 3 1 0 508 :i,7- 050 OTTER CR Grade WM WF BM BF BM BF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 18 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 02 16 12 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 03 14 18 8 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 49 04 12 12 18 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 54 05 14 11 16 13 0 0 0 0 1 1 56 06 12 12 12 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 55 KF 17 20 6 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 TOTAL FOR OTTER CR: 9o1,_io3 89 lJI 82 1 2 (_p 1 0 1 1 370 -\u0026lt;/7~c :, , 051 WAKEFIEL Grade WM WF BM BF BM BF AM AF IM IF Total 01 0 2 25 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 54 02 4 2 31 19 2 4 0 0 0 0 62 03 0 2 25 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 49 04 5 2 24 32 1 1 1 0 0 0 66 05 0 0 22 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 52 06 3 1 25 17 2 3 0 0 0 0 51 KF 4 2 22 29 0 3 0 0 0 0 60 TOTAL FORWAKEFIEL: 16 ~111 17~70 10 12 31 0 0 0 394 i77- 052 WATSON Grade WM WF BM BF BM BF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 0 29 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 02 1 0 35 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 77 03 2 1 31 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 61 04 2 4 28 30 1 1 0 0 0 0 66 05 2 2 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 06 1 2 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 KF 2 1 36 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 PK 0 ::a. 2 15~~ 19 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 9~7, 36 TOTAL FOR WATSON: 14~~ 12 22~5f2 2 2 -j_ 0 0 0 0 484 q1J. 712 ACLP Grade WM WF BM BF BM BF AM AF IM IF Total / I -\n.o / 'If 0 LRSD Information Services ment 2 1\n:..,, -\u0026gt;, -\n,/ -i .:r# ~ 7t?JO ,b\nj' /-t5o (p1 ~ 1).,Ul'tiJ..... ~ /r' 'i ~~ q )A~ ID- [1- ALC 7- 11... -------- . . t.o~ .,.P ?l !AnE nrolled Students: I l l-Nov-98 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 , 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 7 2 23 29 2 0 0 0 0 64 TOTAL FORACLP: 7 j 2 26~32 1 2 ,3 0 0 0 0 70 817 725 ALTAGCY Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ~41f't\" 01 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 02 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 03 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 j'~~~( 04 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 LVrp' D' Cv\\/ 06 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 07 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 P\nJl-Ji 08 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 09 6 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 10 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 KF et 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 s 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL FOR ALT AGCY : 25 ~~19 10,a,\n/O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 ~17 766 ALP Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Ir f 08 2 0 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Q2 0 ,2\n0 13:a2 5 0 0 QO 0 0 o ~~l~ ~Jo ~ a JJL 10 0 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 c()lv /J 11 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 s o a o 27? 0 0 0 \u0026lt;D 0 0 0 0 ~? 2 10\"07P  t ~ TOTAL FOR ALP : 2 ~ 0 59 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 C,f,.fb (J) CJ v GRAND TOTAL FOR: 3650 3650 8545 8388 258 244 160 143 17 15 25070 \"~7, (ij\" ,~4'0 I \",9~'a ~7 -ii ,\n)O (0 G,..\n/ '7,~5(,, /{p,j/~ '8Z\u0026gt;7 ~\u0026lt;m~ J C, LRSD Information Services Department 13 . ' . ,.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1, 1998 ENROLLMENT ----,---,---r---,---_c_-----,-----,-----,--- I --- _J _I _ ___,_--'--'-----'----'--__,______________ ,! _ ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM -_--_ --=-r-=- -- I t------+----------+---+------- - -- I _ t ~M_ _W F _ _~ _M_,_B_F~ _H_M---+-_H_F-+--_A__ M A__F_ ___ ,__ _ _, P1-2 _. 6 __ ~ _ 6 .l. 8 __ ,_6 ____1 --+---+---t------'-----'----,-,1/ I IM IF TOTAL 26 P 3 : 7 ..:\u0026gt;j 2 2 ,:\n3, 7 0 18 .,,~ A 55 - - V TOTAL 28 'rl 19 20 ~ 30 I I 99 -, I -- I -- -- '-----+-----+----+---+----+--t---+---+-----~--,\n()c5o5/ t Jlo1Jff~e-5 /UEJ I .5 ?7 /'J~ ~\\t\" 1-Cl\u0026lt;:1-91 HIGH SCHOOLS B w 0 CENTRAL 1075 745 45 FAIR 591 128 9 HALL 561 158 64 MCCLELLAN 749 97 25 PARKVIEW 477 413 43 ALE SR. HIGH 60 7 4 SUB TOTAL 3513 1548 190 --- JUNIORH IGHS CLOVERDALE 547 25 31 DUNBAR 453 241 61 FORESTH EIGHTS 502 247 30 -- -- HENDERSON 531 47 25 MABELVALE 381 105 14 MANN 443 365 32 PULASKHI EIGHTS 477 281 12 SOUTHWEST 382 39 10 ALE JR. HIGH SUB TOTAL 3716 1350 215 EL-EM-ENTARY BADGETT 200 16 0 BALE --- 261 72 24 BASELINE ~9 32 18 BO--OKER 303 270 33 BRADY 257 85 54 CARVER 304 260 28 CHICOT 394 104 57 CLOVERDALE 472 17 15 DODD 162 80 9 FAIR PARK 165 56 7 FORE- STP ARK 191 216 8 FRANKLIN 494 15 15 F--ULBRIGHT 289 209 8 GARLAND 248 1 119 GEYERS PRINGS 262 53 17 GIBBS 157 139 16 JEFFERSON 229 267 6 KING 366 295 37 M--A--BELVALE 293 108 9 MCDERMOTT 283 165 24 MEADOWCLIFF 260 58 5 MITCHELL 226 9 3 OTTERCREEK 165 191 7 PULASKHI EIGHTS 226 203 15 RIGHTSELL 260 9 4 ROCKEFELLER 237 161 23 ROMINE 215 71 59 TERRY 268 224 29 WAKEFIELD 341 23 26 WASHINGTON _. 335 185 102 WATSON 470 23 1 WESTERNH ILLS 230 78 5 WILLIAMS 252 212 11 WILSON 329 45 8 WOODRUFF 215 51 13 SUB TOTAL 9648 4003 715 GRANDT OTAL 16877 6901 1120 TOTAL 1865 728 783 871 933 71 5251 603 755 LRSD\n ENROLL~ENT OCTOBER1 , 1998C OUNT \u0026lt;n_n, _ao, n_n1_07 1-0ct-87 - ----- o/oBLK B w 57% 1101- - 705 81% 612 137 71% --- 561 - --179 86% 790 121 51% -- 464 --4--0-3 84% 6 0 66% - 3534 1545 -- -- 90% 552 36 60% 442 282 -- 0 - 49 -- 8 - 50 - 24 -- 44 0 -- 175 -- --- 34 -- - --- 47 779 64%- -- 452 178 --- 18 603 88% 624 83 17 500 76% 380 -- 119- -- 7 840 53% - 4---46 375 37 770 62% --- 437 - 31-5- 15 431 88% 426- - 65 --- 19 10 0 0 5281 70% 3769 1453 194 ---- - -- ---- --- 216 93% 214 - 19 --- 0 --- 357- 73% --- 265 71 26 339 85% - 267 -- 38 -- 18 606 50% 308 -- 261 - 28 396 65% -- 235 - 94 -- 43 592 51% 312 -- 259 - 25 555 70% 370 - 121- 46 504 94% 469 30 13 - -- - 251 65% 145 74 5 228 72% -- t--- -- 188 50 10 - 415 46% -- 205 - 219 --- 6 524 94% 427 -- 24 -- 13 506 56% ---- 240 ----246 - 9 268 93% I 253 3 15 332 79% --66 -- 237 - 13 312 50% 161- - 133- - 17 502 46% 227 279 - 7 698 52% 354 - 279 - 25 410 71% 2-9-9 --- 92 -- 16 472 60% 273 181 23 323 80% 263 57 12 238 95% ,_ 223 9 10 363 45% 151 167 10 444 50% --193 -- 254 17 273 95% 234 9 6 421 56% 264 153 -, -33 345 62% - 206 -- 78 - 44 521 51% 235 243 -- 33 390 87% 322 32 19 622 54% - 352 -213 - - 95 494 95% - 441 -- 40 -- 12 313 73% 222 91 - 2 475 53% 248 - 214 --- 17 382 86% 297 - 53 - 12 279 77% 201 75 8 - -- 14366 67 9362 4166 688 --- -- 24898 67% 16665 7164 1057 -- --- - TOTAL o/oBLK capacity +/. 1855 59% 1891 -36 ~ 81% 954 -197 I---- -- 790 - 71%-- - 12-91 --- -501 ---- 935 84% 1199 -264 r---- -- -- 911- -- 51% 1000- -- -89  6 100% 5254 67o/, --- 6335 -1087 --- -- --- 622- - 89% 868 -- -246 771 -- 57-% 812 -41 648 70% 858 -210 - ---- -- 724 86% 907 -183 --- 506- - 75% --- 614 -- -108 858 52% 850 - 8 -- 767- -- 57% 745 22 -~ ---- 510- -- 83% -227 10 100% ----5416 -- 69%- 6391 -- -985 ---- --- -- 233 - 92% --- 257 -- -24 362 73% 401 -39 ---- 323 83% 390 -- -67 597 -- 52%- -- 656 -- -59 372 63% 467 --- -95 596 52%- --- 613 -17 537 69% 558 -21 ---- ---- -- 512 92% 492 20 -- - - - - ---- --- 224 65% 328 -104 248 76% 351 -103  \"430 .. - -- 48% 399 31 --- 464 92% 434 -- 30 495 - 48% ----- 540 --- . -45 271 93% 298 -27 -75% -- ------ 316 328 -12 311 52% 353 -42 ~-- -- 44% --- 492 ---- 21 658 54% 728 -70 - -- - -- 407- 7-3% ---- 515 -- -108 477 57% 517 -40 332 -- 79% 465 -- -133 --- 242 -- 92% --- 298 -- -56 328 -- 46% 351 -23 464 55% --374 90 -- --258 -- - -- 249 - 94% --- - - -9 --- 450 59% 469 -19 t--- - f-------- -- 328 63% 487 -159 ---511 - --515 -- -- - 46-% --- -4 373 86% 492 ----=-119 660  --53% ----836 ---- - -176 493 89% -- 492 1 315 --- 70% - 328 -13 -- 479 52%~ 17 -38 -82% --- 362 394 -32 ---284 f--- 71A, 324 -40 -- - -- -- 14216 65 15717 -1501 - --- 24886 67% 28443 -3573 Little Rock School District 1998-99 Capacities SCHOOL Capacity CentraHl S 1891 Fair HS 954 Hal/HS 1291 McClellanH S 1199 ParkviewM ag.H S 10Q!J Sub-Total 6335 CloverdalJeH 868 DunbarJH 812 ForesHt eightsJ H 858 HendersoJnH 907 Mabe/valJeH 614 MannJH 850 PulaskHi eightsJ H 745 SouthwesJtH 737 Sub-Total 6391 Badgett 257 Bale 401 Baseline 390 !Booker 656 Brady 467 Carver 613 Chicot 558 Cloverdale 492 Dodd 328 Fair Park 351 ForestP ark 399 Franklin 434 Fulbright 540 Garland 298 GeyerS prings 328 Gibbs 353 Jefferson 492 King 728 Mabe/vale 515 McDermott 517 Meadowcliff 465 Mitchell 298 Otter Creek 351 PulaskHi eights 374 Rightse/1 258 Rockefeller 469 Romine 487 Terry 515 Wakefield 492 Washington 836 Watson 492 WestemHills 328 Williams 517 Wilson 394 Woodruff 324 Sub-Total 15717 Grand Total 28443 Cap_az Office of Desegregation 1/29/99 North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Amboy Elementar, School 6002-050 White Black Hispanic Grade Totals M F M F M F K 61 8 13 15 24 0 1 01 64 14 9 22 18 1 0 02 66 20 9 15 21 0 0 03 71 16 17 11 26 1 0 04 68 18 10 20 20 0 0 05 68 23 I 17 9 ri 19 0 0 Totals 398 99 rn 15 92\nr 128 2 1 Pct 24.9% 18.8% 23.1% 32.2% 0.5% 0.3% 43.7% 55.3% 0.8% Grades 1-5 337 91 62 77 104 2 0 Pct 27.0% 18.4% 22.8% 30.9% 0.6% 0.0% 45.4% 53.7% 0.6% Asian/Pl M F 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 -' 0 0 \"l 0 1 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0 1 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% M Aml/Als F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ED JAN 2 0 1999 OFFIOCFE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO R/NG North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Lakewood Elementary School 6002-058 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Ami/Ats Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 42 8 10 15 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 38 8 8 8 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 34 7 9 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 46 7 11 11 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 36 11 8 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 37 10 8 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 1 1 ,_ 0 0 J 0 0 0 ~o 0 0 0 Totals 234 52 ,.. . 54 69 ,~ 57 1 1 (/ 0 0 0 0 Pct 22.2% 23.1% 29.5% 24.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.3% 53.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 192 44 44 54 48 1 1 0 0 0 0 Pct 22.9% 22.9% 28.1% 25.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.8% 53.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Boone Park Elementary School 6002-054 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F,,, M F \"2. M F M / F M F J 35 4 ) 4 6 .1-17 1 3 r 0 0 0 0 K 94 5 5 39 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 68 5 4 31 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 02 81 4 9 31 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 03 67 3 3 38 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 04 59 3 4 34 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 60 3 5 31 -~ 20 0 0 \" 0 0 0 1 Totals 464 27 {.ti 34 210 ~'183 5 4 ,- 0 0 0 1 Pct 5.8% 7.3% 45.3% 39.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 13.1% 84.7% 1.9% 0.0% 0.2% Grades 1-5 335 18 25 165 121 4 1 0 0 0 1 Pct 5.4% 7.5% 49.3% 36.1% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 12.8% 85.4% 1.5% 0.0% 0.3% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Seventh Street Elementary School 6002-069 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 74 2 3 37 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 73 7 5 34 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 50 5 4 17 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 67 8 5 20 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 74 11 10 33 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 05 54 14 _.,.., 16 14 _\\ 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 392 47 ,- 43 155 ~ 146 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 Pct 12.0% 11.0% 39.5% 37.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.0% 76.8% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% Grades 1-5 318 45 40 118 114 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pct 14.2% 12.6% 37.1% 35.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 73.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Lynch Drive Elementary School 6002-060 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 16 9 20 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 60 9 14 13 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 02 64 7 7 23 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 03 69 5 10 25 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 57 8 7 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 74 11 I 11 30 _,...22 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Totals 389 56 \\ l 1 58 132 i,1-'\"140 2 1 ~ 0 0 0 0 Pct 14.4% 14.9% 33.9% 36.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29.3% 69.9% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 324 40 49 112 121 1 1 0 0 0 0 Pct 12.3% 15.1% 34.6% 37.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.5% 71.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Meadow Park Elementary School 6002-061 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 29 3 2 12 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 01 25 3 6 8 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 25 4 2 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 37 2 6 12 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 37 1 8 15 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 05 30 5 ,ct 6 10 Q 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 Totals 183 18 \"\"\\ 11 30 67 ,,. 62 2 2 ~ 0 0 1 1 Pct 9.8% 16.4% 36.6% 33.9% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 3.3% 26.2% 70.5% 2.2% 0.0% 1.1% Grades 1-5 154  15 28 55 52 2 2 0 0 0 0 Pct 9.7% 18.2% 35.7% 33.8% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.9% 69.5% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 North Heights Elementary School 6002-063 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 79 18 18 22 13 6 2 0 0 0 0 01 84 17 23 17 22 3 1 0 0 1 0 02 95 24 15 20 27 5 4 0 0 0 0 03 72 12 19 25 10 2 4 0 0 0 0 04 84 18 9 27 22 5 3 0 0 0 0 05 78 14 h18 17 1\\ 19 6 4 I/ 0 0 0 0 Totals 492 103 11r 102 128 i~ 113 27 18 r-, ~ 0 0 1 0 Pct 20.9% 20.7% 26.0% 23.0% 5.5% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% -0.0% 41.7% 49.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.2% Grades 1-5 413 85 84 106 100 21 16 0 0 1 0 Pct 20.6% 20.3% 25.7% 24.2% 5.1% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 40.9% 49.9% 9.0% 0.0% 0.2% . North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Crestwood Elementary School 6002-055 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 61 19 19 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 66 18 17 17 14 0 0 0 0 a 0 02 49 13 16 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 50 13 13 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 41 13 10 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 49 13 .. ,v18 8 .110 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Totals 316 89 ,~ 93 66 I'\"' 68 0 0 '-' 0 0 0 0 Pct 28.2% 29.4% 20.9% 21.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.6% 42.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 255 70 74 56 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pct 27.5% 29.0% 22.0% 21.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56.5% 43.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Park Hill Elementary School 6002-064 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade . Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 39 10 8 9 9 2 0 0 0 0 1 01 48 12 11 9 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 44 7 13 11 10 1 1 0 0 1 0 03 45 9 12 9 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 04 51 15 11 16 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 42 8 \\ 5 14 _d 14 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 Totals 269 61 117 60 68 , ...-. 70 4 3 '\" 0 0 1 2 Pct 22.7% 22.3% 25.3% 26.0% 1.5% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 3.3% 45.0% 51.3% 2.6% 0.0% 1.1% Grades 1-5 230 51 52 59 61 2 3 0 0 1 1 Pct 22.2% 22.6% 25.7% 26.5% 0.9% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 44.8% 52.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.9% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Pike View Elementary School 6002-065 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 62 11 7 21 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 01 63 12 12 22 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 69 16 10 22 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 03 67 11 13 27 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 56 14 11 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 48 10 -' 9 12 ~17 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 Totals 365 74 ,., 62 119 ~'106 1 3 7 0 0 0 0 Pct 20.3% 17.0% 32.6% 29.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.3% 61.6% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 303 63 55 98 85 1 1 0 0 0 0 Pct 20.8% 18.2% 32.3% 28.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.9% 60.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Belwood Elementary School 6002-053 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 33 11 6 5 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 01 14 3 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 35 11 9 6 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 03 23 4 3 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 29 7 5 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 23 4 3 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 1 0 - 0 1 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 158 40 ,- 30 40 ?)'4' 46 0 2 CT 0 0 0 0 Pct 25.3% 19.0% 25.3% 29.1% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44.3% 54.4% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 125 29 24 35 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pct 23.2% 19.2% 28.0% 28.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.4% 56.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Glenview Elementary School 6002-056 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 23 4 4 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 26 3 3 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 32 2 5 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 25 5 5 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 21 4 5 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 19 0 \" 1 9 ... 9 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0 Totals 146 18 ..,, 23 59 Iv-45 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Pct 12.3% 15.8% 40.4% 31.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.1% 71.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 123 14 19 50 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pct 11.4% 15.4% 40.7% 32.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.8% 73.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Indian Hills Elementary School 6002-057 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 21 23 9 9 0 1 1 1 0 0 01 67 20 20 15 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 02 86 22 20 19 23 1 0 0 0 1 0 03 76 21 20 19 11 1 1 0 3 0 0 04 73 15 21 19 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 57 11 ~'113 16 \\15 0 1 - 1 0 0 0 Totals 424 110 ~- 117 97 ,~ '87 2 3 , ... 2 5 1 0 Pct 25.9% 27.6% 22.9% 20.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 1.2% 0.9% 0.0% 53.5% 43.4% 1.2% 1.7% 0.2% Grades 1-5 359 89 94 88 78 2 2 1 4 1 0 Pct 24.8% 26.2% 24.5% 21.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 1.1% 0.3% 0.0% 51.0% 46.2% 1.1% 1.4% 0.3% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Redwood Pre-School Center 6002-056 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F,-1 M F.4~ M F M F M F J 140 3 I 4 65 67 1 0 0 0 0 0 K 20 0 ,., 0 9 _.-u1 0 0  0 0 0 0 Totals 160 3 I 4 74 ,~.. 78 1 0 ' 0 0 0 0 Pct 1.9% 2.5% 46.3% 48.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 95.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-':\u0026gt;~\"Y :fi~ 1-Oct-98  ~, ementary Totals ,o- White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F Elem Totals 4390 797 785 1376 1330 47 38 3 6 4 4 Pct 18.2% 17.9% 31.3% 30.3% 1.1% 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 36.0% 61.6% 1.9% 0.2% 0.2% WO/K\u0026amp; J 3468 654 650 1073 1015 36 28 2 5 3 2 Pct 18.9% 18.7% 30.9% 29.3% 1.0% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 37.6% 60.2% 1.8% 0.2% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 North Little Rock High School-West Campus 6002-076 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 49 10 6 18 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 127 20 7 60 37 2 1 0 0 0 0 11 521 128 131 114 139 4 3 0 0 0 2 12 545 155 136 104 136 6 3 2 3 0 0 Totals 1242 313 280 296 326 13 7 2 3 0 2 Pct 25.2% 22.5% 23.8% 26.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.7% 47.7% 50.1% 1.6% 0.4% 0.2% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 North Little Rock High School-East Campus 6002-075 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 725 162 173 173 195 9 10 0 2 0 1 10 646 168 157 149 163 3 1 2 3 0 0 Totals 1371 330 330 322 358 12 11 2 5 0 1 Pct 24.1% 24.1% 23.5% 26.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 48.1% 49.6% 1.7% 0.5% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Argenta Academy 6002-076 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 12 2 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 10 3 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 14 2 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 33 4 3 14 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 30 8 2 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 42 8 4 13 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 23 4 2 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 164 31 11 77 42 1 2 0 0 0 0 Pct 18.9% 6.7% 47.0% 25.6% 0.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.6% 72.6% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 312 53 60 98 94 1 6 0 0 0 0 08 330 70 51 93 109 3 4 0 0 0 0 Totals 642 123 111 191 203 4 10 0 0 0 0 Pct 19.2% 17.3% 29.8% 31.6% 0.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 61.4% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% ~, 7- North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 263 86 80 44 52 0 0 1 0 0 0 08 250 66 81 55 46 1 1 0 0 0 0 Totals 513 152 161 99 98 1 1 1 0 0 0 Pct 29.6% 31.4% 19.3% 19.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 61.0% 38.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Rose City Middle School 6002-077 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 153 31 22 51 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 183 33 29 61 57 3 0 0 0 0 0 09 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 338 65 51 113 106 3 0 0 0 0 0 Pct 19.2% 15.1% 33.4% 31.4% 0.9% 0.0% o.01~ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.3% 64.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Poplar Street Middle School 6002-059 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 603 125 140 168 157 4 8 0 0 1 0 Totals 603 125 140 168 157 4 8 0 0 1 0 Pct 20.7% 23.2% 27.9% 26.0% 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 43.9% 53.9% 2.0% 0.0% 0.2% North Little Rock Public Schools 1-Oct-98 Secondary Schools White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F Sec Totals 4873 1139 1084 1266 1290 38 39 5 8 1 3 Pct 23.4% 22.2% 26.0% 26.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 45.6% 52.5% 1.6% 0.3% 0.1% Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F District 9263 1936 1869 2642 2620 85 77 8 14 5 7 I Pct I 20.9%1 20.2% 28.5%128.3% 0.9%1 0.8% 0.1%1 0.2% 0.3%1 0.4% 41.1% 56.8% 1.7% 0.2% 0.1% !Omit I 8341 17931 1734 23391 2305 741 67 71 13 41 5 K/J I 21.5%1 20.8% 28.0%1 27.6% 0.9%1 0.8% 0.1%1 0.2% 0.2%1 0.3% 42.3% 55.7% 1.7% 0.2% 0.1% .... STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity AMBOY ELEMENTARY (with double portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 9 6 4 1 1 K 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special Special Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 32 X 23 = 23 X15= 15 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 487 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 (Computer room not included in calculations) = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 481 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 433 CURRENT CAPACITY - 433 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity AMBOY ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 9 6 4 K 1, 3 /4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 32 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 449 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 (Computer room not included in calculations)= -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 443 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 399 CURRENT CAPACITY - 399 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BELWOOD ELEMENTARY (with portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 3 2 5 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 69 X 25 = 50 X 8 = 40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 199 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 1998-99 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 193 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 174 CURRENT CAPACITY= 174 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BELWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 1 1 1 5 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 20 X 23 = 23 X 25 = 25 X 8 = 40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 108 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 102 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 92 CURRENT CAPACITY= 92 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 5 K 10 1-3 5 4-5 7 Special 1 Special X 20 = 100 X 23 = 230 X 25 = 125 X 8 = 56 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 534 1998-99 (Pre-School (2 rooms) and computer lab not included in calculations.) Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 528 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 475 CURRENT CAPACITY - 475 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY (with portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 7 4 4 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X23=161 X 25 = 100 X 8 = 32 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 353 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 34 7 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 312 CURRENT CAPACITY - 312 1998-99 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 5 3 3 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 115 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 24 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 274 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 268 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 241 CURRENT CAPACITY - 241 1998-99 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 3 2 6 2 K 1-3,3/4 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 69 X 25 = 50 X 8 = 48 X 23 = 46 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 253 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not counted) 1998-99 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 24 7 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 222 CURRENT CAPACITY - 222 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity IND/AN HILLS ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 9 5 2 7 K 1-3 4-5 Ortho/Special Special/Othro X 20 = 60 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 125 X 23 = 46 X 8 = 56 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 494 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 488 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 439 CURRENT CAPACITY - 439 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY (with portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 5 3 5 2 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 115 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 40 X 23 = 46 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 316 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 310 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 279 CURRENT CAPACITY - 279 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 5 3 5 1 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 115 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 40 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 293 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 287 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 258 CURRENT CAPACITY - 258 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 9 5 7 5 K, K-1 1, 2, 3, (3,4) 4, 5 Special Ed Special X 20 = 80 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 125 X 8 = 56 X 23 = 115 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 583 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included in calculations.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 577 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 519 CURRENT CAPACITY - 519 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY (with portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 4 2 6 K, K-1 1-3,3/4 4-5 Resource X 20 = 40 X 23 = 92 X 25 = 50 X 8 = 48 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 230 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 224 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 202 CURRENT CAPACITY - 202 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 4 2 5 K, K-1 1-3,3/4 4-5 Resource X 20 = 40 X 23 = 92 X 25 = 50 X 8 = 40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 222 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 216 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 194 CURRENT CAPACITY - 194 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY (with portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 K, K-1 11 1-3, 3/4 6 4-5  9 Resource X 20 = 80 X 23 = 253 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 72 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 555 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab and SAC not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 549 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 494 CURRENT CAPACITY = 494 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY (without portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 11 6 5 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Resource X 20 = 80 X 23 = 253 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 523 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab and SAC not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 517 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 465 CURRENT CAPACITY= 465 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity PARK HILL ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 6 4 5 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 - Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 138 X 25= 100 X 8 = 40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 318 Special Adjustments - Speech -6= -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 312 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 281 CURRENT CAPACITY - 281 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 9 4 6 K 1-3 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 100 x 8 = 48 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 415 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 409 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 368 CURRENT CAPACITY - 368 STEP 1- School Building Capacity REDWOOD (without portable) 1998-99 CURRENT USE ONL Y--ACTUAL CAPACITY NOT CALCULATED Identify each room by use and capacity. 8 Pre K 1 K 1 Special X18=144 X 20 = 20 X 2 = 2 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 8 5 7 1 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 80 X 23 = 184 X 25 = 125 X 8 = 56 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 468 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included also 4 Speciality classrooms not counted) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 462 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 416 CURRENT CAPACITY - 416 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grade 7 -12 School Building Capacity ARGENTA ACADEMY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 16X8=128 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 128 Special Adjustments - Program still evolving. Adaptable. Does not count seats unless full time assignment possible. Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 128 Multiply by 100% to determine \"Capacity\" = 128 CURRENT CAPACITY - 128 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades 9-10 School Building Capacity NLRHS - EAST CAMPUS (with portable) (112 for Jr. High) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 60 regular rooms - Stage, 501,502,504, 5058, 101, 103, 106, 107, 109,110,111,112,113,115,116,117,118,200,202,204,205, 206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219, 220,221,222,223,224,225,301,302,303,304,305,306,401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 503, Gym 1, Gym 2, Gym 3, Gym 4, Gym 5, @25 = 1500 Reading rooms - P1 @ 15 = 15 10 Special Education rooms-102A, 1028, 102C, 102D, 108, 114A, 1148, LR, 201, SOSA@ 8 = 80 Room 104, P2, and P3 are used for pull out programs not considered = 0 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1595 Special Adjustments - Special Education -41 Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1554 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\"= 1321 CURRENT CAPACITY - 1321 (Divide by 2 for 9th grade) 660 10th grade - Multiply STEP 4 by 80% to determine \"Capacity\"= 1243 (Divide by 2 for 10th grade) 622 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grades 9-10 School Building Capacity NLRHS - EAST CAMPUS (without portable) (112 for Jr. High) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 57 regular rooms - Stage, 501, 502, 504, 505B, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115,116,117,118,200,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210, 211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224, 225,301,302,303,304,305,306,401,402,403,404,405,406,503, Gym 1, Gym 2, Gym 3, Gym 4, Gym 5 @25 = 1425 Reading rooms - 101 @ 15 = 15 10 Special Education rooms - LR, 102A, 102B, 102C, 102D, 108, 114A, 114B, 201, 505A@8 = 80 Room 103 and 106 is used for pull out programs not considered = 0 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1520 Special Adjustments - Special Education -41 Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 14 79 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1257 CURRENT CAPACITY - 1257 (Divide by 2 for 9th grade) 629 10th grade - Multiply STEP 4 by 80% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1183 (Divide by 2 for 10th grade) 592 ., '' '. STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades 11-12 School Building Capacity 1998-99 NLRHS - WEST CAMPUS (without portable) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 16, 21, 22, 23, 54, 55, 56,101,109,111,112,113,114,115,117,118,200, 201,202,203,204, 205A, 206,207,210,212, 213A, 214,215,217,218,219, 222,401,403,404,406,407,409,410,411,412,414,416,417,510,511,512, G1, G2, G3, 600, 601, 603, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, stage---- 61 X 25 = 1525 208,209,215,216,220,302,304,305,306,308,310,311,312,400,408,413, 419, 611 , ----1 8 X 8 = 144 602---1 X 5 = 5 112--- 1 X 2 = 2 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1676 Special Adjustments - Special Education -25 Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1651 Multiply by 80% to determine \"Capacity\"= 1321 CURRENT CAPACITY - 1321 ,l ,.,_ ' STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grade 6 School Building Capacity POPLAR STREET MIDDLE (with portables) Identify each room by use and capacity - Sixth grade rooms. 36 rooms-A108, A109, A112, G1, G2, G3, G4, P1, P2, P3, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106,107,108,109,110,112,113,114,200,201,202,203,204, 2058, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214@ 25 = 900 8-Resource-A110,.111, A111, 206, P4, 102A, 205A, 205C@8=64 (Not counted A104A, A104B, PS, 115) Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 964 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 958 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\"= 814 CURRENT CAPACITY - 814 .. STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1998-99 Grade 6 School Building Capacity POPLAR STREET MIDDLE (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity - Sixth grade rooms. 31 rooms-A108,A109,A112, G1, G2, G3, G4, 102,105,106,107,108,109, 110,112,113,114,200,201,202,203,204, 2058, 207,208,209,210,211, 212, 213, 214@ 25 = 775 8-Resource-103, 111, A110, A111, 102A, 205A, 205C, 206@8=64 (Not counted) 104A, 1048, 101, 115 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 839 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 833 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 708 CURRENT CAPACITY - 708 ....... \" 1998-99 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD MIDDLE (with portable) STEP 1 - Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 26 regular rooms - Gym, Gym, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,202,203,204,206,207,209,210,211,212,213,214, Choir, 405, Band @ 25 = 650 3 Special Education rooms - 106, 201, 205 @ 15 = 45 Rooms 111, 200A, 200B, 208, 215@ 8 = 40 Rooms 101 and Portable SAC are used for pull out programs not considered - 0 STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 760 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments - Room 201 1/2 (-7), Room 405 1/2 (-12), 405  (-12) = -31 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 704 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 598 CURRENT CAPACITY - 598 , .......... 1998-99 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD MIDDLE (without portable) STEP 1 - Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 25 regular rooms - Gym, Gym, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109,110, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, Choir, 405, Band @ 25 = 625 3 Special Education rooms - 106, 201, 205 @ 15 = 45 Rooms 111, 200A, 200B, 208, 215@ 8 = 40 Rooms 101 and 107 are used for pull out programs not considered - 0 STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 710 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments - Room 201 1/2 (-7), Choir 1/2 (-12), Room 405  (-12) = -31 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 679 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 577 CURRENT CAPACITY - 577 STEP 1 - 1998-99 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity RIDGEROAD MIDDLE (with portables) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 29 regular rooms - FA1, FA2, Gym 1, Gym 2, G6, G8, 103, 104, 122, 123, 124,125,126,127,128,129,130,132,134,136,221,222,223,224, 226, 227, 229, P1, PS@ 25 = 725 10 Special Education room - G3, G4,G5, L 1, 121, P3, P4, 225, 228, 231@ 8 = 80 Rooms 102 (computer lab), Speech and P2 (SAC) are used for pull out programs not considered. = 0 STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 805 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments - Regular rooms as Special Education -21 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 784 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 666 CURRENT CAPACITY - 666 STEP 1 - 1998-99 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity RIDGEROAD MIDDLE (without portable) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 26 regular rooms - FA1, FA2, Gym 1, Gym 2, G6, G8, 103, 104, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 134,136,221,222,223,224,226, 227, 229, @ 25 = 650 8 Special Education rooms - G3, G4,G5, L 1, 121, 225, 228, 231 @8 = 64 Rooms 102 (computer lab), Speech, and SAC (128) are used for pull out programs not considered. = 0 STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 714 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments - Special Education usage -21 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 693 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 589 CURRENT CAPACITY - 589 STEP 1- 1998-99 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity ROSE CITY MIDDLE ( without portable) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 19 regular rooms - 103,105, S1, S2, S3, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 116, Art, HE1, HE2, Gym 1, Gym 2, FA, THE, LAB@25 = 475 11 Special Education rooms-100,102, 104,108,113,114,115,117, 118,119, Shop@8 = 88 Rooms 101, 107 are used for pull out programs not considered = O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 563 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments -Room 116 1/2 (-12), HE2 1/2 (-13) = -25 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 538 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 457 CURRENT CAPACITY - 457\nSCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT \\ November 1 a, 1 998 \\~P ~~\\l \\r ~ti /\\ 1 ) O' p-cy ~,\n h ). ,/' f' i? HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Fuller Jacksonville Middle Jacksonville Junior High Northwood Robinson (2-rooms devlded) Alpha Academy Sylvan Hills ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Melo Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 J SO~) 998 f.' SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 30~\n? 0 925 P, SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 768 660 576 833 340 820 465 526 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570 ~7~ ?i~' -.{ )-r------------------A-N_N_U_A_L __ S_C___OH _ O___LR _E_P_O___R___TP__ U_P__I__E L_ N_R__O_M LE_L_N _B T__ Y_ S_C__H_O _O_L F _O__R___M__ O _c _t_o_b__e__ lr_ ,---~-----~/~j~o/~-J-----------------------------------------------~, fld/UNS - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - . 17 \" \" ! ,. 21 T, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pt h1 i,, il'l \"\" ,_., ~I \"' \"3 - ~ \"' f\" ., ~7 \"' - 1~ \" \" \" \" \" ) LEA# 6003J.4+ 0 'f 0 ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Countu PULASKI Law 20 - U.S. C 1221E-1 School : PULASKI COUNTY Grade Span : l,ee,,K- S: US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92 1 + - -- -- - -+\"\"' IMBC:D 1-------------------'-++ _--- --------++'--_-+-'----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-__-___-__- _-_-_-_-lc-!_n--_1--_1-\n:ii-._i--J_lL-_~-e.~.:- ln_l:I-:Eif-:- -_-+--c--.-.-i:__-i_,,- _- +------------------------------------------------------+---- I-~\" - Enroll *!~1-! :_-2_._:3___ 8-~_~ -l~-~--[Q_~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! _ nnn\n: Choice**' Jt,..NZ U ,-:r\n,,~.,--------ij K-F\"ull Day Only +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- i1 1---------------..!.+_--_-~-,...!.+_.:_+-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-..::....:..:.._.-_+_e___-__ _:_:__ .\nJillll\\ctlOCf f t1 Enroll*!!/! ',_iJ.c~-~,'.'.'.-~_Jg~j_O __ ~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! DESESREGATION!,l{)Rfi'ORllll:i '. Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Choice**' Choice**' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll -~ * !_tL-2! : ..15 , /,2.,,_, 1:\n___, g _,- ---,- ----,- ---,- ----,- ---,- ----! I~'c, _____________ ...:C:..cch=.--.e..=:0-:*..-\n*1-:'.-.'\n-- --'---'-----'----'-----'-----''-----'-----''----'-----''----'-----''-------------------------\u0026lt;r,.\n''1 Grade:\n+----+ +----+ Enroll *I / I +-~=+ Choice**! I +------------------------------------------------------+---+------------------------~ ~---------------------------+---- ' /(JI /::.ti I] I I/\\ I I I I 1- L _____ - __ 1 .--- -----------------------------------+ I I I I '.j ------------------:-+_-_-_-_-...,+ __ +,....-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_+_-_-_-------------------------+----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ::::::.:\nll\u0026lt;'.1~ :---~\n-----\n----~-:_----\n---\n-----\n----\n------\n----\n-----~ ~11 ~9-f+ + 3 g 7 ~ ?\n). ft, I ------------- I - ----------------+---- O'i Grade 6 Has your district voted to PJ,11~:~t~ in School Choice for 1996-97? YVES __ NO u~/ I ___ P_e_r_s_o_n_m_ia__nk_ g_t_h_i_s_r_e_p_o_r__ (tL=.. /,_l!Z-__\"\u0026lt; '\"!,!__ aA.,-_J_.__ah __tw1_ ______ T_e_1_e_p_h_o=n=_=e=_=: ==========~---P_a_g_e_i _______________________ t''.I (I Ju\u0026lt;( .,\n:7~ ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, ~ /77 J 7 -SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - ARNOLD oe.  ' LEA# 6003~ 1.37 ADE form# fin 09-00-010 R/92 \u0026gt;'.--~C\u0026lt;..!ol.!ul.!n.Lt!\u0026lt;.u!i_~.!:P~U!'L=_-_'A_:_,._,Se.,K_\"-_\"_-I_ ____ _,L,.a.._w\"'-\"\"'20c_\n-_,U\u0026lt;....\u0026gt;\"'\"-\"CE.-.~_1..._.1_ ..,_e\u0026gt;e\u0026gt;.__.,1_\"_'-_-_____________________ ~) [...:.. School : PULASKI CQUNTY US Department of Education / Grade Span :_.K.....,.._--\"b\"'----- FAPD6 R/92 j 1------------------------=+==============================:r,u\"='~\"=~\"- ________________ ___:___:_--1' WHITE NOTI BLACK NOTI !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES I ,1--------------------\n=ro-\"/-a~ \"'l-~~~\n-:-~-:---1-~-\n-\n-~-:-~-\n-:-~-:--~-I-\n-\n-~-:-~-\n-:-~-:---1~ -\n-\n-~-:-~-\n-:-~-:---1~ -\n-\n-~-:-~-\n-:-~-:---1~ ---i-\n-~-:~___._l __________________________ -\n' 1 +----+ +------- ----------------------------------------------+---~ 'f----'Pc_'ri:.,=\"'.r:,\"J.nw,n .u ~:.i-c.,-!+j.,-\"-\".,-.C.,.,rL'.L1\",-.- 'e=--i:_n.,_,.__1_.._._ 1.,.L*C_Jl._I ...___ 1_ .1_ __ .l. .__ __,l __ ,_1 _ __.1_ _ ...__1 __.1_ _ ,_1_ __.1 __ ,_1_ _ _ _____________________ ,., IC +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ \" 1,, 11 \" \" iC'C ~ 122 I~n . 11, II, ~' ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I !-------------------+,_-_-_-_-~+-~+~---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- __________________________________________________~_+___-__________________________________________ _____ _,,,, +----+ +-----------------------------------------------------+---- ___ K_-_,_u_l_l_D_a_q_O_n_l__q :_:_:_:_:_:_*_:_\n_,_:_\n_=_:_\n~=\n-'~--_~\n'_-f o_=_\n_\n_\n_=\n__\n~__~\n__==__\n_\n_\n_~_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n__\n__\n__=\n__\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n_=_l_\n_\n_\n_\n_\n~~'--=-=-=-=-----------------------1~ Grade 1 Enr o 11 * !.k 0_! : ...d... j~Cj I_ s I_ q __I _ ___ I _____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I-----! Chai r,e** I I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1-----\"G'-'r_,,a,.,d,_,e=---'2=---------\"E\"'n,.,.r_,,o,_,l\"l,._*c..+_.-,1_~1- ~-11-'-'!-~:c...,.~I~ \"'~-' I._!,' ~- ~ --~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! Choice**I I I I I I 1-------------------+,_-_-_-_-_,+_~+c_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--'+_-_-_-_- _____________________ --l:~ Grade 3 Enroll *!:5-i! ::~e::~:\u0026amp;~::::\n:~:z~::::~:::::~::::~:::::~::::~::::::---- t1 Choice**!----! +------------------------------------------------------+---- r, +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- I~ Grade 4 Enroll *!J~'.~! :_Lf~_J_~-~-_J:-~_(f _~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! ~- _____________ .,,Ccehc.,o,_,i,.,_c_,. .\ne._*,c..*,_\"-_'- 1_ _,__ __ ,___ _,__ _ ---''-----'------''---'------''---'------''--------------------------\u0026lt;t Grade 5 Grade 6 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+ .--- +----+ 1=n.,..n11 -1-1 /I/! +-/--..!-+ Choice**I I +----+ +----+ Enroll *!..2-1! +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1 t~ 1 ,ct-1 /JI,/ 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 I- __________ J --- I ----------------------------------+  I +------------------------------------------------------+---- +------------------------------------------------------+---- : _ g_~ __ LJ_~--~~--~--~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! I I ~ Choice** I I ,_I I I I I I I I I I ~ 1 1-----------~+3.~q--i,~+_+_/~~1_--_,_.5~,_-_,_L{_,_4_-_,_,,q1----------------------------------+---- I llC Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1\n\".r ------------2-.~-7--------q-~-------------------------l, ,,t-------------------~--------------------------------------------------------\n~ \"1 I 8 I IO \" \" \" \",, ~ ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, -997 /q7 i - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - LEA# Countu 6003~ 0 \"l:J... PULASKI School PULASKI COUNTY Grade Span : K--k, ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92 + -+\"-lllMqFR I WHITE NOT I BLACK NOT I I ASIAN/PAC. I AM INDIAN I of \\ ------------------~ r.r~\"\"~~'\" ~~!---~-~_:_:_~-~-~-=---~---~-~_:_:_~--~-~-=:_--:_~-_-'~ -~-=---~--=-_-=1- ~-~-~-=-~---L-_-1~ -=-~-~-~-:-_--'._=-__~+_~:I_ _s_E___s _____________ -,,'.I Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl ,. +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ., c-~~~ 11 * I I I , I  I I I I I I +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I  r -----------------~+_-_-_-_-_+~_+-'----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_+c_-_-_-_- ____________________ --1''. +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- K-Full Day Only Enroll : /Cj__, 11__, I '_.13_ i ____ , _____ , ____ 1 -----, ____ 1 _____ 1 Choice**!----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- :j Grade 1 Enroll *!Si! :~s:1_d~'- .,\nii_~ 1 ____ 1 _____ , ____ 1 _____ , ____ , _____ ! - \" z ,-------------~C~h~o~1~ c~e~*~*-'-'--~-~-~---~-~---~-~---'----~--~'----~---'--------------------------f~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- d z +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- l----''-'--'=G=-r=a-d-e-- ----=2= -==.....c.+-'-'-'f-\"L,,_,'l-Enroll *I 11J\"_'-\"_-i '+--,:-I- _-'c\"l_r\u0026gt;.1'i: t=7-'-1_ -I_ -_I- J_'7-yb-I_ '--_\"- _--\n_,f--'-_-_,_:,1.,-_-_--'_'--_-_-_-_-_-'-_-_-_-_-_--'_'--_-_-_-_-_-'-_-_-_-_-_--'_'--_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_--'+'--------------------------[_\nI u Choice**' I ( ~ f-------------------'-:-=-=-=-=-:--:-=-=-----=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-~ X Enroll *!1'..J_! :_L.J.~-1~-~--~-~--7--~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----1 ~ 1----------------::Cc:-h-o_i,_c_e_*_*-:-l ----:--c-----:----c-----:-----:,-----:-----:,-----:-----:,-----:-----:,--------------------------i Grade 3 ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 13' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 13\u0026lt; i,, Enroll *I 50 1 I 'lQ I c().t\nI 3 I / I I I I I I I +----+ I~--------------------------------------------------+ Grade 4 pt p, 1--------------~='--'--~-+~--_-_-_~+--+--C-_h-o_i-c_e-*_*-'_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-+---_-_-_---------------------,A ~ i,, i,, I\" t-1141 \"' .l----'G'-'r'--'a=-d=-=-e--\"5--------=:\"-':-'-':'--':=:-~. e*=_-1* .::.~*:.~.::.3~\"-'::-,=.., :':---~-f+-~'---t:- ~-.~-.'.-- ~t:--:- f-\":J:f-----:1-:?:.\n.\u0026gt;.:- -:-'-r~J-::,-_:--:,- :-~'--:-:-:-:-'-~-:-:-:-:-:--'~'--:-:-:-:--_,_~-:-:-:-:-:--'~'--:-:-:-:--_,_~-:-_:-:-:_-:_-~'--_---___-_-_________ -j~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- \"\"'' \"' I\" +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ,____ G_r_a_d_e_6----~--E_n_r_o_1_1_*_!_\n__Q__ _1__ _\n__1:_ } __ _~_- J. _Q___ _'_ ___ q__ _ ___ 1 ___f__ ----~---------~-----------~---------~-----------~--_---_---_-~--_--__-___-_-__!_ __ --1''-I Choice**' \"' I\" +~'!)\"!) + I 31 t Sf\"\"-3 D 3-0 ---------------------------------+---- 1~ Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO - 1~ ,, Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------r'.'' Page 1 ,\". \" .  J I II 13 ,. \"\" 17 18 \" ~ z V ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ p, P' ~ ~ L I I... . ~ j ~  .,,  ,, ,, '\" ~ ~' l1t ~\nANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - LEA!t Countu PULASKI School: PULASKI COJ.JNTY Grade Span:_-'-!\u0026lt;-'--~\"=---- ADE Formlt Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92 + - +\"'-IIIMDC'O WHITE NOTI BLACK NOTI !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES r-~~no +------------------------------------------------------+---- Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ' J ' ,, r __ __,P_~La..__'=-.\",~.,~, a~,~_,n,__,+~-~=a~nL_ -_~ __,\u0026lt;'~n,~L'n~~'~,. *--''---~l_ ___ 1 ~ __ '---~---~-~1--~~-~---~-~--~~---------------------- t. K-Full Day Only Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 +----+ 1--~---------------------------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *!.5%! : /\u0026lt;/I _J\n)._1_J}\n_1_f_61 ____ 1_ ____ 1_ ___ 1_ ____ 1_ ___ 1_ ____ ! Choice**I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- + --+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *!-~5-'! :\n51_./.JJ 1_19 '_\nJ._/_1 ____ 1 _____ 1 ____ 1 _____ 1 ____ 1 _____ ! r.h nir e** I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ Enroll *If r/ I +~-v--+ Choice**I +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1,s:11c,,116, I\" l I I I I I I I I ______ y _____ r ___....., -----------------------------------+ I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *1 7 2_.1 1/g I_/_/\u0026gt; I J7 I /7 I I I I I I I +----+ 1-----\"' --------------------------------------------+ Choice**I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---+----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- En r o 11 * !-5~-! : /_ 5 I __ 7'_ I j_,5_ I_ /_ .1_I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ ! Choice**I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *I//? I 11.r\\ I r/1 1-\n:,I/\"\"\u0026gt; I I I I I I I +J'\u0026gt;-l_+ 1~V OLY---------------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I I I I +----+ +---------------------------------- -------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *l{,)_I I /\u0026lt;fl /,51 /Cjl /'fl I I I I I I +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I ' , ~ 'I r' 1 f.1 ~I cs! ~'( :i:: \u0026lt; I\n,( ., :~, I' t'' ~- +-v~v +IO ,-- [/ 0 -- I d5'\"- I 1--e-----------------------------------+---- [ \"- -------------------'-~--------------------------------------------------------\nt Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1 . l '.i L '--' ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, ~ /91 'if - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - I LEA# 6003 .i-at:r o\u0026amp;f f' Countu PULASKI School : PULASKI CQUNTY Grade Span : _ _.:._K..,_-~b=---- ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 ) Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 US Department of Education ~ FAPD6 R/92 :I t------------------------+'-----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-.:__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_+,._.-\u0026gt;JI_,.,,\"'---' IMl\u0026gt;.,_l___,,_!=_R__ _____________ ----1'1 , I WHITE NOT I BLACK NOT I I ASIAN/PAC. I AM INDIAN I of 1 \\ I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES ,:! t-----------------+_)-__,,~_,_:.,,,\"t\"':'-'~~-+'--1\n-:---y-:-~-~-\n-~-~-:--\n--,: ---y-:-~-~-\n-~-~-:-~-\n-:-~-:.::.:~~G-\n-~-\n~-:--:--y-,- :-~-~-\n-~-~-:-~-\n-:-~---s-~-~-\n-~-1:..:::..:7'-'----=---=-----------------------l .I ,\nf---'.rP:..i'~c., 0,::-:ol\u0026lt;no.1.1...i..1:nn-= --i.,-~al..J~c.:\"!ic 01tll\"--=\"'\"u~::..i-~\u0026gt;.. 1 L 1 ,L_*:\u0026gt;!CL:-:-:-:-:...l:--:L:-:-:-_--L~-:-:-:-:-:-~L:-:-:-_-:---:L-::- :-:...J~L:-:-:-_--L~-:-:-:-:-:-~L:-:-:-_---:-1:-.::- :-:.J~L:-:-:-:-~-1.--:-:-:-:-:.J:L-_-_-__-__________________ ...jli Choice**:====: :====~=====~====~=====~=-==~-----~----~---==~-===~-=-=-:____ 1:1 ,, ll \" 17 ,\", l1\u0026lt;l ~I 1----K_-_F_u_1_1_D_a_y_o_n_1Y _ _ E_n_r_o_1_1_*J__+_ : c,_?__'_ ,!_ ..:.-.= ~-\"'L--__-_:_' !L_~---~_-o_ ___~__ -_L\n_:_c.====================-:..:,+c..._ __________________ --tf~I Choice**' ----:----c-----=-----=-=-~~-,-----:-------'-----------t1-- +----+ +---------------------------------------~--------------+---- . +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Grade l Enro 11 * !9-:'2_:~ t LQI J /9_ I_ /_I __ O _I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I-----~ Choice**' '.J In +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~t In ,, \" +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- -~ 1----G\"--r'--'a\"'de.:e=---=2=----------\"E:.:.n:..:.r...:,o:..:l~l__::*-'-091_-e ,f..,__.,,_1I _ ,,+t-c:2_'\u0026gt;,-1,',-_1+ 1...:.....,1~ ,,__.(,.J../\"\\--''-----'------'-'---''-----'-' ---'-' __ _.,_I--------------------~:, 1 +----+ 1-----------------------------------------------------+ ,. Choice**! I I I I I I I I I I I j \" 28 f------------------+-'----_-_-_:+ __ +\n_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-__-___-_-__-___:+___-____-__-_____ .) ,4 ~ ~ 31 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l7 ~ ~ ~ I ~ \" ~ ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- '3 Grade 3 I'-/~ I l/~ I / I J._ I I I I I I I !------~-----------------------------------------------+ Choice**' I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Grade 4 Enroll *~_i.2_:!_ ':l.Q.~_.Y_A_~ :-_-~-~J ----~-----~----~-----~----~-----~\nc _____________ _\nC::.:h:c.:=0-:=.1-=e-.c _.*_.c .*.:.1., ___'-----'----'-----'----'-----'----'-----'------''-----'------''-------------------------l'- Grade 5 Grade 6 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- -~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- :\u0026lt; Enroll *' Q ,, I '\" I .,,.. I 2 I \" I I +----+ 1t __ y ____ - --- \"-' ----------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ Enroll *' {p~ I +----+ Choice**' I +3-~t: +------------------------------------------------------+---- :3 y, _3i , J -, -- 1 _, ----, -----, ---- 1- ---- 1- --- 1- ----~ Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO ~ . Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1 SI S1 ~ ,l ,.. 5l I J I_ ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 , LEA# 6003l-ae /::2.9 ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 7 CO:.o scHooL cH01cE aY cHoicE -\n,.,._. _ __,C,__,o,.,u,.,n\"-t\"-u\"---'--'-P_..,U_c_,_L_,._,__A_.,,S_,_.,_K_-=. I _,.L. a \"'w\"'-\"'2,.0_-_,.U. .., Sa.._\nC,.__.J._01--\"_'-,'=1:.\u0026gt;_2_ ..,,1_\"_\"-_-____________________________ ,. School : PULASKI CpUNTY US Department of Education Grade Span :_'--K-'---=\"=---- FAPD6 R/92 1-----------------------....:,:+:=-===============================-=,u\"u.'~=n=\"\"n\u0026lt;-----------------------I\"' I WHITE NOTI BLACK NOTI !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES 1--------------------\"=-.,.-u\"ulo,__....:,:+================================+=='------------------------IH Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- f 1f--_ _.jpc.~=o :n..l,('-'n u.,rl.t:-CL.\\-~-11-.\u0026lt;1:' .f~c'..okt: , .J.Ln_ _ .c..ul=\"n,=~nL1L.1L..4Il !:.L_. _ L_l._1_1_ _.__I __ .J_.I_ _ L_I_ __ L___l __,I'-----''----'- I ___ .I, __ L_I_ __ L___l_ _____________________ --l , +----+ ,------------------------------------------------------+ r Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I '-1--__________________ +.,_-_-_-_-_+c_~+___-___- ___________________________________________________________________,_+_L_.-_---_--_---_--_---_--_---_--_---_--_---_--_,'_\" ___________ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1---K_-_F_u_1_1_D_a_y_o_n_1___Y_ E_n_r_o_1_._.1.+ _.!! ..'. __'6_.5_., ! .:. ~..~ =-_.3_~_-__J___~ _\u0026amp;'__.._ 1 __L _0_-~--.~.__---~_-.~.~.!~~-~'1-- --------------'-------~-=-----------------~~-==\"'\"'------------------------_,['.\n:: Choice**!----+ -+------------------------------------------------------+---- [ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- t Grade 1 Enroll *'80 I +----+ C-:hn\nro**' I  :~~~ -~-1 I - 9.~I - I I - I---- I----- I---- I----- I---- I-----! I I  I I I I I I I I I ~1----'G'-'r'-'a=d.,,e'---'2~-------'E='n~r,_,,_o..,,l'-'l'-'*'--:-'-, =_,,_,=_,-L=r~=-~I ~i=~~=i=~==~=,.=-'~'--=-=_=_=..,i_=_=_=_= __=_.. ,i_=_=_=_=_=_,=__, === =~=.,_= _iL.=_=_=_=_=-'i_'-_-=_-_=___-_-__=_ ____________ f 12\u0026lt; Choice** I I I  I  I I I I I I I I I .i. +----+ +-----------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ,. ~ Grade 3 Enroll *I 75'1 13J_1~t..J I 3 I /( I I I I I I I ~ +----+ 1------------- - ----. ----------------------------------+ p,1----------------C-h_o_i_c_e_*_*_I ---,----~:--,--,--~----------,----,-----------,--------------------------, ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- p.1----G-r_a_d_e_4 _______ E_n_r_o_l_l_*...'-'-8~3--'-'--'-'-~-s--,-3-2---,-/-s1--/-/-,---,---,---,---,---,---'-,-----------------------'._ ~ +----+ !---.-----------. --------------------------------------+ ~p, 1---------------~==~-+~--_-_-_~+~-+~--_-_-_C-h_o~i_c-e_*-*_' -_-_-_~_-_-_-_~_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~+---_-_-_-----------------------\n.. ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- : Grade 5 Enroll*!_~~! : ~~~_2_'f___'~[_~ ---'J-~- --~-----~----~-----~----~-----~ ( 1 Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I ~2 +----+ +-------------------------.----------------------------+---- ,,1--------------------+---_-_-_-+--+---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-'--_-'-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_~+---_-_-_-----------------------\u0026lt; -:: -Grade 6 Enroll*!-~-~! :-~-~~-\"'i._~__~ k_ {_~f- --~-~- ----~----~-----~----~-----! ~ Choice**I I I t 0 ~ 5,-o+ +,q'J--,~-1:\n---1:\n-li---------------------------------+---- t ,,1------------------~-------~---------~--------------------------------------------~t,. ,., Has your district voted to participate in School Choice ror 1996-97? __ YES __ NO 1: Person making this report: ___________________ Telephone:_________ Page 1 ' \"\" d-i7 4.v, ,/1 i~f Ir ,,1-------------------~-----~~-----------------------------------------------------...\n, ~, , I '-\u0026lt;--------------------------------------------------__\n:\n{!__/1/IJ10N ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - LEA# 6003~ 0'f5 Countu PULASKI School : PULASKI cou::rv Grade Span : fu K- h. ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-l US Department or Education FAPD6 R/92 +----------------------- ---------------------------+MIIM~ER I WHITE NOTI BLACK NOTI !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I or I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES '1-------------------=Gr~a~d~e~_+_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_+~----------------------------1 Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- '1-----'-' Pr....,e._-_n,.Lr.,l\u0026lt;e=.,.., ._.~,, n._t..a.,'e-'\"-'-\"''r- '----\"'-'-'Enuo.,.....,,lr'- 'l._*l=-'--\"-1\"''--'1 -'-'l __ l,.__1+1i \\+-'-i-+\u0026lt;/~ l,.___,f--6..-'-l--'A'-}--I.J,1 -/~.l, l_,. ____ ...,lc._ _,_1 _...,l'----'-1 __ _...,l'------------------------...f ic +...LJe--+ 1------ '-\"-' I~ \"\"'I --------------------------------+ 11 Choice**il,71 I~~ 11'b I I I \"r- _________________ +_-_-_-_-_ +_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-___-_-__-___-_-___-_-__-___-_-___-_ -_-_-_-_+_-_-_-_- -\n_.1 13 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- \"1----K_-_F_u_1_1_D_a_y_n_1_Y_ __ E_n_r_o_1_1_*_,!'----'~-~M_~!_....,:__1~_ __~L__\n__ 1 _~_~_ 1_..J_,_~ 9, 1 ________ 1 __________ 1 _________ 1 ___________ 1 _________ 1 ________,__! __________________ --f.i-' 1 1 Choice**I 17 +----+ +---------------------------------------~--------------+---- te +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 19 ~ \" :r- Gradel Enroll *L17_! Choice**I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 'I :\n1-----'Gc.crc..ca=-d=e~2'--------~E~n~r~oc.cl=l -*~!..,.,,..1-1,_1~_-!-~.~__:: .t. ,,,,/,,-_~~---_..,-.1,-.7,.i~,-_-_~1 0 ._,,,,_\"'..,\"\u0026gt;-'-_1...-,~-_,.-._,,~__.\"-._..-i_..-..,-,_-_-_~1 -_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-+~-----------------------!~ ~ Choi c e** I I I 1 LV. ~1--------------------+--------- +----+ ..-.- +-+--_-----_-----_-----_--_---_--_---_--_-----_-----_-----_--_---_--_---_--_---_--_-----_-----_-----_--_---_--_---_-.--._.- ---_---__+--__---------_-----_-------_----_----_-------_i,-1_ -_-_-_-_- J : Grade 3 Enroll *!L03.! :~Q~_f_~_~_5~_~.Q_~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! 1----------------------~------------------------------------------------------1\" 31 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Choice**I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *IO Al +--:L...1.l.+ Choice**I : _1.z_1_ _/_ '3 I ,)__.:I: f.3_. {l_ I ____ 1_ ____ I ____ I _____ 1_ ___ I _____ ! +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ Enroll *I t:Jtl I +-~..l-+ Choice**I +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1 A I ,,/ I ,-, ., I A , I I I I I I I jd-\u0026gt;-i LI CZ:..V ....,_..,. --------------------------------+ I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,, 4 +-7-:f_,t + 115 J5,\n_ - 11 f' .\nJ./ 0 ---------------------------------+---- I 1-------------------~-'----------------'---------------------------------------------ij Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO j Person making this report: __________________ Telephone:________ Page 1 .,j\n:.1------------------------------------------------------------------------------l I ~,, ff.?7 J~1 y\n1 ,,1-------------------\"'-'----------------------------------------------------------1, \"l\na ~7 j -~ ' ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 Coll~e Sta.+10\"1 LEA# : 600~ /3,S' Countu : PULASKI - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U. i::: C 1\"\"11\" 1 School : PULASKI CDVNTY US Department of Education Grade Span : __ I{.,_,___.~,.___ FAPD6 R/92 , 1-----------------------=+=============================:.=-=.,\".u:elMT\u0026gt;~~i:-0tL_ ___________________ --l1,I I WHITE NOT! BLACK NOTI !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES ..... Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl 1 e +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- \\ ,\nf---'D=-~i,.\n-\n:ci.\u0026lt;cu..nu, L.LU,1.,,.,,.'-\\-j..\u0026lt;LL_: ..__J,.i.:.-,:_:.-J.uLin-,1,..e,cnlzu..,,..4..~ ---_-_-_-~'-----.-L-'l -_-'~---_-_-_-_-~.L--_-_-_-'~---_-_-_-_-~L_-_-_-_-'~---_-_-_-_-~L--_-_-_-'~---_-_-_-_-~L_-_-_-_-'-~---_-_-_-_-~'-------------------------1::! 11 Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I ,i +----+ +---------------------- ---- ------ ----- -- --- .... +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- :: K-Full Day Only Enroll *!_LS:.! : _ .\n2_ I _ / I _ 9 I--~- I ___ I _____ I__ _ I_ _ __ I ____ I __ -~ 11\u0026lt; Choice**I I ::. ._ _________________ +_c-_--_c--::_--::_++.,___,_+_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-___ -_c__ -___-__c_____-_=___c_:c.__.cc .c.__c-c'-__c-'- _-_'-._c. '.-_'c.-.- '= '- ...:_.cc_cc_cc_cc_cc_cc___c_c_+_\"_'-_\"_--=_-_c_c_-_______ ---f 1 ~ +---------------------- - - ---- --- - - --- -- + ~ ~ Grade 1 Enroll*!\n:?)_! : __ ,3_~_ _Q _~--ll~ __1 _~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----1 ~ Ch O ire** I I I I I I I I I I I I I [d ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- n\u0026lt; ~ Grade 2 Enroll * I - - I I .,., I .- I I - I I I I I I I -I ~ Choice**~o{.U.~ :--:::-,.7.\u0026gt;--' ~-JC~-,_., -7----7-----7----7-----7----7-----~ M ,1111-------------------+\"----_-_-...,+~_+---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_,+_-_-_-_- _____________________ ..\n'' : Grade 3 Enroll *!~i! :~s-7~~7~~b-7~~!~7~~~~7~~~~~7~~~~7~~~~~7~~~~7~~~~~!---- r, ~,1---------------C-h_o_i_c_e_*_*_l __ --:I----.,-----:--:--.,----------,---.,---------------------------------\n~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- u ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- I~ ,~1----G-r_a_d_e_4_ ______ E_n_r_o_l_l_*_!__Ji.!_ _] _ : __!__ __Z_1~ -- _-_-, _-_-(-/_-~---_-J_-_/ -~---------~-----------~---------~----_---_---_---_--~--+------,-- -_---------_----,- ---~'.~ p~, 1--------------~=~=----+~--_-_-_~+-~+~C-h-_o-ic_e-_-!_ ~_-_-_-_-_...,_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~+---_-_-_---------------------L ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- I..P9.t--~G~r~a~d~e~5~------E=n~r=o=l=l~*~'-l'rt'-'~'-~'___,',...Q-'Ll~-,..'-ri Q. I I Li I / 2 I I I I I I I s. ~ +---:=..--+ 1 -- ._ -- JV ---~l__v _________________________________ + Choice**' +----+ I I I I  I I I I I I +------------------------------------------------------+---- ] +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- i Grade 6 \" ~ Choice**' I I I I I ,, ,.1 ~ 2\nsr + ,, , - 9 v '11- -- 1oo ----------------------------------+----\n:, SC ~1-----------------------~~-~~-----~------------------------------------------i,,1'  Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ ND ~I Person making this report: __________________ Telephone:________ Page 1 '.,j \" _1------------------------------.\n. \"\" .q~7, .-1 /{(? I ~C, ~ i ~,l----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ~ ~ t...,' ______________________________________________________________ __!) ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 CQ.S\\/T AL. H--1L L ' LEA# 6003~ O't 3 - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 J' Countu PULASKI Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 School PULASKI COUNTY Grade Span : Pt,:e.,k- lo FAP06 R/92 US Department of Education\n:l +------------------------------------------------------+hlllMA~Q J------'-----------------~1-W_H_I_T_E_N_O_T_I _B_L_A_C_K_N_O___T___I_ _ I A_S_I_A_N_/__P___AI A_CM _I_N_D_I_A_N\"-o'-'=I f\"'-'-'-'----------------------l,_:_1 I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES Qr~ne +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1 t-----K_-_F_u_1_1_o_a_y_o_n_1_Y_ __ E_n_r_o_1_1_*...,!'-_'-_~.. -.,r! '----':_:i.\n____..~_.._ :q-_ l_'_.i_ __~__ ~___:::uQ. _____1~ :\n:___- :_:_2 : :.:::1.: -========...\nc_::====+ ____________________ --1:: Choice**I d +----+ +---------------------------------------'--------------+---- !! +----+ +--------------------------- - -- - - ---------- + 1 ,1---Gr_a_d_e_l _______ E_n_r_o_l_l_*...:.!r-__q_ +\n-:I' --~-----1-.:2._--.2.-I _.2_--2-1--~-~--1- __-_ -_-=-==1- _-_-_-_-1'-'-_-=__-.=.:_..'.-_'-::.\".-:1_ =_-__-___-11 ._c_ ..__\"' .-c_c\".- _::.=:+=e-::-.-:I- ----------------tf~:'j 1 1-------------'----'C'-'h'-o=i=-c_,,_e.c.*.c.*..c.l __ ......:.._-'------'----'------'----'----'---'---'----'---'----'--------------------------l'- z +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- z +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ,.,( \"1- _ ___:G,crc...:a::.d=e--'=2'--------\"E'-'n.:..:rc...:O::.l:_.._.::.\nl_ *-'-!+u_-'-'!F '---,'1-:1 --_J-f:--' v..~..: , ~~---~d.AM'-.1f- -J_-.\n. c1s::\":\u0026gt;-_--'-~-\n::-~_=-H--_~-!=t--__'-1- _-_-_-_-_'-_-_-_-_-_-'--_-_-_-_-_-'_'-_-_-_-_-_-'--_-_-_-_-_-'+'------------------------n~ u Choice**I I I I I I I I I I I I I '.j +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Grade 3 Enroll I f.:/(1 I ~11 :\n,_2_1 3/1 /g\"I I I I I I I { :,1---------------C-h-o-,-_c_e_--7---------7--l-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~-------~---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_+ _______________________ _.\nJ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ Grade4 Enroll+IQ:21 ~ +-ls:2.+ : ~L 1 _,2 b I :ZJ 1 _ / 'j 1 ____ 1 _____ 1 ____ 1 ____ 1 ____ 1 _____ ! ~1------------------'C~h~o~1~c=-=-e*_*~l--~-'-----'----'-----'----'-----'----'-----'----'-----'------''-------------------------\u0026lt;'1 '1 Grade 5 Grade 6 +----+ +----+ Enroll *I ,-/ I +LI!~+ Choice! I +------------------------------------------------------+---+------------------------------------------------------+---- 1 ,.,,1 - , I -, ~ I '1 ,LI I I I I I I tal,__L ....J,.L - _._ I \"\"' 1  --------------------------------+ I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ,, J Enroll * !l9-.f+ :\n)__~I_~'{ I_\n),? I _g 11 ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ ! ..I I.I~-------t--Ch-o-ic-e*---=-* l---'---'----1-----1 -1--1 -1--1 -1--1'----------------f, i , ~I--,------------+ 7,__-Cf,,__-\"7e---+.._:+__1J___/:_-q'{i )f- ---,--$(--,,-,-\"(Y_1_'4_1_-_--_-_--_-_-_--_-_--_-_--_-_--_-_--_-_--_-_--_-_--_-_-+_-_--_-____________ ----iJ Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1 ,, - \" ~ b,1--------------------~----------------------------------------------------------l ., I~ ~' ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 ? p tJ p~e_~ SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - , LEA# 6003~ 09 'f ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 t':r----\"C~o!.!u!.!n.!.-t!\u0026lt;.::uy__~-'=P-\"U'=L_e_!_A_:!\nS_e_!!_K_:,___IL-___ _,1,,_,a..,w\"--'..,\"'-\"\"--=c...\u0026gt;.''1t......c::,._,r-_~.L'::,=::,,_,.1=1='-'1~-------------------------------------.\u0026lt; School PULASKI COUNTY US Department of Education .) Grade Span : -~l\u0026lt;.a.-.,.$,.___ FAPD6 R/92  ' 1------------------------\"+=~=~=-=IT=E.::-.::N:::~:::~:.\n:~:.\n:-:..:\n::.:L::cA::cC=K==N=O=T=l======,:.:\nA\n-=S:..:I:..:A::.:N::c/=P=A=C.::. =,:::A:.c:M=I::.:N=D=I=~::cN=ec_~_l,,_\"u_._.~_,_c_M_f_u_u_\"I_J_:=_._.\u0026lt;_\u0026gt; -l'.I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES f r-r~rlP +------------------------------------------------------+---- Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl ' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ( 1'l ---'c=-P=-.o..iK\n._.n-'-\"-'nP=.\nT'-11n..\u0026lt;1..1\"'\"'-'.fc\"-'.\"\"-'-'\"----'J_:\"_- '-'-n1'-,\"_\"- \" _-1',n_ l. .Jl '----.',*_o1:. .,_ l ,_1_ __._1_ _ ..1_l_ _ _1, _ __ .,_1_ _ ,_1_ __ 1,__ __._1_ _ ..1_l_ ______________________ .....j \" +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I ..r +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- I\" +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- \"1----K_-_F_u_1_1_n_a_y__n_1_Y ___ E_n_r_o_1_1+*~- ' ~_p._-~!~~: __/ _3__.J' Q_ _ ' _/__ 3_'_-___/_' Q_ ______ 1 ___________ 1 ________ 1 __________ 1 _________ 1 --------~-1~---------------------,~,, Choice**' \" 19 z z Grade 1 +----+ +----+ Enroll *IJ_/ I + t2_+ Choice**' I +------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------+ I QI ~~I g I I() I I I I I I I ,~ -------------------------------------------------+ I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 8 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~!C u---~G'-'r~a~d~e~=2 _______ _,,E~n~r~o,._l+,_-~l~~,L-*.~+_I , ...,-,--1-'l-.~..I, ,-,....n~l_'\"l-\u0026lt;-1/\u0026lt;?\"\"\"l~--O~l--,rr,/~~-~--~--~--~--~--~------------------------l\"' 1LJ -- - -- -- ~ __ .....,._.._ ________________________________ + 20 Choice**' 1\n1t LT\u0026lt;._r-__________________ +_-_-_-_-__+ +_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~+~-----------------------------\n'\" :1----G_r_a_d_e_3 ________ E_n_r_o_1_1_*~_-:~, -_:_I_~:~:-~_~_:_:_,_:_9}__::_ :_~_:_:_i_:: __-:~__ , :_:_:_~_:_:_:_::_::_:,_ :_:_~_:_:_:_:_::_: ,_ -_: _:_~_:_:_:_:_::_:, _: _-_: _!_-_-_-__-____________________ _,~ : Choice**' ~4 X :====::= =================================================~= ===:==== : Grade 4 Enroll *!_lf~t_!: (__~_LS.:~_j_[~---~-~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----1 }. ~f----------------C=h_,,o_.,,i'-'c,.,e,._*c..*\"-'-'--~-~--~--~--~--~--~---~--~--~--~--~--------------------------l'~-~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~1 Grade 5 c~-o 11 * :_\n:~: : j ~ ~- :_ ~ ~-~---i,1 __ ~ -~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----: ~ l .r---------------C-h_o_i_c_e_*_*~!_-_-_-_-_+~~1--_-_-_- +----+ +----__-~ -_--_--_---_--__-_-,_- --_--_---_--_-~-_--_--_---_--_---_-~_---_--_---_--_-~-_--_--_---_--_--_-__~-,__- --_-_---__---__----___--'_-- -_-+--_----_-_~__-_-__-___-_-~_1_~_-_--__-___-______~ ,~-- Grade 6 Enroll I\nYA, I +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ ~ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I I f ~ +~-il\"l +litf- I :Z..$- h It/\ni_ --------------------------------+----   1-------------------~-~------------~----------------------------------------------ifi  Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO ~Person making this report: ___________________ Telephone:_________ Page 1 I 51 ,,f-------------------=7---~CC\"\"\"~cc,Jr-----/-0~.3-=.---------------------------------------r_.. SJ ~() ~ ,I \" \"J /6 ~'-J'''---------------------------------------------------------------------------------'J ' ! ' IC LEA# 60031,26 /0 0 Countu PULASKI School : PULASKI COUNT' Grade Span : Ree. k - ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92 1997 +- - - - - - ------------+\"'' IMr.\u0026gt;ro I WHITE NOTI BLACK NOTI !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES 0.r~rlP +------------------------------------------------------+---- Total +----+ Fnrnll*l'2/I +~~+ Choice**' e,17 I +----+ IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl +------------------------------------------------------+---- ' J I r/ I I,\\ I I a I I I I I I I I-\"\". Dtv,~ ---------------------------------+ I I 11 I I~ I I I I I I I +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------ - ----------------------------+---- ' I ,, ::t- __ K_-_F_u_1__D1_ a_y_n_1_Y_ __ E_n_r_o_1_1_*~!~!L_,_-_!~-:~--_-_f 1__ __ _(____ / _- _~_-_f_-~___~~__--__ !-__!-f_ -_~_-_-_--__--__--__~---_-----_---~_---'-- __--__-_--~_!-'- ----------------------r~ 1:: Choice**!----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ] ::: +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- -~, ~ Grade 1 Enroll *!_t,_! : __ 9 I _I!/: I_/['_/ ~I ____ 1 ____ I ____ 1 ____ 1 ____ '-----! -~ 1~'1--------------~C~h~o~i~c~e~*~*~+~' -_-_-_-_~+--+~--_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~+---__-_-----------------------\nj ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ,. Grade 2 Enroll *I - 1 I cJ I 11/ I 1\u0026lt;'1 /,/ I ,, +-.J-~-+ I- V --- I -- -_,~I----------------------------------+ ~ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,~'1-------------------+~---_-_-~+ __ +~---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-__-___-__-___-~+_-__-___-_-____ \"'\"\n~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ ~ Grade 3 Enroll *!A$_! :_j_f{~ __ ! __ ~_f.:t,~_f_S.:~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----~ ~ t----------------:C:-:h-0-1:--. c_e_*_*-:-,---,---,-----,----,-----:----,------:------::-----:------::----:-----:-----------------------\"'\", 1 J\u0026lt; +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~1 xf---__________________ +_-_-_-~-_~_+ +_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-___-_-__-___-__-_~_+___-_____-___-___ ...,J : Grade 4 Enroll * !~5-:! : _j_[~ __ g:_~_!1-~-j_~~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! '' ,, ~ Choice**' ~ +----+ +------------------~-----------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- -1 ~ Grade 5 Enroll *I ?QI I//\\ I / I JI. I ,,, I :,1 f----~==~~------~===-\"--'-+----~_,, __ ,1--'+'----'_-, +--\u0026lt;_r-+:-:~Y-_.~-,-__--_+'- ---,_,'-_-19--_-''--__-~-__'--'-_---i_,- _-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-'_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_~_-_-_-_-_'-_-_-_-_-_-'+------------------------!\" c,o,c!----\n____'. ____'. ___'. _ ____'. ___'. ____'. ___'. ____'. ___'. ____! ____ ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Grade 6 Enroll *!.Y-~! :JQ_~_ _9 -_~_~J-~_{~--~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! 'j L~.t------------.---C-h_o_i_c_e_*_*_I ___ I_~------------, ---------------,---,------------------------,_, ~ 3h 0 + +? 1-- 13 -- / I I -- 9 9 --------------------------------+---- :9 ,_ __ H_a_s_y_o_u_r_d_i_s_t_r_i_c_t_v_o_t_e_d_t_o_p_a_r__pt -ai_-tc~_e1_ i_n_S_c_h_o_o_l_C_h_o_i_c_e~f'-o-r--1_-9_9__9 76? -===Y-E_S_~~~N--------------------------------l\n.i ...., :, Person making this report: __________________ Telephone:________ Page 1 ~I 55 -- \"-, r' I I N-M2J2/S ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - LEA# 6003~ IO 0 Countu PULASKI School PULASKI COUNTY Grade Span : I\u0026lt; - b ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U. ~ C 1221E-l US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92 1997 J ~----------------------....:c+===============================c.+=~\"='\"'n=c..,._c ____________________ --l:1 WHITE NOT I BLACK NOT I I ASIAN/PAC. I AM INDIAN I of ,1 HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES . + + -- Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsJBoyslGirlsl +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- c--nll 41 I / I I I I I I I I I I +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +--------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *lj5'I I 71 t:, I /!/_I O' I I I I I I I il +----+ I------------- ____ .!) __________________________________ + :i 17 ~---~~------~----~-j Choice**' K-Full Day Only +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ( =~--G-r_a_d_e __ l ________ E_n_r_o_l_l_*_::-.,5-, -_i_-...,!---':'-:-:-~-~--::-,- :-fa-:-:-~:--:1-z---~:--~-:--::--:,~- :-:-:-:-:~-:-:-:,-- :-::--::-:--,: -:-~-:-:-:-:-~-:-:-:-:-:\"\"'I-----------------------------...z T. Choice**' I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---+----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- u----G~r~a~d~e~2~-------E=n~r~o~l~l~~*~I~'+'/~/- l.,_l _~l--\u0026amp;-\u0026lt;:/~l-+-1_ ')~1-,,_' -,..,._~I_.r.,.~l,~. -~l---~---'-1 ___ .,__1_ ~1~--~I~-------------------------,' +J---+ I - ~ --------- J -- .L----------------------------------+ j Choice**I I I I I I I I I I I I -\"' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~\nGrade 4 Enroll *!_fQ! :__l~~--.:[_-~f _ ~_L:5-_~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! ~ -1----------------'C=h_,,,o_.i_,c..,e'-'*'--*\"-'-l __ _,_-1- '----~---'---~--~--~----'----~---'---~--~------------------------- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~~_ _,,G~r..,a~d~e,,_~5--------~\"'~~nu,lul~*c.~~-~-1...l :--~-~---~-~-~-~~--/-?- -~-----~----~-----~----~-----~ Choice**I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Grade 6 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *I ~ I I 1 I 3/ I (:, I // I I I I I I I +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ ~ Choice**I I I I ~ -:\u0026lt;iii+ + 5 0 --v '-{ -7 ~-- 7 O ---------------------------------+---- '-' 1~.I---H-a_s_\\l_O_u_r_d_i_s_t_r_i_c_t_v_o_t_e_d_t_o_p-=a'-'r'-'t-'iL-c-i_p_a_t_e\"--'i'--n-S-'-c-h_,o_o_l_C....ch_o_i_c-\u0026lt;_-e-_9- 'f'-7o_-?r__l-=9=_-9-Y_6-E _S_-==--N-O---------------------------r I~ Person making this report: ___________________ Telephone: ________ _ SI SJ ,\". t,11 Page 1 11 \".'.' .-.- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------') .-: ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 --:S-(AJ\u0026lt;.soNV ,/I.e..[./ e!.M - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - I I LEA# 6003~ /03 Countu PULASKI ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 J School: PULASKI COUfilY Grade Span : f\u0026lt; - ti._ US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92 + +\"-'IIMqJ::R WHITE N0TI BLACK NOT! !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES '.If l------------------~\"'u:.,-\n1cMy_P,._.....:,:+==-=-=-=-=-=--=--=--=-======================-=-+=.::-==-----------------------l:I Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl I II II ,, \" \" \" I\u0026lt; 12\u0026lt; 11 i,, I\" ~ f--__,P.__._~.a._-_ .,1\u0026lt;._ ,.. ,_n..,,nua\"'-\"'--'-~'~.. .+..~ca,_,._.,_._. ,. ___ n __.i=.. .n..,.~ '-'n.1._.,..._1 _,,*-'~---_-_-_-~'-----_'--II -_-'~---_-_-_-_-~-'---_-_-_-'~---_-_-_-_-~-'---_-_-_-'~---_-_-_-_-_'-_-_-_-_-'~---_-_-_-_-~'---_-_-_-'~---_-_-_-_-!'------------------------1: +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ,,r , Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I t------------------+_,_-_-_-_-_,+ __ +,_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-___-_-__-___-__-___-_-__-___-__-___-_-_ -_-_-_-_,+c...-_-_-_- \"\"',,I K-Full Day Only Gradel +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll * 1 IOD1 +----+ I :J.,(,1 :lill ~(JI\n)_bl I I I I I I I--------T----1---------------------------------------+ Choice**' Enroll +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---+----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- *!lO.i! : ~ I _ :l.Q. I _ j_j_ I -~ h I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I -----! Choice**' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- J ~5 Grade 2 Enroll *7~~-:7 7-~-~~--:~-~-\n~-~--\n~-~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----7---- ~ 1------''-'-'=~~------~=~=-+~-Lf-,.,t-)_\"\u0026lt;=~-\"'+--I~- ..,..,_,,._ ,-,_,:L,-1!.-...~,_ ,_,.,_'\"\"-..tc-vr..,_~-_-.!2'....'+-l-\"\"'--_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_--'_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_--'_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_--'+---------~- --------------~ 121 !20 r,, ill ~I Ill i,, 13\u0026lt; 115 Po Pl ll8 1.3,9 Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I\n1-------------------+_-_-_-_-_+ __ +_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-___-_-__-___-_-___-_-__-___-_-___-_ -_-_-_-_+_-_-_-_- 4,1 Grade 3 Grade 4 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- J. Enroll *!_':1_L! :~\n1.~-~~~A?.::-~-~-t-~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! ~c Choice**' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---+----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enro 11 * ! _ _:tQ! : .!)_ '- I_ ~5' I _L 8 I_ rJ..J.. I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ ! 1---------------=Ccch:...:o:...:i:..:c:..:e=-*-*_+.\n._I _-_-_-_--'+--+'---_-_-_-_-'--_-_-_-_-_--'__'_-._\n.-. _._ -___-___--_'__- _-_-___-.\n. .._-_-_-_-_--'_-_-_-_-_-_'--_-_-_-_-_--'_-_-_-_-_-_'--_-_-_-_-_--'+---_-_-_----------------------f~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- f----G=--rcca=-d=--e=--5=---------\"E,.,_n,..,r_,,oc,lc.,l'-\"*...:.1-4/C4/\\,J-,A!c\u0026gt;_-,\":J-l._=.-.,',_\n)1J ,=-\u0026lt;~:\n,\u0026lt;---.\".\".-2/\",,\"_.:,L_l1\"- '--\"~-\u0026lt;-=O\"--'t'--_.._.._:_ -'----'----'----'----.\n.__------------------------1'1 +-:-=-+ I------------------  ----------------------------------+ :1 Choice** I I I I I - I I I I I I I ': 1-------------------,-+_-_-_-_-...,+ __ +,_---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-___-__-___-...:+c.._-_-___-__-___ --Ji:'\"' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1 ~---G_r_a_d_e_6 _____ ,_ __ E_n_r_o_1_1_*__\n__~__!- _ ,1_ :_-l _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-___-__-___-_-__-___-__-___+_ _________ ...\nH ~ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, ~ s?/:/ +,,/, - ,s 3-- ,q \u0026lt;\u0026gt;- -,s-,-- -------------------------------+---- f,, ,J------:H--:a_s_y_o_u_r_d-:-1--s:-:.- t-r-\ni-c--=t_v_o_t:-e-d-,-..,.t-o_p_a_r-p:t--ai:--:c-t--1e,-----_- :i-n----=s=-c--=h-o-o-=-1--=c-:-h-o-:i-c_e_f=-o-r--:-1-=9-=9--:6---=9=-=7:c:7=-===:--:Y-::E-=s,--::::~N-,-o=--------------------------------r-  Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Pagel ~ ~ .,.1--------------G-o-=1_---\n).,c-::\"i:?'\u0026lt;''1---~=\u0026gt;:-711,----------------------------,.-, \" ,\", f--------------------.\n.__-------------------------------------------------------~ i\" I:\n.-. \" ,\", 17 ,, ,: 7. 7- 2 ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ 13' p\np, P9 I,\" , ,\",' \"' \" i,\" , i\" I IS\u0026lt; ,. \" is, ,.. ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - 1997 LEA# : 6003~ It\u0026gt;'/ Countu : PULASKI ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S C 12211=-1 School : PULASKI COU~TY Grade Span : ,I:( I, US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92 o-o .l(inrloT'n~T't'.Dn K-Full Day Only Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 + - - - WHITE NOTI BLACK NOT! !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES n--~,,. + + Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl +----+ +---------------------------------------------------+---- c--n11 ... , I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ Ch o i c e ** I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------- - .... - +----+ Enroll *I 1/?I +-'t..,L+ Choice**' +------------------------------------------------------+---- .... +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +--------------------- + Enroll *I /' +-t--+ Chnir\"**' I : ~() 1 _ I CJ 1 _ 13' _ I Cf 1 ____ , -----' ____ 1 _____ 1 ____ 1 -----~ I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---+----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *I// I 1/\u0026lt;J1//.1/Yfu/1 I I I I +-~~-+ 1------- - _______ I J ----------------------------------+ Choice**' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *I 7j I +-'- -+ Choice**' :\n2../ ' - I ~ I _L\"I '_ _(_~ I----, _____ , ____ , _____ '----'-----~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+--- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *!~t_! I / \u0026lt;I / 7 I / 51 / ~ I I I I I I 1--\"\"---------------------------------------------------+ Choice**' +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ l=n.-ol l *' ,.-.-1 I +~- -+ Choice**' +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1/I?11 v' 1 \u0026lt;71//1 I I I I I I 1-------~ -- ~---'fl --------------------------------+ I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ Enroll *Ii 11 +----+ Choice**' +------------------------------------------------------+---- :\n}. lf' _ _j_J , 1 5 , 17_, ----, -----, ----, -----, ----, -----~ I + /.2.'.1 -11/q l/ 101/ --------------------------------+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1 ) I ( r !,I 9 .' '\" 1 1\n) _.., I- k\nr ( \"' ~ I a h\"~ is:, ,. 55 I - 1----------------------------------------------------------------------i. \"-------------------~[\nIS\u0026lt; \\ ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - LEA# 6003w-.' /0$' ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Countu PULASKI Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 ) School : PULASKI COUNTY US Department of Education j Grade Span : /.(- b FAPD6 R/92 1-------------------------'+!C.-::.--=---.:===.:..::..:....=..:....::======================+,:i\"'\"\"'-''MUJ.!Dt_._,,J:\"R~--------------------lJ 1 WHITE NOTI BLACK NOTI IASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of I 't------------------~G=ra=' d-~\"~!--_~_:_:_:_~-~_--~-_I-_ --'.~: _:_:_:_~-~_-_-~ -I-'-.~: _:_:_:_~-'.~:_ -_-~- I -_:_:_=-~-~-~-=-~---~-~-=-~-=-~-~-~----_-~_!___'._:_=_~___:__s___E___s_ __ ~I\n+~~~~: !~~~=~:::::~~~~=~:::::~~~~=~:::::~~~~=~:::::~~~( ' I( 15 \" ,\", K-Full Day Only Grade 1 \"'\"r o 11 * I I I I  I I I I I +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll +----+ *I 3.JI +- '-4-+ Choice**' +----+ +----+ Enroll *I -l. I\"} I +--..L.-L+ Choice**I +------------------------------------------------------+---- : jj_ I ___ r I _ \u0026lt;j I_\n2. _I ____ I ____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I-----! +---------------------------------------~--------------+---+------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- '( ~ Grade 2 Enroll *l~,\nI I/ G1 IA I (/ I ...., I I I I I I I ,~ 1-----.0'--'---'==---=---------==----\"'-''--=---'-'--+-'----i\n__\n\u0026gt;-__-f\"- \"J\" '+--1'--\nLf-_-_-/a,'-,.-:'t--__---_f-'-=_--,_ --l_f-_-_-'--_--.:5'!:::_:-_---'_'-_-_-_-_-_-'--_-_-_-_-_---'_'-_-_-_-_-_-'--_-_-_-_-_---'_'-_-_-_-_-_-'--_-_-_-_-_---'+'-------------------------l 1 ~, Choice** I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I '-1 ( ~\n+----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- la ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- = Grade 3 Enroll *!9-.J'.'.'.! :_~y-~_~Q-~--~~---\n\u0026gt;--~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! ~,t----------------,,C--,-h_o__,i,...c_e_*_*_I __ ---,--,--------,----,--------,--------,---,--------,---,-------,--------,-----------------------~- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- = Grade 4 Enroll *!d~-! :_/.5'.:1_ //_1 ___ [1 ___ / 1 ____ 1 _____ 1 ____ 1 _____ 1 ____ 1 _____ ! ~ \" ,_i ~J IJ--------------~==~-~+---_C-_ho-i_ce-*+*~I -+~--_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_~_-_-_~- _-_-_-+'\"\"--_-_-_------------------------,. ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- j ~ Grade 5 Enroll *I _, ,....-1 I / n I , , I ,...--1 -'\\ I I I I I I I 'J ~ Choice**7~\"\"'-+ : t..L7L'--7-,.., ~- \"'7 l----7-----7----7-----7----7-----7 J '.I t-------------------+_-_-_-_-_+ __ +_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-__-___-___-__-___-___-__-___-___-__-______+ _-_-_-_- ...H.. +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1.,, Grade 6 Enro 11 * !_{_9_! : ,\niQ I_ .3 I __ 3 I_ 3 _I ____ I ____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ ! 1-s! Choice**I I ~ +\n=Tr +13o --c,~ - ,J.5. -- 1 7 ----------------------------------+---- ,., ,l-------,H-,a_s_y_o_u_r__d_s__1t _ r_i_c....,t_v_o_t_e_d_t_o_p_a_pr-a_-,:t---it:--ec---1-,:-i-=--_n --:S::-c-'--h-o--'-o-::-l-'-::C-=_h-'-- o---=-,9i-=c_-_=-e7-_ _=f.-.?,:.-=Yo---_r-- =-E1-----=-s,9--_:9~_~6~ N-O-,-------------------------------l\" I  Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1 'J-'-------------------=~-----::-,::-,:,,------==-------------------------------------------{r,I I? 1'\n\u0026gt;.,\ni.7 -'I.,- ::! ,,1---------------------'-----------------------------------------------------ll, \"' \" ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 Oa..kG. -eoveE. kM , LEA# 6003M-6 IO 8 Countu PULASKI School : PULA::\"I COUNTY Grade Span : ~e k' (,z - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S C 1:::\u0026gt;:::\u0026gt;1E-1 US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92  _l,.IIIMn~g I WHITE NOT I BLACK NOT I I ASIAN/PAC. I AM INDIAN I of I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES ,I 1-------------------=~-.,,-,..!Jrl-\"- O__:+===========================-=-=-=--=-=-=\"'\":=-==-----------------------...\n:'I Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl i'I PT\"a .I,( \"nrfaT' ___ ,.. __ +----+ J:'nT\"n11 4-I - I ..__L..t.+ Choice** I\n,\"!] I +------------------------------------------------------+---- ' / n, ~ \" 1 r,\u0026gt; 1  -. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ! I ..:\n.,1. -- 7 --' - ---------------------------------+ I ~I I .\nll '1--------------------+==-.:::--\u0026lt;-\"'\"--'+'----------'---------------------------e.~-.cc-..c-=-=======-cc-cc-=cc-cc-.:::-.:::-=======\"'\"==-----------------------...\n_ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ' 1 f-.--K_-_F_u_1_1_D_a_y_o_n_l_Y_ _ E_n_r_o_1_1_*.\n,:!=~.::_:' 1=_! ,_:cc\nJ..=-~='=/-=k-iI= =-1c cc-=-~='==\u0026lt;/='================+,:_ ____________________ _,,, \" Choice** I ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- \" +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Grade 1 Enroll *!_-2_'{! :_Q.Q~_.25':_~--~~--i--~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----1 rhn\" ro** I I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- \" +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- l~l-------'G~r2a~d~e,,__=_2_ ____ ~E~n~r2o~l~l..~..'*. =l-Q4/-:-1M.A~-21-~:~~~~-~-~1~_~'-_-3r~~Cj~_~~~---~~~~--~'---~~-~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----1 \" Choice** I I +----+ +-----------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ Grade 4 Enroll *!_({~! I 171 [b I 31 (o I I I I I I I 1--- -- -----------------------------------------------+ ~f-----------------\"C-\"h\"\"o'-'i,..,c,..,e'-'*~*~' --~~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~----------------------~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1~ Grade 5 +----+ Enroll *I ., u I +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1 / / 1 l~I 21 / I I I I I I I I .Y I y __ ~ ___  ----------------------------------+ I I I I I I I I I I I I\" Choice** I I I I I I I I r ~: +L/H-+ + t 51- 15 '1 - \u0026lt;11/ 5 Y -------------------------------+---- t 1~J---H-a_s_y_o_u_r_d_1_ s_t_r_i_c_t_v_o_t_e_d_t_o_p_a-\"r'-'-t.Li_c_i_p_a_t_e_i_n_S_c_-Ch-\"oh~'-o-o-l- i_c_e__.f'--o-r--19___99___ 67 _?_===-Y-E__S_ -_-~N-_O_ ___________________________ ....\nI,~, Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1 ,. I \"-------------------------------------------------------------------------'''\n' I I IC LEA# ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - 6003~ l.3C/ ' ! ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 ) Countu PULASKI Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 School : PULASKI cpUNTY US Department of Education l 1---G_r_a_d_e __ s_p_a_n_,_-_:-_k'=_~-=-_-_~{p___'_-__-___-_- _:-_-_- +,._-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_~-~-~-~-~---~-~-~-=----_-_-_---===:c::...==:....:.c....::...:__:_-=-----_-_-_-_-_-_-:.::.-c:,+::.,.N,.,U,.,M:.uB\"'E\"'R\"----------------------l:1 : ~~!\n:N~~T: ~i:~~N~~T: HISPANIC :A~!~~~~:~- ::~A!~~~AN :c~!ssES ,I --------------------'~'-':'--'~\"-!\"-\"-~--'~-\n-:-~-:-7-~-:-.\n---1-:-7-\n-:-~-:-7-~-\n:---.- 1-:-7-\n-:-~-:-7--'G\n--:--l- .- s-7-\n-:-~-:-7-~-:-\n-~-:---\n--,: -~-:-7-~-:-\n-~-:-+-:.-.-I '---\"-----------------------1 '!,. ___ PL...!..r..._e-.u.,K.i,_,_n,.,1d..,eecrL...a,._asu..r_.t=\"\"'----...JE...u.n1.Lr.,,o,_.,__,,l_l'---_--'*_'---_'~--'--'~--'-----__--__,-_~_-.-_,__-,___-,-_-+...-,-_'---_--_-...-J_--.__,-__--__--__--__--__-,__,--_-_-_-_-_-_-,._-_-_-_-_,-_-_-__-___-_-___+_,.__-_-__-___-____ -I,, +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ Choice**! I I I I I I I I I I I l\nir f-------------------'-+_-_-_-_-_,+'--_+,_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_cc.:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-=+=::.::.c-=-----------------------1.1,1 13 \" K-Full Day Only ll \" -\" \" \" Grade 1 l20 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- Enroll *!~_:2:: !~ -~~-~~-~--~-~---~~----' __________+ ___ Choice**' +----+ +----+ Enroll *!_--ZL! +------------------------------------------------------+---+------------------------------------------------------+---- : ~j__ I _ _3~ s: I_ / 0 I ____ I _____ I ____ I _____ I ____ I-----! ~I ~ 1---------------\"C\"-h'--'o'-'1'--' c,,_e,,_*_=_* .:..l _,__,.__ _ _,__ __ ,.___ _,__ __ ,___ _,__ _ ___,,___ _ _,__ _ ____,_ _,__ _ ____,_ ______________________ t~ Enroll *7=\n~:7 7=~~~==~=:~=~~=~==~==~====~=====~====~=====~====~=====7==== po ~ ,, ,, Grade 2 +-\"\".l.l+ ,.,.. ____ P',._I -- I----------------------------------+ d ~ Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I I\n~7 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~, 118 ~ llO Grade 3 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ ,, Enroll*!$_.\n\u0026gt;_! :~Q_~_\n?l{.~__j J_~--~l-~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----1 Choice**' IJ2 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- iJ:, +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- p, 35 * !_kJ_(,_! Grade 4 Enroll I,: ).._(,, __I _,_\n_.Iu _ _ I _f_' __I _a(/_ _ _ I_ ___I_ ____I_ ___I_ ____I ____I _____+I ______ t,\n,,1- --------------=Cc.\n.hc.coc.cicccc...ec...*_*--'-I--~-'-----'----'-----'----'----'-----'----'------'----'------'-----------------------~\"~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- \"' Ila +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 39 ' 1----~G~r_,ae_:d,,___e_\"_--:e,5_ _,,E,.,_n,._,r_,o'--'l.__._l_*.::...,_!4,~..,._-r--1\"~--'!'---'--: p\u0026lt;..\n..,1.,\n_._i,a__-.lb,.\ncQ- \\.LJ:'H~'l-_-~'-_---l~n-----''~-~'------_~-(_}-q_f- -'-'-_-_-_-_-_-'_~_',-._-_- I_--__--_-_-_-'~---_-__--__--__'--' -_-'!------------------------1:j ., ., '.-' . ., .\"., . \" - ,0 ,, 52 SJ ~ \" 56 -, Grade 6 Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- +----+ Enroll*! 111 +----+ Choice**! I +iTf8+ +',)-'-t- ---------------------------------------------------+---- , ______I' )'e) \\.P-5_-_1_ _/_3__'_ LI (_!_ ___1_ _____I_ _______I_ ______I ________I __ I +I Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1 f------------------=-..---i---,z~-----:----,.\n:----------------------------------------lCI .\n,f, t. ~~:\u0026gt; /~P \\ ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 ' I _l ?~:~3i-+e /1./2- - SCHOOL cHoxc:D:vF::::c:i: 09-00-010 R/92 I Yn----\"C'-'o'-'u\"-'n\"-t\"-u,.__,__.,_P..,,Uc,,L.,A,_,S,,,K\"-I\"------------,:,---:c-----'1\"\"'a\"\"w\"'-'\"-,_.\"'-n_-_.,,_._u_.s....,c._\u0026amp;a1:, __:, ,_._1..._i::-..,,1~------------------------------------1\"- School : PULASKI ~OUNTY US Department of Education Grade Span :_~K~-~~~--- FAPD6 R/92 I f------------------= ... ======================iJ:ltl{__ _____________ --11 WHITE NOT! BLACK NOT! !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of ' HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES I 1-------------------~c,T~~/~t~:~\n~-+~,\n-:-~-:-~-\n-:-\n-~-:---,\n-:---y-:-~-\n-:-\n-~-:-~~\nc..c:-~-s---,\n.-~.:.,- -\n----~-----:----~-----\n----:----~----:---------,i:G1 ---:-\n-~-:-~-\n-:-~-:---,\n-:-\n-~-: 16 C 19 P~D .u\nnA---~~~Dn ~n~n11 ~:----~ ~----:-----~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----\n----~-----~---- I. I\" +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ :J 11 Choice** I I I I I I I I I I I I \" 1-------------------'+_-_-_-_-_+,___+_,__-__-______________________________________~+_~_---_---_---_---_---_---_---_---_---_--I_J_ ________________________________________ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 1 ~--K_-_F_u_1_1_D_a_y_o_n_1__Y_ _ E_n_r_o_1_1_*5..i!. .c....c.'5\"_-=.!__.._,\u0026lt;:__ j\n__.g_~ /_____-_1_ _'_ -_-- ---~---_ __f__ _ _____ 1 ~-~---_' -'---------~--~~----~-----------~~---------~' ~-_\n_-_-_+-~-- --------------------f., Choice**' f _________________ __:,:c.:~~~:::,__,__\n_ ____ _\n_ __ __\n__..c\n.===:.......c...\n.\n__=======-\"--\"======----------------------t' +------------------------------------------------------+---- U +---------------------- -- - - -+ Grade 1 Enroll *!_'28_! I 8 I ~ I\n:$ I /\"2- I I I I I I I ,--2----------------------------------------------------+ r.hnire**I I I I I I I I I I I I z +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- n +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 2' Grade 2 Enroll *I 01/ I I.\u0026gt; ..... ,,.,t:i11 A I\" ~ +~-L-+ Iv ___ - L--- - ---~ ----------------------------------+ \" Choice**' T, +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- l :f-- __ G_r_a_d_e___3_ ____ E_n_r-,0_1_1__*.'.8. ._ :!!f _ :........:.!_...,_:_~-~--..,..~---~_-_-[- ~J- _--_.:.-,-. .' 1 ___7__ ---...,~--------....,~----------..,.~--------..,.~----------..,..~----_----_---.-.,..-'_ +--~-'- -----------------\n:~ Choice**I ~ +----+ +---------------------------------------------------+---- j ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~J : Grade 4 ::::::*: 7~-~! :f-~-~~~--1-~--1--~----~-----~----~-----~----~-----! ~ ,,.1--------------~===-~ ...- _-_-_-...-. -... .~.._ -_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_.~.-._ -_-_-_-----_--~-----_----_------_--~-- 1,, : Grade 5 ::::::.:~:~~:,_ _ _..~l~~\".!-rl~c!J---'~'--:-.:~.-.-.-.1 ~w-~\"1:'-- 1 -:~~\"i:,._.~.:.~ :---.?+.--.:.-. ~ 1 :-_---:-:.~ ..-.: -:-:-:-:-:~: :---_-:-:-'~-:-:-:-:-:-~.,. .: -:-:-: .~..-.:.- :-:-:-:-~ .,.-. _-_------------------------r:I +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- I~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- lli! Grade 6 Enroll * I / :t I I ~l I\ni_/ I g I (.,. I I I I I I I +.!IZ::-:l-+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ ~ Choice** I I I I I I I I e ~l--------------'+\u0026lt;/:....:__i_-_+_ ...~ _l_.31-G__l_,_ 7T_-\"5._r_-_S3_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_--_-_-_--_-_-_-.._. --_-___-___-__-_-___-__-___-_-__-___-__ -_--_-_ r'\" Has your district voted to participate in School Choice for 1996-97? __ YES __ NO Person making this report: __________________ Telephone: _______ _ Page 1 /I/ \u0026gt; loe ,,~----------------------------------------------------------------------------11\" 1, \"---------------------------------------------------------------------------~'\n/ ' ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM - October 1, 1997 - SCHOOL CHOICE BY CHOICE - LEA# 60031-W- I 30 Countu PULASKI School : PULASKI COUi\n:!J:.Y Grade Span : K -o ADE Form# Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S.C 1221E-1 US Department of Education FAPD6 R/92 + ---- --------- - ------ -------------------+~IIMqER WHITE NOTI BLACK NDTI !ASIAN/PAC. 1AM INDIAN I of HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES Grade +------------------------------------------------------+---- Total IBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslBoyslGirlsl +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- 'f-----'P-'rL,._e-.[JK._n=. \" uel ...._o,r.a, ,.,. _,rL.._t:_:_ ,._e_....i.=,..nu .\"~l.L..'O._wl.,.,1_._*._ _, l ,_l_..,_l _ _.l ___ ,_l _ _._1_ __ ,.___ _._l __ ,.____ __._l __c,.___ .1., _ _,l'---------------------------1 +----+ 1------------------------------------------------------+ Choice** I I I I I I l I I I I I ,1 \u0026gt;--------------------'+_-_-_-_-_+~~+_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_+_-_-_--------------------------\u0026lt; ,I 13 +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- :: K-Full Day Only Enroll *!k~! :_a.a(~~ '- q ,_ _c:\n_, ____ , _____ , ____ , _____ , ____ , _____ ! J l,.f--------------C-h_o_i_c_e_*_*-'1--~-~-----------------------------~------------------------id 17 +----+ +---------------------------------------~--------------+---- ( [la +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- :f---G-r_a_d_e_l ______ E_n_r_o_l_l_*______- ~,!--'.J:. ..!_.:..-..j: -0-,--~-3_--,--i,_ -,-_-J--'t--,-_- __-_ -, _-_-_-_-_-,-_-_-_-_-_,--_ -_-_-,,--_-_-_-_-,-_-_-__-_+ .:....I----------------------,'.(~, ~ Choice**' 1 ~ +----+ +------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ ~1----=Gc.:r....:a=-d=-e_=_-_=_2_ __ .=E,_,_n,_,r....,o-':---,'-lf,~:-\nIl-=':: -'*Ic--c7.':---'-~l ~.tc-...,,_--,--,,__L-._.-.,'.c, -1,_ --'~'----+-----.,I-'~--1-d-)-f.-:-.-.'.~.I- ---_-_-_-.:....-_-_-_-_-_,-_-_-_-_-_-.:....-_-_-_-_-_,-_-_-_-_-_-.:....-__-___-_-__-~_+___-__-___-_- ___ -r~- 1 fY\"\" t __ L ------ V --------------------------------+ ~ ~ Ch o ice** I I I I I I I I I I I I ,A ,~1-------------------'-+_-_-_-_-....:+ __ +_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-___-_-__-___-_-___-_-__-___-__-___- -_-_-_+_-_-_-_- ___,,1, : Grade 3 Enroll *!~:z:I ::~2:~::i1:~::{~~:{::\n:~::::~:::::~::::~:::::~::::~:::::I____ ~ f----------------:C:--:h-0-1-:--. c_e_*_*-:,---,---,-------,---,---,-----,,----,-----,,----,-----::----:-----:------------------------,, 1 ~ +----+. +------------------------------------------------------+---- ,. L~f--------,----------:=---:-::---'+_-_-_-_-_+'--_+.,.-_-_-_-...,-_-_-_-_-_-_-,..-_-_-_-..,.-_-_-_-_-_-_-,...-_-_-_-..,.-_-_-_-_--_-,...-_-_-_---:----_-_-___-_-_--,_-:_--_--__-___-__-_-,-_--___-_-__- _---,+_-_-_-_- --\n'' : Grade 4 Enro 11 * !b_\u0026lt;t__! : ,23_ I o2i:'\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1674","title":"Court filings concerning motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA), petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the PCSSD,","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":["1998-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA), petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the PCSSD,"],"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/1674"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of its motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendant; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fee petition; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Joshua intervenors' comments on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Joshua proposed finds of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to defer consideration of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to defer consideration of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   ' .. .. ... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS SEP 9 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS OfflCE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~CGATimHtiOi11TORING INTERVENORS PCSSD'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS MFPA The PCSSD for its Motion states: 1. The PCSSD has previously acquainted this Court with the negative impact Act 917 had, and is having, upon the PCSSD. 2. Exhibit A to this Motion is an updated calculation utilizing the same methodology reviewed and approved by this Court on February 18, 1997. 3. This exhibit demonstrates that the PCSSD lost three million, six hundred and fifty-seven thousand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($3,657,669) in 1996-97 as compared to Act 34, two million, forty-seven thousand, six hundred and seventy-six dollars ($2,047,676) in 1997-98 and that Act 917 will cost the District four million, one hundred and twenty-two thousand, four hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($4, 122,457) during the current school year. 4. The Court of Appeals has ordered that the three Pulaski districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system (Act 34) of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. 5. To comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD should be awarded the sums set forth in Exhibit A to this Motion. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 060) aunty Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September __i_, 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg. , Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53481 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 MFPA CALC: ESTIMATES: DISTRICT LINE SCHOOL YEAR NO. CHARGE RATE 1 WADM DATA 2 REG. 3QADM 3 SPEDWADM  4 VOCWADM  5 VOCCWADM* 6 G\u0026 TWADM  7 MAGADM 8 LOSS FD WADM 9 TOT. WADM 10 M-to-M OUT 11 SBER CALCULATIONS 12 STATE FUNDS 13 AMOUNT ADDED 14 TOTAL ST. 15 AV AMT. 16 CHARGE RA TE 17 TOTAL AV CHG 18 TOTAL MISC. FDS. 19 TOTAL RESOURSES 20 TOT. WADM (73,892)  21 SBER 22 DIFFERENCE 23 AVE. LOC. RES. 24 MFPA CALCULATION 25 TOTAL A. V. 26 X CHG. 31 MISC. REV. 75% 32 LOCAL RES. 33 NO. M. D. 34 M.D. CR. 35 NET LOC. RES. 36 LOC. RES. RATE 37 SBER 38 TABLE RATE 39 TOT. MFPA 40 MFPA CHANGE 41 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 42 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL TH INS. COST 43 AT RISK 44 TRANS 45 TOT. ADD. STATE FUNDS 46 TOT. STATE FUNDS 47 TOTAL CHANGE 48 ACT 917 FUNDING + DEBT SERV. 49 TOTAL MORE OR (LESS) THAN ACT 34  NUMBERS REMAIN AT 1995-96 LEVELS CHG. INC= (AMT. ADD./2500000)/1000 ACT 34 FOR 96-97 97-98 \u0026 98-99 ACT34978.WK PCSSD PCSSD PCSSD PCSSD 1995-96 , 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 19,070.30 19,074.36 18,801 .98 18,339.84 1,950.70 1,950.70 1,950.70 1,950.70 712.45 712.45 712.45 712.45 26.01 26.01 26.01 26.01 246.00 246.00 246.00 246.00 963.41 951 .41 978.17 978.17 539.39 159.12 166.49 389.97 23,508.26 23,120.05 22,881.80 22,643.14 402.66 394.01 581.14 581 .14 $963,200,241 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1,104,528,360 $1, 164,528,360 $17,015,999,575 $18,376,728,665 $19,816,194,517 $20,410,680,353 0.0278 0.0315 $473,044,788 $578,866,953 $5,215,335 $5,171,702 $1 ,441 ,460,364 $1,640,938,394 521 ,731 519,249 $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $397.37 $907 $1,115 $737,033,624 $786,594,811 $20,489,535 $24,777,737 $73,473 $73,473 $20,563,008 $24,851 ,210 669.47 669.47 ($217,769 ($83,766 $20,345,239 $24,767,443 $865.45 $1 ,071 .25 S2,762.84 $3,160.21 S1,897.39 $2,088.96 $44,604,310 $48,296,823 $3,692,512 S8,701 ,196 $9,564,451 S809,914 $809,914 S2,005,448 $2,005,448 $11 ,516,558 $12,379,813 $56, 120,868 $60,676,636 $4 555,767 $57,018,967 ($3,657,669 EXHIBIT I A 0.0334 $661,860,897 $6,739,116 $1,773,128,373 I 525,631 I $3,373.331 $213.121  $1 2591 $917,639,068 $30,649,1451 $41,1861 $30,690,331 I 669.471 $30,690,331 I $1,341 .261 $3,373.33 ! $2,032.08i $46,497,592 I ($1 ,799,231) $9,753,8661 $809,9141 $2,005,448 i $12,569,228 I $59,066,8201 $31,116,1931 $57,019,1441  ($2,047,6761 0.0358 $730,702,357 $6,739.116 $1,901 ,969,833 525,631 $3,618.45 $245.12 $1,390 $949,708,069 $33,999,549 $56,981 $34,056,530 669.47 $0 $34,056,530 $1 ,504.06 $3,618.45 $2,1 14.40 $47,876,547 $1,378,955 $10,280 ,201 .18 $809,914 $2,005,448 $13,095,563 $60,972,110 $4,851 ,242 $56,849,653 ($4, 122,457 MFPA CALC. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR 96-97 97-98 \u0026 98-99 ACT34978.WK~ DISTRICT LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LINE SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 ' 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 NO. CHARGE RATE 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QADM 22.384.95 22,231 .64 22,839.39 23,133.39 3 SPED WADM  1,700.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 4 VOCWADM  826.68 826.68 826.68 826.68 5 VOCCWADM  77.95 77.95 77.95 77.95 6 G \u0026 TWADM  253.75 253.75 253.75 253.75 7 MAG ADM 8 LOSS FD WADM 533.59 311 .20 0.00 0.00 9 TOT. WADM 25,777.64 25,401.94 25 698.49 25,992.49 10 M-to-M OUT 11 SBER CALCULATIONS 12 STATE FUNDS $963.200,241 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 13 AMOUNT ADDED $0 %1M}tf~t~~  %if-tt{U:t~~ ii.i.i:d:li~J 14 TOTAL ST. $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 $1 ,164,528,360 15 AV AMT. $17,015,999,575 $18,376,728,665 $19,816,194,517 $20,410,680,353 16 CHARGE RATE 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 17 TOTAL AV CHG $473,044,788 $578,866,953 $661 ,860,897 $730,702,357 18 TOTAL MISC. FOS. $5,215,335 $5,171 ,702 $6,739,116 $6,739,116 19 TOTAL RESOURSES $1,441,460,364 $1,640,938,394 $1 ,773,128,373 $1 ,901,969,833 20 TOT. WADM 173,892) * 521,731 519,249 525,631 525,631 21 SBER $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $3,373.33 $3,618.45 22 DIFFERENCE $397.37 $213.12 $245.12  23 AVE. LOC. RES. $907 $1115 $1 ,259 $1,390 24 MFPA CALCULATION 25 TOTAL A. V. $1 ,645,039,791 $1 ,712,31 1,220 $1,947,375,874 $1 ,964,727,647 26 X CHG. $45,732,106 $53,937,803 $65,042,354 $70,337,250 31 MISC. REV. 75% $102,1 58 $1 47,194 $132,386 32 LOCAL RES. $45,834,264 $53,937,803 $65,189,548 $70,469,636 33 NO. M. 0 . 34 M.D. CR. 35 NET LOC. RES. $45,834,264 $53,937,803 $65,189,548 $70,469,636 36 LOG. RES. RATE $1,778.06 $2,123.37 $2,536.71 $2,7 11 .15 37 SBER $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $3,373.33 $3,6 18.45 38 TABLE RATE $984.78 $1 ,036.84 $836.63 $907.301 39 TOT.MFPA $25,385,218 $26,337,719 $21,500,007 $23,582,898 40 MFPACHANGE $952,502 ($4,837,713 $2,082,891 41 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 42 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL TH INS. COST $11 ,518,589.00 $13,802,736.00 $14,461 ,942.00 $15,933,618.50 43 AT RISK  $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 44 TRANS  $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 45 TOT. ADD. STATE FUNDS $14,398,594 $16,682,741 $17,341,947 $18,813,624 46 TOT. STATE FUNDS $39,783,812 $43,020,460 $38,841,954 $42,396,521 47 TOTAL CHANGE $3 236,649 $38,841,954 $2,612,709 48 ACT 917 FUNDING + DEBT SERV. $43,350,510 $43,233,081 $45,946,383 49 TOTAL MORE OR (LESS) THAN ACT 34 $330,050 $4 391,127 $3,549,862  NUMBERS REMAIN AT 1995-96 LEVELS -  CHG. INC= (AMT. ADD./2500000)/1000 - - ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 93 ~Fp _ o P\"' S WESTERN DIVISION .. - '-' 1  06 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECElllED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE-fr !ffSEGREGATION MONITORlNm INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS MFPA In its latest decision regarding the Districts' financial claims against the State, the Court of Appeals held in part that: [t)he districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 97-1794 E.A. Slip Opinion at p. 31 . The PCSSD has previously acquainted this Court with the negative impact Act 917 had and is having upon the PCSSD. Indeed, in its Order dated February 18, 1997 this Court stated: The Court finds persuasive the figures submitted by the PCSSD which show that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new formula than it would have been under the old. See PCSSD MFPA Calculation Estimate with Act 34 of 1996-97, Ex. A, PCSSD Prehearing Brief (doc. #2854). In response to the State's figures that indicate that the PCSSD does better under the new formula, _ see Green Deel., State's Resp. to M. Summ. J., the PCSSD points out that the State's figures are not adjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely on data from the previous school year. Exhibit A to the Motion is an updated calculation utilizing the same methodology reviewed and approved by this Court on February 18, 1997. The outcomes for 1996-97 are slightly different because additional updated information has been received. As contemplated by the Court of Appeals in its most recent decision, these calculations cannot be made with precision, but they are more reliable than \"a reasonable and informed estimate.\" kl The outcome in this case is that as compared to Act 34, Act 917 cost the PCSSD three million, six hundred and fifty-seven thou,sand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($3,657,669) in 1996-97, two million, forty-seven thousand, six hundred and seventy-six dollars ($2 ,047,676) in 1997-98 and will cost the District four million, one hundred and - twenty-two thousand, four hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($4,122,457) during 1998-99 using the current projections of the Arkansas Department of Education. The same methodology demonstrates that for 1996-97 the North Little Rock School District lost one million, five hundred and thirty-four thousand, five hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($1,534,557) under Act 917, that it gained slightly at forty-three thousand, fifty-one dollars ($43 ,051) in the last school year under Act 917 but that it will lose an additional one million, three hundred and forty-four thousand, eight hundred and fifty dollars ($1,344,850) this year under Act 917. The same methodology demonstrates that for 1996-97 the LRSD gained three hundred and thirty thousand and fifty dollars ($330,050) under Act 917, gained four million, three hundred ninety-one thousand, one hundred and twenty-seven dollars - (4,391 ,127) last year under Act 917 and will gain three million, five hundred and forty- 53101 2 ' nine thousand, eight hundred and fifty-two dollars ($3,549,852) this year utilizing current State projections. The Court of Appeals ordered that: \"the three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed.\" ~ at 30- 31 . The system that changed the distribution for teacher retirement and health insurance is Act 917. To comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD should be awarded the sums set forth in Exhibit A to its Motion. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 60) nty Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September _i, 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53 101 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm  401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53101 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 ,,,, J.-1\\C K, lLYON \u0026 J O'.~ES, P ... -1\\ . ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7 2201 3472 (501 ) 375 1 1 22 TELECOPI ER (501 ) 375 1 027 ~,-~/ \"~ ,, .. (.It:. lii: Ur f\u0026GREW'!ON MONiTORING Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John M. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al September 11 , 1998 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Nashville Office 111 MUSIC Circle South Surte 202 Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (6151259-4664 Telecopier (615) 259-4668 Enclosed please find North Little Rock School District's Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs as to State Defendant. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, (-- i ~ Stephen W. Jones U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARK ANSllc: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 11 1998 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ________ _ nEP.CLERI\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. SEP 1 ~~ 1998 OFF/GE Cf DEISafGATION MONIT'JR/NG DEFENDAt-v.IS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT; et al. INIERVENORS INIERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PETITION FOR AW ARD OF. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANT Comes now the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs as to State Defendant, states as follows : 1. On or about July 1, 1998, this Court issued an Opinion affirming the district court's decision that the State of Arkansas had violated the terms of its Settlement Agr~ement with the three Pulaski County school districts with respect to the adverse effect on teacher retirement and health insurance caused by changes to the method of school funding. 2. Consistent with this Court's previous decision in this matter, see 127 F.3d 693 , 695 (8 th Cir. 1997), NLRSD qualifies as a prevailing party and is entitled to recover attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. Alternatively, NLRSD is entitled to recover fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308. 3. NLRSD incurred fees and costs in the amount of $31,081.15 (Stephen W. Jones - 130.25 hours x $185.00 = $24,096.25;]. Allen Carney- 24.50 hours x $125.00 = $3 ,062.50; Melissa Glover - 23 .5 x $115.00 = $2,702.50; and $1 ,219.90 in costs). The hourly fees charged by Jack, Lyon and Jones, P.A. are consistent with those charged by attorneys of like skill and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 4. The fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit of Stephen W. Jones, attorney ofNLRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. As a service to the NLRSD and the community at large, the fees charged by Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. to NLRSD were at substantial discounts from those rates typically charged to other clients. See attachedExhibit B, Affidavit of James Smith. However, Defendant ADE is not entitled to benefit from those discounts. To do so would reward it for its violation of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, for purposes of this fee petition, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. is entitled to receive its typical hourly fees. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court award it attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $31,081.15, and for all other ~elief to which it may be entitled. By: 2 Respectfully submitted JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Stephen W. Jones, ' 083 J. Allen Carney, #9. 122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 11 th day of September, 1998 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDqE \u0026 CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Builcti.m r ~ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John M. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas .72206 3 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 $L\u003c-W~ Stephen W. Jones U IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTER.~ DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT,.et al. AFFIDAVIT I, Stephen W. Jones, after being duly sworn, state under oath: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INilRVE~-ORS INilRVEJ\\-ORS 1. The billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked and costs incurred on this matter before this Court as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements have been billed to NLRSD and those bills have been paid or will be paid. 2. I have been engaged in the private practice of law for twenty (20) years and am the managing partner of Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. I have practiced and lectured extensively in the areas of civil rights, employment, and school law. I am a contributing author to Employment Discrimination Law, Schlei and Grossman, 2Ed., 1983, co-editor of the Arkansas Employment Law Bulletin, and co-author of the Arkansas Employment Law Deskbook. My normal hourly billing rate is $185.00. That rate is consistent with rates charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. EXHIBIT I A 3. J. Allen Camey is an associate with Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. with approximately four ( 4) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate is $125 .00. This rate is consistent with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski CoW1ty, Arkansas. 4. Melissa Glover is an !associate with Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. with approximately two (2) years of experience. Her normal hourly billing rate is $115.00. This rate is consistent with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. The attached billing statements relate exclusively to proceedings before this Court involving the funding of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits. Moreover, the time entries have been reviewed to eli!I}inate duplicative and other non-billable time. Designated for internal accoW1ting purposes as matter No. 1-2 0, time records with respe~t-to proceedings before this Coun were kept separate from other desegregation matters. ~ . ' -- '(I STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) By: x~ LJ ?FJ~ Stephen W. Jones U ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this the l f tiJ d~y of September, 1998, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Stephen W. Jones, known to me to be the p~rson whose name is subscribed to the attestation and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. r-, \\- -~~-\\-'! ::.\\ cQ-Jt. K 0 Notary Public 2 DATE ATTORNEY DESCRIPTION Tl~IE 10/20/95 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones regarding State Funding 0.50 issues, recovery of payment shortfalls, etc. 10/20/95 SWJ Meeting with Messrs. Smith, K.ince and Watkins to 5.75 review financial projections and analyze legal rami~cations; Telephone conference with Mr. Jones and Dr. Stewart 11/8/95 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones regarding state funding 0.75 issues and his previous meetings with NL RSD officials 11 /9/95 JAC Conference regarding state funding; review 0.50 Desegregation Plan provisions 11 /14/95 JAC .. Conference regarding teacher retirement and state 1.00 funding 12/ 1/95 JAC Conference regarding funding formula and potential 0 .. 25 litigation 12/11/95 SWJ Telephone conference with l'v1r. Smith regarding 0.75 .. ADE response to funding concerns; Telephone conference with Ms. Boyter .. 1/2/96 SWJ Meeting with Mr. Smith and Dr. New, etc. regarding 2.75 funding issues 1/26/96 SWJ Telephone conference -with Mr. Smith regarding state 0\".75 funding and plan, etc. 2/7/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 2.75 funding issues; Research regarding same and possibility of recovery 2/8/96 SWJ Review ADE's pleadings regarding Worker's 3.25 Compensation to determine if any admission; Research regarding funding issues 2/12/96 JAC Conference regarding potential action against state 0.50 2/13/96 JAC Attend meeting regarding state funding issues 2.50 2/13/96 SWJ Meeting with Mr. Smith and staff regarding funding 4.25 issues; Review current analysis .. \" . . 4/24/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 PCSSD and ADE meeting 4/29/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 meeting with ADE; Telephone conference with tvlr. Jones' secretary regarding ADE meeting 5/2/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 meeting with ADE 5/16/96 SWJ Meeti,ng '.vith ADE regarding funding issues; Meet 5.25 with Messrs. Smith and Kince, et al. 5/ 17/96 JAC Interoffice conference with tvlr. Jones regarding ' 1.00 funding meeting 5/17/96 SWJ Prepare and attend meeting with ADE and district 7.50 personnel regarding funding issues; Meet with Messrs. Smith, et al.; Review various reports 5/23/96 SWJ .. Review ADE offer regarding M-toM adjustment for 0.50 1996 5/24/96 SWJ Telepho~e conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding 0.75 issues and ADE position 5/28/96 SWJ Review PCS SD letter regarding 1996 M-toM 0.75 adjustments; Review tvlr. Jones' letter regarding hearing on June 7 5/29/96 SWJ Review PCSSD Motion to Enforce Settlement; 0.75 Review letter from tvlr. Walker regarding deposit~ons; Review PCS SD FOI request 5/30/96 JAC Conference regarding meeting with Judge Wright; 1.00 Litigation strategy 5/31 /96 JAC Prepare for and attend hearing regarding State 2.00 funding issues; Conference with Messrs. Jones and Heller. 5/31/96 SWJ Conference with Judge Wright and other counsel 3.50 regarding schedule of proceedings for Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; Conferences with Messrs. Heller, Jones, Smith and Watkins regarding same; Review ADE FOI request to PCS SD; Review Order regarding funding hearing; Review LRSD, PCSSD Petition for rehearing 6/4/96 JAC Review.County's Motion to Enforce Settlement 1.25 ... Agreement 6/5/96 JAC Review County's Motion; Research funding issues 1.50 6/6/96 JAC Review 8th Circuit Slip Opinion; Review LRSD 1.25 6/6/96 SWJ Review LRSD Motion to Enforce Settlement 3.75 Agreement; Review PCSSD Second Motion to Enforce; Work on NLRSD Motion 617196 JAC Rese' arch and draft NLRSD's Motion to Enforce 3.50 Settlement Agreement 617/96 SWJ Review PCSSD and LRSD Motions; Review and edit 3.25 NLRSD Motion Brief; Telephone conference with Mr. Smith 6/12/96 SWJ Telephone conference regarding NLRSD motion; 0.75 Prepare letter regarding same 6/17/96 SWJ . . Review ADE response to petition for rehearing 0.75 6/27/96 SWJ Review letter from ADE rega~ding extension to 0.25 respond 6/28/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Messrs. Jones and Heller 2.75 regarding amicus and other issues; Review ADE Motion for Extension to Respond; Review status report materials 7/1 /96 SWJ Review Motion to Extend Time filed by Joshua, 1.00 PCSSD and LRSD; Review 1:,RSD June planning and budgeting tool 7/2/96 SWJ . Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding 0.50 need for amicus and demand status of rehearing 7/3/96 SWJ Review discovery requests and ADE pleadings 0.75 7/8/96 SWJ Review letter from ADE describing documents 1.00 responsive to PCSSD discovery 7/15/96 SWJ Review documents in preparation for Lakeview 0.75 hearing 7/ 16/96 JAC Conference regarding state funding issues 0.50 7/16/96 SWJ Attend status conference on Lakeview case; 2.00 Conference with Mr. Wilson 7/17/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding 0.50 meeting on Lakeview; Telephone conference \\.vi th tvlr. Smith 7/ 18/96 JAC Prepare for and attend meeting with Messrs. Jones, 2.50 Heller, etc. regarding state funding challenge 7/1 8/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Wooldridge 4.50 regarding Mr. Smith's schedule; Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding going ahead with meeting; Telephone conference with Mr. Kince; Telephone conference with Ms. Wooldridge; Telephone conference with Mr. Watkins; Attend meeting with other counsel and parties regarding Lakeview 7/23/96 SWJ Telephone conference with l\\llr. Sam Jones 0.50 . 7/24/96 SWJ Briefly review ADE and Lakeview Plaintiffs 1.00 Motions and Responses; Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding same; Telephone conference with Mr: Roachell regarding same 7/26/96 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones; review brief 1.00 .. 7/26/96 SWJ Conference with Mr. Carney, review brief 1.00 8/2/96 SWJ Review ADE request for extension 0.25 8/21/96 SWJ Review accumulated PCS SD and intervener's 2.50 pleadings 8/23/96 SWJ Review ADE Motion to Dismiss and Intervener 1.25 Motion; Review PCSSD response; Interoffice conference regarding response; Review and edit same 8/25/96 SWJ Review Motions/Memorandum; telephone 1.00 conference with Mr. Smith 8/29/96 SWJ Review Intervener's reply to LRSD and PCSSD 1.50 response 9/3/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings 0.50 9/6/96 JLJ Copy Charges 1.50 9/6/96 .. . JLJ Telecopy Charges .. 1.75  , 9/ 10/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding class 1.00 certification motion in Lakeview case; Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding LRSD position on motion 9/26/96 JLJ Copy Charges 4.25 10/3/96 SWJ Meet with Messrs. Smith, Jones, Heller, Kincl, Lester 2.75 and Stewart regarding strategy in Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement against ADE; Conference with Messrs. Smith and Kincl regarding same 10/8/96 MBG . Telephone conference with Mr. Hoskins at 0.50 Department of Education about depositions; Conference with Mr. Jones and Mr. Bowman about depositions 10/9/96 MBG .. Telephone conference with Mr. Hoskins at 6.00 Department of Education; Review ofletters for file; Prepare deposition list; Conference with Mr. Jones  on facts of case; Organize file; Attend deposition of . Dr. Robert Shaver 10/10/96 MBG Attend Dr. Robert Shaver's deposition; Conference 9.00  --with Mr. Jones on issues in depositions 10/11/96 MBG Attend depositions of Tristan Greene and Dr. Bobbie 8.00 Davis 10/14/96 JLJ  Parking Charge 17.40 11/11 /96 SWJ Review and comment on draft of pretrial brief of the 2.00 three Pulaski districts regarding loss of teachers retirement and employee health insurance payments from state; Telephone conferences with Messrs. Heller and S. Jones regarding brief and preparation for hearing on November 19 11 /13/96 SWJ Review order from Judge Wright ordering status 1.75 conference to consider various motions regarding motion to enforce settlement agreement; Reivew PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South; Telephone conferences with other counsel regarding hearing and strategy 11/18/96 SWJ Review new motions to enforce settlement agreement 6.00 and ADE responses; Telephone conference with :vfr. Smith regarding hearing; Telephone conference with Messrs. Heller and S. Jones regarding November 19 hearing; Review original motions to enforce settlement agreement against ADE prepare for status conference with Judge Wright; Review pre-trial brief;  ! Review PCSSD pre-trial brief 11 /21/96 SWJ Review draft of Motion for Summary Judgment, 1.50 Briefin Support and Statement of Undisputed Facts; Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding same; Review letter from Mr. Walker regarding request for fees for November 19 hearing 11/25/96 SWJ Review filed version of Districts ' Motion for 1.75 .. Summary Judgment against ADE, Brief in Support and Statement of Undisputed Facts; Review letter from ADE attorney requested e~tension to respond to Motion for Summary Judgment on teacher retirement issue 12/13/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings; Telephone conferences 2.25 regarding depositions needed and schedule for sa.rne 12/18/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings; Telephone conference with 1.50 other counsel regarding analysis and suggestions 12/19/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr: Heller regarding 0.50 additional filings 12/23/96 SWJ Review ADE response to LRSD, NLRSD and 2.75 PCSSD Statement of Undisputed Facts, ADE opposition to ODM budget, arid Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 12/26/96 SWJ Review Districts ' reply to ADE Response to Motion 1.25 for Summary Judgment; Review Amicus Curiae Response on Summary Judgment; Review deposition schedule for Mr. Wilhoit and Dr. Sydoriak 1/2/97 SWJ Prepare for and attend deposition of Mr. Wilhoit; 3.75 Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding hearing 1/3/97 SWJ Review documents related to school funding issues; 2.50 Interoffice conference with other counsel regarding hearing and evidence needed 1/6/97 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Reed regarding 3.25 impact of Act 917 on special education funding; Research regarding Act 91 7; Prepare for and attend deposition of Diane Sydoriak 1/6/97 SWJ Conferences with Messrs. Heller and Jones regarding 1.25 preparation for hearing 1/13/97 SWJ Review ADE and Districts' pleadings; Review 2.00 amicus filed by Mr. Llewelyn 1/14/97 SWJ Review and organize files with paralegal 1.25 1/14/97 SWJ . . Review motion and brief regarding summary 1.00 judgment on special education and other issues 1/1 5/97. SWJ Review Districts' motion regarding health insunice , 1.75 special educ "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1680","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions of law regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for unitary status","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1998-09-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions of law regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for unitary status"],"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/1680"],"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":["30 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.  JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 , Re: LRSD v PCSSD LR-C-82-866 Dear Sam: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Hand Delivery September 1, 1998 RECEnfED SEP 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find Joshua Intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions of law regarding PCSSD's Motion for Unitary Status. JWW:js /jc/ely, 'K::~~ cc: All Counsel of Record - Via United States Mail Ms. Ann Brown - Via United States Mail  ' } I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES. DISTRICT COURT SEP Q l 1998 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTH'?S CLEAi\u003c v. NO. LR-C-82-866 i PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL ~~~te;_ i,ED DISTRICT, ET AL. ~\"l~~E\\:;.G W DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP 2 1998 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' INTERVENORS Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning the Motion of the Pesso for Termination of the court's Jurisdiction The Joshua Intervenors hereby submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for the termination of the court's jurisdiction. r. Proposed Findings of Fact A. Introduction (1.) In 1989 and 1990, the Joshua Intervenors, as well as representatives of the PCSSD, the LRSD, and the NLRSD negotiated five ~ritten agreements, leading to the settlement of this case. 1 In this settlement, the officials of the PCSSD \"voluntarily adopted\" 2 three plans, a \"Desegregation Plan [for] PCSSD\" (CX 432, modified version of April 29, 1992), an 1 LRSD y. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376-80, 1383, 1384 (1990). 2 Order, 9-23-96, at 12. 1 \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" (CX 433, modified version of April 29, 1992), and a \"Settlement Agreement\" addressing, in part, the resolution of claims against the state. (2.) The Court of Appeals approved the parties' settlement and addressed its implementation and enforcement in its opinion of December 12, 1990. The court wrote that 11 [i]t is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to ... \" (921 F.2d at 1386); the court also charged this court with the responsibility for \"monitor[ing] closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement [and] ... ~ak[ing] whatever action [was] appropriate ... to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. \".I_d. at 1394. 3 The Court of Appeals referred to the plans as \"a benchmark for the future path of this case\" 4 and \"a particular- -- ization of federal law applicable to these parties. 115 (3.) The Court of Appeals recognized that this court would require assistance to perform its monitoring function. It therefore provided for the creation of the \"Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" (ODM) to support the court's efforts. LRSD., 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. Thereafter, ODM staff, under the leadership of Ann Brown, has: (i) prepared 3 The Court of Appeals also referred to the parties \"scrupulously and diligently carry[ing] out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... \".IJ3.SI2, 921 F.2d at 1394. 4 Appeal of Little Rock, 949 F.2d 253, 255 (1991). 5 Knight y. Pesso, 112 F.3d 953, 954 (1997). 2 approximately 35 formal monitoring reports, virtually all of which address the PCSSD wholly or in part; (ii) attended scores of court hearings, many of which concerned the PCSSD, at least in part; and (iii) had scores of more direct contacts with the officials and employees of the PCSSD regarding various aspects of the district's voluntary commitments and ODM's efforts . .E......a..., ex 475 (\"ODM Climate Analysis Process\"); Tr. 551 (A. Brown); Tr. 524 (E. Collins); Tr. 812 (G. Miller). (4.) The voluntary commitments of the PCSSD address outcomes or goals, various activities designed to achieve those goals, and what might be termed process issues, namely the approach to be taken by the system's officers and agents in implementing the plans. See findings (5.)-(7.) (5.) The outcomes or goals identified in the plans, to which -~ the PCSSD voluntarily agreed, address for example, eliminating or reducing disparity in achievement between white and black students (CX 433, at 6, Interdistrict Plan; ex 432, at 95-96, PCSSD Desegregation Plan); and eliminating disproportionate disciplining of black students. (CX 432, at 6) (6). The activities identified in the plan address, for example, actions to attain the outcomes or goals of the plans in the areas of student achievement (CX 432, at 85-86), discipline (CX 432, at 73-74, 75-76), and classroom racial make-up. (CX 432, at 96-97) (7.) The voluntarily agreed process is delimited in various provisions of the plan. The following are among those which are 3 - particularly significant. Desegregation Plan (ex 432, at 14, Office of the Superintendent) The Superintendent is the chief desegregation officer of the Pulaski County Special School District. It is his duty to be familiar with the district's legal obligations under the Constitution, court orders, and applicable statutes, and to be certain that the Board and staff members are kept aware of those obligations. The superintendent is responsible for vigorously implementing the Board's desegregation policy and plan and for accurately and promptly reporting positive accomplishments and areas where additional ,efforts are needed. The superintendent is expected to recommend to the Board such modifications of policies and practices as may be reW,1ired from time to time; the goal is to achieve desegregation outcomes, and the Superintendent must promote sufficient institutional flexibility to reach that goal. (emphasis added) Desegregation Plan ccx 432, at 16-17, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation) The Assistant superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for planning, directing, controlling, and monitoring the overall desegregation plan of the District .... (at 16) One of the primary responsibilities of the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation is to direct the administra~ion of the District's Office of Desegregation, including supervision of the Director of the Office of Desegregation, who reports to the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation will work closely with the Office of Desegregation to determine if the Office of Desegregation is fulfilling its purpose and meeting its goals as appropriate. (at 17) Desegregation Plan (CX 432, at 18, Director of  Desegregation) An essential purpose of the monitoring conducted by the Office of Desegregation is to observe and thoroughly document progress being made toward all the District's desegregation goals and objectives. To this end, the Director of Desegregation will monitor the District's compliance with civil rights laws and court orders. Further. this monitoring function includes recommendin~ corrective action where necessary to improve the quality of the desegregation process and to achieve a federal court 4 ' declaration of unitary status. (emphasis added) Desegregation Plan (CX 432, at 95-96, Assistant Superintendent for Instruc\"tion) The Assistant Superintendent for Instruction has responsibility for monitoring the District's desegregation efforts in the Instructional Division, including ... the effectiveness of the educational program in reducing achievement disparity .... . . . . [SJtudent achievement is monitored by race so as to collect the data necessary to evaluate programs and make necessary curricular and instructional changes to support the concept of equity and enhanced learning for all students. (emphasis added) . (8.) Mr. Billy Bowles is the system's Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation,~ position he has held for 13 ' years. (CX 441, at 4) Asked during his testimony \"[d]o you know ' whether or not you . are responsible as a board -- you as an agent of the board for vigorously implementing the board's desegregation policy and plan, 11 Mr. Bowles replied: \"Yes, we are responsible for vigorously implementing the plan.\" (Tr. 313) 6 (9.) The testimony during the hearing of Ms. Tommy Sue Anthony presented some of the deficiencies in the implementation of the voluntary plans, and a good example of the agreed upon process at work. This testimony concerned the area of advanced placement courses. In this are~, the plan provides (CX 432, at 7) : The District will also strive to raise the level of student academic performance .... This objective will also be met by an increase in the number of black students enrolled in gifted and talented classes, pre-AP classes, and AP classes. 6 Unless otherwise indicated, transcript citations are to the transcript of the hearing conducted from June 29-31, 1998. 5 (10.) Ms. Anthony completed her term as the District's Director of Talented and Gifted Programs on June 30, 1998. (Tr. 440) Through 1991, or so, her duties encompassed advanced placement (AP) classes. She resumed that assignment in 1996-97, after a five-year hiatus. (Tr. 458-59) Upon resuming these responsibilities, Ms. Anthony \"collected all the data from every school about enrollment, black, white and including the feeder classes,\" and found that \"black students were under represented in advanced placement [classes] .... \" (Tr. 480) She also agreed that \"no concerted effort had been made in the intervening five or six ~ears\" (Tr. 465) \"to find a ~ay to get more black students as the plan committed into AP .... \" [Tr. 464; see also Tr. 286, line 17 to 289, line 11 (Dr. Altom) (inaction)]. (11.) Ms. Anthony explained what followed:  ... Oyer the last several years I have become very, very concerned about the lack of African-American students or the very small numbers of African-American students enrolled in AP. I brought this to the attention of several people .arul finally this past year was directed to convene a committee made up of people; teachers, administrators, counselors from throughout the district, all of our secondary schools, and look at the district's policy. My feeling was that perhaps each subject matter had a different policy of how a child could be placed in AP and I felt that perhaps these policies were prohibiting students from getting into AP and should be more inclusive. I also knew that the National Office of the College Board was encouraging districts to develop an inclusive strategy for placement in AP. So we convened the Committee. We actually re-did the district handbook for placement in AP and made it much more inclusive .... I might say we spent the entire -- this committee spent the entire year on struggling with these issues and the policies actually came out right at the end of the year. We've just now implemented some of these strategies and it looks like from the preliminary figures that I have turned 6 back in the last week of school that the numbers have increased. They are not where they should be but these policies seem to be beginning to work and the numbers of black students seem to be increasing for next year. (emphasis added) (12.) This is an example of the vigorous implementation required by the voluntary plan. It involved, after a period of inattention, the use of data to identify a problem as to the attainment of a goal of the plan, identification of a policy requiring revision, a group effort to achieve that end, and implementation, and monitoring, thereafter, which determined that the new policies were \"beginning to work .... \" However, the requisite vig?rous implementation, -or, alternatively, scrupulous and diligent implementation, is absent in many significant areas, as these findings show. (13.) The general problem is illuminated by testimony of the court's monitor, Ms. Ann Brown. Significant questions and answers are as follows (Tr. 552): Q: Ana your opinion as to whether or not the district has any place -- any assessment criteria in place other than say that which has been explained by Ms. Tommie Sue Anthony for assessing the viability of educational programs which may be in place from the perspective of achieving remediation of student achievement disparity. A: I'm aware of some individual reports that are evaluative in nature and as Mrs. Anthony has alluded to, some are summative and some are formative -- some are formative, I'm sorry. Some of them are summative, in that they tend to be issued at the end of the school year. As far as a comprehensive evaluation of their programs and operations in relation to their plan, I am not aware of any comprehensive documents of that nature. * * * Q: Have you seen evidence that this district has had 7 . . __. ,. sustained rigorous, vigorous activities to implement each and every aspect of the plan submitted to the court as reflected in the desegregation plan, the interdistrict plan and the Joshua agreement? A: No, I can't say that. (Tr. 555-56) While unable to fault the Pesso as to the filing of required monitoring reports, Ms. Brown did question the content and, particularly the~ of the information. She testified as follows (Tr. 557-58): A number of the reports are a compilation as I said previously and a number of the documents that have been used in various activities, for example, the recruitment document that we received. Where I have been disappointed is that I have not seen evidence of how the school district has made use of these documents in measuring the rate and the progress or the extent of the progress. In other words, I don't see that there is a -they're valuative in nature. I do not see that there regular application of this information to determine should be changed .... usually is a what._, While r have certainly seen some good faith efforts on behalf of the district. r have not seen that has been applied diligently throughout the entire operation of the district. (~mphasis added) B. Discipline (14.) The provisions of the PCSSD desegregation plan concerning school discipline include the following: Goals: 1. There will not be a disproportionate number of minorities disciplined. 3. There will be a district-wide school-based management system. 4. There will be an alternative discipline program for at-risk youth. . (CX 432, at 6) * * * 8 .... More alternatives (e.g., in house suspension) should be supported by the administration and Board of Education. (CX 432, at 6) * * * .... Disciplinary records are kept on each student concerning suspensions and expulsions that show the reasons for punishment, the teacher or staff member involved, and the school, race, and sex of the student disciplined. collection and assessment of this information allows the school principal, parents and others to analyze the reasons for suspension by race and sex, and to determine if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems t~at require attention .... (emphasis added) The Assistant superintendent for Pupil Personnel services shall submit a discipline report to the Superintendent, School Board and the Office of Desegregation at the end of each semester along with specific recommendations or suggestions for reducing the disproportionality .... The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Director of Staff Development has established a biracial committee to study the problem of minority students being-disciplined disproportionately .... (Plan, CX 432, at 73- 74) Discipline Data Analysis Assessment objective: to identify sources and nature of disproportionate black discipline in -removal action (classroom removals and school removals). a. Determine which disciplinary actions result in overrepresentation of black students (suspensions, expulsions, removal from classroom) .... b. Determine which offenses result in overrepresentation of black students in disciplinary actions. d. Determine which staff are involved in actions which result in students being involved in disciplinary actions. e. Determine length of time and\\or severity of disciplinary actions, comparing black and white students ... (CX 432, at 75) 9 Parental rnvolyement Analysis .... After the needs assessment is completed and analyzed, a discipline management system will be developed .... (CX 432, at 75) (15.) Mr. Eddie Collins serves as Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services in the PCSSD, a position he has held for 15 years. (CX 443, at 9). Mr. Collins' responsibilities encompass the area of school discipline. (CX 443) Asked \"is a goal of elimination of disparity in discipline a realistic goal\" -- \"is it doable,\" Mr. Coliins testified, \"I think so.\" (Tr. 545) Under its \"discipline management system,\" the PCSSD \"proposes to .e liminate disparity within f..i ve years.\" (Tr. 546) (16.) ODM's Report titled \"Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District\" (March 18, 1998) shows . that there continue to be very significant racial disparities in discipline rates in the PCSSD. For example, it is possible using data presented by ODM (at page 94) to determine, for secondary students, by racial group, how many of each 100 students of the group enrolled in the PCSSD were subjected to particular forms of discipline in 1996-97, and to calculate disparity in terms of the extent to which the rate for black students, per 100 students, exceeded the rate for white students. These results are as follows: (a) Suspensions. The suspension rate per 100 for all black students was 36.06 and for all white students 21.3, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.69 times. The suspension rate per 100 for black male students was 45.08 and for white male 10 students 29.9, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.5 times. (b) Saturday School. The assignment rate per 100 to Saturday School for all black students was 50.18 and for white students 29.55, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.7 times. The assignment rate per 100 to Saturday School for black male students was 61.00 and for white male students 32.27, with the black rate exce~ding the white rate by 1.59 times. (c) Expulsions. The expulsion rate per 100 for all black students was 2.92 and for all white students .BB, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 3:31 times.The expulsion rate per 100 for black male students was 4.52 and for white male students 1.41, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 3.2 times. (17.) A similar analysis, for 1996-97, regarding~ elementary level, based upon statistics appearing in the ODM Report at 64, is as follows: (a) Suspensions. The suspension rate per 100 for all black students was 11.18 and for all white students 4.64, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 2.41 times. The suspension rate per 100 for black male students was 15.96 and for white male students 7.75, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 2.06 times. (b) Saturday School. The assignment rate per 100 to Saturday School for all black students was 5.71 and for white students 3.07, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.85 times. 11 - The assignment rate per 100 to Saturday School for black male students was 7.47 and for white male students 5.05, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.48 times. (18.) ODM concluded that the PCSSD has failed to achieve its objective regarding racial disparity in the area of discipline. (At 100) Its other conclusions included the following (at 100): .... Each year for the past six years, more and more black students (especially males) have been suspended or expelled from school, thus receiving less classroom instruction. From an academic perspective, the negative effect that reduced instructional time has on test scores, grades and other indicators of academic progress must be considerable. From a behavioral perspective, the potential for mischief from students who are out of school and 'on the streets~ is tremendous. , The PCSSD designed its Saturday School program to help students stay in school by providing an alternative for outof- school suspension. Thus we would expect to see suspensions decline as Saturday school placements increase. ~ On the contrary, the data shows that the opposite has occurred. Since the district opened the Saturday program to all schools in 1993-94, overall suspensions have continued to rise while, on the whole, referrals to Saturday School have declined. Even with the [Discipline Management System] and the Saturday School program, the PCSSD continues to sanction black students at rates that are disproportionate to their numbers in the student population. Apparently, many school personnel are not getting the help they need to deal with some of their students, particularly black males. No school district should have an out-of-school suspension rate approaching 50% for any portion of its student population. yet that is exactly what the district's records show is happening to its black male students at the secondary level . . (emphasis added) See also Tr. 512, line 16 to 514, line 17 (M. Powell testimony). (19.) The evidence establishes that the PCSSD did not implement some of the steps identified in the portions of its plan addressing discipline. 12 (a) The end of semester reports to the superintendent, school board, and office of desegre_gation do not include \"specific recommendations or suggestions for reducing the disproportionality. . \"Compare ex 432, at 74 and ex 423 (discipline reports). (b) There is no apparent compliance with one facet of the \"discipline data analysis\" provisions, namely, the promise to analyze \"length ,of time ... of disciplinary actions, comparing black and white students .... 11 Compare CX 432, at 75, CX 438, at 11 (answer 14), and ex 423 (discipline reports). (c) The ~ystem voluntarily agreed to data collection and analysis for the purpose, in part, of \"determin(ing] if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems - .that require attention .. \" (CX 432, at 74, 75) The evidence establishes inattention to and the lack of implementation of this important feature of the plan. see ex 443, at 29, line 25 to 33, line 2; see also ex 438, at 22 (answer 33) (d) The \"biracial committee to study the problem of minority students being disciplined disproportionately\" (CX 432, at 74, plan) did not present any conclusions in writing. (CX 438, at 24, request# 2) (20.) The ODM Report noted the vastly different discipline rates at various system schools, at both the elementary and secondary levels. (Report at 65-66, 95-96) The PCSSD's data collection system has allowed the central office staff to identify the schools with the highest discipline rates and the 13 - greatest disproportionalities. (CX 423) The reaction of the central office staff to this data is fairly characterized as w;:.Q forma. See Tr. 543, lines 2-6: ex 443, at 33, lines 3 to 25 (Collins deposition). (21.) The PCSSO adopted a Discipline Management system (OMS) and developed a OMS manual for the stated purpose of ending the racial disparity in discipline during a five-year period. There are guidelines for the local implementation plan, which each school was required to develop (and has developed). The content of the plans vary considerably, as did the mode of preparation. (OOM Report, ~t 3) The evidence established the need for additional efforts to perfect the OMS approach. [Tr. at 540 (Collins) (system getting ready to analyze school data from 1997- - 98): 546-48 (Collins)]. (22.) OOM has not monitored, on a sample basis, the extent to which there is actual implementation of local school OMS plans, or the relationship of particular features to positive or negative outcomes. (23.) The ODM Report set forth 11 recommendations. (At 103-04) (see in particular numbers 1, 2, and 9). The PCSSO is at an early stage of considering the monitors' suggestions. (Tr. 524, line 6 to 525, line 13) c. Facilities (24.) Plan provisions concerning school facilities include the following: An aim of the plan shall be to ensure for all students equal educational facilities. Schools which are located in 14 lower socioeconomic areas shall receive more attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in respective districts. (CX 433, at 5, ID Plan) .... Facilities will be maintained so that they are clean. safe. attractive and equal. (ex 432, at 3, Pesso Plan; emphasis added) (25) The ODM completed on April 30, 1998 a detailed report titled \"Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District.\" ODM concluded that the system had not complied with its commitment to provide schools which were \"clean and attractive, as promised.\" (ODM Report, at 50) ODM \"noted no egregious safety violations, but found that many schools exhibited lapses in safety and security measures.\" .Id. ODM \"did not find that schools in lower income neighborhoods were more rundown than those in more affluent neighborhoods.\" (At 54) In substance ODM found the depressing, unsatisfactory pattern of  school upkeep to be distributed randomly. (.Id. at 54-55) ODM did write: \"Fuller was in extremely poor condition, ranking as one of the most neglected schools [the monitors] visited .. II (.Id at 54) The condition of the Fuller School is a matter of concern, that school having been in the range of 43 to 49 percent black in the period from 1988-89 through 1997-98. (CX 418, ODM Report, 1- 30-98, at c-31) The school can hardly attract or retain a desegregated student population over time if its condition is \"extremely poor.\" It is also reasonable to conclude that the poor and decrepit condition of the PCSSD schools will depress the efforts by school staff and students necessary to make progress in reducing the achievement disparity. 15 (26.) Intervenors' Interrogatory 20 and the system's response are as follows (CX 438, at 17): The Interdistrict Plan provides in part (at 5): \"Schools which are located in lower socioeconomic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas .... Please identify each document: (i) evidencing an effort to ascertain compliance with this standard during the period from the start of the 1995-96 school year to date, and (ii) allowing an evaluation, currently, to ascertain compliance with this standard. Response. Plans and drawings and contracts regarding these schools are available for inspection at the central office. This answer evidences a lack of attention to the plan requirements .. The documents identified donot focus on the voluntary commitments. ( 27.) The testimony in deposition of Superintendent Lester_ __ also revealed a lack of systematic attention to the quality of school facilities. There has been no third-party study of facilities for \"ten or twelve years.\" (CX 446 at 59) There has been no internal study \"reduced to writing\" \"in the last four or five years.\" M. There has been no improvement plan adopted by the school board in the last five years. (CX 446 at 60) Asked to describe the criteria used in comparing facilities, the superintendent replied \"eyeball sight.\" (CX 446 at 62) The Superintendent testified that \"[i]t's just our goal to keep every facility at its present state as best we possibly can.\" (CX 446 at 60) He also testified that Fuller Junior High was equal to Jacksonville (without identifying the particular Jacksonville 9 facility he referenced). (CX at 61-62) The Superintendent did 16 . .. ----- --------- contend that there was .a list of priority projects in the Plant Planning Division; he had very limited knowledge of its contents. (CX 446 at 60-61) (28.) The PCSSD did not present any documentary evidence of priority projects. (29.) Assistant Superintendent Bowles testified, in part: \"I have to say I am in agreement primarily with the ODM's report. our buildings appear in disarray. I'm also aware that there are some conditions in those buildings that are not on a day-to-day basis. They're long term that's been overlooked by staff or people who are supposed to take care of that and it's a problem that we're working on diligently, daily, .t- o try to solve.\" (Tr . 134) He added in a like vein: \"Well, I have to echo what I've heard the superintendent and what everybody else has said. They're all bad.\" (Tr. 136) Mr. Bowles testified that the cabinet ,. will take up ODM's recommendations; he opined \"we'll look at those things that they recommend that we can afford to do and  ; implement them,\" but expressed his \"understanding\" that there is \"very little money. 11 (Tr. 395) (30 . .) The district presented no evidence of consideration of options for securing funding to render school facilities \"clean, safe [and] attractive\", or the prospects of success in this regard. (31.) This evidence negates any conclusion that the PCSSD has. vigorously implemented its voluntary commitments in the area of school facilities. Nothing has been implemented \"scrupulously\" 17 / I or \"diligently.\" o. Multicultural Education (32.) The system's voluntary undertaking regarding multicultural education included the following: \"By 1996-97, the Pulaski County Special School District will have infused multicultural instruction in all curriculum areas. Pulaski County Special School District will be recognized as an institution which values multicultural education and actively practices its philosophy in all classrooms.\" (CX 432, at 4) (33.) In October 1996, the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning, UALR, provided a report titled \"Pulaski County Special School District Multicultural Infusion Evaluation.\" (CX .473) The evaluators identified as a focus of their project the existence of \"tangible evidence\" that \"multicultural concepts and principles are being infused into the PCSSD curriculum.\" (CX 473 ~ at 3) The evaluators questioned whether the \"Multicultural Infusion section of the PCSSD School Profile\" is marked by \"the rigor or validity necessary to evaluate multicultural infusion in the classroom.\" (Ig. at 7) 7 The conclusions regarding analysis of teacher lesson plans were as follows: \"Results of the Lesson 7 They elaborated: \"In many of the 'Neutral' responses, the teacher did not openly violate the goal, but neither was there evidence that the goal had been embraced by the teacher and incorporated into everyday practice. Additionally, from the content of the items themselves, it is evident that these items are more closely related to classroom management than to specific curricular or pedigogical tecniques. Therfore, the items included on the PCSSD School Profile are not adequate to capture the process of infusing multiculturalism into the daily operations of classrooms .... 11 (CX 473, at 7-8) 18 - Plan Analysis indicate that in the lesson plan books of a significant number of the classrooms included in the study, there was evidence of these elements of multicultural infusion having been included on a regular basis. At the same time, over one third of the lesson plan books examined showed no evidence of having included these items in the planning of daily classroom activities. It is possible that teachers did, indeed, include such aspects of  multicultural infusion into their classroom daily practice, but no evidence of planning for such activities was found.\" (CX 473, at 9) The Report set forth six recommendations \"[d]ue to the inconsistency between School Profiles and the ' findings of this evaluation .... \" (CX 473, at 14) These included a suggestion of some third-party administration of the system's assessment instrument . .Ig. The evaluators concluded: \"PCSSD schools and administration should work to develop specific multicultural goals and strategies to implement them, utilizing as much as pract'i cable existing library and media center materials to achieve those goals that are in line with state frameworks.\" .I51. E. Special Education Programs . (34.) The PCSSD's voluntary commitments in the area of special education include the following (CX 432, at 11): .... The other long-range goal involves correcting the problem of overrepresentation of blacks, especially black males, in special education. The goal is to reduce the disparity between blacks and whites by gender and categorical placement. A concomitant long-range goal is to eliminate disproportionality within races in special education. 19 . .. . (35.) The evidence offered by the system (CX 427) does not reflect the gender of special educ~tion students. Therefore, the court can not  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1699","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law","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":["1998-09-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School facilities","School employees","Students","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law"],"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/1699"],"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":["79 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.  EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1913 - 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR. JOHN G. LILf GORDON S. RATHER , JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. 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 EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 RECEBl\\'J~CK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 . ~ ~ ~u (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 SEP 2 1998 WEBSITE : www.wlj .com ;::~;E/ ~L.5~i!MAN OFFICE OF OF COUNSEL ~~:~~E\\ t0 ~l~c~ .. ~:RGER DESEGREGAJION MONITORINGA~1TNOA~~:tNJ~~s SAMMYE L. TAYLOR M. TOCO WOOD WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., ~e. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Writer's Direct Olal No . 501-2121273 mjones@wlj .com September 1, 1998 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ., NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. HARRY S . HURST, JR. 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 Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . SARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H. LANG KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS AL LGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES Re: Little Rock School Distrie:t v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC Docket No.: LR-C-82-866 Dear Counsel: Enclosed is The PCSSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which was filed today with the Court Clerk. Cordially yours, WRIG T, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP muelJ~/ckJ Enclosure IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS SEP 2 1998 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS OFFICE OF - DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE PCSSD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others.1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed most of the findings of liability of the District Court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. The Court of Appeals also ordered the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. 1 The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. 1 In the same opinion, the Court of f,ppeals ordered all three districts to develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a complete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexations, segregated housing, school siting, student assignments, special education, transportation, employment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, other proceedings occurred,_ both before the District Court and the _,., Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and the agreed upon Desegregation Plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not finalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the lnterdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and 51781 2 employment of faculty and administrators,. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985). Counseling. The PCSSD was released from federal court supervision as regards counseling and guidance programs by order dated March 27, 1996 (Docket #2648). INTRODUCTION 1. The Release of All Claims Against the PCSSD provides: \"In consideration of commitments set forth in the Plans, Joshua forever .discharge[s] the PCSSD of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color. 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. CX 417, Pages 1 and 2 of Release of All Claims Against the PCSSD.] 2. The District Court withdrew its monitoring and supervision of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) in the area of student assignments in an Order dated September 18, 1995. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 1.] Since 1989, there have been no allegations of new constitutional violations made against the PCSSD. (UHi 20) 3. The plan has had a marked impact in the way the PCSSD does business with regard to the way it looks at test scores and analyzes that data with regard to the way that kids are placed or not placed. It has impacted the way the PCSSD delivers staff development and its goals in its search for instructional strategies that it hopes would either mediate the affects of the problems that come associated with 51781 3 socioeconomic status, in particular in the.,PCSSD as in others the black population is 9 more heavily impacted because as a group, its income level is poorer. A search for strategies to try to remove any disparity that exists and that would at the same time advance achievement as a whole has had a dramatic impact on the way the PCSSD does business. [Court Exhibit No. CX 439, Pages 8 and 9.] 4. The PCSSD foresees no significant change as to its commitments concerning the interdistrict and magnet schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 438, Page 22.] 5.  Mr. Bill Bowles, the PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation is an African American who has been employed by the District for 28 years. He has served as a teacher, assistant principal, principal and central office administrator. (UHi 23) He was able to assess from whence the Distrl~t started to today and thinks the District has made a lot of progress. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Pages 15 and 16.] 6. Mr. Bowles has been Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation for 13 years.. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 4.] 7. Mr. Bowles has been involved with the current desegregation plan from its inception and it is his opinion that the PCSSD has fully implemented its desegregation plan and implemented it in good faith. (UHi 24, 92-93) He further believes that the PCSSD has earned unitary status. 19.:. 8. Some of his job responsibilities are to coordinate the implementation of the District's desegregation plan. He is a liaison person to all other departments for the District's desegregation plan, and is a consultant with each assistant superintendent for the implementation of the desegregation plan. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 5:] 51781 4 9. Mr. Bowles consulted with the superintendent and their attorney, Mr. Sam - Jones; and looked at other cases throughout the country. They did some comparative analysis on those cases and this one, considered the fact that they felt their implementation was in good faith and to the point where they felt that they had implemented it with a commitment and to the point where they felt they had done practically all that was required of them. After that consultation, Mr. Lester issued a memo to the other department heads to look at their individual divisions. Each department head felt his department had in good faith implemented the plan as it was written so the go ahead to actually file for un.itary status was given. [Court Exhibit No. ex 441, Pages 8 and 9.] 10. Mr. Jones, Mr. Bowles and the superintendent met individually with each interested board member to explain what they were pursuing. Only one of the African-American board members expressed some concerns. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 9.] 11. Mr. Bowles believes federal court jurisdiction has been a good thing for the school District because it has opened some eyes, it has opened the book so-to-speak for everybody to look at and make changes that were obviously necessary within the District. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Pages 18 and 19.] 12. Each month Mr. Bowles looks at the school board agenda and if there is a problem on the school board agenda that might negatively impact desegregation, he is required to submit in writing what that problem is. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 20.] 13. In Mr. Bowles' opinion, unitary is not based on the end result. It's based on effort and implementation. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 60.] 51781 5 14. This court has never been r~quired to order the PCSSD to implement something from its plan that it had failed to implement. 15. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation has time reserved at each Board meeting to report whether or not there is anything on the Board agenda that might negatively impact the desegregation plan. (UHII 406) 16. If that Assistant Superintendent feels there is anything on the tentative agenda which has a negative impact on the desegregation plan, it is removed from the agenda. (UHII 407) 17. While Joshua also has time reserved on each board agenda, it is hardly ever used . .!.Q.,_ 18. There has not been a single incident during the history of this case in which Joshua has initiated, pursed and filed a proposed amendment to the PCSSD plan. (UHi 413) STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1. Or. Armor advocates a racial balance range of 20 percentage points. For example, if a school district were 65% black, the range would be between 45% and 85% black. (Armor 64) 2. Whatever the range, some schools are going to fall outside of the range because the districts, even if they assign appropriately, could not control who shows up from year to year. Such a failing is not a measure of the intent or of the plan. (Armor 65-66) 3. Even districts that have been declared unitary have some schools that vary from the standard, many times by just a few percentage points. There are schools 51781 6 - - - -- - - ------ - ------------------- in many school districts that for a variety 9f reasons cannot be integrated according to the applicable standard because of geography or distance or hazards or isolation. (Armor 66) 4. For instances, in Savannah, 11 of 44 schools were outside the range of 20 percentage points, yet Dr. Armor testified, and the District Court agreed, that Savannah was unitary with respect to student assignment. (Armor 69-70) 5. At the time the PCSSD was 20% minority, application of its current student assignment test would have permitted a variance of only 5 percentage points in either direction, and is one of the narrowest variances in the history of school desecration. (Armor 86) 6. Dr. Armor did not know of a single school district in the country operating with the narrow rage utilized by the PCSSD in the decade of the 1990s. (Armor 87) 7. Savannah was declared unitary even while it still had three schools that were 80% black and one that was only 31 % black. (Armor 89-90, Ex. 395) 8. Savannah, like the PCSSD, is a geographically very large school district ; and it was difficult to 'disperse students to some of the remoter schools. (Armor 90-91) 9. In the Wilmington case, Dr. Armor testified that the Wilmington schools were racially balanced because in any given year 80% of the schools would be within the court prescribed range. That view was adopted by the court. The Wilmington range is slightly more expansive than the PCSSD range. (Armor 95) 10. The same percentage for the Savannah schools was approximately 75%. (Armor 96) 51781 7 11 . Dr. Armor explained that there would probably be no unitary decision whatsoever if every school had to meet a standard, whatever that standard was, every year or most years. (Armor 105) 12. Dr. Armor says it is virtually impossible to recruit white students to schools that are 90% African-American through an m-m program. (Armor 202-203) 13. Savannah had 11 court ordered magnet schools in 1990 and the district added to that total. (Armor 211) 14. For 1990, Savannah had a target to recruit 1,025 students to the magnets and they were able to recruit 950. (Armor 212) 15. Or. Armor described this as being_ the most successful magnet program in the country. (Armor 213) 16. Dr. Armor determined that out of all of the schools in Pulaski County, that - is, all three districts, only two schools were outside of his racial balance standard, and those two only by a few percentage points. (Armor 219) 17. Dr. Armo.r does not think it is fair in a national sense to have districts subject to widely different concepts of racial balance. He tries to bring a single standard to bear on all cases. (Armor 221) 18. Under Dr. Armor's test, a test accepted by the Wilmington, Savannah, and other courts, the PCSSD is unitary as to racial balance. 19. Pursuant to the racial balance tests applicable pursuant to the Joshua Agreement, as endorsed by the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD schools could range from 20 percent black to approximately 67 percent black, the latter being the black student 51781 8 population which has largely pertained frqm year to year in the LRSD. Pursuant to this test, only Lawson Elementary School remains consistently outside this range. 20. Under the test articulated originally by the en bane court in 1985, the schools in the PCSSD could range plus or minus 25 percent from the then prevailing percentage of either race. For instance, last year at the elementary level the PCSSD was 67 percent other. Twenty-five percent of 67 percent is 17 percent. Accordingly, pursuant to this test, the PCSSD schools could legally array from 16 percent black to 50 percent black. Under this Scenario, only the following would have failed to meet the statistical range: Fuller Emergency for the years 1989 through 1995, Bates Elementary for the years 1994 and 1995, Arnold Drive Elen:entary for the year 1991, Lawson Elementary for the years 1990 and 1992, Oak Grove ele\"mentary for the years 1989 and 1990, and 1991, Pine Forest Elementary for the years 1989 and 1990, and Tolleson for - the year 1989. 21. Statistically, the PCSSD has enjoyed racial balance outcomes superior to every other district declared unitary during this decade. It should be released from court supervision as regards student assignment and racial balance. 22. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring issued its 1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts Report on January 30, 1998. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Title Page.] 23. Enrollment information dating back to 1988-89 is included in this report. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 1.] Information reported is current through 1997-98. 24. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan recognizes only two racial designations, black students and white students. The plan includes provisions that set goals for 51781 9 balancing the enrollment of these two ractal groups within each school. Except for - interdistrict schools, which have plan-specified guidelines that are static, these goals are based on the percentage of black students enrolled district-wide by organizational levels. Every year racial balance is assessed for each school based on the District's racial balance at each organizational level for that year. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 25. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan includes guidelines that set racial balance goals for individual schools. The plan set 20% as the minimum black enrollment for PCSSD schools. The maximum black enrollment at all organizational levels is based on a variance of 25% from the annual percentage of black enrollment at ,/ each of the two organizational levels (elementary and secondary). (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 26. For the 1997-98 school year, the PCS SD had a districtwide elementary student population that was 33% black. The allowable variance in racial balance is calculated by multiplying that 33% by 25% (.33 X .25 = .0825), then adding the product (rounded to 8%) to the total elementary black proportion of 33% (33% + 8% = 41 %) to establish the maximum black enrollment of 41 % in elementary schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 27. Because the plan-prescribed formula used to calculate the targeted racial balance is tied to the District's black enrollment for that particular year, it is not possible to uniformly compare racial balance compliance from year to year without linking a given year's enrollment to that year's acceptable range. Since the target range for racial balance may vary somewhat from one year to the next as district-wide black 51781 10 enrollment fluctuates, it is possible that, due to a change in the District's overall racial ' - balance, a school that was out of compliance one year could have an identical enrollment the following year and yet be within an acceptable range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 28. Although the desegregation plan specifies a minimum black enrollment for PCSSD schools, certain provisions of an agreement among the parties (called the Joshua Agreement) can raise the PCSSD minimum and potentially alter the maximum as well. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 3.] 29. The 1997-98 elementary enrollment of 10,832 is the lowest number recorded for the PCSSD in ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 30. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, the PCSSD has lost 445 (4%) of its elementary students. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 31. Some of the decrease in elementary enrollment that occurred between 1996-97 and 1997-98 was due to the District's reorganization of the Jacksonville junior highs. Jacksonville Junior High South (which previously held grades 7-9) was reconfigured to house grades 8 and 9; Jacksonville Junior High North (which also previously held grades 7-9) was renamed Jacksonville Middle School and began serving grades 6 and 7. Sixth graders were moved from Adkins, Bayou Meto, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, Pinewood, and Taylor to Jacksonville Middle School. This movement resulted in a population shift from the elementary level to the secondary level because some sixth graders, who had previously been counted as elementary students, were counted as secondary students beginning in 1997-98. According to the District, Jacksonville Middle School had 351 sixth graders in 1997-98. Calculations 51781 11 show that the 351 students that were mayed out of the elementary school category for 1997-98 account for 79% of the 445- student decline in elementary population from the previous year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 32. The number of black elementary students has declined by 72 (2%). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 5.] 33. The number of white elementary students has decreased by 373 (5% ). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 34. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, 16 of the 25 elementary schools experienced a decrease in their total enrollment: Adkins has lost 29 students (9%); Baker 2 (1 %); Bayou Meta 14 (2%); Cato 13 (2%); College Station 34 (11 %); Crystal Hill 29 (4%); Dupree 68 (16%); Harris 27 (9%); Jacksonvill(;-139 (19%); Landmark 42 (8%); Lawson 13 (4%); Pinewood 83 (15%); Scott 10 (8%); Sherwood 35 (8%); Sylvan Hills - 9 (2%); and Tolleson 36 (7%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 35. At Adkins, Bayou Meta, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, and Pinewood, the enrollment decline was at least partly due to the relocation of sixth ~ graders to Jacksonville Middle School, a change which occurred during the grade-level reorganization that involved those schools for 1997-98. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 36. Since 1988-89, the District has lost 1,421 (12%) of its elementary students. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 37. Significant losses have occurred at 17 schools: Adkins lost 103 students (27%); Bates 277 (37%); Cato 105 (17%); Dupree 118 (24%); Fuller 217 (36%); Harris 411 (60% ); Jacksonville 207 (26% ); Landmark 165 (26% ); Lawson 75 (21 % ); Oak 51781 12 Grove 124 (22%); Oakbrooke 193 (29%);,Pine Forest 106 (18%); Pinewood 217 (32%); Robinson 71 (15%); Scott 96 (45%); Sherwood 185 (33%); and Sylvan Hills 323 (44%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 38. Enrollment has risen in four schools since 1988-89: College Station has shown a significant increase of 101 students (54%). The other three schools have much smaller increases: Arnold Drive added 20 students (5%), Baker 10 (3%) and Bayou Meta 16 (3%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 39. The maximum black percentage at any PCSSD elementary school last year was 41 %. Since the desegregation plan specifies 20% black enrollment as the minimum for all schools, the racial balance ranQe for 1997-98 was 20% to 41 % black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 40. In 1997-98, ten of the 25 PCSSD elementary schools (including the three - interdistrict schools) have fallen outside the target for racial balance, which is two more than the eight elementary schools that failed to meet the racial balance goals last year. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 6.] 41 . The enrollment at Baker (an interdistrict school which has a minimum goal of 40% black enrollment) is 21 % black, which is 19 percentage points below the minimum for interdistrict schools. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 42. At 14% black in 1997-98, Lawson has fallen well below the minimum goal of 20% black. Since last year, Lawson has dropped two additional percentage points away from the minimum; since 1994-95 (the one year Lawson was within the range), it has fallen nine percentage points. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 51781 13 43. This year, Pine Forest (whic;h had been with in range the last two years) is - below the minimum guideline. The school has failed to meet the minimum target for black enrollment for six of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 44. Of the seven elementary schools that exceed the maximum range of 41 % black enrollment, four are located in the southeast sector of the PCSSD and three are located north of the Arkansas River. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 45. Although within range last year, College Station, at 43% black, is above the targeted range. The school has been above the maximum range for eight of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 46. Although within range for the last ~ve years, Scott, at 43% black, moved above the targeted range this year. The school has been above the range for four of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 47. Bates, Fuller and Landmark have all been outside the target range for the last ten years. This year, Bates exceeds the target range by 15 percentage points, Fuller by 19 points, and Landmark by 4 points. Since 1996-97, enrollment at each of ~ these schools has moved farther above the target range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 48. At 53% black, Harris, which has exceeded the target of black enrollment for the seventh consecutive year, is 12 percentage points above the goal. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 6.] 49. At 46% black, which is five percentage points above the goal and four points higher than last year, Jacksonville continues to exceed the target range. This is 51781 14 I I I I I I I I I I the third consecutive year that the school 'has missed the target range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 50. Although above the targeted range last year, Taylor is within the range this year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 51 . In 1997-98, for the third consecutive year, PCSSD's total secondary enrollment has increased over the previous year. The 1997-98 enrollment of 9,192 has risen by 2%, or 174 students (13 black and 161 white), over the number recorded in 1996-97. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, P~ge 7.] 52. Some of the increase in secondary enrollment that occurred between 1996-97 and 1997-98 was due to the District's reorganization of the Jacksonville junior highs. Jacksonville Junior High (which previously held grades 7-9) was reconfigured to house grades 8 and 9; Jacksonville Junior High North (which also previously held - grades 7-9) was renamed Jacksonville Middle School and began serving grades 6 and 7. Sixth graders were moved from Adkins, Bayou Meta, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, Pinewooq, and Taylor to Jacksonville Middle School. This movement ; resulted in a population shift from the elementary level to the secondary level because some sixth graders, who had previously been counted as elementary students, were counted as secondary students beginning in 1997-98. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 53. Six of the twelve secondary schools have posted enrollment increases between 1996-97 and 1997-98: Fuller Junior, Jacksonville Middle (previously Jacksonville South), Jacksonville Junior (previously Jacksonville North), Jacksonville High, North Pulaski High, and Robinson Junior. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 51781 15 54. The largest increases occur~ed at Jacksonville Junior (246 students or ' - 4 7%) and at Jacksonville Middle (88 students or 13%) and are due to the reorganization of the Jacksonville junior high schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 55. All other increases in student enrollment were much more modest: Fuller Junior High (18 students or 2%); Jacksonville High (1 student); North Pulaski High (34 students or 4%); and Robinson Junior High (24 students or 6%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 56. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, five schools have shown a decrease in overall enrollment: Mills High (-70 or 8%); Northwood Junior high (-87 or 9%); Oak Grove Junior and Senior High (-39 or 4%); Robi!1son High (-16 or 4%); and Sylvan Hills High (-25 or 3% ). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 57. The 70-student decline at Mills this year nearly offsets the enrollment gain - of 84 students recorded in 1996-97. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 58. Since 1995-96, Northwood Junior High has lost 152 students (15%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 59. The current enrollment of 785 at Sylvan Hills High School is a ten-year low. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 60. Between 1988-89 and 1997-98, enrollment has fallen in nine of the twelve secondary schools: Northwood, Robinson, and Sylvan Hills Junior Highs; Oak Grove Junior and Senior High; and Jacksonville, Mills, North Pulaski, Robinson, and Sylvan Hills High Schools. (Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 61. The 1997-98 enrollment in the Pesso secondary schools is 32% black. Using that figure as the basis for calculations, the maximum black percentage at any 51781 16 PCSSD secondary school this year should be 40%. Since the desegregation plan - specifies 20% as the minimum black enrollment for all schools, the racial balance range for 1997-98 is 20% to 40% black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 62. Both Fuller Junior High and Mills High have remained above the target range for each of the last ten years. At 44% black, Fuller Junior High is four points beyond the maximum target; and Mills, at 48% black, is eight points beyond the maximum goal. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] . 63. The percentage of black stude~ts attending Fuller Junior High has remained fairly stable during the last ten years, ranging from 43% in 1993-94 to 49% in 1995-96. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] . 64. The racial balance at Mills High has been constant at 48% black over the last five academic years, although the enrollment has increased by 34% during that -  same time period. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 65. No PCSSD secondary schools have fallen below the minimum of 20% black enrollment durin$J the past seven years. In 1988-89, five secondary schools had student populations that were less than 20% black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 66. As early as 1988-89 in some schools, the PCSSD began offering specialty programs as a means for promoting voluntary desegregation. Eight schools have offered some type of specialty program, and some schools offer multiple programs. Schools which have (or once had) specialty programs are Bates, College Station, Fuller, and Landmark Elementary Schools; Fuller Junior High School; and Jacksonville, Mills, and Sylvan Hills High Schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 51781 17 67. At the end of 1994-95, the P,CSSD discontinued the Math and Science Together (MAST) specialty program it had offered at Bates. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 68. Six of the eight PCSSD schools that offer (or have offered) specialty programs have experienced a slide in total enrollment since the school began a specialty program. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 69. Between 1990-91 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98, Bates' enrollment has shrunk by 172 students (27%). Bates began experiencing a significant decrease in enrollment in 1992-93 and suffered a 12% decline in 1993-94 and another 12% drop after the school's speci~lty program was discontinued at the close of 1994-95. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 70. Between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98, Fuller Elementary's enrollment has decreased by 217 students (36% ). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 9.] 71. Landmark's enrollment has declined by 104 students (18%) between ' ; 1990-91 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. The 1997-98 enrollment is presently the lowest recorded in the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 72. Jacksonville High has lost 207 students (17%) between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 73. Mills' enrollment has decreased by 19 students (2%) between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. However, in 1994-95 the District added two more specialty programs and enrollment began to climb. Between 1993-94 51781 18 (the year before the addition of the two specialty programs) and 1997-98, enrollment has increased by 195 students (34%). Nevertheless, the current enrollment of 766 represents a loss of 70 students since last school year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 74. Enrollment at Sylvan Hills High has decreased by 116 students (13%) between 1991-92 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. The current enrollment of 785 is the lowest number recorded in the past ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 75. Enrollment at College Station was 188 students in 1988-89; however, that number jumped 29% (54 students) when the specialty programs were added in 1989-90. Enrollment continued to increase through 1992-93, and has fluctuated each year since. The current enrollment of 289 is near the average enrollment over the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 76. With the exceptio "}],"pages":{"current_page":157,"next_page":158,"prev_page":156,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1872,"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}}]}}