{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_422","title":"Discipline, management report, First Semester","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":["1998/1999"],"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 statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management report, First Semester"],"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/422"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEIVED MAR A !9S9 - OfflCEGP-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KffiSREGATlON MONiTOftlMtf 1998-99 FIRST SEMESTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1998-99 FIRST SEMESTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT The following information represents the 1998-99 First Semester Disciplinary Management Report. The data is presented in three sections. Each section begins with a comparison of total disciplinary sanctions for the quarter/semester and concludes with . y ocwivuvua XVI uic qu\u0026lt;uicr/bemesier ana concludes with an Illustration of the increase or decrease in short and long-term suspensions and expulsions for the quarter/semester. Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes, Original and Final Sanctions, and Recidivism reports are also included. Note: Negative numbers may appear enclosed in parenthesis, (1) or, may precede hyphens, -1.Section I 1998-99 FIRST SEMESTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT1998-99 FIRST SEMESTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT ANALYSIS During the first semester of the 1998-99 school year, there was a decrease in the suspension/expulsion rate when compared to the 1997-98 school year. A review of the data illustrates that 362 fewer suspensions were issued during the 1998-99 school year. The number of suspensions/expulsions decreased by 13.4%. The number of suspensions received by African American students showed a substantial decrease of 341 (12.6%) suspensions. The number of students expelled from the District decreased substantially to only one student for the first semester of this school year. The Recidivism Report indicates that 1712 students committed the 2344 suspensions for the first semester. This figure indicates that less than 7% of the total District s student population was involved in behaviors that resulted in suspensions.Little Rock School District 1998-99 First Semester Disciplinary Management Report Comparison of Total Sanctions Issued by Race/Gender Race f^rst SemesterjQtaf $\u0026gt;1997/99 vsi: 1998/99 Sex Black White Male Female Total Male Female Total Total Sanctions 1997/98 Count 1759 578 2337 294 75 369 2706 1998/99 %Susp 65%  21%  86%  11%' ___3%' 14% ' 100%  Count 1418 560 1978 277 ___89 366 2344 %Susp 60% 24% 84% 12% ___ 16% 100% Total student population as of October 1,1998\n25,070 Total Black Students Total White Students 67% 33% Summary The following is a summary of the suspensions/expulsions for the 1998/99 school year. Total Black Sanctions 84% of the suspension population. Total White Sanctions 16% of the suspension population. Compiled by Office of Student Hearing Page 1 ISchool Nams Central J.A. Fair Hall McClellan Metropolitan Parkview Alt Agency ALE Sr. ALC Alt Agency ALP Jr. Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mablevale Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest Totals Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady______ Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Enrolled 720 785 871 926 15 23 70 27 52 618 740 762 606 500 838 757 413 10,595 213 373 334 612 399 591 553 504 268 229 417 526 508 277 Little Rock School District 1998-99 First Semester Disciplinary Management Report Short Term Suspension Long Term Suspension %Blk 57 82 __m 86 51 40 100 83 37 96 89 59 64 88 76 51 62 85 59 94 73 84 49 65 51 71 93 66 73 53 94 57 93 BM BF WM WF Expulsion Recommendation Total 65 23 54 67 3 ___22 0 ___22 36 0 0 125 58 148 144 60 29 99 60 1,015 3 4 13 13 7 4 51 0 2 4 3 11 4 6 27 10 32 34 ___2 11 0 0 10 0 0 55 19 78 56 32 22 36 27 451 2 3 1 1 1 2 12 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 17 5 23 6 0 18 0 0 8 ___0 0 12 21 49 13 15 10 7 19 223 0 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 1 5 4 0 22 0 1 0 0 0 5 4 11 4 5 3 0 8 80 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 116 39 114 111 5 73 0 23 54 0 0 197 102 286 217 112 64 142 114 1,769 _____5 8 15 ____18 9 7 ____65 0 3 6 6 13 5 8 BM BF WM WF Compiled by Office of Student Hearing 10 22 16 15 2 0 ___0 1 5 0 0 11 5 10 12 15 2 10 7 143 __0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 8 3 2 1 3 8 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 1 3 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 jO o' TOTAL ____14 24 20 22 2 1 1 1 6 0 0 14 8 24 16 18 7 13 16 207 ____0 0 1 0 1 0 ____2 ____0 0 ____0 0 0 ____0 0 BM BF WM WF Page 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 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 _0l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2i 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 2i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 ____0 ____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ____0 0 0 0 1 0 ____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ____0 0 #SUSP 130 ____63 134 133 7 ____ 1 24 60 0 0 211 110 311 233 130 71 155 130 1,977 5 8 16 18 10 7 67 0 3 6 6 13 ____5 8  /.BIk 80% 90% 78% 90% 100% 45% 100% 95% 87% 0% ___0% 91% 75% 79% 92% 84% 76% 95% 78% 86% 100% 88% 94% 78% 90% 86% 97% 0% 67% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100%Little Rock School District 1998-99 First Semester Disciplinary Management Report School Name Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry______ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Alt Agency Totals G Total 98/99 G Total 97/98~ Difference Enrolled 331 311 502 690 420 466 314 248 370 437 275 464 343 523 394 626 484 321 473 378 279 22 14,475 25,070 24,886 184 %Blk 78 50 45 52 69 59 78 95 46 55 96 56 62 52 87 52 94 73 52 86 78 18 65 68 66 BM Out of School Suspension BF WM WF Long Term Suspension 5 6 6 8 17 8 8 8 0 3 7 0 3 13 1 1 6 10 6 8 2 0 251 1266 1,600 -334 5 1 ___4 2 4 1 1 0 0 5 3 0 1 1 1 ___1_ 2 5 1 2 0 0 70 521 515 6 0 1 1 ___41 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ___2 3 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 33 256 269 -13 0 __0 0 __1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 84 70 14 TOTAL 10 8 11 15 ____24 10 ____10 8 0 8 ____10 0 _____6 17 3 2 _____8 18 7 13 2 0 358 2127  2,454 -327  BM BF WM WF Compiled by Office of Student Hearing Expulsion Recommendation Total 0 0 0 ___0_ 1 ___1_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ___1_ 0 8 151 101 50 0 0 0 __0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 49 -10 0 0 0 __Oi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 TOTAL 0 0 _____0 0 2  _____\u0026lt; 0  0  0  0  0  ____o' 0 ' 0 ' ____o' ____o' 0 ' 0  0  1' ____1__ 0 9  216  174 \" BM BF WM WF Page 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 58 -57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 -14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 TOTAL _____0 _____0 0 ____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ____0 0 ____0 0 0 ____0 0 0 0 ____o' ____0  1  78 -77  #SUSP io 8 n ____ ____26 11 ____W _____8 _____0 _____8 10 _____0 _____6 ____rr_ _____3 _____2 8 ____ _____7 ____14 ____3 0 367 ' 2344  2706 ' -362  %Blk 100% 88% 91% 67% 85% 91% 90% 100% ___0% 100% 100% ___0% 67% 82% 67% 100% 100% 83% 100% 79% 100% 0% 93% 84% 87% 1\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\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"ouy_eohc","title":"Encyclopedia of Oklahoma history and culture","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Oklahoma, 35.49209, -97.50328"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/9999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Oklahoma Historical Society"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Oklahoma--History--Encyclopedias","Oklahoma--Social life and customs--Encyclopedias","African Americans--Oklahoma","African Americans--Civil rights--Oklahoma"],"dcterms_title":["Encyclopedia of Oklahoma history and culture"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Oklahoma Historical Society"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.okhistory.org/publications/encyclopediaonline"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["encyclopedias"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_435","title":"Equitable allocation of resources","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":["1998/2000"],"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","Educational statistics","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Equitable allocation of resources"],"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/435"],"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\nAll Levels Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE. RATIO ST A. RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students 1.000 -.325* -.376** .120 -.183 .274 -.257 .122 -.085 -.404** .269 -.137 .024 .008 .417 .213 .059 .078 .408 .565 .004 .065 .352 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students -.325* -.376** .120 -.183 .274 -.257 1.000 .826** -.554** .826** 1.000 -.455** -.554** -.455** 1.000 .468** .407** -.252 -.285* -.365* .241 .135 .453* .170 .468** .407** -.252 1.000 -.131 .020 -.285* .135 -.265 -.522** -.071 -.152 -.497** -.365* .453** -.226 -.561** -.135 -.239 -.552** .241 .170 .135 .281 -.056 .066 .435** -.131 .020 -.158 -.282 -.017 -.190 -.036 1.000 -.068 -.197 .149 -.061 .258 -.047 -.068 1.000 .088 -.091 -.133 -.222 -.038 .024 .008 .000 .417 .213 .059 .078 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .004 .083 .049 .011 .099 .359 .001 .248 .001 .004 .083 .376 .892 .049 .359 .069 .000 .630 .302 .000 .011 .001 .122 .000 .362 .103 .000 .099 .248 .361 .053 .706 .657 .002 .376 .892 .284 .052 .909 .197 .806 .644 .180 .311 .682 .077 .751 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .644 .553 .536 .368 .129 .798 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Page 6All Levels Correlations COMPUTER EXPEND IT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % T eachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 .122 -.085 -.404** .269 -.137 -.265 -.226 .135 -.158 -.197 .088 1.000 .429** .175 -.046 .498** .408 .069 .122 .361 .284 .180 .553 .002 .235 .758 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 -.522** -.561** .281 -.282 .149 -.091 .429** 1.000 .512 .195 .726** .565 .000 .000 .053 .052 .311 .536 .002 .000 .185 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). -.071 -.135 -.056 -.017 -.061 -.133 .175 .512** 1.000 .020 .502** .004 .630 .362 .706 .909 .682 .368 .235 .000 .894 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 -.152 -.239 .066 -.190 .258 -.222 -.046 .195 .020 1.000 .228 .065 .302 .103 .657 .197 .077 .129 .758 .185 .894 .118 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 -.497* -.552* .435*' -.036 -.047 -.038 .498* .726* .502* .228 1.000 .352 .000 .000 .002 .806 .751 .798 .000 .000 .000 .118 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Page 7High School Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE. RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE. RATIO STA. RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE. RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students 1.000 -.541 -.548 -.249 -.735 .270 -.439 .538 -.560 .755 -.582 -.664 .346 .339 .686 .157 .661 .460 .350 .326 .140 .303 .222 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -.541 -.548 -.249 -.735 .270 -.439 1.000 .996** -.564 .996** 1.000 -.593 -.564 -.593 1.000 .402 .347 .487 -.221 -.177 .004 .924* .942* -.599 .402 .347 .487 1.000 -.463 .190 -.221 .924* -.380 .045 .030 .054 -.159 -.177 .942* -.330 .058 -.014 .078 -.179 .004 -.599 -.449 .168 -.494 .508 .749 -.463 .190 -.845 .295 -.311 .362 .682 1.000 .164 -.035 -.716 -.135 .561 -.508 .164 1.000 -.350 -.208 -.032 .256 -.368 .346 .000 .322 .502 .721 .025 .528 .942 .962 .931 .799 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .339 .686 .157 .661 .460 .000 .292 .567 .776 .017 .588 .927 .983 .901 .774 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .322 .292 .502 .567 .405 .721 .776 .995 .025 .017 .286 .405 .995 .286 .448 .787 .397 .382 .145 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .432 .759 .432 .759 .071 .629 .611 .550 .205 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .793 .793 .956 .174 .829 1326 .383 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .563 .737 .959 .677 .542 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 2High School Correlations COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? % African American Students TE.RATIO STA. RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY? .538 -.560 .755 -.582 -.664 -.380 -.330 -.449 -.845 -.035 -.350 1.000 .226 .205 -.598 -.328 .350 .528 .588 .448 .071 .956 .563 .714 .741 .287 .590 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .045 .058 .168 .295 -.716 -.208 .226 1.000 -.511 -.122 .743 .326 .942 .927 .787 .629 .174 .737 .714 .379 .845 .151 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). .030 -.014 -.494 -.311 -.135 -.032 .205 -.511 1.000 -.766 -.665 .140 .962 .983 .397 .611 .829 .959 .741 .379 .131 .221 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .054 .078 .508 .362 .561 .256 -.598 -.122 -.766 1.000 .320 .303 .931 .901 .382 .550 .326 .677 .287 .845 .131 .599 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -.159 -.179 .749 .682 -.508 -.368 -.328 .743 -.665 .320 1.000 .222 .799 .774 .145 .205 .383 .542 .590 .151 .221 .599 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 3Junior High School Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO ST A. RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students 1.000 -.550 -.615 .531 -.641 -.726* -.704 .418 -.488 -.722* -.372 -.479 .158 .104 .176 .087 .042 .051 .303 .220 .043 .365 .230 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students -.550 -.615 .531 -.641 -.726* -.704 1.000 .978** -.113 .978** 1.000 -.182 -.113 -.182 1.000 .403 .439 .108 .117 .170 -.148 .816* .868*' -.330 .403 .439 .108 1.000 .527 .548 .117 .816* -.144 .423 .481 -.030 .325 .170 .868** -.210 .438 .536 .134 .318 -.148 -.330 .250 .153 -.074 -.631 .093 .527 .548 -.170 .579 .634 -.151 .524 1.000 .155 -.431 .174 .390 .309 .266 .155 1.000 .059 .654 .700 .271 .621 .158 .000 .790 .323 .782 .013 .734 .296 .228 .944 .432 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .104 .000 .667 .277 .687 .005 .617 .278 .171 .752 .443 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .176 .790 .667 .798 .726 .424 .550 .717 .861 .093 .828 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .087 .323 .277 .798 .180 .159 .687 .133 .091 .722 .182 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .042 .782 .687 .726 .180 .714 .287 .680 .340 7457 .524 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .051 .013 .005 .424 .159 .714 .890 .078 .053 .516 .100 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Page 2Junior High School Correlations COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 .418 -.144 -.210 .250 -.170 -.431 .059 1.000 .123 -.198 -.097 .400 .303 .734 .617 .550 .687 .287 .890 .772 .638 .819 .327 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 -.488 .423 .438 .153 .579 .174 .654 .123 1.000 .932** -.133 .909** .220 .296 .278 .717 .133 .680 .078 .772 .001 .753 .002 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). -.722* -.372 -.479 .481 .536 -.074 -.030 .134 -.631 .325 .318 .093 .634 -.151 .524 .390 .700 -.198 .932* 1.000 .056 .792* .309 .271 -.097 -.133 .056 1.000 -.030 .266 .621 .400 .909* .792* -.030 1.000 .043 .365 .230 .228 .171 .861 .091 .340 .053 .638 .001 .895 .019 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I .944 .752 .093 .722 .457 .516 .819 .753 .895 .943 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .432 .443 .828 .182 .524 .100 .327 .002 .019 .943 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Page 3- Elementary School Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students 1.000 -.294 -.369* .114 -.120 .380* -.499* -.294 -.369* .114 -.120 .380* -.499** .015 .019 -.399* .358* -.050 .086 .029 .514 .494 .025 .002 .932 .915 .017 .034 .775 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 1.000 .927** -.642** .452** -.326 .335* -.289 -.714** -.187 -.238 -.688** .086 .000 .000 .006 .056 .049 .092 .000 .282 .168 .000 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 .927' 1.000 -.683 1** .448** -.426* .379* -.281 -.678** -.131 -.223 -.649** .029 .000 .000 .007 .011 .025 .102 .000 .452 .199 .000 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -.642** -.683** 1.000 .452** .448** -.402* -.326 -.426* .278 .335* .379* -.315 -.402* 1.000 -.178 -.063 .278 -.315 .098 .395* .077 .181 .525** -.178 -.063 -.169 -.415* -.085 -.241 -.165 1.000 -.342* -.221 .183 -.089 .265 -.071 -.342* 1.000 .079 -.073 .034 -.283 -.005 .514 .494 .025 .002 .000 .000 .017 .106 .065 .577 .019 .658 .299 .001 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 .006 .007 .017 .307 .721 .331 .013 .628 .163 .342 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 .056 .011 .106 .049 .025 .065 .307 .044 .202 .294 .610 .124 .683 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 .721 .044 .652 .677 .847 .100 .976 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Page 2Elementary School Correlations COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 % African American Students TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY2 .015 .019 -.399* .358* -.050 -.289 -.281 .098 -.169 -.221 .079 1.000 .537** .301 -.009 .629** .932 .092 .102 .577 .331 .202 .652 .001 .079 .959 .000 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -.714** -.678** .395* -.415* .183 -.073 .537** 1.000 .482** .195 .706** .915 .000 .000 .019 .013 .294 .677 .001 .003 .261 .000 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). -.187 -.131 .077 -.085 -.089 .034 .301 .482** 1.000 -.036 .494** .017 .282 .452 .658 .628 .610 .847 .079 .003 .836 .003 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -.238 -.223 .181 -.241 .265 -.283 -.009 .195 -.036 1.000 .212 .034 .168 .199 .299 .163 .124 .100 .959 .261 .836 .221 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 -.688* -.649* .525*' -.165 -.071 -.005 .629* .706*' .494* .212 1.000 .775 .000 .000 .001 .342 .683 .976 .000 .000 .003 .221 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Page 3File Information List of variables on the working file Name Position SCHOOL School Print Format: F8.2 Write Format: F8.2 1 Value Label 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 Central J.A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Junior High Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior High Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs magnet Jefferson King Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff TE.RATIO / 2 Print Format\nF8.2 Write Format: F8.2 Page 1school 1 1.00 2 2.00 3 3.00 4 4.00 5 5.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav te. ratio sta.rati sq.ft teach 18.52 14.23 12.60 14.19 15.34 12.54 143.84 52.00 9.18 8.32 9.53 10.21 174.75 192.84 138.05 182.74 52.00 48.00 41.00 55.00 6 6.00 13.88 9.73 131.67 29.00 7 7.00 15.80 10.98 128.92 44.00 8 8.00 12.63 8.77 108.47 42.00 9 9.00 13.58 9.41 142.56 35.00 10 10.00 12.08 8.25 122.60 29.00 11 11.00 14.72 10.48 131.72 48.00 12 12.00 13.62 9.99 95.46 37.00 13 13.00 12.03 8.50 162.68 42.00 14 14.00 13.20 7.14 100.45 46.00 1-1turnover 1 15.00 2 12.00 3 18.00 4 14.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav student# computer ex pendit donation 1855.00 757.00 790.00 935.00 .04 .07 .09 .30 59.34 57.73 55.58 120.94 4.84 1.19 6.76 .43 5 10.00 911.00 .11 262.20 3.79 6 4.00 622.00 .04 39.58 .00 7 16.00 771.00 .04 74.56 .00 8 10.00 648.00 .08 54.05 .00 9 7.00 724.00 .24 114.14 1.52 10 14.00 506.00 .07 54.98 1.81 11 14.00 858.00 .05 278.19 .87 12 15.00 767.00 .04 52.40 10.26 13 14.00 510.00 .05 54.47 .12 14 19.00 233,00 i 1-2 .01 68.07 .001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 equity2 37.00 39.00 40.00 36.00 45.00 30.00 35.00 34.00 39.00 35.00 43.00 34.00 33.00 31.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 59.00 81.00 71.00 84.00 51.00 89.00 57.00 70.00 86.00 75.00 52.00 57.00 84.00 92.00 i free 19.00 26.00 27.00 29.00 10.00 58.00 35.00 45.00 42.00 26.00 25.00 26.00 63.00 79.00 1-3school 15 15.00 16 16.00 17 17.00 18 18.00 19 19.00 20 20.00 21 21.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav te.ratio sta.rati sq.ft teach 14.03 15.40 13.42 17.44 15.20 17.07 19.59 7.75 7.80 9.37 9.78 9.33 8.48 11.59 \\ 92.89 156.21 124.84 97.47 103.52 111.15 64.97 55.00 53.00 48.00 67.00 42.00 44.00 49.00 22 22.00 12.95 7.47 208.54 47.00 23 23.00 15.25 7.85 116.40 63.00 24 24.00 18.70 11.32 74.22 44.00 25 25.00 10.74 5.30 147.63 26.00 26 26.00 17.19 9.54 135.14 48.00 27 27.00 11.61 5.35 142.55 17.00 28 28.00 16.73 8.26 132.22 53.00 2-1turnover 15 21.00 16 39.00 17 10.00 18 8.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav student# computer expendit donation 362.00 323.00 597.00 372.00 .10 .01 .07 .11 74.93 77.89 212.17 69.33 9.32 4.80 .00 8.69 19 11.00 596.00 .06 243.28 .00 20 8.00 537.00 .28 107.68 3.98 21 9.00 512.00 .08 69.35 .00 22 .00 224.00 .06 66.18 .00 23 20.00 248.00 .00 82.12 1.01 24 5.00 430.00 .05 59.90 24.98 25 5.00 464.00 .16 252.18 16.38 26 6.00 495.00 .03 62.30 .11 27 20.00 271.00 .04 245.87 .37 28 17.00 316.00 .08 84.64 1 5.34 2-215 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 equityZ 41.00 37.00 42.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 29.00 43.00 35.00 37.00 48.00 39.00 37.00 41.00 i C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 73.00 83.00 52.00 63.00 52.00 69.00 92.00 65.00 76.00 76.00 92.00 48.00 93.00 75.00 free 65.00 84.00 36.00 45.00 31.00 71.00 77.00 67.00 65.00 34.00 79.00 32.00 90.00 66.00 2-3 /29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 school 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav te.ratio sta.rati sq.ft teach 12.29 18.93 17.68 16.36 17.73 17.95 10.23 19.76 20.26 11.00 10.70 12.70 18.12 18.20 7.72 11.66 8.36 9.63 11.02 10.18 5.07 10.90 11.84 5.85 4.41 7.47 10.83 10.26 119.73 84.88 113.98 136.53 100.67 111.24 161.98 111.44 125.54 151.12 159.41 129.01 88.67 100.25 40.00 68.00 40.00 23.00 31.00 54.00 25.00 59.00 47.00 39.00 29.00 40.00 29.00 71.00 3-1turnover 29 4.00 30 9.00 31 9.00 32 7.00 33 15.00 34 12.00 35 31.00 36 4.00 37 11.00 38 13.00 39 18.00 40 14.00 41 6.00 42 11.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav student# computer expendit donation 311.00 513.00 658.00 407.00 477.00 332.00 242.00 328.00 464.00 249.00 405.00 328.00 511.00 373.00 3-2 .26 .05 .00 .10 .03 .01 .07 .02 .08 .12 .25 .04 .02 .01 294.14 62.29 64.58 71.21 60.43 61.34 283.47 65.98 58.69 257.44 533.19 200.61 57.21 58.73 1.61 .63 .23 5.88 27.20 13.25 53.72 10.37 7.28 33.77 3.33 9.56 .00 8.8129 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 equity 2 49.00 36.00 38.00 36.00 33.00 33.00 42.00 36.00 32.00 50.00 50.00 44.00 31.00 34.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 52.00 44.00 54.00 73.00 57.00 79.00 92.00 46.00 55.00 94.00 59.00 63.00 46.00 86.00 I I i free 33.00 37.00 43.00 71.00 41.00 73.00 92.00 35.00 43.00 76.00 59.00 45.00 28.00 75.00 3-3 I43 44 45 46 47 48 school 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav te. ratio sta.rati sq.ft teach 13.03 17.64 18.42 15.40 14.89 14.04 4-1 7.58 10.45 10.75 9.16 8.98 7.72 136.06 109.22 64.64 98.54 102.42 133.80 34.00 39.00 52.00 63.00 76.00 30.00turnover 43 7.00 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav student# computer expendit donation 660.00 .06 92.63 1.12 44 13.00 493.00 .15 77.43 2.55 45 .00 315.00 .10 67.20 .00 46 11.00 479.00 .09 237.38 .00 47 4.00 362.00 .09 60.03 3.57 48 27.00 284.00 .02 85.65 .00 4-243 44 45 46 47 48 CAProgram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav equity2 42.00 37.00 31.00 41.00 41.00 32.00 black 53.00 89.00 70.00 52.00 82.00 71.00 free 54.00 75.00 54.00 19.00 71.00 60.00 4-3f  Descriptives sqTT Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Statistic 125.0756 Std. Error 4.4905 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range % Students free lunch Skewness Kurtosis________ Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis__ Weighted SOTT Average(Definition % 1) Tukey's Hinges Students free lunch SQ.FT Lower Bound Lipper Bound 1 16.0419 134.1094 124.3022 125.1900 967.909 31.1112 64.64 208.54 143.90 41.4500 .419 .315 50.7500 .343 .674 3.1096 Lower Bound Upper Bound 44.4942 57.0058 50.5509 45.0000 464.149 21.5441 10.00 92.00 82.00 38.7500 .127 -1.161 .343 .674 Percentiles 5 69.1325 19.0000 10 88.2910 25.9000 25 101.1075 32.2500 101.5450 Percentiles 50 125.1900 75 142.5575 90 163.8870 95 188.2950 45.0000 71.0000 79.0000 87.3000 125.1900 142.5550 Page 2Extreme Values Highest 1 2 3 4 5 Case Number 22 3 5 2 13 Lowest 1 2 3 45 21 24 % Students free lunch Highest Lowest 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ( 30 41 35 27 16 14 25 5 46 1 11 10 School Dodd Hall Parkview J.A. Fair Southwe st Western Hills Cloverd ale Element ary Forest Park Jefferson Terry Mitchell Garland Baseline Badgett Franklin Parkview Williams Magnet Central Mann Magnet Mabelva Ie Junior High Value 208.54 192.84 182.74 174.75 162.68 64.64 64.97 74.22 84.88 88.67 92.00 90.00 84.00 79.00 79.00 10.00 19.00 19.00 25.00 a. Only a partial list of cases with the value 26 are shown in the table of lower extremes. Page 3Equitable Allocation Worksheet School Score 1. Pupil/Teacher Ratio 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (10.71) (11.54) (12.97) (15.5) (17.67) (18.72) (19.68) 2. Pupil/StafT Ratio 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (5.17) (5.80) (7.76) (9.25) 3. (10.40) (11.34) (11.76) Percent of Students Receiving Free Lunch 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 (19.00) (25.90) (32.25) (45.00) (71.00) (79.00) (87.30) 4. Square Feet per Pupil 7 5 6 3 4 2 1 (69.13) (88.29) (101.11) (125.19) (142.56) (163.89) (188.29) 5. Percent of Staff with a Masters Degree, plus, Nine Years of Experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (23.9) (28.7) (35.5) (44.0) (52.75) (63.4) (69.65) 6. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff 2 1 4 3 5 6 1 (1.80) (4.00) (7.00) (11.00) (15.00) (20.10) (29.20) 7. School Size / ! High School 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (773) (911) (1395) 8. Middle School 2 (506) Elementary (231) (246) (538) (686) 5 (770) (315) (373) (495) 6 (596) 7 (658) Computer/Pupil Ratio 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (.0062) (.0118) (.0351) (.0625) (.0981) (.2410) (.2695) 9. Per Pupil Expenditure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (53.14) (54.93) (59.93) (70.28) (180.69) (263.80) (289.34)10. Volunteer Hours per Pupil 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (.3125) (.579) (1.90) (5.195) (12.10) (19.58) (27.73) 11. Donations per Pupil 1 (.00) 7 6 5 4 3 2 (.00) (.0275) (1.71) (8.34) (17.24) (30.81)High School Middle School Elementary School 42- McClellan 43 44- Central 45- J. A. Fair 46- Hall 47 48 49 50 51 52- Parkview 34- Cloverdale 35 36 37- Southwest 38- Forest Heights 39 40- Dunbar, Pulaski Heights 41- Mabelvale 42 43 44- Henderson 45 46 47 48 49 50- Mann 32- Cloverdale 33 34- Badgett 35-Western Hills 36- Meadowcliff, Woodruff 37- Pulaski Heights, Terry, Wakefield 38- McDermott 39- Baseline, Fair Park, Garland, Mabelvale 40- Watson 41- Jefferson, Otter Creek 42- Forest Park 43- King, Mitchell 44- Brady, Wilson 45- Bale, Fulbright, Geyer Springs 46- Washington 47- Booker, Chicot, Dodd 48- Carver, Romine, Williams 49 50 51-Franklin 52 53- Rightsell 54- Gibbs, Rockefeller1. Pupil/Tcacher Ratio Equitable Allocation Worksheet 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (10.71) (11.54) (12.97) (15.5) (17.67) (18.72) (19.68) 2. Pupil/StafT Ratio 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 (5.17) (5.80) (7.76) (9.25) (10.40) (11.34) (11.76) 3. Square Feet per Pupil 6 7 5 3 4 2 1 (69.13) (88.29) (101.11) (125.19) (142.56) (163.89) (188.29) 4. Percent of Staff with a Masten Degree, plus, Nine Yean of Experience 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 (23.9) (28.7) (35.5) (44.0) (52.75) (63.4) (69.65) 5. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff 1 3 2 4 5 7 6 (1.80) (4.00) (7.00) (11.00) (15.00) (20.10) (29.20) 6. School Size High School 7 5 6 4 3 1 2 {713) (911) (1395) 7. Middle School 2 (506) Elementary (231) (246) (538) (686) (770) (315) (373) (495) 6 (596) 7 (658) Computer/Pupil Ratio 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (.0062) (.0118) (.0351) (.0625) (.0981) (.2410) (.2695) 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (53.14) (54.93) (59.93) (70.28) (180.69) (263.80) (289.34) 9, Volunteer Houn per Pupil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (.3125) (.579) (1.90) (5.195) (12.10) (19.58) (27.73) 10. Donations per Pupil 1 (.00) 7 6 5 4 3 2 (.00) (.0275) (1.71) (8.34) (17.24) (30.81)High School Middle School Elementary School 36- McClellan 37- Central 38 39- J. A. Fair 40- Hall 41 42 43 44 45- Parkview 30- Cloverdale 31 32 33- Southwest 29- Cloverdale 30 31- Badgett, Terry, Western Hills 32- Pulaski Heights, Woodruff 34- Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights 33- McDermott, MeadowclifT 35- Dunbar, Mabelvale 36 37 38 39- Henderson 40 41 42 43- Mann 34- Wakefield 35-Fair Park 36- Jefferson, Mabelvale, Otter Creek 37- Baseline, Forest park. Garland, Watson 38- King 39- Fulbright 40- Brady 41- Bale, Geyer Springs, Williams, Wilson 42- Booker, Carver, Mitchell, Washington 43-Dodd 44- Chicot, Romine 45 46 47 48- Franklin 49- Gibbs 50- Rightsell, Rockefeller 36-1 37-1 38 39-1 40-1 41 42 43 44 45-1 30-1 31 32 33-1 34-n 35-n 36 37 38 39-1 40 41 42 43-n 29-1 30 31-ni 32-n 33-n 34-1 35-1 36- HI 37- nil 38-1 39-1 40-1 41-nil 42- nil 43-1 44-n 45 46 47 48-1 49-1 50-1110/05/1998 14:59 5013240504 LRSD PAGE 02 Memo To\nFrom\nEquitable Allocation Workgroup Dr. Ed Williams, P. R, \u0026amp; E. RE. Total score correlation While I will provide you with the correlation matrices at the meeting tomorrow, I felt you would benefit from some data peeking. I correlated the percent of African American students in each school to total score and to each of the ten variables (c.g., turnover, donation, teacher/student ratio, etc.). For all levels combined and individually (i.e., high school, junior high, and elemeittary schools) there was no significant correlation between scores on the Equitable Allocation Worksheet and the percent of African American students. In addition to the correlation matrices, I will provide you with school scores on the EAW, and the data sheets.received MAY 2 6 1998 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING May 22, 1998 Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear TVnn: One of the elements of the \"Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" is that within 60 days of its approval. the LRSD will develop process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. This letter is to ask you or members of your staff to attend a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 3, 1998, in the LRSD Board room for the purpose of discussing that process. Skip and Gene were very helpful when we discussed this issue in the development of the revised plan. Mr. Walker has been invited to attend, also. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Brady Gadberry Director of Labor Relations Leslie Gamine Clay Pendley 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 cc: aOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 27, 1998 To: Brady Gadberry From: Ann Bro Re: Invitation to Discuss LRSD Equitable Allocation of Resources Thanks for your invitation to participate in a discussion of the process the LRSD will use for assessing the equitable allocation of its resources. Ill plan on being there, along with my one or two of my associates, on June 3, 1998 at 1:30 p.m. I look forward to seeing you then.  - - -^06/05/98 15:11 Q FRIDAY LAW FIRM @002 FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL M. FRIDAY {ISJS-liSA) WILLIAM M. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W, MOORE BYRON M. EI8CMAN. JR.. P-A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. UR8CRY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR., P-A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. SORAS. F.A. A. WYCKLIFP M18ET, JR.. P.*- JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. R.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND professional associations attorneys at law 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE little rock. ARKANSAS 7220,-343 TELEPHONE 601-37-2011 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 scon J LAHCASTtft. I M GAYLt CORLEY. P.A ROBERT 8. BEACH. JR . P A J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A, J, SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P-A. WALTER A. PAULSON It. P.A. BARRY E COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH a. HURST. JR., P-A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL 8. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL UI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P-A. VIA TELECOPY NO. 374-4187 Mr. John W. Walker June 5, 1998 J LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C. BAKER. JR  P * marry a light. P SCOTT M. TUCKER. P.* JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH i A QUY ALTON WADE. P A PRICE C. GARDNER, P A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A, DAVID D. WILSON, P A JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER. P A. OAVlO M. GRAf. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINhOUR. P.A JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR . P.A ALLISON GRAVES WARNER. P a JONANN C. ROOSEVELT K. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY I WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RANO JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL TOOO A. GREER ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN SUSAN N. CHILDERS 0* COWM(l WILLIAM J. SMITH BS CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELER6. P A. VIA TELECOPY NO. 371-01011 Ms. Ann Brown  n.Tia-t OIRiC T MO. 16011 370-3323 VIA TELECOPY NO. 324-2146 Mr. Brady Gadberry RE: Equitable Allocation of Resources Dear Ms. Brown and Gentlemen: draft Notice of Process for Assessing Attached please find a the Equitable Allocation for is^an^roJ District court's approval ot Paragraph 2 of the Notice we would propose be a the final report within 180 days of the Revised Plan as provided in Ecc_2 Section 2.92. We would appreciate your file the Notice on June 9, you. comments and suggestions before we 1998. we look forward to hearing from We Sincerely, 3hn CV Pendley, Jr. John Pendley JCFjr/jcg Enclosure-06/05/98 15:12  FRIDAY LAW FIRM  003 u IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 1H NOTICE OF PROCESS FOR ASSESgING__ EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Process for Assessing the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. Section 2.9.1 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 (\"Revised Plan\") provides: Within sixty (60) days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2. In compliance with Section 2.9.1, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, has developed a process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. UiSD, working with Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), shall. (a) Identify the resources to be considered in assessing the equitable allocation of resources\nf:\\hom6\\fisoiiey196/05/98 15:13 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @004 (b) Develop standard or standards for assessing whether those resources are being distributed on an equitable basis\n(c) Assess the current allocation of resources based on the a standard or standards developed\nand, (d) Report the results of the assessment. 3. This process will be completed on a timeline consistent with the issuance of a final report within 180 days of this Court's approval of the Revised Plan as provided in Section 2.9.2 of the Revised Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182 r:MKMMeslby\\lnd'dB*-P\u0026lt;d.001 2 .06/05/98 15:13 FRIDAY LAW FIRM Q  005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing following people by depositing a copy of same *  T^'***** lyyo  mail on this Sth day of June, Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - 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 ftMuDvXfeatbyUndklM-pU.OOl has been served on the in the United States Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. 3Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nJune 8, 1998 BY FAX To: Clay Fendley From: Ann Brow Re\nProposed Process for Assessing Resources Thank you for faxing me your draft of the proposed Process for Assessing the Equitable Allocation of Resources. Here are my observations and suggestions: 1. Correct the omission of the word Joshua in the fourth line of the first paragraph. 2. Item a: In the interest of clarity and accuracy, reword this sentence by eliminating the passive voice and one of the three verbs that cloud the meaning. What we really mean is: Identify the resources the district will assess for equitable allocation. (I trust this will include all resources, including human resources, since equitable personnel allocation is stressed elsewhere in the desegregation plan.) J. Item b: Again for clarity, change whether to read the extent to which those resources are being distributed on an equitable basis. 4. Item c: This sentence designates current resources for equity assessment, yet the language of the new plan implies ongoing assessment of resource allocation. This filing should do the same. 5. Item d: Report the results of the assessment to whom? The superintendent? The board? The parties? The court? The public? Who are the audience(s) who will receive the report? cc: John Walker RECEIV^n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 9 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF desegregation monitoring PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Process for Assessing the Equitable Allocation of Resources states\n1. Section 2.9.1 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 (\"Revised Plan) provides: Within sixty (60) days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2. In compliance with Section 2.9.1, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, has developed a process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. LRSD, working with Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM), shall: (a) Identify the resources the District will assess for equitable allocation\n(b) Develop a standard or standards for assessing the extent to which those resources are being distributed on an equitable basis\n(c) Assess the allocation of resources based on the standard or standards developed\nand, (d) Report the results of the assessment to ODM and Joshua. 3. This process will be completed on a timeline consistent with the issuance of a final report within 180 days of this Court's approval of the Revised Plan as provided in Section 2.9.2 of the Revised Plan. 4. In the above process, LRSD shall consult with the one or both of the desegregation experts retained by LRSD in compliance with Section 2.1.1 of the Revised Plan. Joshua has approved LRSD's retention of Terrance Roberts, one of the original \"Little Rock Nine,\" and Steven Ross, a professor at the University of Memphis, to assist LRSD in development of the programs. policies and procedures required by the Revised Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: Christopher Hell John C. Pendley, r. w92182 f:\\home\\fendley\\lred\\des-pld.001 2CERTIFICATE 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 June, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 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 Christopher Hell^^ John C. Fendley, Jr. f:^facme\\feDdley\\lnd^de-ptd.001 3CP Little Rock School District JUL 8 jggg July 'll 1998 Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Thank you very much for your assistance and OfflCEOf that of your staff when we met about the equitable allocation of resources. This letter is to ask you or members of your staff to continue to meet with us as we prepare to meet the additional requirements associated with the equitable distribution of resources. We are scheduling a weekly meeting for each Thursday morning at 9:30. The meetings will start on August 6, 1998. Mr. Walker is being invited to attend, also. Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely, Brady Gadberry Director of Labor Relations cc: Leslie Carnine Clay Fendley 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20004 pjl. Little Rock School District September 21,1998 RECS''^D SEP 2 2 1983 John Walker 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 CmCEOF DESEGREGATION MCNJTORIHQ Dear Mr. Walker\nThis letter is to remind you that you and/or members of your staff are invited to meet with the committee working on the equitable distribution of resources as we prepare to meet those plan requirements. We are continuing to meet each Thursday morning at 9:30 at the administration building. Ann Brown, Skip Marshall, and Gene Jones from ODM have been meeting with us on a regular basis and have been very helpful in helping us explore issues of equity. We have tried to examine models from other school districts that could give us some guidance in this project, and we have examined sample school board policies from the National School Boards Association. We have discovered that we are in relatively uncharted waters. I am enclosing some of the information that we have been using to try to gain some ideas about dealing with this complex issue. We are leaning toward the development of a matrix that shows how each school fares on a series of factors that have an impact on the equitable distribution of resources. However, please let me emphasize that nothing has been finalized. We have discussed a matrix and have begun the developmental process with a few initial drafts. We have not finalized the indicators that will appear on the matrix. Even after the matrix is developed, this is only an initial facet of the process. Before we can adequately decide what should be done to offset any imbalances that could have deleterious impact on students, we must thoroughly assess where we currently stand. The next phase will address the results of the assessment. If we find that we have problems that would necessitate a redistribution of resources or compensation of some sort to offset the inability to acquire resources, the next phase would address those issues. 810 West Markham Street Little RocR, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000The efforts of this group have been concentrated on those resources that are not covered by conunitments in other provisions of the plan, commitments are being and/or will be addressed, too. Obviously, those Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely, Brady Gadberry Special Assistant to the Superintendent cc: Leslie Gamine Ann Brownd Clay FendleyI * *' received OCT 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OTlKOF.- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION I ' 7 P)' i\n- I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT U.^ BY. Cl c CH I- A, L - PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS REPORT OF LRSDS ASSESSMENT OF THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Report of LRSDs Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. LRSDs 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 courts 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, LRSDs 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 DesegregationI Monitoring (ODM).* 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 committees collective education and experience, the committee decided to assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district by examination of ten factors: (1) pupil/teacher ratio\n(2) pupil/staflf ratio\n(3) square feet per pupil\n(4) percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience\n(5) the turnover rate of certified staff\n(6) school size\n(7) the computer/pupil ratio\n(8) per pupil expenditure\n(9) volunteer hours per pupil\nand, (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, e.g.. 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. Assn, 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 1' The committee members were as follows: Dr. Victor Anderson, Associate Superintendent for Operations\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Services\nJunious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services\nSadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services\nMark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services\nBrady Gadberry, Special Assistant to the Superintendent\nDr. Ed Williams, Research Specialist and Statistician\nAnn Brown, Federal Desegregation Monitor\nSkip Marshall, Associate Federal Desegregation Monitor\nand. Gene Jones, Associate Federal Desegregation Monitor. 2federal and food service employees. As with teachers, a lower pupil/staF ratio is considered more favorable with the goal being equity in the staflBng formula. 5. Square 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 Internationals 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 staflT with a masters degree plus and nine. In a 1990 study. researchers found that Afiican-American student performance improved when teachers had strong language skills, nine or more years of experience and a masters 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, e.g.. 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, e.g.. 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 schools 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 schools per pupil expenditures based on the schools discretionary funds. This excluded expenditures for salaries, benefits, utilities and federal funding provided under Title I and for food 4service. 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, e.e.. Graue, M.E., Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H.J., School Based Home Reinforcement Programs: A Quantitative Synthesis, 16 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 committees 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 of LRSDs 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 schools composite score to the schools percentage of Afiican-American students. See Exhibit 2, Correlations. Dr. Williams concluded that there was no significant 5relationship between the racial makeup of a school and the amount of resources allocated to the school. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\ne. istopher Heller (#81083) n C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 6CERTIFICATE 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 \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - 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 CD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 EQUITY INDICATORS 1. Pupil / Teacher Ratio Less Than 15 2. Pupil / Staff Ratio Less Than 9 3. Sq. Ft. / Pupil\nElem 90, Jr 120, Sr 145 4. 5. % of Staff w/ 9 yrs \u0026amp; Masters Degree Turnover Rate of Certified Staff 6. School Size 7. Computer / Pupil Ratio 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 9. Volunteer Hours / Pupil 10. Donations / Pupil X UI f H '\"Mtoi-jraNM ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 HIGHSCHOOLS ...... CENTRAL\" ....................... hall\" FAIR ...................................... McClellan \" ' '  ..... PARKVIEW TOTAL .................. .......... JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS......... DUNBAR  ................... FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON'\"........................ CLOVERDALE MABELVALE - . - MANN fOTAL .......  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BALE - ..... BRADY ............ BADGETT ....................................... McDermott baseline........................... FAIR park .............. forest PARK ...................... CHICOT .................. WESTERN HILLS ............. P/K K 34 7 0 0 35 is 31 35 36 35 41 0 OCTOBER 1,1997 ENROLLMENT 1-12 TOT TOT-P/K BL WH OTH TOT % BL % WH % OTH TOTAL F.T.E. TEACH F.T.E. PUP-P/K I STAFF PUP-P/K /teach 1821 783 '2935 911 '5207 771 648 767 510 72^ 622 506 858 5406 1855 \"790 '7F\u0026gt;1 \"935 '911 5248 1855 790 757 \"935 911 5248 1101 '561 612 790 464 3528 705 179 137 49 50 8 ' 121 \"24 403 1545 44 175 1855 '790 757 935 911 5248 59% 71% 81% 84% 51% 67% 38% 23% 18% 13% 44% 29% 3% 6% i% '3% 5% 3% 147.94 94.90 '82.50' '98.10 89.20 512.64 100.14 62.70 53.20 65.90 59.40 341.34 12.54 8.32 9.18 ' 9.53 10.21 10.24 18.52 12.60 14.23 14.19 15 34 15.37 JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE DODD\" MEADOWCLIFF KING GEYER SPRINGS 36 I 71 I 35 51 \"56 39' 54 54 \"36 57 '59 '39 58 72 24 \"40 92 40 276 298 '163 423 2234 176 '373 443 76 55 04 00 92 95 241 771 648 '767 5i\"6 \"'724\" 622 506 '858 5406 648 \"'767 '510 724 622 '506 858 5406 442 \"452 437 426 624 552 380 \"446 759 282 178 315 ....65 .....83 36 119 '375 1453 47 18 15 \"l9 17 34 7 37 194 771 648 \"'767 ''510 724 622 506 858 5406 84% 86% 89% 75% '52% 70/ 57% 27% '41% 13% 11% 6% 24% '44% 27% 6% 3% 2% 4% 2% 15% 'l% '4% 4% 70.20 73.90 \"76.80 60.00 '76.90 63.90 61.30 81.90 564.90 48.80 51.30 56.30 42.40 '53.30 44.80 ''41.90 58.30 397.10 .10.98 8.77 9.99 8.50 9.41 9.73 8.25 10.48 9.57 15.80 12.63 13.62 12.03 13.58 13.88 12.08 14.72 13.61 362 372 233 '477 323 248 430 537 315 513 512 224 332 658 316 '354 \"202 \"477 288 212 '430 \"502 '315 513 476 224 332 587 281 265 235 214 267 188 205 370 222 227 469 145 263 354 237 71 \"\"94 ..19 181 \" 38 50 219 \"121 91 279 30 74 57 279 66 26 43 23 18 10 6 46 2 7 13 5 12 25 13 362 372 233 aH 323 248 430 537 315 513 512 224 332 658 316 73% \"63% 92% 57% 83% 76% 48% 69% 70% 44% 92% 65% 79% 54% 75% 20% 25% 8% 38% \"12% 20% 51% 23% 29% 54% 6% 33% 17% I 42% I 21%! 7% i2% \"6% 5% 6% 4'% 1% \"9% 1% 1% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% I '2:20 36.2_O '28.30 43.30 36.90 27.00 38.00 59.'2'0 29.30 44.00 41.10 30.66 32.60 70.22 34.00 23.30 20.30 15.30 26.90 18 70 13.90 23.00 29.40 17.10 27.10 24.30 17.30 18.50 40.00 16.80 7.75 9 78 7.14 11.02 '7.80 ' 7.85 11.32 8.48 10.75 11.66 11.58 7.47 10.18 8.36 8.26 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. l'ttle rock school district allocation of resources 10-07-90 PULASKI HEIGHTS ROMINE WASHINGTON WILSON .................. WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON franklin GARLAND MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER RIGHTSELL \" ' BOOKER CARVER GIBBS ........................ WILLIAMS TOTAL GRAND TOTAL ........ P/K 36 53 18 '34 '1'6 36 12 18 18 53 18 704 704 K 40 7'62 '83 ' \"54 46 54 7'5 69 '36 \"52 \" 73 ' \"34 ...'37 53 '39 '76 39 60 \u0026lt;884 OCTOBER 1,1997 ENROLLMENT 1-12 424 230 524 '290 '210 337 \"436 426 '292 '321 '384 315 j87 '299 TOT 464 7328 7660 3'62 284 192 _\"'521 536  \"419 11583 407 '\"511 495 ....328 \"'373 493 271 '_^'242 '465 '249 ''597 ' 596 '311 479 14171 TOT-P/K 464 292 \"607 344 ....... 250 7 391 .......5'11 495 ^328 373 Z_^^57  392 253 '224 352 -1231 597 .....' 596 ' .......3i'l ........479 '13467 BL 254 206 7352 237 201 299 235 240  151 322 44'1 7427 253 223 \"231 234 300 \"312 161 240 9335 WH 193 '213 \"53 75 92 243 246 167 32  4 0  24  3 ......9 138 ' 9 7261 259 'Y33 214 4151 OTH 17 ' 44 95 12 8 16 33 9 10 19  12 ...13 15 io 30 6 28 25 17 ' 17 685 TOT 464 ' 328 660 362 .....284 407 \"\"511 495 328 373 ' 493 464 \"271 \"242 405 249 ....597 596 311 479 14171 % BL 55% 63% '53% 82% 71% ' 73% 46% 48% 46% 86% 89% 92% 93% 92% 59% 94% 52% 52% 52% 52% 66% % WH 42% '24% '32% 7 15% '26% \"23% \"'48% ' 50% 51% '79% '8% \"5% \"4% \"34% '4% 44% 43% 43%  45% '29%  % OTH 4% __i3% 14% \"3% 3% 4% 6% 2/o 3% 5% 2% 3% 6% 4% 7% 2% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 1925 221'96 24825 _^21 16622 7149 1054 24825 67% 29% 4% TOTAL F.T.E. 39.20 39.10 TEACH F.T.E. PUP-P/K / \"oo.io  38.30 7' 32.40 .......40.60 ''47:26 51.90 30.10 7 36:37 4'3.75 73.90 .....47.30 44.20 79.90 39.50 63.70 63.90 40.30 52.30 1,576.34' 2653.88 22.90 23.00 46.60 23.10 17.80 7'23.90 28.20 28.80 16.60 20.50 '25.90 36.50 21.80 21.90 32.90 21.00 44.50 39.20 25.30 31.10 883.40 STAFF 11.84 7.A7 7.66 8.98 '7.72 9:63 10.83 9.54 .10.90 10.26 10.45 '5.30 '5.35 \"5.07 4.41 5.85 9.37 9.33 7.72 9.16 8.54 PUP-P/K /TEACH 20.26  12.70 13.03 14.89 14.04 16.36 18.12 17.19 19.76 18.20 17.64 10.74 11 61 10.23 10.70 11.00 13.42 15.20 12.29 15.40 15 24 1621.04 9.09 14.07 II ... L'TJLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES . _ 10-07-90 ar'ea high schools-------- CENTRAL ---- ------------ haLl 7------------- FAIR  _ mcclella'n 7 PARKVfEW TOTAL ------------------------ Junior high'schools DUNBAR............. forest HEI'g'HTS  --------- PULASki hei'ghts ^UTHWEST HENDERSON cl_overdaLe_'..... mabeLvale_ MANN ...-------------- enroll 10-1-97 SQUARE footage SITE ACREAGE SQ FT/ ENROLL 1,055 '790 \"'7'57' ...935 ...911 5'240 266,023 152,346..... 132,266  129,606 7166,477  047,000  16.50 1^31.16 50.00 '\"2'9.'6'6 36.06 157.26 _ 143.04 '7 192764 _717'4.75\" 102.7'7 ''i6\"i740 ...... ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS bale --------------- BRADY'' ... BADGETT -------------------- McDERMotf baseline FqRjST_PARk CHICOT.......... wester'n'hills JEFFERSON'................................. CLOVERDALE bODb ------------------------- MEADOWCLiFF Ki^7..... ............. geye\u0026gt;'spr'ings PLiLAS'ki'H'EJGHTS .......... ROMINE.................. 77} '640 767 510 7 724 ' 622 \"566 050 '5,4O6 99.397 70,207 73,216 02,968 '' ld3.212* 01,097 '6'2,'63'6 113,013 606,020 5.00 rjs.oo 4.00 \"moo' ''4'6.'36\" 7 ^66 12.66 '12.29 1'43.65 120.92_ iO0'4Y '95'46 'l'6p'6_ '142756 131.67 122.60 131.72 '126.90 \"362 ~~'372 233  '^A77 ' 32'3  7'246   436  753'7' 315 '7' 513 ' 5'1'2 224 7332 '7650  '316  \"' 464 '' 320 33,626 7735.259 ' 23,404... 7'40.020 L30.455 ' 20,06'7  731,914 '\" ' 59,607 ' 7'10,911  _ 73 346  33,263 ' 46,712 736,931  75,000 ' 41,7'66 50,252 10.00 '6?26 'l'6?00 -'19 2.10 JO.'40 14.66 ^2^00 0.00 5.56 9.6O 4.56 4.'36 3'.o6 92.09  9747 16045 100^67 42.314 I 20.00 ___156.21 _ iio-^0 3'4.64 12 o^lpo -.._1 34.97 _200?54 ~ Hi.24 _ 1^3796 7 '13Z2'2 \"125.54 129761LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-90 ENROLL WASHINGTON..... VyiLSON _ ..... WbobRUFF mabelvale\"' terry'^ FULBRIGHT ....... OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD... ... WATSON franklin\"\"...... g'arland MitCHELL*-\" RbckEFELTER\"....' rightse'll ..... BookER.... CARVER ....... ' GIBBS.......................... WILLIAMS........... total ....... JO-1-97 \" 660 2^ 362 204 407 .......511 ...495 ' 320 373 493 .....464 -271 ~ 242 465 249 .....597 596 311 479 1'4 J 71 SQUARE FOOTAGE 09,000 37,075 30,66'0 55,568 .... .. I .^'O92 36,551 37,395 5'3,64'6 68,500 38,632 39,200 64,561 37,630 - ... ? 24,530 61,695 37,237 47,200 1.630,565 site\"' acreage' \" 5.96 zi'o 16.00  7 15.66 ' 13 00 8.90 y 2 ' ~ 0.20 '  \"IZ26 1060 22.7O  y 4.20 ........\"6.30 2.10 13 00 .. 1200 5.00  15.00 305'90 SQ FT/ 'enroll  i3'^06 72 102.42 2^ 133.00 2 J 0 ^5 3 00.67 \"'.135714 .7 iii 'i' ~_1O-25 109722  147.63 2142'.55_  lei.'g'o 7i 59^4'1  151'12 124.04 103.52 119.73 9054 '115^06 GRAND total 24,825 3,163,601 606.75 127.44 IHIGH SCHOOLS ...... CENTRAL...... ...... f'^r McClellan PARKVIEW total...................... JUNIOR 'HIGH SCHOOLS DUNBAR.......... forest'heTghts PULASKI'HEIGHTS....... southwest\" HENDERSON 2l?ver'dale ... MABELVALE MANN' ...... -T.P.'iAL ELEM EN'TA'rY'schools BALE b'rad'y BADGETT .... McDermott ba'selii^e fair park Fbj^ESf PARK ..' CHICOT......... weste'rn'hilTs JEFFl'RSbN' CLOVERDALE Do'bb............... ............. -----little rock school district  . ------Z^LLOCATION b'F RESOURCES  ------------------ 10-07-98 -------- 'enroll YO-1-^7\"' ...masters +'9 'teach 'F.tyE\n790' \"~757\" % 935 '\"911 \"5,'248' \"77? 64^- 707 ' 5'10 724 ...627 \"506 858 5\n4d6 I 362 2. 372 2'33 477 _ \"37\" J^a' 430 '\"315 51'3 \"224 ''512' 56 32 '^'30 '~29 '35 102 23 \" 23   J 22  '19 220 ' \"14 J \"id \"'30  \"16'4  ' 14 J 8 '9 'Ti 10 '11 14 'io 20 13 9 __l'07'i4 '66\n7d' \"2\"5'7.2j '7d\\'9O '365.34 52.80 54.30 '59.30 474'0 ''57.3 d 44.90' \"6Z3'0 424.10 25.30 '2Z30 '29.40 \"15.90 '25.dd 31.90 J9.'ld' 29.'6d' 27od 197o 1 -12% \" 41% '\"55% 50% 44% \"'47/\n7'7% 42% \"_''\"35% 2'9% ^24 8% ' 39% 2'55% ~07% ' '46%  SdJ/o '\"63/o '44% '44'% \"72% 68'% 49% \"47%I -___little rock school district ___....ALTOpATION OF RESOURCES....... ___________ 10-07-98 ............. _ ENROLL  ^masters + 9  TEACH MEADOWCLIFF\"... KING .---------------..  GEYER springs PULASKI HEIGHTS ROMINE -- WASHINGTON WILSON.....--------......... WOODRUFF MABELVALE terry FULBRrGHT ottercreek WAKEFIELD-----.......... WATSON franklin -- garland  -...- mitchell' R^_kef|ll|r rightsell BOOKER CARVER gib^s ---......... \\MLUAli^' TOTAL __grand TOTAL 10-1-97 332 658 316  464 328 eeo  362 284 467 ^sli 495 328  373   493'  ...464 _ 271  2 4 2  _2~'465   249  597* 596 2_'3il  479 147171 24.825 % 11 17 16 12 10 17 19 6 6 9 15 11 16 11 16 4 6 10 _ 23 18 l 1 2i 426 772 F.T.E. _2O75O' 43.00 _J878O 25.46  25.00 50.10 25.10 19780 25.90 30770 31.30 1860 \"22756 28740 38.50 2380 5'4% j40% ' 53% T7%  \"40% '34% 276% \" 36% '223%  29% 2223.90   342790  2^3.66 47756  ...42776  48% ....59%  71% ...39%  26% 2' 1'7%  25% 29% '39% 24'8%  42% -?,7-36  40% 33.50 962\n86 1,752.24 63% 44% 44%1997-98 SCHOOL CENTRAL HAL^ PARKVIEW ^ A. FaTr McClellan I .yTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ____OF RESOURCES __________ 10-67-98 .......\" ZE zrzEziz. --------jo.?dooas a % of total ... HENDERSON MANN .... d'unbar ....... rj??' PUEHGT^jr. SOUTHWEST mabelvaleJR. JR.' badcett ^^E^Z baseljne~ BRADY c^ver\" CHICOT ^lom^Rdale DODD ......... NEW Zl? jZ 7~ 10 M' 4 9 Zl 6 g' 'd' ~2 'd' 5? 4 \"e '9 5 2 5 T 2 d TOTAL 108 'ed 73 259 iT 382 58 66 5Z. 59 J 4 \"so\" 440 21 '28 '23 49 25 44 39\"' 23 '20 % \"15% 18% 10% 12% 14% 14% 7% '14% 16% \"Td%  15% ''l'4% 'ji% 14% 12% 19% 21%  '39% \" io%  \"8% 'm  ' 8%  9%  '0% ......little ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ... allocation OF RESOURCES ' '\"16-07-90 1997-98  Teachers now to school a i:z' as a \u0026gt; of total fair park FOREST PARK FRANKLIN-........ Fulbright\" GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS.............. KING............................ Jefferson'....... mabelvale MCDERMOTT .. MEAbowCLIFF mtchell .. otter CREEiT.... PUL. heights' .... rightsell ?P.77epeller ' ' ROMINE ..... terry .. WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON wa'tson ... wiTlLUs' WILUAMS wilso'n wdODRUpr'......... 4 -2  '5 4 ....1 \"4 2 3 0 .... '3 \"'3 -1 3 '\"3 Ji '''o~ 4 ... \"e 122 20 739 41 .7731 25\" ..... 23 20 45 . 33' 7 ~29 73 ....... 25 ' 77 26 \"23\" ..7 20 ' 24 -7739 * 21  32  27' 7'32' Z -. 35 ' 23' .....2^' ' ios'f 20% '5% \"......5% ......6% 20% \"\" 17% 4% 79% ........9% 7% \"'15% \"71'2% 31% \"\"4% 11% 13% ' '18% '14% \"6% \"'J1%  1% 13% 0% ..11% ' 4% '21% ' 12%.........SCHOOL DISTRICT ' ...._..ALLOCATIO'N of RESOURCiES ' HIGH SCHOOLS ........ CENTRAj. HALL 2. ........ ^^\"^1 1 McclelLan PARKVIEW......... total\" JUNIOR HIGH 'school^ DUNBAR forest HEiGHTS PULAS^kl HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON CLOVERDALE.......... mabeLvale ... MANN.............. ............... fOTAL....... en'rolL'  10-1-97 1,855 '790 P/K STUDENTS 757  _ _935 91 i 57248 elementary schools BALE.... BRADY ...... BADGETT ~2 McDermott ^aseline FAIR PARK.......... FORES'f PAI^k....... CHICOT........................... WESTERN HILLS......\" JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE ' DODD 10-07-98 ' adjusted' ''16-1 enrol'l  NETWORi^BLE  COMPUTERS.. PER/ 2 a'dj pupTl ' 1,855 _ 266 1 1\"  935\" 2\" gii 57248 75  ....2 56 2 1\"J77 99  578 2 6 03^' _676949 _0.296_3  071087 ....67iioi - 64^8 5^i6 '724 ''\"622 '566 'sse 5,406 11\\ ''648 767' \"516  7^24' 622 566' \"858 5,406 27 253 30 21 174 -22  35 414\" o.dsso'\" 6.0818 26-639i\" .. 6^0529 \"6.2463 26.0354 0.0692' _6\\O536' ^.oyeT ___362 372 233 2 47r\" 323 \" 35 is 'sT __2482 ~ 430 2 2_~537  1 513 2. 51'2 2~ 224 35 36 35 36 _ 221 -324 ' 2_2O2..... - ^2 288'  2 212 2'436 56'2 2 _ \"3i25' - '5l3' ' \" 47'6\" ' 224 33 \"6.1669 - 3 2 12  13  - -J 2 126 ' 139 \"  671162 2 0\"6l49j  2676252 6.6164  2 6.6047  6.646'5   672769 3i a6984 24 46 13 _O.'6468  0.0040'  0^0580 '........little rock school district .....allocation of resources *\" ENROLL  10-07-98 P/K MEADOWCLIFF KING ...............  GEYER SPRINGS ' '  PULASKI HEIGHTS....... ROMINE............... WASHINGTON ....... WILSON ...... .......... WOODRUFF MABELVALE TERRY ......... FULBRIGHT....... OTTER CREEK ....\" WAKEFIELD' ............ WATSON..... F_RAN'kLl'N7\"..... GARLAND ......... MITCHELL  ROCKEFELLER........' RIGHTSELL BOOKER T carver ' GIBBS'..... ................. WILLIAMS 2to't'al ........ ...... 22i 2ZZ. -Z^^NiyTOTAL ------------- _ _ fstUDENTS' T ADJUSfED _ 332 72 2858 316  7464* \"328  7 660 ' 7362  284  2 7467'  2 511  \"2'4os  \" '328'' 22 373'  _ 2?93'  2J84  y 271...... .....242 7 19.6 2'72'19 27597 7 596  _ 311 ' _ 3_9 '14,171' 24,825 JiEri/VdR'KABLE ' per/ - ----------------------rCR/ r-y?.?LL ___computers ADJ PUPir 71 35 36 53 '18 34 ie 36 \"ll \"\u0026lt;8 ' J 8  18   704* ....704 332 7 '587 _Z 26'l' 464 7 292 \"607  \"3\"44 2 \"25'6' ' ..391  .....'511  .....'495 '2_ 828 373   457 ' ' 392  7 \"253' ' 224 7 352 \" '231 \"'597 23'96  311' - 2 13'467 4 7' 2  23 ' .... 37  7  ' 12  .......''35  ..........5  .......38 2 '10 15 ' 7..5 3 67 61 ' 2 2 9 ' 15 7287 7 28 ' -3 2 2 \"34 \"'81... 2..43..... 1,048 _ 0.0120 6.0034  6.0'019 6.'67'97 0.0411 27o O5'77  7 6.0930\" \" o\"o2o6'  \"0.0972 276.6'196  \"2 2 6 0363  2_ 6 015'2 \" \" 0.0080' 2276 1^66 ' ' 0.1556 0.0356 0.0670 '6 2472 \"\"6.1212   '267673'7' \" 6.0576\" ' 7 6 2\"6\"O5 2 \"6.0898 '0.0778 \"24J2Y 2,040 0.0846 \".....LITT'-E rock school district -.-'^.kLOCATION OF RESOURCES.......... ' \"16-67-90........................ enroll Ei area high schools CENTRAL........ ........ HALL ......... FAIR McClellan .......... PARKVIEW total\" '  \" ~... id-i-'97 . JENROLL average ' 10-1-96 i6-i-95 expense '''97-90 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS ~ '~ DUNBAR forest heights.......\" PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST   .... \" HENDERSON  ............ CLOVERDALE mabelvale ........ MANN .................- TOTAL ......- ELEMENTARY'sCHbOLS  bale'2' ..................... BRADY  ...... BADGETT ----------- McDermott baseline :  FAIR park .............. forest PARK..................... CHICOT WESTERN HILLS\" ..... JEFFERSON ...... CLOVERDALE . ' *  DODD....................................... MEADOWCLIFF.... KING  ' ' ----------------- GEYER SPRINGS^ ....~ ' PULASKI HEIGHTS \".............. '\"1755 2 '\" 790 ....... ' 935 ' - ^11 5748 :__7712 _ 640 _ 3^67 510 ' '724 2 622 2566 ^Joso' 5.466' ~~ 36f __372 233 Aii ' 323 __2'I8' _ 430 537 315' 51'3 512 224 '33'r '6'5'8' ''3'16' '464 1777  023 ' 814... 926 _928' \" _9'05 964 ~ 1.741 '5.2'19'\"' 775  055 5,103 732  630 ' 759 705 594  \" 741 \"' ____639 _ - Jp o 054  5,^06 781 61'2   792  \"\"669 ' 491 847 expe'nse '96-97 \"'' expense ' ....95'-'96 \" avgerage PER PUPIL ' ... 847  '\"825 \" '\"'922 002 '5,21'7 7'59'  '\"679' 778' 572' ' \"752 623 408.... 853' .. -9.i23 ' \"5^565' \" 375 3712 _ \" 219 ' '\"439  - 1295 ' .... 2 '2 497 2 566 ' J42 '\" _8Z3 Z  622  'J347 ' 394 216 ' 407 11?'35.84  ' i 03,975.33 41,905 00 46,432.63 '52,900.12' ' i03?307.37 43,607,37 _ 46,'352.94 52,090.65 __1^1\n82477 2 75.585.60' 2 235.666^28 82?l216.24 567.946'26' 56,966.09 55.462.41' 47.079.25 47,643.65 li?j84.63 2i i i'.'468.23 -..V8j215J9 23i.16'9?5i ' 49\u0026lt;811.54 57.409.'34'' 54d,668?0i . 59.34 55.58 \"57.73 120.94 262.20 '103.64 4'5'4 \"2 2'76 2 -335  99^ _ 453 2531 2 ' 3io '406  2361 ' 379  \" 221 ' '484' ' '317 22258 438'  Z-5'2 - 3^ \"sor \" ?52 _J88'  '_312 441 '666^\u0026lt;nn 1- 87.409.34 2\"'5671975 4i'F6Ti? -- --- ---81976 \"36797:30  ..jOIJI _ 30.302.90 41.448.20 27.59373 99.000.60 27.060.92 33.266.51 '32.'611.43 03.409.06 23.210.63 1^082.63 ....25,72i\n42 236.746.63 28O.334.54' _553.692J7 582.185.6'2' 75.11'4.26' 23728.'47 ~ 26'.748.49 \" 186.065?6O ' 484,456'.6'7' -..?'.9'i'i.:9i 28.666 59'' U 27.378.97 25.556.'59 26.583.55 1'^-'9^^-74 16.544'22 33.611.51 29?i26.'53 .23.98O?o6 23.700.96\" __^.!l99.i3 ......21.783.16' _?O76977 96.22873 '2i75l'?56 23.541.58 32.236.53' '46.756.79 ..... 3f.i 57.22 05.068.00 24.672.01 26.85'6.65' ZZ237''295.59......' 539.911.39 ' ' \"\"''27.'676?2'5' 2^!?91:72_.. 26.277?6g 14420.27 ______________15.023741 j_____297'69702........ 247717.56.... .?.2.'550.5'6 21.158.93........... -??..583.6i 21226730.35 '' ' 88'62O.95 54.693.37....... ................... 20.990.08..........2ii07 25....... -8'l9?_?-9* ___26.416.39 33J28.'O3 35.366.67 36.637.67 i5.i59\nio \"  20,413.94 22,919.38 29'667.66 14.72^8'9 31,3'75'15 33,860.27 16,765.31 .-^9./?9O.48 40,24 3.05' --2^299^99^ 22,'59'3.16 '24.6'4'391  36529.64 ''27.7'79.'66 '22722.96 \"37,463.1'1....... 3'8,9\"85.81 26.795.54 '''26.466?i7' 24.350^67 25.900.89 74.56 '54.05 52.40 54.47 114.14 39.58 54.98 78.19 90.00 '74.93 69.33 60.07 '60.43 \"77.09 '02.12 59.90 107.60 \" Q7.22 6279 69.35 66.10 61.34 64.50 04.64 50.69... .yPLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ___allocation OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 ROMINE ........ WASHINGTON WILSON\" WOODRUFF.............. MABELVALE ' . TERRY ..................... FULBRIGHT OTTER\"creek WAKEFIELD 7.... WATSON\" franklin\" garland........... MITCHELL.................... rockefeller....... righ\"tse\"lL\" ........ BOOKER...................... CARVER 7.......... GIBBS\" ..................... WILLIAMS\" total 'grand TOTA'l' '  ' 1'6-1-97' \" ___72. \"7_^660 \"' 362\" ENROLL _______ ENROLL A'VER'AG'E ' '\"' 10-1-96 16\" 1-95\"  ....-...... ' 284\" '*07 511 ''\"495 '7'328 ' ' 373' I' J93' ''_46'4 '7 271' 7242 /7 ^05 Z^-ig 597  596 LjJl 479\"' 'I4:'l7'i' 304 708 '362 268 '418 515 566 302 '656 '304 254 ' ' 24:625 - ' expense '- - 310 _' ' 4'36 479\"  J 32 ' ill  \" 262 7___436 ' 246 LJL 663 SCM 7 \"50'i ' '14,281 ~ \"24,986 460 \"'536 51'8 ' \"3'39 429 444 431 '2'55 \"2'57 ' 406 219 604 629 3'67' '508 '14,0'76' ___311 '6\"75' \"' \"369 '269 \"7'426 '5'21.... ''2'\"56\"4' 1-326 ' 413 ' __A12 4'49\" ' '\" '2'6'0 \"254 ' _ ^16 27 230  301 _ 7_ 310 ' 7_ \"\"'310 ... \" '496  ....1'4.174 24,876\" ' 24','B96  97-98 96-97 57.735^89 54':492':7'7' 69,699.60' __20,057.11 724:163.46 72 27,444.64 20,234.26 \" \" 31,602.51 '\"21:533.79 65,554.46 ''22,754.90  2'4',449:55 27'.'62O.1B 32,518 83' 33,937:51 20,296.58 -.-23.43^06 ' 26,16i?i 5 \"expens'e_ 95-96 average\" ...75,i 39.08 62,455\"91 52,835.39 23,699.36 ''\"20,399?2'3  36:441'.'73' '28:605.10 62,496.51 \"22,176:44 '23,01'6.75 30,502.18 29,786.06 -?3'632.57 31,417.53 2^635.10 23'16474'6' 21,488.49 '24,234.20 ---------- . ------ .- 33.049.80____40,511:8'5' \" \"' a^OOtOO.......\"\"36 547\"05 -.1?2J29^27 2iO7\n5627o '\"\"Tn^flB \"71,392.25 \" 7 7'0.763.37 249,49 too \"66,506.80 207,109.51 ..... - ----- -  vr 59,552.27 '_ ''6'5,810'97\" .?5.143.44 7^72298' ....71^906.60 '197.4'1'5.82' 58,'986.35 121.783.15 -t3?'193/87 2 170'340.05' 132,869:5'2 7.13'3,'799'.95 2,024,546.36 3,1'99','8B5767 69,936.75 '127,6'62.3'2 1.786^95.39 2,877J 26.67 217,976.65 ''221'627.82 58,318.66 7\" 53,065.76 7121:215.60' 5'o','746:24  ...\"91,025739 1:599 376.15 61.270.58 \"7127.586.14 -J.:* 326:53 '91.182 17 7'117.742.55 1.803.639.30 AVGERAGE PER PUPIL' 7 200:61 ,92.63 30.03 \"05.65 71.21 57.21 62.30 7_ '65.90 '\"50.73 \"77.43 '7 252.18 __ 245.87 2 283.47 .1 333.19 257.44 212.17 .7 243.28 7 294.14 237.38 127.25 2,575,644.36 '2.M4 2i'B'7n 115.85 II little rock school district ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES HIGH SCHOOLS CENTRAL HALL FAIR McClellan PARKVIEW TOTAL ......... 10-07-98 ENROLL 10-1-97 SERVICE HOURS HOURS/ ENROLL ' 1,855 790 757 935 911 5,248 6,743.75 1,476?6o 4,692.50 4,533.50 \" },277.75 10,723.50 JUNIOR HIGH'sCHOOLS DUNBAR ............ forest HEIGHTS..............' PULASKI HEIGHTS ..........\" SOUTHWEST ........................ HENDERSON ''..............  CLOVERDALE MABELVALE..... ~ MANN .................. total ............... ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BALE............................................ BRADY............ ....- BADGETT ............' \" McDermott\" ........  baseline\"......... FAIRPARK ------------------ FOREST PA'rk ......''....... CHICOT ....... WESTERN hIlLS JEFFERSON cLoverdale ....... DODD'........... ............. MEADOWCLIFF ........ KING................. ......................... 77} _648 7Q7 510 ' 724 622 506 058 5,406 3,041.00 1,004.50 4.15'7'60 3 400.25 i,'016.25 1,019.00 19,285.00 3O,89TOO 3.64 '1.0'7 \"670 '4.85 1.40 3.57 4.98 1.67 5.42 6?96' iJo 2.01 22.48 5.71 362 372 ? 233 A77 '323 240 430 537 315 513 512 224 332 650 2,127.50 833.00 134.25 2'869.50 3,832.50 1,342.50 6,404.50 1,339.75 '1'77375 2,806.75 '291.50 1,276^00 475.50 8,00025 5.88 2.24 0.58 6.02 11.87 5.41 \"l\u0026lt;89 2'.'49 5.63 5.47 0.57 570 1'43 12.17LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HEIGHTS  ROMINE WASHINGTON \" WILSON .................... woodruff MABELVALE ........... TERRY FULBRIGHT otter creek WAKEFIELD ................. WATSON FRANkUN garland '\"  .... MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER \" RIGHTSELL........... ' BOOKER CARVER.......................... GIBBS.................................. WHJJAMS ............ TOTAL ....... 10-07-90 ENROLL 10-1-97 316 464 320 \"660 362 204 \u0026lt;107 611 '65 320 \"......... 373 ..............493   464 ......271 242 '05 249 597 596 311 ........... 479 ......\"14.171 SERVICE HOURS 5,713.75 3,126.25 4,110.50 '2,701.75 ....... 121.50 i, 114.75 116.00 5,401.00 7,606.25 4,043.25 449.75 2,267.5'd \u0026lt;024.75 1,327.75 1,013.75 7,286.00 \"5,101.25 3,644.50 19,087.75 17,374 50 '9,329.75 137,16550 HOURS/ ENROLL ' 16.00 674 \u0026lt;2.56 _ '09 '_0.34 \"\u0026lt;93 0.29 10.73 15.37 14.77 21 4.60 \"\u0026lt;93 4.90 4.19 17.99 20.49 6.10 32.03 55.07 19?10 9.60 GRAND TOTAL 24,025 106,780.00 7.52 II .....little rock school district ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES HIGH SCHOOLS ..... CENTRAL .......... HALL\"\"'............................................ FAIR.........-----.............................. McClellan ........ PARKVIEW'-------.................. total\".......... ..... JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS DUNBAR   ..... forest HEIGHTS \" pula'ski heights^ SOUTHWEST ....... HENDERSON\"..-...................... CLOVERDALE\" ............... mabeLvaLe .... MANN \"....... -........ TOTAL ......... -.... elementary scHdoLs BALE\"' 2 ............. ....... BRADY BADGETT.... ....... m^ermott baseline.. ......... FAIR PARK FOREST PARK .....' CHicbt............................................... WESTERN HILLS ................. jeffe'rson ...-..... CLOVERDALE .......---- DODD ........... -...... 10-07-98 enroll\"\" 16-1-97  1,855 ....790 757 \" \" 935 \"\"\"911 5,248 771 648 767 510 724 _ 622 \"506 858 5,406 '\"'362 7372' \" '233 ' J 323 \" 248 430 \"537 \"315.. \"513 512 '224 donations 8,980.00 5,343.00 900.00 400.00 3,45000 19 073^00 A866.06 ' \"\"6O'.66\" 1,100.00 915.00 750.00 10,691.00 3,375.06 3,233.88 12,975.94 1,556.00 25O\no6 10,742.04 2,135^42 325.00 _ PER 'pupil 4.84 676 i.\"l'9 0.43 3.79 \"3.63 \"iofe\" \"\"6J2\" ...1.52 i.8i 0.87 1.98 9.32 869 27.20 J4.86\" i.oi 24?98 3.98\" 0.63I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES _____ 10-07-98 MEADOWCLIFF ............ KING ........... GEYER SPRINGS .......... PULASKI HEIGHTS......... ROMINE .............  WASHINGTON'....... WI^ON ................. ............ MABELVALE'.... ....... terry\"'.. FULBRIGH't ............... OTTER CREEK ....... WAKEFIELD...... WATSON .....----- fr'anklin ...... garland .......... MITCHELL ROC'keFELLER............ RIGHTSELL BOOKER carver gIbbs wil'lIams 'total grand tot al ENROLL  10-1-97 332 658 ....316 '64 328  ...... 660 362 284 407 '\"'5'il 495 ...........328 '373  '.....493 .......''464 271 242 - ZL_ ?65 249 ''' '259'7 '596 ZZ 511 _'179 '14,1'71 24,825 DONATIONS 4,400.00 150.00 1,686.94 3,377.16' 3,135^05 ' \"77O'.6o 1,'29\u0026lt;.6o 2'395.00 ... 55.00 3?46o.6o 3,285.60'' 2 1,'255'/66...... 7,600.00 100'50 13,066.00 1,356.00 8408.00 '  506.00 9O.745.'93 120,509.93 PER PUPIL \u0026lt;3.25 0-23 7'..5.34 1...'7.28 ........9.56 '\u0026lt;17 3.57 5.88 0.11 10.37  a.'a'i '^2.'55 16.38 6.37 '53?72  3^3 33.77 1.61 6.40 4.85. I 1. PupiVTeacher Ratio Equitable Allocation Worksheet 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (10.71) (11.54) (12.97) (15.5) (17.67) (18.72) (19.68) 2. Pupil/Staff Ratio 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (5.17) (5.80) (7.76) (9.25) (10.40) (11.34) (11.76) 3. Square Feet per Pupil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (69.13) (88.29) (101.11) (125.19) (142.56) (163.89) (188.29) 4. Percent of Staff with a Masters Degree, plus, Nine Years of Experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (23.9) (35.5) (44.0) (52.75) (63.4) (69.65) 5. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (1.80) (4.00) (7.00) (11.00) (15.00) (20.10) (29.20) 6. School Size High School 7 6 5 4 3 1 (911) (1395) 1 Middle School 6 (506) 5 (538) 4 (686) 7 3 2 1 Elementary 7 6 7. (231) (246) 5 (315) (373) (495) (596) 1 (658) Computer/Pupil Ratio 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 (.0062) (.0118) (.0351) (.0625) (.0981) (.2410) (.2695) 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 (53.14) (54.93) (59.93) (70.28) (180.69) (263.80) (289.34) 9. Volunteer Hours per Pupil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (.3125) (.579) (1.90) (5.195) (12.10) (19.58) (27.73) 10. Donations per Pupil 1 2 3 (.00) (.00) (.0275) 4 5 6 2 (1.71) (8.34) (17.24) (30.81)  EXHIBIT IComposite School Scores 27- Cloverdale Elementary 28- 29- Terry 30- 31- 32- Cloverdale J.H., King, Pulaski Heights Elementary 33- Dunbar, McDermott, Western Hills 34- Pulaski Heights J.H., Jefferson, Wakefield 35- Central, Southwest, Meadowcliff 36- McClellan, Forest Heights, Mabelvale Elementary, Washington, Woodruff 37- Badgett, Forest Park, Fulbright, Watson 38- Otter Creek 39- Henderson, Mabelvale, Baseline, Booker, Carver Fair Park 40- 41- Mann, Garland, Williams 42- Hall, Brady, Chicot 43- J. A. Fair, Bale, Geyer Springs, Wilson 44- 45- Parkview 46- Romine 47- 48- Franklin, Mitchell 49- Dodd 50- Rockefeller 51- 52- Gibbs 53- 54- Rightsell 7 6  5  4  3  2  1  A A a 0 27.00 32.00 34.00 29.00 36.00 33.00 38.00 41.00 35.00 43.00 37.00 46.00 39.00 49.00 42.00 52.00 45.00 48.00 50.00 54.00 EQUITYComposite School Scores 27- Cloverdale Elementary 28- 29- Terry 30- 31- 32- Cloverdale J.H., King, Pulaski Heights Elementary 33- Dunbar, McDermott, Western Hills 34- Pulaski Heights J.H., Jefferson, Wakefield 35- Central, Southwest, Meadowcliff 36- McClellan, Forest Heights, Mabelvale Elementary, Washington, Woodruff 37- Badgett, Forest Park, Fulbright, Watson 38- Otter Creek 39- Henderson, Mabelvale, Baseline, Booker, Carver Fair Park 40- 41- Mann, Garland, Williams 42- Hall, Brady, Chicot 43- J. A. Fair, Bale, Geyer Springs, Wilson 44- 45- Parkview 46- Romine 47- 48- Franklin, Mitchell 49- Dodd 50- Rockefeller 51- 52- Gibbs 53- 54- RightsellGraph 7 6- 5 4 3 2 1 3 o O 0 27.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 41.00 43.00 46.00 29.00 33.00 35.00 37.00 49.00 52.00 39.00 42.00 45.00 48.00 50.00 54.00 EQUITY Page 1Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American-' Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY % African American Students TE.RATIO ST Al RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY % African American Students TE.RATIO STA.RATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY % African American Students 1.000 -.325* -.376\" .120 -.183 .274 -.257 .122 -.085 -.404\" .269 .120 .024 .008 .417 .213 .059 .078 .408 .565 .004 .065 .415 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students -.325* -.376\" .120 -.183 .274 -.257 1.000 .826\" -.554\" .826\" 1.000 -.455\" -.554\" -.455\" 1.000 .468\" .407\" -.252 -.285* -.365* .241 .135 .453- .170 .468\" .407\" -.252 1.000 -.131 .020 -.285* .135 -.265 -.522\" -.071 -.152 -.638\" -.365* .453\" -.226 -.561\" -.135 -.239 -.696\" .241 .170 .135 .281 -.056 .066 .522\" -.131 .020 -.158 -.282 -.017 -.190 -.045 1.000 -.068 -.197 .149 -.061 .258 .097 -.068 1.000 .088 -.091 -.133 -.222 -.259 .024 .000 .000 .001 .049 .359 .069 .000 .630 .302 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .008 .000 .001 .004 .011 .001 .122 .000 .362 .103 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .417 .000 .001 .083 .099 .248 .361 .053 .706 .657 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .213 .001 .004 .083 .376 .892 .284 .052 .909 .197 .764 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 .059 .078 .049 .011 .099 .359 .001 .248 .376 .892 .644 .644 .180 .311 .682 .077 .511 .553 .536 .368 .129 .076 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Page 2Correlations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N % African American-' Students TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY % African American Students TE. RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY I % African American Students TE.RATIO STARATI SQ.FT % Teachers with MA +9 TURNOVER # Students COMPUTER EXPENDIT VOLUNTEE DONATION EQUITY COMPUTER .122 -.265 -.226 .135 -.158 -.197 .088 1.000 .429\" .175 -.046 .429\" .408 .069 .122 .361 .284 .180 .553 .002 .235 .758 .002 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 EXPENDIT -.085 -.522\" -.561\" .281 -.282 .149 -.091 .429\" 1.000 .512\" .195 .655\" .565 .000 .000 .053 .052 .311 .536 .002 .000 .185 .000 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). VOLUNTEE -.404\" -.071 -.135 -.056 -.017 -.061 -.133 .175 .512\" 1.000 .020 .403\" .004 .630 .362 .706 .909 .682 .368 .235 .000 .894 .004 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 DONATION .269 -.152 -.239 .066 -.190 .258 -.222 -.046 .195 .020 1.000 .335* .065 .302 .103 .657 .197 .077 .129 .758 .185 .894 .020 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 EQUITY .120 -.638\" -.696- .522- -.045 .097 -.259 .429\" .655\" .403- .335* 1.000 .415 .000 .000 .000 .764 .511 .076 .002 .000 .004 .020 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Page 3File Information List of variables on the working file Name Position SCHOOL School Print Format': F8.2 Write Format: F8.2 1 Value Label 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 Central J.A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Junior High Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior High Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs magnet Jefferson King Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff TE.RATIO 2 Print Format: F8.2 Write Format: F8.2 Page 1te. ratio 1 18.52 2 14.23 3 12.60 4 14.19 5 15.34 6 13.88 7 15.80 8 12.63 9 13.58 10 12.08 11 14.72 12 13.62 13 12.03 14 13.20 C\n\\Program Rles\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav sta.rati 12.54 9.18 8.32 9.53 10.21 9.73 10.98 8.77 9.41 8.25 10.48 9.99 8.50 7.14 .. sq.ft 143.84 174.75 192.84 138.05 182.74 131.67 128.92 108.47 142.56 122.60 131.72 95.46 162.68 100.45 1-1 teach 52.00 52.00 48.00 41.00 55.00 29.00 44.00 42.00 35.00 29.00 48.00 37.00 42.00 46.00 turnover 15.00 12.00 18.00 14.00 10.00 4.00 16.00 10.00 7.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 14.00 19.00student# 1 1855.00 2 757.00 3 790.00 4 935.00 5 911.00 6 622.00 7 771.00 8 648.00 9 724,00 10 506.00 11 858.00 12 767.00 13 510.00 14 233.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav computer expendit voluntee donation .04 .07 .09 .30 .11 .04 .04 .08 .24 .07 .05 .04 .05 .01 59.34 57.73 55.58 120.94 3.64 6.20 1.87 4.85 4.84 1.19 6.76 .43 262.20 39.58 74.56 54.05 114.14 54.98 278.19 52.40 54.47 68.07 1-2 1.40 3.79 .00 .00 4.98 1.67 1.40 2.01 22.48 5.42 .96 .58 .00 .00 1.52 1.81 .87 10.26 .12 .001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 equity 35.00 43.00 42.00 36.00 45.00 32.00 33.00 36.00 39.00 39.00 41.00 34.00 35.00 37.00 C:\\Program Rles\\SPSSWIilhollen.sav black 59.00 81.00 71.00 84.00 51.00 89.00 57.00 70.00 86.00 75.00 52.00 57.00 84.00 92.00 1-315 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 te.ratio 14.03 15.40 13.42 17.44 15.20 17.07 19.59 12.95 15.25 18.70 10.74 17.19 11.61 16.73 C\n\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav sta.rati sq.ft teach turnover 7.75 7.80 9.37 9.78 9.33 8.48 11.59 7.47 7.85 11.32 5.30 9.54 5.35 8.26 92.89 55.00 21.00 156.21 124.84 97.47 103.52 111.15 64.97 208.54 116.40 74.22 147.63 135.14 142.55 132.22 2-1 53.00 39.00 48.00 67.00 42.00 44.00 10.00 8.00 11.00 8.00 49.00 47.00 63.00 44.00 26.00 48.00 17.00 53.00 9.00 .00 20.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 20.00 17.0015 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 student# 362.00 323.00 597.00 372.00 596.00 537.00 512.00 224.00 248.00 430.00 464.00 495.00 271.00 316.00 C\n\\Program Rles\\SPSSyVKIhollen.sav computer expendit voluntee donation .10 .01 .07 .11 .06 .28 .08 .06 .00 .05 .16 .03 .04 .08 74.93 77.89 212.17 69.33 243.28 107.68 69.35 66.18 82.12 59.90 252.18 62.30 245.87 84.64 5.88 11.87 6.10 2.24 32.03 2.49 .57 5.70 5.41 14.89 3.93 15.37 4.90 18.08 9.32 4.80 .00 8.69 .00 3.98 .00 .00 1.01 24.98 16.38 .11 .37 5.34 2-215 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CiVrogram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav equity 43.00 39.00 39.00 42.00 39.00 42.00 27.00 49.00 39.00 37.00 48.00 37.00 41.00 43.00 black 73.00 83.00 52.00 63.00 52.00 69.00 92.00 65.00 76.00 76.00 92.00 48.00 93.00 75.00 2-329 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 te. ratio 12.29 18.93 17.68 16.36 17.73 17.95 10.23 19.76 20.26 11.00 10.70 12.70 18.12 18.20 C:\\Program Rles\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav sta.rati sq.ft teach turnover 7.72 11.66 8.36 9.63 11.02 10.18 5.07 10.90 11.84 5.85 4.41 7.47 10.83 10.26 119.73 40.00 4.00 84.88 68.00 9.00 113.98 136.53 100.67 111.24 161.98 111.44 40.00 23.00 31.00 54.00 25.00 59.00 9.00 7.00 15.00 12.00 31.00 4.00 125.54 151.12 159.41 129.01 88.67 100.25 3-1 47.00 39.00 29.00 40.00 29.00 71.00 11.00 13.00 18.00 14.00 6.00 11.0029 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 student# 311.00 513.00 658.00 407.00 477.00 332.00 242.00 328.00 37 464.00 38 249.00 39 405.00 40 328.00 41 511.00 C:\\Prooram Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav computer expendit voluntee donation .26 .05 .00 .10 .03 .01 .07 .02 .08 .12 .25 .04 .02 294.14 44.87 1.61 6229 64.58 71.21 60.43 61.34 283.47 65.98 58.69 257.44 533.19 200.61 57.21 5.47 12.17 .29 6.02 1.43 4.19 14.77 6.74 20.49 17.99 12.56 10.73 .63 .23 5.88 27.20 13.25 53.72 10.37 7.28 33.77 3.33 9.56 .00 42 373.00 .01 58.73 1.21 8.81 J 3-229 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 equity 52.00 34.00 32.00 36.00 33.00 35.00 48.00 38.00 32.00 54.00 50.00 46.00 29.00 34.00 C:\\Program FilesVSPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 52.00 44.00 54.00 73.00 57.00 79.00 92.00 46.00 55.00 94.00 59.00 63.00 46.00 86.00 J 3-3te. ratio 43 13.03 44 17.64 45 18.42 46 15.40 47 14.89 48 14.04 C\n\\Program Rles\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav sta.rati 7.58 10.45 10.75 9.16 8.98 7.72 4-1 sq.ft 136.06 109.22 64.64 98.54 102.42 133.80 teach 34.00 39.00 52.00 63.00 76.00 30.00 turnover 7.00 13.00 .00 11.00 4.00 27.00. 1'   C:\\Program Fiies\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav studentii computer expendit voluntee donation 43 660.00 .06 92.63 4.09 1.12 44 493.00 .15 77.43 4.60 2.55 45 315.00 .10 67.20 5.63 .00 46 479.00 .09 237.38 19.48 .00 47 362.00 .09 60.03 .34 3.57 48 284.00 .02 85.65 4-2 3.93 .0043 44 45 46 47 48 equity 36.00 37.00 33.00 41.00 43.00 36.00 C:\\Program Files\\SPSS\\Milhollen.sav black 53.00 89.00 70.00 52.00 82.00 71.00 J 4-34 ' FEB 1 4 2000 Data for Equitable Allocation of Resources Worksheet 1999-00 School Year nPQFPRFPinflM UflNITflHIWR /o New Score % Black Score % Black UCoCuntuHllunillgloHy^i^i^Qy^gl yeach/Pupll Staff/Pupil Sq. Ft. Per % Ma Teachers Enrollment Computer Money Volunteer Donate 1999 CENTRAL HALL FAIR McClellan PARKVIEW DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON CLOVERDALE MABELVALE MANN BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS JEFFERSON KING MABELVALE McDermott 1 2 8 12 5 7 9 10 11 13 15 16 3 19 17 22 6 18 21 28 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 30 35 46 20 1 1 1 tl 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 17.66 15.54 14.38 16.31 15.96 14.02 14.07 13.92 8.71 9.82 14.1 11.05 14.34 14.45 11.93 12.97 10.94 13.87 13.82 16.69 15.85 9.84 12.74 14.72 11.19 16.21 12.51 16.71 10.56 15.46 13.20 15.00 16.29 12.26 11.45 9.91 10.93 10.97 9.99 9.67 10.22 6.53 7.00 10.16 7.99 10.31 7.46 6.68 6.42 7.99 8.31 8.40 8.83 9.05 6.03 6.69 8.74 6.04 8.61 5.87 8.53 6.72 9.70 7.07 8.39 9.54 130.48 109.52 137,83 99.35 143.89 134.50 89.35 96.34 185.61 187.32 116.16 121.42 134.22 119.41 107.78 170.46 139.57 104.19 117.51 117.03 78.08 230.11 130.62 100.36 141.24 163.15 144.69 128.95 130.66 117.69 122.55 147.01 128.74 0.48 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.53 0.37 0.32 0.42 0.33 0.37 0.29 0.36 0.46 0.54 0.58 0.50 0.42 0.43 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.60 0.34 0.25 0.47 0.23 0.52 0.45 0.76 0.40 0.19 0.44 0.22 0.43 0.25 0.40 0.19 0.29 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.08 0.11 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.15 0.31 0.23 0.31 0.19 0.15 0.09 0.20 0.04 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 196 312 296 534 348 525 510 426 203 221 318 485 410 267 324 285 370 612 378 373 0.0704 0.0891 0.0932 0.2794 0.1201 0.0622 0.0841 0.0697 0.1051 0.3521 0.0837 0.0972 0.0867 0.0432 0.1403 0.0229 0.1498 0.1242 0.1467 0.3017 0.1128 0.1351 0.0215 0.1038 0.1763 0.0585 0.0723 0.1142 0.2842 0.1243 0.0240 0.1139 0.0617 58.07 45.91 63.45 252.21 258.25 76.69 45.66 52.87 64.53 265.43 41.28 52.36 284.92 69.73 77.05 75.49 294.76 71.34 256.03 105.84 75.86 76.45 86.10 67.16 221.61 68.80 240.02 79.03 526.14 67.94 70.37 67.82 69.57 1.97 4.36 2.98 3.70 4.16 9.89 0.16 11.85 2.06 5.70 3.06 0.76 4.71 5.12 5.23 16.64 16.43 3.87 39.33 3.50 3.43 14.05 8.32 22.77 6.85 16.66 7.06 10.61 34.38 38.93 16.35 0.56 40.00 4.15 1.94 0.00 4.74 0.00 3.62 0.00 11.57 0.00 2.18 0.00 0.00 7.65 0.00 3.63 2.76 9.02 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 20.99 5.20 39.33 0.41 28.78 3.00 1.27 0.00 1.11 8.17 1.44 19.60 29 25 34 36 44 38 23 36 45 56 25 34 46 45 58 57 57 43 47 39 35 69 60 40 49 43 50 42 62 47 46 36 47 1999 57% 71% 80% 89% 50% 60% 65% 60% 91% 77% 88% 73% 52% 91% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 89% 65% 72% 44% 96% 41% 94% 82% 52% 39% 55% 74% 57% 1998 37 47 49 46 47 36 40 39 42 44 36 45 46 41 50 50 43 48 45 47 31 57 44 42 54 45 46 49 60 41 36 41 39 1998 59 81 71 84 51 89 57 70 86 75 52 57 84 92 73 83 52 63 52 69 92 65 76 48 92 48 93 75 52 44 54 73 57 DRAFT COPY 2/11/00 1Data for Equitable Allocation of Resources Worksheet 1999-00 School Year % New Score % Black Score % Black School#Level Teach/Pupil Staff/Pupil Sq. Ft. Per % Ma Teachers Enrollment Computer Money Volunteer Donate 1999 MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHT RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 33 34 50 38 39 36 40 47 51 42 52 29 43 44 45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 16.19 11.87 17.45 16.36 13.09 10.65 12.26 17.52 15.53 11.22 16.36 16.89 14.54 14.68 13.33 8.78 6.03 10.58 8.82 6.44 4.39 7.20 11.05 9.11 6.30 9.80 9.14 9.14 7.99 7.43 147.14 158.70 104.73 190.37 139.89 161.00 131.41 87.98 111.96 165.38 121.00 164.67 103.06 118.45 134.75 0.40 0.23 0.50 0.63 0.51 0.29 0.39 0.34 0.64 0.32 0.41 0.53 0.71 0.68 0.24 0.11 0.29 0.10 0.05 0.24 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.21 0.00 0.06 0.14 0.20 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 543 445 255 458 313 282 0.0398 0.0742 0.0544 0.1569 0.1416 0.3208 0.1042 0.0485 0.0180 0.1043 0.1834 0.1373 0.0961 0.1186 0.0363 67.07 281.03 60.25 67.36 242.78 483.03 173.45 60.30 69.83 104.40 74.61 69.50 286.99 61.47 84.10 2.39 9.60 11.44 21.44 20.68 49.97 15.97 19.75 0.68 11.42 1.95 9.43 18.62 0.33 6.22 0.00 0.00 3.44 26.14 0.00 5.91 6.72 4.50 19.37 0.00 0.45 20.75 37.51 0.00 0.00 37 51 35 61 59 65 55 31 40 50 38 55 53 41 42 1999 79% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% 61% 94% 75% 51% 89% 80% 1998 41 56 45 39 60 59 52 34 42 43 43 43 47 50 41 1998 79 92 46 55 94 59 63 46 86 53 89 70 52 82 71 DRAFT COPY 2/11/00 2P/K K ________________LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT __________________ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES _____________________________10-01-99_________ OCTOBER 1,1999 ENROLLMENT 1-12 TOT TOT-P/K BL WH OTH TOT % BL % WH % OTH TOTAL F.T.E. TEACH F.T.E. PUP-P/K /STAFF PUP-P/K /TEACH HIGH SCHOOLS CENTRAL HALL FAIR McClellan PARKVIEW TOTAL MIDDLE SCHOOLS DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST HENDERSON CLOVERDALE MABELVALE MANN TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS 0 0 11 34 34 18 36 36 18 35 71 18 35 0 0 40 47 49 78 60 78 75 58 31 39 50 72 62 47 53 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 6740 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 5323 145 231 213 456 270 447 399 332 154 147 268 342 348 202 236 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 6740 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 6740 1167 981 760 1066 582 4556 843 306 179 108 538 1974 35 104 16 18 37 210 2045 1391 955 1192 1157 6740 57% 71% 80% 89% 50% 68% 41% 22% 19% 9% 46% 29% 2% 7% 2% 2% 3% 3% 166.80 121.50 96.40 109.10 105.50 599.30 115.80 89.50 66.40 73.10 72.50 417.30 12.26 11.45 9.91 10.93 10.97 11.25 17.66 15.54 14.38 16.31 15.96 16.15 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 5323 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 5323 447 507 457 406 422 617 360 435 3651 249 254 295 33 110 49 123 380 1493 43 24 8 8 19 39 11 27 179 739 785 760 447 551 705 494 842 5323 60% 65% 60% 91% 77% 88% 73% 52% 69% 34% 32% 39% 7% 20% 7% 25% 45% 28% 6% 3% 1% 2% 3% 6% 2% 3% 3% 74.00 81.20 74.40 68.50 78.70 69.40 61.85 81.70 589.75 52.70 55.80 54.60 51.30 56.10 50.00 44.70 58.70 423.90 9.99 9.67 10.22 6.53 7.00 10.16 7.99 10.31 9.03 14.02 14.07 13.92 8.71 9.82 14.10 11.05 14.34 12.56 196 312 296 534 348 525 510 426 203 221 318 485 410 267 324 185 278 262 534 330 525 474 390 185 186 318 414 410 249 289 179 231 253 271 247 274 344 381 131 160 139 466 169 250 267 16 66 41 249 75 229 85 21 68 58 172 11 233 3 44 1 15 2 14 26 22 81 24 4 3 7 8 8 14 13 196 312 296 534 348 525 510 426 203 221 318 485 410 267 324 91% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 89% 65% 72% 44% 96% 41% 94% 82% 8% 21% 14% 47% 22% 44% 17% 5% 33% 26% 54% 2% 57% 1% 14% 1% 5% 1% 3% 7% 4% 16% 6% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 4% 24.80 41.60 40.80 66.80 39.70 62.50 53.70 43.10 30.70 27.80 36.40 68.50 47.60 42.40 33.90 12.80 23.30 20.20 48.80 23.80 38.00 28.40 24.60 18.80 14.60 21.60 37.00 25.30 19.90 17.30 7.46 6.68 6.42 7.99 8.31 8.40 8.83 9.05 6.03 6.69 8.74 6.04 8.61 5.87 8.53 14.45 11.93 12.97 10.94 13.87 13.82 16.69 15.85 9.84 12.74 14.72 11.19 16.21 12.51 16.71P/K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT __________________ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-01-99 OCTOBER 1,1999 ENROLLMENT GIBBS JEFFERSON KING MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL 71 18 18 36 55 34 54 36 18 34 720 K 54 62 90 52 59 36 31 74 39 40 67 60 89 59 72 74 32 56 59 40 1984 1-12 231 308 451 308 314 215 198 275 267 193 279 228 426 275 417 335 223 402 236 208 9979 TOT 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 543 445 255 458 313 282 12683 TOT-P/K 285 370 541 360 373 251 229 349 306 233 346 288 515 334 489 409 255 458 295 248 11963 BL 147 146 336 278 213 198 240 164 173 261 245 211 238 282 332 420 191 233 278 225 8573 WH 127 218 253 95 134 52 5 178 127 6 148 73 238 28 143 19 61 209 27 54 3566 OTH 11 6 23 5 26 1 2 7 6 2 8 38 39 24 68 6 3 16 8 3 544 TOT 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 543 445 255 458 313 282 12683 % BL 52% 39% 55% 74% 57% 79% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% 61% 94% 75% 51% 89% 80% 68% % WH 45% 59% 41% 25%' 36% 21% 2% 51% 42% 2% 37% 23% 46% 8% 26% 4% 24% 46% 9% 19% 28% % OTH 4% 2% W 1% 7% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 12% 8% 7% 13% 1% 1% 3% 3% 1% 4% TOTAL F.T.E. 42.40 38.13 76.50 42.90 39.10 28.60 38.00 33.00 34.70 36.20 78.90 40.00 46.60 36.67 77.60 41.75 27.90 50.10 36.90 33.40 1,539.65 TEACH F.T.E. 27.00 23.93 41.00 24.00 22.90 15.50 19.30 20.00 18.70 17.80 32.50 23.50 29.40 21.50 43.60 25.00 15.10 31.50 20.10 18.60 865.33 PUP-P/K / STAFF 6.72 9.70 7.07 8.39 9.54 8.78 6.03 10.58 8.82 6.44 4.39 7.20 11.05 9.11 6.30 9.80 9.14 9.14 7.99 7.43 7.77 PUP-P/K /TEACH 10.56 15.46 13.20 15.00 16.29 16.19 11.87 17.45 16.36 13.09 10.65 12.26 17.52 15.53 11.22 16.36 16.89 14.54 14.68 13.33 13.82 ALTERNATIVE SETTINGS 1 443 444 444 317 121 6 444 71% 27% 1% GRAND TOTAL 720 1985 22485 25190 24470 17097 7154 939 25190 68% 28% 4% 2,728.70 1,706.53 28.04 42.53School Name CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan PARKVIEW CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS JEFFERSON KING MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHT RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER Data for Equitable Allocation of Resources Worksheet 1998-99 School Year School# Level Teach/Pupil Staff/Pupil Sq. Ft. Per % Ma % Nev/ Teachers Enrollment Computer Money Volunteer Donate Score % Black Students 1 8 2 12 5 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 19 17 22 6 18 21 28 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 30 35 46 20 33 34 50 38 39 36 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 18.52 14.23 12.60 14.19 15.34 13.88 15.80 12.63 13.58 12.08 14.72 13.62 12.03 13.20 14.03 15.40 13.42 17.44 15.20 17.07 19.59 12.95 15.25 18.70 10.74 17.19 11.61 16.73 12.29 18.93 17.68 16.36 17.73 17.95 10.23 19.76 20.26 11.00 10.70 12.54 9.18 8.32 9.53 10.21 9.73 10.98 8.77 9.41 8.25 10.48 9.99 8.50 7.14 7.75 7.80 9.37 9.78 9.33 8.48 11.59 7.47 7.85 11.32 5.30 9.54 5.35 8.26 7.72 11.66 8.36 9.63 11.02 10.18 5.07 10.90 11.84 5.85 4.41 143.84 174.75 192.84 138.05 182.74 131.67 128.92 108.47 142.56 122.60 131.72 95.46 162.68 100.45 92.89 156.21 124.84 97.47 103.52 111.15 64.97 208.54 116.40 74.22 147.63 135.14 142.55 132.22 119.73 84.88 113.98 136.53 100.67 111.24 161.98 111.44 125.54 151.12 159.41 52.00 52.00 48.00 41.00 55.00 29.00 44.00 42.00 35.00 29.00 48.00 37.00 42.00 46.00 55.00 53.00 48.00 67.00 42.00 44.00 49.00 47.00 63.00 44.00 26.00 48.00 17.00 53.00 40.00 68.00 40.00 23.00 31.00 54.00 25.00 59.00 47.00 39.00 29.00 15.00 12.00 18.00 14.00 10.00 4.00 16.00 10.00 7.00 ' 14.00 14.00 15.00 14.00 19.00 21.00 39.00 10.00 8.00 11.00 8.00 9.00 .00 20.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 20.00 17.00 4.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 15.00 12.00 31.00 4.00 11.00 13.00 18.00 1855 757 790 935 911 622 771 648 724 506 858 767 510 233 362 323 597 372 596 537 512 224 248 430 464 495 271 316 311 513 658 407 477 332 242 328 464 249 405 .0383 .0740 .0949 .2963 .1087 .0354 .0350 .0818 .2403 .0692 .0536 .0391 .0529 .0149 .1009 .0104 .0737 .1102 .0570 .2769 .0840 .0580 .0047 .0465 .1556 .0303 .0356 .0819 .2605 .0468 .0034 .0972 .0252 .0120 .0670 .0152 .0797 .1212 .2472 59.34 57.73 55.58 120.94 262.20 39.58 74.56 54.05 114.14 54.98 278.19 52.40 54.47 68.07 74.93 77.89 212.17 69.33 243.28 107.68 69.35 66.18 82.12 59.90 252.18 62.30 245.87 84.64 294.14 62.29 64.58 71.21 60.43 61.34 283.47 65.98 58.69 257.44 533.19 3.64 6.20 1.87 4.85 1.40 .00 4.98 1.67 1.40 2.01 22.48 5.42 .96 .58 5.88 11.87 6.10 2.24 32.03 2.49 .57 5.70 5.41 14.89 3.93 15.37 4.90 18.08 44.87 5.47 12.17 .29 6.02 1.43 4.19 14.77 6.74 20.49 17.99 4.84 1.19 6.76 .43 3.79 .00 .00 .00 1.52 1.81 .87 10.26 .12 .00 9.32 4.80 .00 8.69 .00 3.98 .00 .00 1.01 24.98 16.38 .11 .37 5.34 1.61 .63 .23 5.88 27.20 13.25 53.72 10.37 7.28 33.77 3.33 37 49 47 46 47 36 36 40 44 45 46 39 42 41 50 50 43 48 45 47 31 57 44 42 54 45 46 49 60 41 36 41 39 41 56 45 39 60 59 59 81 71 84 51 89 57 70 86 75 52 57 84 92 73 83 52 63 52 69 92 65 76 48 92 48 93 75 52 44 54 73 57 79 92 46 55 94 59 2/11/00 1Data for Equitable Allocation of Resources Worksheet 1998-99 School Year ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 40 47 51 42 52 29 43 44 45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12.70 18.12 18.20 13.03 17.64 18.42 15.40 14.89 14.04 7.47 10.83 10.26 7.58 10.45 10.75 9.16 8.98 7.72 129.01 88.67 100.25 136.06 109.22 64.64 98.54 102.42 133.80 40.00 29.00 71.00 34.00 39.00 52.00 63.00 76.00 30.00 14.00 6.00 11.00 7.00 13.00 .00 11.00 4.00 27.00 328 511 373 660 493 315 479 362 284 .0411 .0196 .0080 .0577 .1466 .0984 .0898 .0930 .0200 200.61 57.21 58.73 92.63 77.43 67.20 237.38 60.03 85.65 12.56 10.73 1.21 4.09 4.60 5.63 19.48 .34 3.93 9.56 .00 8.81 1.12 2.55 .00 .00 3.57 .00 52 34 42 43 43 43 47 50 41 63 46 86 53 89 70 52 82 71 2/11/00 21999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Total Score: 1999 Pearson Correlation Total Score: 1999 1.000 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1999 -.046 05 CD CD {Z\u0026gt; c CD n 55 c cn o e \u0026lt; c cn o \u0026lt; o c \u0026lt;u a D. Sig. (2-tailed) N .758 48 48 Percent of African-American Students: 1999 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 30 40 50 -.046 1.000 .758 48 48 60 70 Total Score: 1999 N      a o       8 o       a      a   a Q  o    o    0    o o1998-99 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Total Score: 1998 Pearson Correlation Total Score: 1998 ToSo Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1998 .158 Sig. (2-tailed) N .285 48 48 Percent of African-American Students: 1998 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .158 .285 48 1.000 48 100 co o 90     a    (Z\u0026gt; c CD D 55 c CD O O E \u0026lt; c CD O 80 70     a  8 60.             \u0026lt; o c CD a CD CL 50 40 30  0     8 o  40 Total Score: 1998   8    50 60 70 }Composite School Scores (1998-99) 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- n- 28- 2)- 30- 31- Cloverdale 32- 33- 34- Terry 35- 36- Dunbar, Cloverdale MS, King 37- Central 38- 39- Pulaski Heights MS, McDermott, Pulaski Heights 40- Forest Heights MS 41- Badgett, Jefferson, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Woodruff 42- Southwest, Forest Park, Wakefield 43- Booker, Washington, Watson, Western Hills 44- Henderson, Fair Park 45- Mabelvale MS, Carver, Fulbright, Otter Creek 46- McClellan, Mann, Garland 47- Hall, Parkview, Chicot, Williams 48- Brady 49- JA Fair, Geyer Springs 50- Bale, Baseline, Wilson 51- 52- Romine 53- 54- Franklin 55- 56- Mitchell 57- Dodd 58- 59- Rockefeller 60- Gibbs, Rightsell DRAFT 2/7/00 Composite School Scores (1999-00) n- 23- Forest Heights MS 24- 25- Cloverdale MS, Hall 26- n- 28- 29- Central 30- 31-Terry 32- 33- 34- Mabelvale MS, JA Fair 35- Cloverdale, Otter Creek 36- McClellan, Pulaski HeightsMS, Mabelvale 37- Meadowcliff 38- Dunbar, Watson 39- Chicot 40- Forest Park, Wakefield 41- Wilson, 42- Woodruff, Geyer Springs 43- Brady, Fulbright 44- Parkview 45- Southwest, Badgett 46- Mann, King 47- Carver, Jefferson, McDermott 48- '49- Franklin 50- Garland, Washington -51-Mitchell 52- -53- Williams 54- 55- Western Hills, Romine 56- Henderson 57- Baseline, Booker./' 58- Bale, -59- Rightsell 60- Fair Park, 61- Pulaski Heights - 62- Gibbs 63- 64- ' 65- Rockefeller 66- 67- 69- DoddEquitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 High Schools Central Hall JA Fair McClellan Parkview Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 3 1 6 5 4 2 4 3 4 5 1999-00 1 1 4 5 4 2 3 1 2 6 1998-99 6 5 8 5 3 4 5 3 3 5 1999-00 3 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 3 4 1998-99 5 5 7 5 4 6 5 3 5 4 1999-00 4 2 6 4 2 6 4 2 2 2 1998-99 5 4 5 4 4 3 8 5 4 4 1999-00 2 1 1 3 1 4 8 1 3 6 1998-99 5 4 7 6 5 4 2 6 3 5 1999-00 3 1 6 1 4 5 6 7 3 2 Total 37 29 47 25 49 34 46 36 47 44 DRAFT COPY 2/7/00 1Middle Schools Dunbar Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 4 3 5 1999-00 5 2 5 1998-99 6 5 4 1999-00 5 3 1 1998-99 5 4 3 1999-00 5 2 1 1998-99 6 5 6 1999-00 8 7 8 1998-99 5 4 5 1999-00 8 6 8 Total DRAFT COPY 4 3 2 4 5 4 2 36 3 2 4 2 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 4 4 3 4 1 5 6 5 3 3 3 1 6 7 4 4 5 4 2 3 3 2 3 6 5 2 2 2 3 6 3 6 5 3 4 3 2 5 8 7 4 5 38 40 23 39 36 42 45 44 56 2/7/00 2Equitable Allocation Worksheet\nIndividual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Middle Schools Cloverdale Mabelvale Mann Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 5 4 5 3 1 4 4 1 1 2 1999-00 5 2 3 2 1 4 3 1 2 2 1998-99 6 5 4 3 4 6 5 3 4 5 1999-00 7 5 4 3 2 5 4 1 1 2 1998-99 5 3 5 5 4 2 4 7 1 4 1999-00 4 2 5 6 5 2 4 8 3 1 Total 36 25 45 34 46 46 DRAFT COPY 2/7/00 3Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores ton Wi 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 5 6 3 1999-00 4 6 3 1998-99 5 6 3 1999-00 7 7 2 1998-99 5 5 6 1999-00 6 7 8 1998-99 5 4 4 1999-00 8 5 6 Brady 1998-99 4 4 3 1999-00 5 5 2 5 3 8 2 4 3 2 41 1 5 8 2 4 4 2 45 6 2 6 6 5 5 6 50 1 8 6 7 5 4 5 6 1 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 1 5 1 5 5 5 2 5 6 5 2 5 4 1 7 8 6 7 7 5 5 6 4 4 6 5 7 4 6 4 3 2 58 50 57 43 57 48 43 2/7/00 4Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Carver Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 5 4 4 1999-00 5 5 3 1998-99 4 5 4 Chicot 1999-00 1 4 3 Cloverdale 1998-99 2 2 1 1999-00 3 4 1 Dodd 1998-99 6 6 8 1999-00 8 8 8 Fair Park 1998-99 5 5 4 1999-00 6 7 5 4 5 3 4 6 8 2 45 3 6 1 7 1 8 2 47 4 5 3 8 5 4 5 47 4 4 2 8 6 3 4 39 5 5 3 5 4 2 2 31 2/7/00 3 8 3 5 4 2 2 35 5 9 8 4 4 5 2 57 4 8 8 6 5. 6 8 6 3 6 1 5 4 8 8 8 1 6 5 6 69 44 60 5Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Forest Park Franklin Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 3 3 2 1999-00 4 4 1 1998-99 1 1 6 1999-00 7 8 6 Fulbright 1998-99 4 4 5 1999-00 2 4 7 Garland 1998-99 6 7 5 1999-00 6 8 6 Geyer Springs 1998-99 4 5 5 1999-00 1 5 4 4 6 4 4 3 6 7 42 2 1 5 4 3 8 8 40 2 6 4 6 6 4 6 54 1 5 2 1 6 4 3 49 5 6 4 3 4 6 4 6 1 3 2 3 1 8 1 3 6 4 6 4 4 1 3 7 3 7 4 5 6 3 5 5 5 6 5 7 1 5 5 5 5 4 45 43 46 50 49 42 2/7/00 6Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 6 6 4 4 1 6 7 8 8 4 1999-00 8 7 5 6 4 6 8 8 8 2 1998-99 2 2 5 1 5 3 4 4 5 4 1999-00 3 3 3 8 5 4 6 3 8 4 1998-99 3 5 4 4 5 1 1 4 6 3 1999-00 6 6 4 4 1 1 1 4 6 1 1998-99 4 4 5 1 6 4 6 5 1 5 1999-00 3 5 7 1 4 3 5 3 1 4 1998-99 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 5 7 1999-00 2 3 4 5 8 4 2 4 8 7 Total 60 62 41 47 36 46 41 36 39 47 DRAFT COPY 2/7/00 7Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 3 4 4 1999-00 2 4 7 1998-99 8 8 6 1999-00 7 8 1 1998-99 1 3 4 1999-00 1 1 2 1998-99 1 1 5 1999-00 2 4 8 1998-99 7 6 6 1999-00 6 7 6 6 4 5 2 4 3 6 41 4 6 7 1 2 2 2 37 2 1 1 5 7 4 8 56 1 2 8 3 8 5 2 6 7 5 3 4 6 6 6 6 4 2 2 6 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 8 8 6 7 3 1 8 4 4 6 6 6 7 8 1 3 7 1 1 1 2 51 45 35 39 61 60 59 2/7/00 8Equitable Allocation Worksheet\nIndividual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Rockefeller Romine Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil Total DRAFT COPY 1998-99 8 8 6 1999-00 8 8 7 1998-99 6 6 5 1999-00 7 6 5 Terry 1998-99 3 3 3 1999-00 1 1 1 Wakefield 1998-99 3 4 3 1999-00 3 3 2 Washington 1998-99 5 6 5 1999-00 7 8 8 3 3 4 7 8 6 6 59 2 1 3 8 8 8 6 65 4 4 5 4 6 6 6 52 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 55 3 6 3 3 3 5 2 34 2/7/00 2 7 2 2 2 7 6 31 8 5 5 2 3 3 6 8 6 5 1 4 1 1 3 6 1 4 5 4 4 2 6 1 6 5 2 42 40 43 50 9Equitable Allocation Worksheet: Individual and Total Scores 98 V. 99 Elementary Schools Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Teacher/Pupil ratio Staff/Pupil ratio Square feet per pupil Percent of staff with masters, plus, nine years of experience Percent of new teachers School size Computer/pupil ratio Per pupil expenditure Volunteer hours per pupil Donations per pupil 1998-99 4 3 4 4 4 4 6 5 4 5 1999-00 2 2 4 5 4 3 8 4 2 4 1998-99 3 3 1 5 8 6 6 4 5 2 1999-00 1 3 7 1 8 7 6 3 5 8 1998-99 5 5 3 6 5 4 5 6 6 2 1999-00 4 3 2 8 7 2 4 8 1 8 1998-99 5 5 4 8 1 5 5 4 2 5 1999-00 4 5 3 8 5 5 6 2 1 2 1998-99 5 6 5 3 2 6 3 5 4 2 1999-00 6 6 5 1 4 7 1 6 4 2 Total DRAFT COPY 43 38 43 55 47 2/7/00 53 50 41 41 42 10Composite School Scores (1998-99) 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- 30- 31- Cloverdale 32- 33- 34- Terry 35- 36- Dunbar, Cloverdale MS, King 37- Central 38- 39- Pulaski Heights MS, McDermott, Pulaski Heights 40- Forest Heights MS 41- Badgett, Jefferson, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Woodruff 42- Southwest, Forest Park, Wakefield 43- Booker, Washington, Watson, Western Hills 44- Henderson, Fair Park 45- Mabelvale MS, Carver, Fulbright, Otter Creek 46- McClellan, Maim, Garland 47- Hall, Parkview, Chicot, Williams 48- Brady 49- JA Fair, Geyer Springs 50- Bale, Baseline, Wilson 51- 52- Romine 53- 54- Franklin 55- 56- Mitchell 57- Dodd 58- 59- Rockefeller 60- Gibbs, Rightsell DRAFT 2/7/00 Composite School Scores (1999-00) 11- 23- Forest Heights MS 24- 25- Cloverdale MS, Hall 26- 27- 28- 29- Central 30- 31- Terry 32- 33- 34- Mabelvale MS, JA Fair 35- Cloverdale, Otter Creek 36- McClellan, Pulaski HeightsMS, Mabelvale 37- Meadowcliff 38- Dunbar, Watson 39- Chicot 40- Forest Park, Wakefield 41- Wilson, 42- Woodruff, Geyer Springs 43- Brady, Fulbright ' 44- Parkview 45- Southwest, Badgett 46- Mann, King 47- Carver, Jefferson, McDermott 48- 49- Franklin 50- Garland, Washington 51-Mitchell 52- 53- Williams 54- 55- Western Hills, Romine 56- Henderson 57- Baseline, Booker 58- Bale, 59- Rightsell 60- Fair Park, 61- Pulaski Heights 62- Gibbs 63- 64- 65- Rockefeller 66- 67- 69- Doddt * S U.' I (Friryy \u0026gt;----- te' ^Tpi^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 8, 1999 TO\nBoard of Directors FROM: Brady Gadberry, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Administrative Services THROUGH: Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Equitable Allocation of Resources The attached documents are presented for e Boards review. No action is required. The first document is a copy of the administrative regulations that were developed to ensure on going compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan requirement concerning the equitable allocation of resources. The second document is a copy of the court filing the district made as a status report in compliance with Revised Desegregation and Education Plan requirements. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCBA-R EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the financial, technical, and educational resources of the District are distributed in a fair and equitable manner. A committee comprised of the associate superintendents, the Special Assistant to the Superintendent, the Manager of Financial Services, and a District research specialist in compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Plan) will develop and implement a process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. Members of the staff of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and representatives of the Joshua Intervenors will be invited to assist in the performance of the committees responsibilities. The allocation of resources does not have to be equal. It is probable that there could never be a totally equal distribution. The basis of the allocations must be equitable. The committee will determine which resources should be included in the factors being assessed for equity. Those factors will be analyzed and compared by school to establish District norms and possible standards or parameters to guide in the distribution of those resources. As part of its analysis the committee will determine whether a relationship exists between the resources allocated and the percentage of African-American students attending the schools. If the committee determines that the allocations are outside the acceptable parameters The that it has set, it shall determine what possible remedies are appropriate, implementation of those remedies will be the responsibility of the associate superintendent for the identified division. If budget or policy changes are required to implement appropriate remedies, the Superintendent of Schools will be notified so that action by the Board of Education can be initiated. The committee will serve an oversight function and ensure the following components are in place to assure equitable treatment\n1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\n2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent and the responsible officials\n3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees\n4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n5. Utilization of a reporting system whereby students, patrons, and employees can report complaints or noncompliance without fear of retribution:6. 7. 8. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continuing) NEPNCODE\nGCBA-R Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through disciplinary mechanisms when appropriate, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand, After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. Annual review of the compliance program for necessary revisions. 2IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT* EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS , - WESTERN DIVISION   I. little rock school district PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS REPORT OF LRSDS ASSESSMENT OF THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Report of LRSDs Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. LRSDs 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 I assessment within 180 days of the district courts 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, LRSDs 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 represenutives of the OfBce of DesegregationMonitoring (ODM).* 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 re\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":"tmll_hpcrc_68727316","title":"Focus on affirmative action","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Minnesota Advisory Committee"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Minnesota, 46.25024, -94.25055"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","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":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights--Minnesota","Affirmative action programs--Minnesota"],"dcterms_title":["Focus on affirmative action"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12af29z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_68727316"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["viii, 42 p. : ill. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_447","title":"Glossary","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":["1998/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["Glossary"],"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/447"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF y. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAY 2 2004 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. In response to the Courts Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of Acronyms and Educational Terms. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2CL1-J-------- BYk Christopher Helh Page 1 of 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 May 24, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3' Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher Heller Page 2 of 2GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND EDUCATIONAL TERMS Below are identifications and/or definitions of acronyms and other educational terms that appear in exhibits. While most of the acronyms and terms are generically defined and equally applicable to most school districts in Arkansas, many are defined specifically in relation to the Little Rock School District. ACSIP (Arkansas Comprehensive School Reform Improvement Plan) - Plan required by State which specifically sets steps for school improvement AFRAMER (African-American) ALP (Alternative Language Program) - Another name for ESL ALT (Achievement Level Tests) - Tests the LRSD developed, with the assistance of a commercial testing firm, for the purpose of measuring student achievement growth within a school year. The test items were selected from a menu in the test firm's item bank, so all the questions had been used numerous times in schools across the country. Students in grades 3-11 took these tests in the fall and spring of each year. The LRSD discontinued the ALTS in September 2002. ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) ANOVA (Analysis of variance) - Statistical test with one outcome AP (Advanced Placement) - High-level courses with curriculum developed by College Board which allows students to test for earned college-level credit while in high school. AR (Accelerated Reader) - A program based on the premise that students become more motivated to read if they are tested on the content of the books they have read and are rewarded for conect answers. Students read books at predetermined levels of difficulty, individually take a test on a computer, and receive some form of reward when they score well. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) - Amount of improvement in proficiency required each year to reach total proficiency under NCLB (2013). Benchmark Examination - One of the criterion-referenced examinations implemented by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for all Arkansas public schools in the 4th, 6th, Sth, and 11th grades and in selected high school courses. The tests are based on the state's curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Test results are categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. BL (Balanced Literacy) - An approach to literacy instruction that focuses on providing instruction that addresses students individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areasreading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking.CAP (Concepts about Print) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses childrens knowledge of book concepts. CAT (Collaborative Action Team) - A process designed to increase stakeholders involvement in schools. CBL (Calculator-based Laboratories) - Probes used to collect data for classrooms. CLT (Campus Leadership Teams) - A term used to refer to school-based leadership committees CMP (Connected Mathematics Project) - Mathematics curriculum resource used in Grades 6- 8 in Little Rock School District CREP (Center for Research in Educational Policy) - This is an organization based at the University of Memphis that conducts program evaluations for educational organizations. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. John Nunnery are two researchers for CREP. CRT (Criterion Referenced Tests) - Tests that LRSD curriculum specialists, teachers, and other staff developed using the state's curriculum frameworks and the district's curriculum to guide item development. CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) - A whole school reform model DI (Direct Instruction) - A reading program that uses very explicit instructional language and follows a highly prescriptive program of instruction that is implemented according to a predetermined scope and sequence of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) - This is a system utilizing a variety of assessments to monitor a childs progress in developing specific literacy skills which have predictive value for future reading achievement. The assessments include, but are not limited to, letter identification, phoneme segmentation, and oral reading fluency. DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) - The second of two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty as the child's reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills, including comprehension. DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) - An assessment to monitor student progress along a spelling developmental continuum ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - A statewide three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. ELLA helps enhance teachers' understanding of how students learn to read and encourages them to use a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. EOC (End-of-course exam) - State-developed criterion-referenced tests implemented in Arkansas schools as part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (AT AAP). Currently, end-of-course exams are administered only in Algebra I and geometry. EXPLORE  An American College Testing (ACT) program designed to help Sth and 9th graders examine a broad range of options for their future. EXPLORE helps prepare students for their high school course work as well as their post-high school choices. ESL (English as a Second Language) - Refers to students for whom English is not their native language EYE (Extended Year Education) - Applies to schools with atypical school calendars without a long summer break. FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) - students who are released from ESL program due to proficiency in English GT (Gifted and Talented) HBE (Home-based Educators) - employees of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) - A parent-involvement readiness program for young children The program, which has been operating in the United States since 1984, offers home-based early childhood education for three-year-old children, working with their parent(s) as their first teacher. The HIPPY program provides parents with carefully developed materials, curriculum, and books designed to strengthen their children's early literacy skills and their social, emotional, and physical development. HLM (Hierarchical Linear Model) HSCP (Home, School, and Community Partnership) - A precursor to the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) HSTW (High Schools That Work) - A school-wide reform model for high schools that is based on the key practices of successful high schools IRC (Instructional Resource Center) - Offices of cuniculum staff for LRSD. ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) - Norm-referenced assessment currently used by LRSD replacing Stanford Achievement TestJR TEAMS (Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science)  A two week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. LEP (Limited English Proficient) - Identifies students not proficient in English LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) LPTQ - Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire MANOVA (Multiple Analysis of Variance) - Statistical tests with multiple outcomes MSS - (Middle School Survey) - A survey completed by teachers and students on the implementation of the middle school model. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students) NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) - A type of standard score, NCE scores are normalized standard scores on an equal interval scale from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50. The NCE was developed by RMC Research Corporation in 1976 to measure the effectiveness of the Title I Program across the United States. An NCE gain of 0 means that the Title I Program produced only an average gain or the expected gain if there was no Title I Program. (Students must answer more items conectly on the posttest than on the pretest in order to maintain the same NCE.) All NCE gains greater than 0 are considered positive. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Federal legislature requiring vast assessment and increased standards for American public schools NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - An organization of math teachers and specialists that has provided the standards for K-12 mathematics NPR (National Percentile Rank) - National percentile ranks indicate the relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade in the norm (reference) groups (in this case, the nation) who took the test at a comparable time. Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance for the grade. The percentile rank conesponding to a given score indicates the percentage of students in the same grade in the norm group obtaining scores equal to or less than that score. For example, a student earning a percentile rank of 62 achieved a score that was equal to or better than the scores earned by 62% of the students in the national sample. NSES (National Science Education Standards) - The standards established for K-12 science educationNSF (National Science Foundation) - A government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and to fund research. The LRSD received funds from NSF through a multiyear grant to improve mathematics and science instruction and achievement, naming the program Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). Grant funding ended August 31, 2003.' NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) - A company that developed the Achievement Level Tests OTE (Onward to Excellence) - A whole school restructuring model PD (Professional Development) - Term used to describe the training provided to teachers to enhance their instructional or classroom management skills. PHLOTE (Primary Home Language other than English) PLAN - An American College Testing (ACT) guidance resource for 10th graders. PLAN helps students measure their current academic development, explore career or training options, and make plans for the remaining years of high school and post-graduation years. As a pre-ACT test, PLAN is a good predictor of success on the ACT. Typically, PLAN is administered in the fall of the sophomore year. PRE (Planning, Research, and Evaluation) - A department of the Little Rock School District Pre-AP (Pre-Advanced Placement) - Courses designed for middle school and high school to prepare students for success in Advanced Placement level courses. Pre-K-3 (Pre-kindergarten through Grade) RIT (Rausch Unit) - a type of scaled score. RR (Reading Recovery) - An intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand and used in this country for many years. The program is based on helping children with poor reading readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) - A personalized plan required by State for lower-achieving students on ACTAAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9tb Edition) - A general education test used widely across the United States. It compares a student's performance on the test to a representative national norm group of students. For many years, the publisher of SAT-9 has had a contract with the ADE to provide tests to all students in the state's public schools in grades five, seven, and ten. The results are widely reported for every school district in the state, and each district receives data in varying formats to allow analysis of student performance by school, class, gender, race, or wealth.(Beginning in the 2003-04 school year, the state will require a similar nationally-normed test, the Iowa Tests, rather than the SAT.) SEDL (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDL works with educators, parents, commimity members, and policymakers in the southwestern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. SEM (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics) SFA (Success for All) - A school-based achievement-oriented program for disadvantaged students in pre-K through grade five. The program is designed to prevent or intervene in the development of learning problems in the early years by effectively organizing instructional and family support resources within the regular classroom. Specifically, the goal of Success for All is to ensure that virtually every student in a high-poverty school will finish the 3rd grade with grade-level reading skills. SLET (Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team) SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) - This is a two-week halfday summer program for rising 8**' and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra I during the upcoming school year. SMART provides opportunity for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed in Algebra I. SpEd - Special Education SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Atlanta, GA SREB works with schools, educators and policymakers in the southern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. One school-wide reform model, developed and sustained by SREB, is High School That Work (HSTW). SS (Scaled Score) - A type of standard score. Scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of the questions and the number of correct responses. Scaled scores are useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. All norm referenced scores are derived from the Scaled Score. Standard Score - Standard scores are a universally understood score system. Standard scores are used to place raw scores in context. For example, a raw score on a test doesnt mean much because it isn't compared to anyone or not compared to any scale. Standard scores offer two advantages to the student over conventional \"raw scores.\"  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvementTAP (Teacher Advancement Program) - A strategy to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talented people to the teaching profession by rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. THRIVE - (Project THRIVE, a follow-up component to SMART) - This is a Saturday academy for students who are enrolled in Algebra I. Students participate in ten (10) Saturday sessions during the school year. Two primary goals of Project THRIVE are 1) to strengthen mathematical skills required to be successful in Algebra I, and 2) to prepare students for the State End-of-Course examination in Algebra I. URM (Underrepresented Minority Populations) - Includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African-American, and Hispanic or Latino. VOC - (Writing vocabulary) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which WRAT (Wide Range Achievement Test) Z-scores - A test score that is converted to a common scale wherein scores from sets of data with different units can be compared.bnurt Rctc.'ul no if4-t'cn tn O 1 Sec. s dunt 3^ I3'?'i pizjis 43 TERMINOLOGY Some terms used in this report are specific to the field of personnel services (such as relevant labor market). Other terms we use may be familiar to the general public (teacher, for example), bitt have specialized meanings in the context of human resources or the operations of an individual school district. Below we have alphabetized and defined several terms that are frequently used in this report. We drew the definitions from interviews with PCSSD personnel administrators, the district's Professional Negotiations Agreement 1997-2000, and publications of the Society for Human Resource Management. .Building administrators: Certified employees who have supervisory or evaluative responsibility and who are assigned full time to schools. Principals and assistant principals are the two positions in this category. Central office administrators: Administrators who have districtwide rather than building-specific responsibilities. These include the superintendent, assistant superintendents, directors, supervisors, and coordinators. Support staff (secretaries, clerks, etc.) who work at the central office are not counted as part of the central administration in this report. Certified staff: Individuals holding positions that require valid Arkansas teaching certification as a condition of employment. At the building level, certified staff includes administrators, teachers, counselors, and various specialists. Full-Time Equivalency (FTE): A method of calculating and recording the amount of time for which an employee is assigned to a certain position. The PCSSD expresses positions in terms of FTEs when determining staffing requirements for each school. For example, in a secondary school, a full-time teacher is counted as 1.00 FTE if he or she teaches six periods a day and also has a preparation period. If another teacher at the same school teaches three periods a day and has one preparation, he or she is counted as working 4/7 time, or .57 FTE (4 assigned periods divided by 7 possible periods equals the FTE). Unless otherwise noted, we have reported positions in the PCSSD by full-time equivalency. Relevant labor market: The number of individuals who have a specific type of training or certification and who are located within a specified geographic area from which a potential employer might recruit. Special needs positions: Certain certified positions, designated by PCSSD, in which blacks have historically been under-represented, such as math and science teachers. Teacher: Any certified person employed by the district in an instructional position who has no evaluative or supervisory responsibility over other certified instructional personnel. Page 4GLOSSARY The extracurricular activities we examined in this report are defined below. Some explanations include not only the activitys function in the PCSSD, but also relevant background information. Athletics are competitive interscholastic team sports. All PCSSD high schools have boys teams in baseball, basketball, football, and track and girls teams for basketball, track, and volleyball. With the exception of baseball, the districts junior high schools provide all of the same team sports as do the high schools. Some individual schools sponsor teams in such sports as golf, swimming, cross country, and tennis, but not all PCSSD schools offer these sports to students. The interscholastic sports program in the PCSSD operates under the auspices of the Arkansas Activities Association (AAA), which establishes and enforces rules and regulations for athletic competition in the state. Arkansas high schools compete with each other within classifications assigned by the AAA based on enrollment. For example, within the PCSSD, Jacksonville, Mills, and Sylvan Hills compete against the states other large high schools in class 5 A. North Pulaski High School is a 4A school, and Oak Grove and Robinson compete at the 3A level. Spirit teams incorporate both cheerleaders and drill or dance teams. All PCSSD secondary schools sponsor both cheerleading and drill teams. Cheerleaders are a team of students who elicit and direct organized cheering in support of school athletic teams and other activities. According to the book Cheer! Fight! Win!, cheerleaders select yells to rally crowd support or to signify success at various times during a game or contest. They help to interpret the progress of the game to the crowd and elicit responses from the crowd that will benefit the team. Unlike cheerleading, the drill team is not directly involved in the ongoing events of a game or contest. Drill teams perform lengthy, set routines to music. The team performance is visual and requires the full attention of the audience to be appreciated. Drill team performances are usually presented as part of halftime entertainment. The term drill team is actually a misnomer in many high schools. Traditionally, drill team choreography was based on precision marching and repetition, like that of the well-known Kilgore Rangerettes ofKilgore, Texas. Because their performances consist of high- energy dance routines set to popular music rather than precision marching, modern drill teams can be more aptly called dance teams, a designation that is becoming common throughout the country, as it is in the PCSSD. During the last two decades, the worldwide performance standards of cheerleading and drill team have changed significantly with the growth of camps, clinics, and competitions. Increasingly, the general public has begun to recognize cheerleading as an athletic activity as skill levels have increased in areas such as gymnastics, pyramids, and advanced jumps. Colleges and universities frequently offer Report. ' The PCSSD began using the term dance team instead of drill team in its 1998-99 Non-Athletic Activities Page 7 particularly talented high school cheerleaders and drill team members scholarships, tuition reductions, grants for textbook purchase, or course credit to attend their institutions. Like the districts athletic teams, PCSSD spirit teams operate under AAA regulations regarding eligibility, conduct, and competition. The Arkansas Cheerleading Coaches Association (ACCA) and the Arkansas Drill/Dance Team Association (ADTA), sub-groups of the AAA, disseminate spirit team information to member schools, coordinate skill development and safety clinics, and sponsor regional and state competitions. Along with the sports teams, Arkansas high school cheerleading and drill teams compete for state championships in classifications based on school enrollment PCSSD schools have proved formidable in recent state competition. The Sylvan Hills High School cheerleading squad won the 1999 Class 5 A state championship and the Jacksonville High School cheerleaders placed third in Class 5A. Non-athletic activities that we examined consist of Beta Club, National Honor Society, and student government. Beta Club and National Honor Society serve the purpose of recognizing and promoting academic excellence. These organizations generally invite students to join based on prerequisites such as a certain grade point average, teacher recommendations, and a record of leadership in the school. Student government is a body of student-elected representatives who exercise leadership in varied school affairs. Beta Club The National Beta Club was founded in 1934 by a group of U.S. educators who wanted to recognize and encourage academic achievement, leadership, character development, and community service among high school students. In 1961, the National Beta Club developed the National Junior Beta Club to foster the same type of growth in younger children. Schools that include any of grades 5 throughl2 are eligible to apply for a chapter of the National Beta Club. The Beta Club provides members with opportunities to develop leadership skills through the Broyhill Leadership Conference, the Harris Leadership Program, and the annual state Beta conferences. The national Beta organization strongly encourages local chapters to exemplify the clubs motto, Let Us Lead By Serving, through undertaking service projects in their schools and local communities. Beta Club members pay a one-time membership fee. All Beta club members must be performing at or above grade level and meet the grade requirements set by the local chapter. The national organization does not establish a specific academic requirement for membership, because systems of grading vary in different schools. Among the PCSSD junior highs. Fuller, Jacksonville-South, Jacksonville-North, and Robinson have maintained chapters of Beta Club during the period of time examined in this report. With the exception ofNorth Pulaski, all of the PCSSD high schools have sponsored Beta Club chapters during the same period. Page 8National Honor Society In 1919, a principal in Omaha, Nebraska proposed the idea of an organization committed to placing the regular and faithful performances of academic work in its proper place in the estimation of the student body. Based on his vision, in 1921 the first chapter of the National Honor Society (NHS) was formed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Now more than 30,000 chapters of NHS are active in both public and private schools across the United States, recognizing and honoring the importance of outstanding scholarship by both junior high and high school students. The national organization requires all NHS chapters to perform a service project for the school or community. In addition, each member must develop an individual service project. According to the national NHS constitution, membership selection is based on four criteria: scholarship, leadership, service, and character. To fulfill the scholarship requirement, students must have a cumulative grade point average of 85%, B, 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale), or the equivalent standard of excellence. That scholastic requirement is the minimum scholastic average. An individual school chapter may raise the scholarship average needed to be eligible for membership at that school. Eligible students are selected for NHS by a vote of the school faculty council based on the four criteria. The faculty council develops working definitions of those criteria and provides some objective measure of a students qualifications in each of the areas. Fuller, Northwood, and Sylvan Hills are the PCSSD junior high schools with NHS chapters. All PCSSD high schools have an NHS chapter. Student Government Often called student council, this school organization provides an avenue for students to develop leadership skills and gain a better understanding of basic democratic principles and processes. Student councils serve as an outlet for students to express their opinions, concerns, and ideas regarding the life of the school. Through student councils, students may become involved in planning and coordinating a wide range of activities, from school dances and special assemblies to community projects such as a canned food drive. More than 18,000 secondary school student councils in the United States are members of the National Association of Student Councils (NASC), which was founded in 1931 to nurture the development of student councils and student leadership programs and to provide support and technical assistance to member schools. The structure and size of student government may differ from school to school, but generally the main body of the student council is comprised of student-elected representatives who are elected at-large, by classes or grade level (e.g., sophomore, junior, senior), or by homerooms. The organization is usually led by an executive board consisting of a president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer who are elected by the entire student body. The NASC does not establish standards for student council officers or representatives. Each student council establishes its own constitution that describes the qualifications for all elected offices and outlines the electoral process. All junior and senior high schools in the PCSSD have student councils. Page 9Acronyms and Terminology ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc ), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmark Exams - are the ACTAAP tests. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example: In grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. CRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE.CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools\nMabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world.lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not born in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. Pathwise - is the name of the states training program for first year teachers. It is based on the standards the state uses for teacher licensing.PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5, 7, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it correctly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math.Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8. TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement. VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children learn to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.Revised 12-7-01 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff, parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc.), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmark Exams - the ACTAAP tests including tests of literacy and math at the fourth, sixth, and eighth grade plus literacy at the eleventh grade and end of course exams in algebra and geometry. They are based on the states curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example: In grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. I jCRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE. CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools: Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world.lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not bom in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. Pathwise - is the name of the states training program for first year teachers. It is based on the standards the state uses for teacher licensing. PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. 1PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed inNew Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5,1, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it correctly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math. Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8.TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement. VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children learn to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.Acronyms and Terminology ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Process) - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff, parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc.), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example\nIn grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. CRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE.CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools: Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world. lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not bom in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5, 7, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it conectly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math. Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8. TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement.VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children leam to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.\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":"aru_unequal_1326","title":"Lambda, Arkansas Activists Challenge State Sodomy Ban","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998-01"],"dcterms_description":["Lambda Legal Defense Fund announces lawsuit challenging Arkansas' ban on sodomy, 1998.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Civil Rights -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Little Rock"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Lambda, Arkansas Activists Challenge State Sodomy Ban"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1326"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aru_unequal_1325","title":"Lambda, Arkansas Activists Challenge State Sodomy Ban","collection_id":"aru_unequal","collection_title":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998-01"],"dcterms_description":["Lambda Legal Defense Fund announces lawsuit challenging Arkansas' ban on sodomy, 1998.","Gays and Lesbians -- Homosexuality -- Civil Rights -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Little Rock"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas","Race discrimination--Arkansas","Segregation--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Lambda, Arkansas Activists Challenge State Sodomy Ban"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1325"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1138","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/1999"],"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","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1138"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMagnet Review Co1111nittee 1900 North Main Street  Su ite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director  ,,{,,, ,,._,p.4 - (50 11 753 -0156 December 1, 1998 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was est Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes i schools, as well as recruitment for the six original maI rr,agnet s,,d1Qols. The Magnet Review Committee is al fli=fo-M transfer students between Little Rock School [ School District and is allocateq an annual budget of$ three districts contriouting $25,000 each fiscal year, \\/\\ the ADE. \\_l:!l-1 ..,0hu1\"\"? h'/ \u0026lt;- ..nl, ,(c -\np\u0026lt;J \u0026lt;1--f- ~A~~ rlt{JJ. Ct1~c c~u ~L ~ c__ lh1-P-J-\u0026lt;.d vl~t_ tr 1) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this S 150,000 budget. ,/.,\u0026lt; \" 2) Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved (Jr  .'~- (_, by the MRC on August 6, 1998.  _,\\kl r 1 , '\\~ I 3) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the )o ,.,1 J k i\nr- \\. initial allocation. o.:t of:,( ~ 4) Increases in cost of services has caused us to predict a deficit spending or a ~J--} Y. -1J reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. \\--\n, t ''~( ~J~\nqi~1\nd' 5) The MRC, by formal motion and vote, approved the increase at its ':,\"' ~ , \u0026lt;''\nJ' _:\n, . \\\"'.... October 22, 1998 meeting. I'-- \"' r\n., ~ ~ ,. O'- 0\\ / ' .i\\ We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount allocated. For your ~ c, review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. ',, At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increase :r-om- 000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share b $~33.33-- 0 to $30,833.33) a,J.JM, .......... ~,e the State's MRC budget contribution , 00 ($75,000, plus dcitt-io1r7,,5I0 0). he $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted a n or the Magnet Review Committee. t ~ '\n,- \\ {'( /\\ 1\\.-.\u0026lt;- ~ I',\u0026gt; \\_.~ 1P Ov ..,\\' '?J' '- e\u0026gt; ,J,,u-J .,J \\..'~ \\ t , - _..\\, l\\C. 1 .Jg (, ., f ,\"'v\\Q ~ ~ \\ 0\\\" tie ~ \\\\ ,,,\u0026lt; \"'7 , .. 1lt\"\"' r t.,JY' 0~..1. .,...-7).:, '  :.\\-\"-t.l\u0026lt;r \" X-,,-. \\j:)\\ ~('I .. \u0026lt;'~\\\\J \\ ~'I t't r'j .,- V- ~.! (.,,... ti/ tr\u0026gt;~ J.. \\\\ ... --J~ ~ , D' I'\\ o\u0026lt; \\ic' I ,~, \\ .,, ,..l -,- \\ ~, \\\\\"\" i- \" \"\\ '-- - \u0026lt;\u0026gt;J' I \\\" (2 I 1 Q \\ I ~\\--,..- ~ Magnet Review Co1111nittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 1, 1998 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court DEC 1 1998 Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 OfflCE OF DESEGRESAT!ON MONITORING (501) 753-0150 1 ,\n(\\~~i I Dear Judge Wright: ,  \\ '7 '1, r\" \\A,l As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in Jul'l.J:-~ ~ .-'\\ Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged--wifnthe responsibility of ,,,, monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet / \"\nschools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict i\" tY: rr:iagnet scb.g.oJs. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of 0 ., tr fl:.:fo-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special ~-rY l School District and is allocat~_g. an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the \\'i l\" three districts contriouting $25,000 each fiscal year, with the remaining $75,000 coming fr om,.,\\~~7\\i'~ . the ADE. \\_B'/ wh~11,7  /4' b .1,,,v' t- ,. o' L,, l) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this S 150,000 budget. , ~J~ 1 v'c~ / 2) Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved C} (1'-' t?...,.~ by the MRC on August 6, 1998:  -\\~'( r r{ 1 t 3) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the\n\u0026gt;c, 1 c. / ~ i\n,i'-:\ninitial allocation . .. or~JoJ,{ .n ~ 4) Increases in cost of services has caused us to predict a deficit spending or a ,\nh:?-\n,,\\-,.1  .v o' /. :.Y reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. t\u0026gt; ~\n:\u0026gt;'\n1:\n~.:-J\nqi~1\n 5) The MRC, by formal motion and vote, approved the increase at its '\n.,\"' t--~ !\"ii , (\\ J ~:\n \\t--c..... October 22, 1998 meeting. ,,f ,-\n, ,,.,_ 0 -- ~ ~o'- o\\\" \" \u0026lt;',,~ (} We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount allocated. For your i :\n,\nreview, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. - l. t\" .-:,\u0026lt;- At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increase~em-$-l-SQ,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share b'f-:l._~33 .33 Oto $30,833.33) a e the State's MRC budget contribution ~, 00 ($75,000, plus deiHo- 1~7,5I0 0). he $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted a n or the Magnet Review Committee. i L,, '\n. h~~ .\\:1--... ~ r-.\"\n--J_A 1 ? ..,\\ \\\\c:_./ ri')_-, (, \"l -i7~0 (--- .,., \\ f I ,rl'/ '' ,,,0 -A fl' ~ \" ~  ~.,) ti...., t:. ..i.1-~\"' ,,~ :+() , . :)'-,...~ ~('vr,.. . \\1-:,_\"r~-1~ . tf N~\\ re! ~~'(.,,,.. 1il~J\u0026lt;..: u--? :.. \\\\\\'-- f ~ . ,.9' f'i''\" o\u0026lt; \\ r-/'\u0026amp; ~\\ ~ ,, t' \\ ~ \\\\ --1~  \\'\u0026gt;..,i' ?'- \u0026lt;?. 'e  1,7 Q \\~ . ~J\\\\\" ... I / If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~~II. Ch  erson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sml Attachment EXPENDITURES FRINGE BENEFITS Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental 1997-98 ACTUAL 14,173 \"In the approved budget, this figure was _ , ? v input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated '{ ,_. \\ i-' ~ . changes in teacher retirement, insurance, '- t-  \\ ...._..,, t.. 1..! L, etc. The new figure most accurately _.,. r' -\n-- . , . -:\n, \" 1 -' ref/eds the costs for this line item. u--\\-.. 11 C 1 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES Utilization of persons or organizations to provide\nr,ecializeq_ser.vices.Jhis category includes costs 6f the lnterdistrict Magnet S..cbQQJ.s...E'lClluation.Aru:w.olReport, and the month! travel allowance orovided to the xecutive Director oflhe Magnet Review Committee. \"Because of additional professional services required as a result of providing updated recruiting ~oo/s (e.g., bq,churr\ns. ra~ ~ ... etc./ and the website mqstec ad design which re/led changes in magnet schools, including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expeded MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES l l,868 1,532 1998-99 APPROVED 12,800 12,000 1,400 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT  20,900 :/ 1s,ooo , _:.1,soo --------~f1 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, t_tie R~OAes5y~te~ and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. \"Because of contract cost increases since the equipment ls over ten years old, an increase in expenses is ex eded _ _ -__ _ RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1, 188.00 (1,296 square feet) and will remain that amount. 14,256 I 14,256 SAME EXPENDITURES (Continued) TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of 1997-98 ACTUAL 6,012 America Conference and the NCSO 1 '? ~ :'\u0026gt; Conference each year. r~~I~  C)~..,. .x_\\,' ftn order to decrease line items in the - .. c-7 -\ni_c u approVi udget,.l[J!.vel was one item ~\n:Jj' ~~ 1: whic as lowered m iffort to remain tt. ,-r.' within t e , VO total. Now, Donna ' Grady Creer has been e eded MSA President-Elect, this, in turn, will require her to attend Board meetings several times a year. Although some of the cost is borne by the MSA, the amount for travel out of the distrid has been increased to a requested figure as shown. \u0026lt;=_____ - POSTAGE Includes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries, bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. The MRC Office has been using a *butldingowned* FAX machine and paying a *per page rate. A new FAX machine has recently been purchased and expenses are expeded to decrease in the FAX line item. However, the Internet access has been added and the costs will again go up in this catego,y. oil p.f- ~ or- ~I .__, P1 -1 (. ,,, '1- \u0026lt; r 1,575 3,921 Page 2 1998-99 1998-99 APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT ' 3,500 *6,000 2,500 SAME 3,500 *4,000 EXPENDITURES (Continued) ADVERTISING The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to the original interdistrid magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. In recent years, the interdistrid magnets have also looked to the MRC for recruitment assistance. With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transitioa-.Jgking place, a reconfiguration roll advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos'dnd any other materials requiring modtfication is necessary 1997-98 ACTUAL 31,502 Poge 3 1998-99 1998-99 APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT 23,595 *35,000 PRINTING AND BINDING 2,700 1,200 *4,000 This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as a~ation , I ?. forms, are handled by outside agencies. r  J ~r .  Again, this amount has been increased to handle large pro/eds related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,700 I Includes any outside help necessary to finish ,..\n... t\\\"- .It , gjob fgc the. M\"-C Office. This will also incluae v ,-\n, ,\n\", catering services, etc., when necessary. 1  1 Due to increased meeting adivities, Magnet fair expenses, and all other recruitment f undions, this amount has been increased 2,000 f :' . ,., I - *4,000 SUPPLIES Materials nee ssary for the operation of the Mag t Review Committee Office. This is a cootrgolled line item and can be ~ -t held to buagete'a figures. ~~/)-\\ yl \\0 '\n,i f ~ .j--h\"- , I\"'-:\n, ).\".., ,....1--': ~~c..- l ~jO\\..:) PERIODICALS ~Q. o+h~~ Used to purchase media materials of interest to the MRC and its adivities (e.g., Education Week. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Arkansas Times. Magnet Schools of America materials!. Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rate for the MSA Conference in the spring. *The amount requested has been increased slightly in order to expand ./ our subscription access to more education periodicals. CAPITAL OUTLAY This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. 1,217 572 1998-99 APPROVED 1,500 500 500 Page 4 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT SAME *595 *5.000 ,, c-t'i ' J '-'f ,~ ~' I I,,. ' I *With the approved 7998-99 budget in August, .- \\ 1--, .. ~ ~. - ,o the MRC was planning not to make any ma\nor _\\ ::i \\ -r-'\u0026lt; , -st\" 1 ,.:y , { tJ purchases for the office. However, the copy ~i-....( 1 .('\\-::,'\" X\\) ~i-\n( 1 ~' ~ ,,, machine is over ten years old, and the telephone __.,., , ..) ~ l c- r~ SJ! 7 1 system is also. Consequently, some expenses , -::. ~ :\u0026gt;  --\n~ Ii,, are anticipated for this category \\ ' .\\-:)  ,. ,\u0026gt;~' TOTAL BUDGET FIGURES SALARIES 79,251 70 749 .. 150,000 114,251 70 749 185,000 . ,, \\\"\\cl NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year, after final negotiations are I I complet~d, and distrid salary increases are established. At that time, it will be ~ J' - / ermined if, and how much, an increase can be incorporated into the budget. \\ ,.. u' ~,v vt... ~! h ... y 7J'\nf'J')V-l- .,,~ r_ w,./-/v \n0t\u0026gt;- ) l(r-D -=,.- ? .,.-\\h.,. ,,~\\l -~~- u,)1.J4/Y\\. ,R{'r- --.....~.J~\"  /.1.,1\".\\' '\n)\"\"\u0026gt; ' 1(j ./\"if'' ~ 1,10 0(j-\n, Magnet Review Co1nn1ittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December l, 1998 1900 orth Main Street Suite l Ol North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 RECEIVE The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court DEC 1 1998 Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 OlflCEOF DESEGREGATION rroRI Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: 501 758-01 SU As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of M-to-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the three districts contributing $25,000 each fiscal year, with the remaining $75,000 coming from the ADE. l) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this $150,000 budget. 2) Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved by the MRC on August 6, 1998. 3) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the initial allocation. 4) Increases in cost of services has caused us to predict a deficit spending or a reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. 5) The MRC, by formal motion and vote, approved the increase at its October 22, 1998 meeting. We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount allocated. For your review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increased from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.33) and make the State's MRC budget contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. . . . The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- December 1, 1998 If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy lo provide ii. Sincerely, ~~II. Ch  erson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM EXPENDITURES 1997-98 l 998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT FRINGE BENEFITS 14,173 12,800 * 20,900 Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental *In the approved budget, this figure was input at a lower rote, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately ref/eds the costs for this line item. PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES l l ,868 12,000 * 15,000 Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category includes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. *Because of additional professional services required as a result of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g ., brochures, radio/TV ads, etc./ and the website master ad design which reflect changes in magnet schools, including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expected MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES 1,532 1,400 *l,500 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. *Because of contract cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expected RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING 14,256 14,256 SAME Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188.00 (1,296 square feet) and will remain that amount. EXPENDITURES (Continued) TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. *In order to decrease line items in the approved budget, travel was one item which was lowered in an effort to remain within the $150,000 total. Now, Donna Grady Creer has been eleded MSA President-Elect\nthis, in turn, will require her to attend Board meetings several times a year. Although some of the cost is borne by the MSA, the amount for travel out of the dis/rid has been increased to a requested figure as shown. POSTAGE Includes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries, bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. *The MRC Office has been using a *buildingowned' FAX machine and paying a 'per page' rate. A new FAX machine has recently been purchased and expenses are expected to decrease in the FAX line item. However, the Internet access has been added and the costs will again go up in this category Page 2 1997-98 l 998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT 6,012 3,500 *6,000 1,575 2,500 SAME 3,921 3,500 *4,000 EXPENDITURES (Continued) Page 3 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT ADVERTISING 31 ,502 23,595 *35,000 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to the original interdistrict magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. In recent years, the interdistrict magnets have also looked to the MRC for recruitment assistance. *With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING 2,700 1,200 *4,000 This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms, are handled by outside agencies. *Again, this amount has been increased to handle large projects related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,700 2,000 *4,000 Includes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also include catering services, etc., when necessary. *Due to increased meeting activ1Yies, Magnet Fair expenses, and all other recruitment functions, this amount has been increased EXPENDITURES (Continued) Page 4 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT SUPPLIES 1,217 1,500 SAME Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. This is a controlled line item and can be held to budgeted figures. PERIODICALS 572 500 595 Used to purchase media materials of interest to the MRC and its activities (e.g ., Education Week. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Arkansas Times. Magnet Schools of America materials). Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rate for the MSA Conference in the spring. ~The amount requested has been increased slightly in order to expand our subscription access to more education periodicals. CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- 500 *5,000 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. ~with the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any maior purchases for the office. However, the copy machine is over ten years old, and the telephone system is also. Consequently, some expenses are anticipated for this category TOTAL BUDGET FIGURES 79,251 114,251 SALARIES 70 749 70 749 150,000 185,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year, after final negotiations are completed. and district salary increases are established. At that time, it will be determined if, and how much, an increase can be incorporated into the budget.  - I ., Magnet Review Co1111nittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December l, 1998 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court DEC 1 1998 Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON!TORlNG As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, ] 987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet 7-- schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict #'\" t)A-magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of 0 111 _ I' , M-fo-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special .r v School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the -\u0026gt; bl,,,. three districts contriouting $25,000 each fiscal year, with the remaining $75,000 coming from f\n\\J the ADE. , 1 / }. Ir ~ c' l) ct'.., 2) 4) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this S 150,000 budget. Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved by the MRC on August 6, 1998. To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the initial allocation. Increases in cost of services has caused us to predict a deficit spending or a reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. The MRC, by formal motion and vote, approved the increase at its October 22, 1998 meeting. r For your At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increase from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share b $5,833.33 (frorn $25.,000 to $30,833.33) and make the State's MRC budget contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus Hie additional 17,500)/ he $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. fl 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- December l, 1998 If you or the arties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~~II, Ch  erson Magnet Review Committee SM/OGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM EXPENDITURES 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT FRINGE BENEFITS 14,173 12,800  20,900 Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, ~ Health Insurance and Dental *In the approved budget, this figure was input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately ref/eds the costs for this line item. PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES l l ,868 12,000  15,000 Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category includes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. *Because of additional professional services required as a result of providing updated recruiting tools (e.g., br_gg:w[.es, radj,gtJJ(_ ads, etc.) and the website..aJQ~ ad design which reffed changes in magnet schools, 0 including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expeded MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES 1,532 1,400 *l ,500 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and -\\ \u0026amp; )I the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC ~ Office. t J \"- (' ~ 0 ~ :\nt *Because of contract cost increases since I 7 \"' the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expeded RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING 14,256 14,256 SAME Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188.00 (1,296 square feet) and will remain that amount. EXPENDITURES (Continued) TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. *In order to decrease line items in the approved budget, travel was one item which was lowered in an..effort to remain within the $150,000 total Now, Donna Grady Creer has been eleded MSA President-fled\nthis, in turn, will require her to attend Board meetings several times a year. Although some of the cost is borne by the MSA, the amount for travel out of the distrid has been increased to a requested figure as shown. POSTAGE Includes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries, bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. *The MRC Office has been using a 'bu11dingowned' FAX machine and paying a \"per page' rate. A new FAX machine has recently been purchased and expenses are expeded to decrease in the FAX line item. However, the Internet access has been added and the costs will again go up in this category. Page 2 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ACTUAL APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT 6,012 3,500 6,000 1,575 2,500 SAME 3,921 3,500 EXPENDITURES (Continued) ADVERTISING The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to the original interdistrid magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. In recent years, the interdistrid magnets have also looked to the MRC for recruitment assistance. *With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms, are handled by outside agencies. *Again, this amount has been increased to handle large projeds related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES Includes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also include catering services, etc., when necessary. *Due to increased meeting adivities, Magnet fair expenses, and all other recruitment fundions, this amount has been increased 1997-98 ACTUAL 31,502 2,700 3,700 Page 3 1998-99 1998-99 APPROVED REVISED AMOUNT 23,595 *35,000 1,200 *4,000 2,000 *4,000 EXPENDITURES (Continued) SUPPLIES Materials nes ssary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. This is a controlled line item and can be held to budgetea figures. PERIODICALS Used to purchase media materials of interest to the MRC and its adivities (e.g., Education Week. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Arkansas Times. Magnet Schools of America materials). Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rate for the MSA Conference in the spring. *The amount requested has been ~ 1 increased slightly in order to ex122IJ.d our subscription access to more eaucation periodicals. CAPITAL OUTLAY This category is used for any maior expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. *With the approved 7998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any ma\n'or purchases for the office. However, the copy machine is over ten years old, and the telephone system is also. Consequently, some expenses are anticipated for this category. 1997-98 ACTUAL 1,217 572 TOTAL BUDGET FIGURES SALARIES 1998-99 APPROVED 1,500 500 500 79,251 70 749 150,000 Page 4 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT SAME *595 *5.000 114,251 70 749 185,000 Magnet Revieiv Cinn1nittee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director January 6, 1999  -The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: On Thursday, October 22, 1998, the Magnet Review Committee voted to adopt a y~a.d.L budget increase from $150,000 to $185,000. Four votes were in favor of the increase, with ffiese votes being cast by the State of Arkansas (~ve-~ ,  uo.d0cb.QQLDistrict, and the Joshua lntervenors. North Little Rock School o  t i om voting, anafhePtilaski County Special School District representativ was a sent. sis our custom, each Magne____ Review Committe_e me_mber discussed this issue wI I eir party. We are confident tho~ party supports this action. ~\n,.~~ .::vrf=/...-1- -(hp 7\nr)\"/,..~\u0026lt;.\n,-\"\", As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of M-to-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the three districts, with each district contributing one-sixth ($25,000) of the total amount and the State providing the additional three-sixths, or one-half ($75,000). (7 /.J, ~ l'v 11\n,C' :} '',,,,~ 2) Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this $150,000 budget. Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved / \\ ~-.Y ,-?' ( }, .... by the MRC on August 6, 1998. ,\n.)- --\\ -\\ -'\":7.31 / ,V ...,,c....., ? .I,\\'/ J :') (iv\\./ /\\\"I\" Y ~ L,- / x 41 /.(t r.,t' C /X. To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the initial allocation. Increases in cost of services have caused us to predict a deficit spending or a /\\/.)? reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. \\I \\\"' '1\n\"' J ?-l 1 .. / We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount indicated. For your '\" ,J ~ review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. r---\\\"-' \\' VJ _,\n-7-l,Q v {,./'5 \\'( \\ At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increased from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.33) and make the State's MRC budget The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- January 6, 1999 contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it.  . Sincerely, ~ .  Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM ~~-f,F/'\"'-:1-- , I -,--, ( N\" i. ~ . ._ C'V L-//\\ .. ' A.~r 197Y l\\f?il.ov~o -\u0026amp;,J+ ~ . }.__\"'-~~ y, L '~ .:e'\" 1,,+ EXPENDITURES FRINGE BENEFITS Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental 7 J /, j 'In the approved budget, this figure I  l'  7 was Input at a lo ale, due lo the l) ' 11 1-', }.\u0026gt; T anlicipat anges  teacher , I J retirement, ,n urance, etc. The new -, , ~ figure most accurately reflects the costs for this line item. PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category includes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. Because addilio 1 1 ~ professional services required /2! J..i as a res uh of providing updated P' \\ ?7 v recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout 4 ,,. \"\\ and design for brochures, l? )\"' .J( radio/TV ads, etcJ and the ,-r _:\n'' Website master ad design which , \\ \\' -\n,  .:71 . reflect changes in magnet schools, v-?' 1 '/ ,\n---'\" induding new principals, updated ? \\ curriculum, and the middle school \\ \\ transition, an increase in this line item is expected. MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses Is expected. ~ fil.!.QQfI 9,500 11,800 1,600 1997-98 ~ 16,925.68 733.45 1998-99 fil1QQ.E! 12,000 1,400 1s.ooo 1.650 MRC ExPENDINRES IContinuedl RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188.0011,296 square feetl and will remain that amount. TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT This line item is used to send MRC members lo the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference eoyea~r. ch 1 1 -The revised amou .1 ~ '\"' \"~' ' to bring travel fund ~ 1 1997-98 budgeted amount. e,, POSTAGE ~I-,, \"\"'l ),\\ \\ \"-, \\ Includes postage necessary to ~0 ~ r\u0026lt;'~~~ respond to parent inquiries, bulk ,,..,v rJ' mailings for recruitment purposes, 1 \\ 1..._ ... t '\\--:- and all other mailouts as necessary ' _  1_\n\\\"?' \\~'. for the operation of the MRC office. 1\\Y-J.. .,, ', vv\\\"- No change in amount is requested . {' TELEPHONE Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. -The Internet access has been added to the MRC's computer system. and the teleph0Relremmt1nicalion costswHl-g\u0026amp;- up ir:, this rolegery_ ..J- ---J2,_,\" ,s, D D\u0026lt;.J j) r -...,, ~ .. rt---r-t\u0026gt; ~of'o,... --fi-1 I\n:, 1997-98 fil.LQfilI 14,256 6,000 2,000 3,500 J 997-98 ~ 14,256 7,984.05 2,492.25 1998-99 .fil.!.QQfl 14,256 3,500 2,500 Page 2 1998-99 ID'.filQ AMOUNT 14,256 6,000 2,500 MRC EXPENDITURES IContinuedl ADVERTISING   The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs. such as application forms for magnet schools for enrollment, are handled by outside agencies. Again, this amount has been increased to handle large proiecls related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. 1997-98 fil!QfilI 23,600 2,800 1997-98 AfJ!m 1998-99 BUDGET Page 3 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 ~__./ .... ) L-,,7 (\n? \"\\01~ ~ r GYI I, (' I l ~/o 2,560 .25 l.200 3.200 _____.__/ .e\n./ ,, \u0026lt;\" ,._ MRC EXPENDITURES !Continued! CAPITAL OUTlAY This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. TOTAL EXPENDITURES SALARIES TOTALS 1997-98 filLOOEI 1997-98 ACTUAL 733.45 1998-99 BUDGET 500 Page 5 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT 3,700 81,972 96,437.77 79,251 114,251  68,028 70,749.00 70 749 70 749 150,000 167, 186.77-f, 150,000 185,000 ~ ,.\n-: I V h ' , l-- ... ., -,, 1,, e- :\nr,o''\": 1- -', /,N'/1. /l)C' 'o !?' '1,- NOTE: ,  r , I ( ~ .,. ,, , ' Salary increases will be determined later in the year, ofter final negotiations ore _. :\\J   \u0026lt;\n,( completed, and district salary increases ore established. At that time, it will be determined if, and how much, on increase con be incorporated into the budget. Donna Grady Creer Executive Director January 6, 1999 Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: (501) 758-0156 On Thursday, October 22, 1998, the Magnet Review Committee voted to adopt a yearly budget increase from $150,000 to $185,000. Four votes were in favor of the increase, with these votes being cast by the State of Arkansas (two votes), Little Rock School District, and the Joshua lntervenors. North Little Rock School District abstained from voting, and the Pulaski County Special School District representative was absent. As is our custom, each Magnet Review Committee member discussed this issue with their party. We are confident that each party supports this action. As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of M-to-M transfer students between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150,000. That amount is funded by the three districts, with each district contributing one-sixth ($25,000) of the total amount and the State providing the additional three-sixths, or one-half ($75,000). l I Since its inception, the MRC has operated within this $150,000 budget. 21 Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved by the MRC on August 6, 1998. 3) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within the initial allocation. 41 Increases in cost of services have caused us to predict a deficit spending or a reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount indicated. For your review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. At this time, we respectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increased from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.33) and make the State's MRC budget t!.F ... ....1. .J.... ~ The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- January 6, 1999 contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 23% increase in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~ .  Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM EXPENDITURES 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED AMOUNT FRINGE BENEFITS 9,500 14,173.16 12,800 *20,819.94 Includes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Heatth Insurance and Dental \"In the approved budget, this figure was Input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately reflects the costs for this line item. PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL SERVICES 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 *15,000 Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category includes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. \"Because of additional professional services required as a result of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures, radio/TY ads, etc./ and the Website master ad design which reffed changes in magnet schools, including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expeded. MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEHICLES 1,600 733.45 1,400 *1,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. \"Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expeded. MRC EXPENDITURES IContinuedl Poge2 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED AMOUNT RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING 14,256 14,256 14,256 14,256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188 .0011,296 square feetl and will remain that amount. TRAVEL OUT OF DISTRICT 6,000 7,984.05 3,500 6,000 This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. \"The revised amount is requested to bring travel funds bock to the 7997-98 budgeted amount. POSTAGE 2,000 2,492.25 2,500 2,500 Includes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries, bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE 3,500 3,418 .31 3,500 4,225 Includes monthly billings and long distance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. \"The Internet access hos been added to the MRC's computer system, and the telephone/communication costs will go up in this category. MRC EXPENDITURES IContinuedl Page 3 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED AMOUNT ADVERTISING 23,600 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. \"With new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING 2,800 2,560.25 1,200 3.200 This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for magnet schools for enroll-ment, are handled by outside agencies. \"Again, this amount has been increased to handle large pro/eds related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. MRC EXPENDITURES (Continuedl Page 4 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED AMOUNT OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 *4,000 Includes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also include the cost for our fiscal agent. *Due to increased meeting adivifies, Magnet Fair expenses, all other recruitment fundions, and contrad labor for incidental jobs, this amount has been increased from the 1991-98 budget. SUPPLIES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1.405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. PERIODICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its activities (e.g., Education Week, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Arkansas Times, Magnet Schools of America materials). Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rote for the MSA Conference in the spring. *The amount requested hos been adjusted to keep in line with the 1991-98 adual expenses. MRC EXPENDITURES IConlinuedl 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET CAP1T AL OUTLAY 1,500 733.45 500 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. \"With the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any major purchases for the office. The copy machine and the telephone system are over ten years old. Some expenses are anticipated for this category. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 81 ,972 96,437.77 79,251 SALARIES 68.028 70 749.00 70 749 TOTALS 150,000 167,186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year, after final negotiations ore completed, and district salary increases ore established. At that time, it will be determined if, and how much, an increase can be incorporated into the budget. Page 5 1998-99 REVISED AMOUNT *3,700 114,251 70 749 185,000 Background Issues ODM Review of the MRC Budget Proposal Dated January 6, 1999 As explained in the MRC's cover letter, the MRC's office budget has been $150,000 since its inception, an amount ordered by the Court long years ago. The MRC is asking for a bigger budget ($185,000) to cover cost increases that have been rising and accumulating each year. While we believe the MRC does need more money, we'd like to see some changes in the budget and the budgeting process, which we' ll explain below. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval. Rather, the MRC staff has reconfigured the dollar allotments within its budget every year, but always within the bottom-line $150,000. (The staff has carried over any money left from one year to the next in order to meet rising expenses while not disturbing the $150,000 bottom line.) Annual budget review and approval has been a function of the parties' representatives who comprise the MRC. Before the MRC submitted its final January 1999 version of its proposed 1998-99 budget, ODM worked with the MRC to refine the document, pointing out what we saw as problems and suggesting improvements. Our goal was that the MRC budget ultimately be: 1. clearly presented 2. easily understandable and defensible 3. aligned with the MRC's genuine financial needs for the year 4. a reflection of past expenditures and anticipated needs, rather than budgeting on past budget (the nefarious \"budgeting on budget\") The proposed budget was evidently prepared by the MRC Executive Director and her assistant, who don't have much experience or expertise in budget preparation. While they were willing to listen to our suggestions and adopted a few of them, they declined to make others, as explained below. We still believe the budget could be improved considerably. As submitted, the document isn 't clear, contains some budgeting on budget, and prompts many questions, which we will also point out below. It is important to understand the overriding concern of the MRC members that is driving their budget strategy: the committee does not want to risk changing, on an annual basis, the MRC budget total and thus the amounts contributed by the parties and the State. They fear that yearly budgetary changes could result in an increased budget total, thus providing an opening for the parties (especially the State) to raise objections and cause trouble. So this budget has been constructed (and padded) to cover an extended period of time, at least five years. Nevertheless, the budget document is labeled and offered as that for 1998-99. The MRC realizes that its budget must be offered and approved by its members on an annual basis, but the MRC doesn't intend to change the budgetary bottom line every year. 1 Document Critique In a nutshell, the MRC's strategy is to change the budget total this one time and stick to the new status quo for as many years as possible, thus minimizing the potential for making waves with the parties every year. We don't think this is the most useful or even honest way to construct a budget.  An amwal budget should be a tool, based on identified needs, for allotting adequate appropriations and guiding corresponding expenditures for one year's time. As needs and costs change, a budget must be realigned accordingly.  We don't object to a reasonable amount of cushion in a budget to provide flexibility and cover unexpected expenses, but an annual budget is just that: it has only a 12- month life span, because circumstances can change quickly and unexpectedly. Too much padding or number juggling destroys the budget's effectiveness as a planning and spending guide.  If the tvlRC inflates its budget to take care of outlying years in addition to the current 12 months, it will be taking in more money than it really needs, causing the parties to appropriate money they shouldn't have to. The tvlRC has no history of returning unspent monies to the parties who appropriate it, as does ODM. Yet, we do know that the tvlRC has squirreled away any unspent amounts to cover overspending as it occurs.  Some expenditures will probably rise each year (such as staff salaries, for example) but others could decline. Locking into a long-term budget removes some of the tvlRC's responsibility for managing public money in response to ongoing changes in circumstances and needs. The MRC is about to run out of money and overspend its budget or reduce its activities\nit needs a ruling as soon as possible. The cover letter, signed by MRC Chair Sadie Mitchell, admits that the NLRSD representative abstained from voting to approve the budget and the PCSSD representative was absent. Yet the Chair asserts confidence that each party supports the budget proposal. With one abstention and one absentee (one-third of the possible vote total), where does this confidence come from? The MRC approved the 1998-99 budget for the same old $150,000 last August, yet only five months later has made this request for more money. The appeal demonstrates that a budget designed to last for years at a time doesn't fit with the changing shortterm needs that obviously occur. (It probably also demonstrates that the MRC waited until it got into a tight financial corner to make its case for more money, perhaps hoping that a looming crisis - deficit spending or a reduction in services- would be sufficient to get a budget increase from the parties.) The Expenditures section presents many puzzles:  Fringe Benefits: The increase between 1997-98 Actual and 1998-99 Revised is 47%. This huge leap needs to be explained in terms of the salaries that are indicated later in the document. 2  Professional and Technical Services: The notation explains that additional professional services will be required, but the requested 1998-99 Revised amount ($15,000) is less than what was actually spent in 1997-98 ($16,925.68). This isn't sensible budgeting.  Maintenance of Equipment and Vehicles: The increase between what was spent in 1997-98 ($733.45) and that anticipated in 1998-99 ($1650) is 125%, a huge jump. Our contracts at ODM haven't fluctuated much (if any) due to equipment age. The notes claim that MRC equipment is over ten years old. In our book, that means the equipment is not only obsolete, it's about to break down. The Capital Outlay category does address the need for equipment purchases or upgrades, and provides for a significant sum. So why increase this category if you're going to buy new equipment? This is actually an example of budgeting on budget.  Travel Out of District: Travel in 1997-98 was almost $2000 more than revised for 1998-99. Yet the notes give no hint as to why this cutback is reasonable in light of past expenditures.  Postage: The amount allotted for postage remains unchanged and in line with the I 997-98 actual expenditures. Yet postage rates have increased. Moreover, we would expect that MRC mailings would increase in line with its new \"updated recruiting tools,\" some of which were necessitated by the LRSD's change to middle schools.  Telephone: The jump between the 1997-98 Actual and 1998-99 Revised is $806.67, which would allow more than $67.00 per month for Internet fees (which is what the notes say drove the increase.) That's an unrealistically high amount.  Advertising: The increase between 1997-98 Actual and 1998-99 Revised is $11 ,241.65, or 44%. This may be perfectly realistic, but how did they calculate the odd number of $36,900 (for 1998-99)?  Other Purchased Services: The amount spent in 1997-98 is over $ 1000 greater than in the revised budget for 1998-99. Yet notations cite increased meeting activities. This is another example of budgeting on budget rather than on expenditures and projected needs.  Supplies: The amount spent for supplies in 1997-98 was very near the budgeted amount, but the odd figure budgeted for 1998-99 ($1405 . 06) is almost $4 70 less than the previous year. How could they be sure they could cut supplies by 25% and arrive at this revised figure with such specificity?  Periodicals: The notes indicate that this line item for 1998-99 has been revised to be consistent with that of 1997-98, which was $604.78. How did they arrive at the odd new number ($595)?  Capital Outlay: This category as used here should really be entitled Equipment, as the Capital Outlay category is quite broad and Equipment is much more specific, according to the State's guidelines. evertheless, what's most significant here is that the revised numbers for 1998-99 reflect an increase of $3000 above the actual expenditures of 1997-98. Notes explain the increase will provide for replacing old equipment. Fine, but then the Maintenance category above surely doesn't warrant a 125% increase. 3 Potential Options  Salaries: Compensation for staff is expressed in a lump sum. It might be informative to indicate each employee's salary as ODM does. Further, a note explains that any salary increases will be determined later in the year. If salaries are indeed increased, where will the budget be modified to accommodate the raises?  Totals: The document indicates that the 1997-98 budget was $150,000, yet the amount actually spent that year was $167,186. Whence the money to cover the overspending? The document doesn't explain that the overspending was financed by carryover from previous years. Do they intend to persist in this pattern? 1. Approve the revised 1998-99 budget as submitted, but order the MRC to develop future budgets based on past expenditures and anticipated annual expenses. Order the state to pay 50% of the projected total and each district to pay 16.66%, as has been the practice. While this option would enable the MRC to most quickly get its cash flow problem under control, the districts have advanced the MRC some money, so it isn't in imminent danger of overdrawing its bank account. or 2. Order the MRC to submit within 10 (?) days a 1998-99 budget that is based on previous expenditures and anticipated annual expenses, instead of the flat amount of $185,000, along with justifications for each category. In any event, we think that it could be helpful for them to be required to model their budget format on that of ODM. We've spent so much time developing an easy-tounderstand budget and the parties are all used to it. It would be easy for the MRC to emulate our budget format to save them time and grief We will be glad to help them to get their revisions done quickly. 4 MAY-10-99 MON 13:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FILED U.S DISTRICT COURT ASTRN DISTRICT ARAANSAS IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY' t O 1999 JAM~~W. M\\COAMACK. CLERK By: M , ~ U [\\ M ~ [\\,,...,- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRJCTNo. 1, et al., Defendants. .tvfRS . LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * *   *       * *  DI\n!' ci't:RII. No. LR-C-82-866 NATURE SAVER'\" FAX MEMO 01616 Dale l~ies  10 To Ii tJ ~ 'l.,.o t,..,,J From Co /Oeot. Co Phone# Phone, Fax\n'] 1,,-/.,, ..- ()1,, ITTi F .. , : . '----~--------------- KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ., Intervenors, *  ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999 (attached). After reviewing the matter, the Court is inclined to approve the request. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established the MRC in 1987 to supervise the operations of the six magnet schools in the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The District Court later allocated $150,000 per year to fund the operations of the MRC and its office. The MAY-10-99 MON 13:29 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 P. 02 --::.., Court determined that the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), should pay $75,000 of that allocation and each of the three Pulaski County school districts should pay $25,000. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval\ninstead, the MRC staff has reconfigured line item allocations each year to total $150,000 and the MRC members have approved that budget each year. In the letter submission. the MRC chair explained that, over the years, normal inflation in the price of goods and services has strained the committee's $150,000 budget. Additionally, notes accompanying the budget explain that the restructuring of LRSD schools to accommodate the middle school initiative has required some substantial changes in the magnet schools. These changes necessitate an increase in advertising and recruitment costs, because brochures and other recruitment materials must be redesigned, printed, and distributed. The MRC further requests that the budget increase to $185,000 be shared by the ADE and the three districts in the same proportions as in the past, increasing the state's share (which is one-half) to $92,500 and each district's share (which is one-sixth) to $30,833.33. The letter submission asserts that four MRC members voted for the increase, one abstained, and one was absent. In August of 1998. the MRC approved a budget for the 1998-99 school year for the usual total of $150,000 in an apparent failure to foresee the need for increases in the same year. The need for additional funds to flow quickly to the MRC leads the Court to believe the request for a budget increase to $185,000 for 1998-99 should be approved. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to approve MRC's request for an increase in its 1998- 99 budget from $150,000 to $1-85,0{)0. The Court will allow the parties until and including May 2 MAY-10-99 MON 13:29 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 24, I 999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order providing that within one week. each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the l 998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 .\\'fRC budget hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED iliis /~ day of ,-:: 1999. m,~ ~ru7:r\"T UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT 3 NAY-10-99 NON 13:29 Donna Grady Creer Ex8C\\lllve Oi1'9C!or January 6, 1999 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 . - - . .... .., , Magtte0t  Review . Committee 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Ark.ansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: P. 04 (501 ) 758-0156 On Thursday, Odober 22, 1998, the Magnet Review Committee voted to adopt o yearly budget increase from $150,000 to $185,000. Four votes were In favor of the increase, with these voles being cost by the State of Arkansas (two votes), Little Rock SChocl District, and the Joshua lntervenors. North Little Rock SChool District abstained from voting. and the Pulaski t Coun1y Speclal School District representative was absent. As is our custom, each Magnet ~ Review Committee member d'ISCUSSed this Issue with their party. We are confident that each party supports this action.  As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The Committee Is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evoluottng and recommending changes in the actual operation of magnet sthools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine inferdlstrict magnet school$. The Magnet RevieW Committee is also responsible for recruitment of M-to-M transfer students between Little Rock school District and Pulaski County Special school Distric\nt and is allocated\" annuQI budget of S 150,000. That amount iS funded by the three districts, with each distrkt contributing one-sixth ($25,000) of the total amount and the State providing the odditional three.sixths, or one-half ($75,000). 11 Since its Inception, the MRC has operoted within this $150,000 budget. 21 Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget in the amount of S 150,000 was approved by the MRC on August 6, 1998. ~) To this point, the MRC has contained expenditures to remain within lhe .J~\"-!al allocation. 41 fnaeases in cost of services hove caused us to predict a deficit spending or a reduction in services for the 1998-99 fiscal year. We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase In the amount indicated. For your review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an increase. At this time, we rQspectfully request that the Magnet Review Committee Office budget be increased from $150,000 to S 185,000. This action would increase each dis1rid's proportional shore by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.331 and make the State's MRC budget MAY-10-99 MON 13:30 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 The Honorable 5usan Webber Wright -2- January 6, 1999 contribution $92,500 {$75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 231 increose ln the budgeted amount for the Magnet RevieW CommitteQ. If you should need ony addltlonol information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, die , Magnet Review Committee SM/0GC:sml A1tochment CC: Ann Brown, ~deral Monitor - ODM =1 .-. ,-:, i NAY-10-99 NON 13:32 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 P. 01 EXPE~QITIJ~ES 1997-98 ]997-98 ~ illUi ~ ~ ~ ~ AMOUNT FRINGE BENEFITS 9,500 14,173.16 12.800 20.819.94 lndudes Sodol Security, Medicare, Teacher Reflfemenl, life Insurance, HQOl1h Insurance and Deotal rn the approved budge!, this flg11re was Input at a lower rate. dlle to the anfkipoled dlanges In teocJ,er retirement, lnsvronce. etc. 111a new l!gvre most occurafe/y relled.s the costs for this line Item. PROFES~IQI:::l~ !Ii TECHl::ll~ ~~Vl,E,:i 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 15,000 Utilization of persons or organfzolfons to provide sp@dalized services. This category Includes costs of the lnterdislricl Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and 1he monlhly travel allowance prO'lk:ied to the ElcflCUtive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. Because of additional professional services required as a re.suh of providing updated recruiting lr\u0026gt;Cls /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures. rad/o/TY ads, etcJ and the WebSJte mos/er ad design which reflect changes In mognet schools. indudlng new principals. updated currlcvltJm. and the middle school transition, on Increase in this fine item is expected. M~NTENAN'E QE fQUIPMENT i VEHICLES 1,600 733.45 l.400 1,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier. the phone system and !he ISM Personal Typing System in the MR.C Office. Because of con/rad cos! increases since the equipment is o.-er ten years old, an increase In expenses is expected. NAY-10-99 NON 13:33 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 501 3246576 P. 01 MRC ExPENOOURE5 tContlnuedl Poge 2 1997.95 1991-96 li2.l-li )998-99 .au.Q!ill AQ!.!AL lill.O!'ill 1ill'!ili:2 ~Q!..!t:il RENTAL OF lAl':IIJ 61':!IJ ~~IL~ 14,256 14,256 14,256 14,256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is Sl, 188.0011,296 square feel! and wiO remain !hot amount, TRAVEL Q!.!I Qf ~IEIQ 6.000 7,984.05 3,500 6.000 This rine item is used to send MRC members to the lntemo1lono1 Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. The revised amount Is requested to bring !ravel funds bock to the 1997-98 blldgeled amount. PQSTAGE 2,000 2,492.25 2,500 2.500 lndudes postage necessary to respond to porent Inquiries. bulk maihngs for recruitment purposes, and oil other mollouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is reques1ed. re_~PHONE 3.500 3,418.31 3,500 4,225 lndudes rnonthly btlllngs and long dls1ance charges, Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. The Internet access hos been added to the MRC's CO/\"fl/Wfer system, and the telephone/communication costs will go up in this category. NAY-10-99 NON 13:33 SUSAN W WRIGHT MRC ExPENDmJRE5 IContinuedl ~QVERTISING The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students lo magnet schools and M-lo-M transfer. wlftl new pr!l'lcfpals in place in seYeral of the magnet scho\u0026lt;\nls, new CUff/aJ/um informahon fo be distribuled, and the middle schools trons,lion toking piece. a reconfiguration of ol odYerlising brochures, M-ro-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modific:ation is necessary. PRINTING AND BINDING This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though lhe MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for mognet schools for @nrol\\. menl, ore handled by outside agencies. Again, this amount hos bean increased ro handle large pro\nects related To advertising the changes in Ifie schools' make-vp, new principals, and Cllrric/Jlum changes. ill2=il ~ 23,600 2,800 FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 Poge3 .l.2.2Z.:2a ~ 1998-99 ~ ~ REV15ED ~Q!..!~ 25,658.35 23,595 36.900 2,560.25 1,200 3.200 MAY-10-99 MON 13:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 P. 03 MRC EX?ENomJRES fConttnuedl Poge4 ~ 1997.98 1998-99 ill:..2.2 ~ ~ BUDGET ~ ~9!.!t::il OTHER PUR~HA5EC ~f\u0026amp;Yl!:~ 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 \"4,000 lndudes any outside help necessary to finish o lob for the MRC Office. This w,N also include the cos! for our fiscal agent. aue to Increased meeting octM/les, Mognel Fair expenses.. oH other recruitment functions. ond con/rod lobar for inddental\nobs, fhis amount hos been increased from the 1997-98 budge/. SUPPt.lES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1,405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Mognet Re1ew Commlt1ee Office. PERIQPICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its octiv~ies fe.g~ Education Week. Arkansas Democraf-Oa.zi:lt~ Arkansas rimes, Magnet Sd'loots of Amerlco moterlolsl. Also indudes MSA yearly membership fee to obloin o reduced rote for the rwsA Conference In the spnng. \"The amcvnt reqve$led hos been od/vsfed lo keep /fl Hne WJ/h the 1997-98 octuol expenses. MAY-10-99 MON 13:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 MRC EXf'ENDITURES IConttnuedl .l.22Z:il 1997-98 1998-92 IDJ.000 ~ ~ CAP!r AL QUJlAY l,500 733.45 500 This category ls used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. wn11 the approved 1998-99 budget in August. the MRC ww- plonnlng nol lo make any ma\no, purchases for the office. The copy madline and the telephone ~fem are c.-er fen yecrs o . Some expensas are anflclpaled for !his colegory. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 81,972 96,437 .77 79,251 SALARIES .2...Ql. 70,74900 ~ TOTALS 150.000 167,186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases wiU be determined later In the year, after final negolio1ions ore completed, and distrld solory lncreoses ore established. At tha1 time, it will be determined if. and how much, on Increase can be incorporated in1o the budget. P. 04 PogeS ]996-99 REVISED AMQUt:i! 3,700 114.251 70749 185,000 MAY 11 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 1 0 1999 JAMES1W. M\\CORMACK, CLERK By: \\ . , ~ U I\\ M D J\"\\.-,' OEP CLERK Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999 (attached). After reviewing the matter, the Court is inclined to approve the request. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established the MRC in 1987 to supervise the operations of the six magnet schools in the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The District Court later allocated $150,000 per year to fund the operations of the MRC and its office. The 3261 Court determined that the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), should pay $75,000 of that allocation and each of the three Pulaski County school districts should pay $25,000. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval\ninstead, the MRC staff has reconfigured line item allocations each year to total $150,000 and the MRC members have approved that budget each year. In the letter submission, the MRC chair explained that, over the years, normal inflation in the price of goods and services has strained the committee's $150,000 budget. Additionally, notes accompanying the budget explain that the restructuring of LRSD schools to accommodate the middle school initiative has required some substantial changes in the magnet schools. These changes necessitate an increase in advertising and recruitment costs, because brochures and other recruitment materials must be redesigned, printed, and distributed. The MRC further requests that the budget increase to $185,000 be shared by the ADE and the three districts in the same proportions as in the past, increasing the state's share (which is one-half) to $92,500 and each district's share (which is one-sixth) to $30,833.33. The letter submission asserts that four MRC members voted for the increase, one abstained, and one was absent. In August of 1998, the MRC approved a budget for the 1998-99 school year for the usual total of $150,000 in an apparent failure to foresee the need for increases in the same year. The need for additional funds to flow quickly to the MRC leads the Court to believe the request for a budget increase to $185,000 for 1998-99 should be approved. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to approve MRC's request for an increase in its 1998- 99 budget from $150,000 to $185,000. The Court will allow the parties until and including May 2 24, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. IT IS SC ORDERED this\n/--day of 1/ 1999. ~~ ~FJU G --,, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET 1H XMPUA~ WOH \u0026lt;llf 58 ANDIOR ?8(1) FA0P )N !:J-I - ev .vt:' ~ 3 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director January 6, 1999 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock. AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: (501) 758--0156 On Thursday, October 22, 1998, the Magnet Review Committee voted to adopt a yearJy budget increase from $150,000 to $185,000. Four votes were in favor of the increase, wltti\" these votes being cast by the State of Arkansas (two votes), Little Rock School District, and11lie Joshua lntervenors. North Little Roek School District abstained from voting, and the Pulas f County Special School District representative-was absent. As is our custom, each Magnet Review Committee member discussed this issue with their party. We are confident that ~a party supports this action. As you know, the Magnet Review Committee was established in July, 1987 by the Efghth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. The-Committee is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, evaluating and recommending cha~ in the actual operation of mag,,.t : \"\" schools, as well as recruitment for the six original magnet schools and nine interdistrict magnet schools. The Magnet Review Committee is also responsible for recruitment of:  M-to-M transfer students between little Rock School Oistcid and Pulaski County Special . School District and is allocated an annual budget of $150\n000. lhat amount ls funded-by the  three districts, with each district contributing one-sixth ($25,000) of the total amount ana ttfe  State providing the additional three-sixths, or one-half ($75,000). 1) 2) 3) 4) Since its Inception, the MRC. has operated within this $150,000 budget. Fiscal Year t99~-99 budget in the amount of $150,000 was approved . ~ . bythe MR on August 6, 1998. . , . ' To t~is point, fhe MRC has contained expenditures to remain Within the  :  , [.Nial allocation, \"'  ~ ~ in cost of services have caused us to-predict a deficit spending ar a ,- rEJd':JdiQn Jn serv~es for the 1998-99 fiscal year.  - : We, therefore, are seeking your approval for an increase in the amount indicated. ror your review, we have attached data which speaks to the need for an i\"'crease. , , At this time, we respectfully request that the Mognet Review Committee Office budget be_:-.:increased from $150,000 to $185,000. This action would increase each district's proportional share by $5,833.33 (from $25,000 to $30,833.33) and make the St~e's MRC qudg~t . _   The Honorable SUSon Webber Wright -2- January 6, 1999 contribution $92,500 ($75,000, plus the additional $17,500). The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 231. lnaease in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any adcfrtional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, d~/f Magnet Review Committee SM/OGC:sml Attachment cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - OOM EXPE~DITURES ]997-98 ]997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ~ ~ ~ AMQ!.!NT FRINGE BENEFTTS 9,500 14,173.16 12,800 20,819.94 lndudes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental tn the approved budget, this figure was Input at a lower rate. due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure rr,ost accurately reflects me costs for this line item. PRQF5SIQNAL ~ TE!:t:JNICAL SE~~!:ES 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 *15,000 Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category indudes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. Because of additional professional services required as a resuh of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures, radio/TV ads, etcJ and the Website master ad design which reflect changes in magnet schools, including new principals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expected. MAINTENAN~E OF EQ!.!IPMENT ~ VEHICL5 1,600 733.45 1,400 *l,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. \"Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expeded. MRC ExPENOOURB {Continued! Page2 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 B.U.QQfI ~ 6.U.QQ.EI ~ AMQ!.!NT RENTAL QF LANO ANQ 6!.!ILQ!t:::IQ 14,256 14,256 14,256 14,256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is $1,188.0011.296 square feet! and will remain that amount. TRAVEL OUT QF DISTRICT 6,000 7,984.05 3,500 6,000 This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. The rerised amount is requested to bring travel funds bade to the 1991-98 budgeted amount. PQSTAGE 2,000 2.492.25 2,500 2,500 lndudes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries. bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other mailouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHQNE 3,500 3,418.31 3,500 4.225 Includes monthly billings and long distance charges. Internet access monthly charges, and FAX expenses. The Internet access has been added to the MRC's computer system. and the telephone/communication costs wil go up in this category. MRC EXPENDITURES IContinuedl Page3 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ~ fil.!QQfI R.EYIS.fQ AMOUNT ADVERTI~ING 23,600 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. with new principals in place in several of the magnet schools, new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place, a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers. videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING ANQ BINQ!NG 2,800 2,560.25 1,200 3,200 This category ties in with advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for magnet schools for enroll-ment, ore handled by outside agencies. *Again, this amount has been increased to handle large projects related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new principals, and curriculum changes. MRC EXPENOOURES IConttnuedl Page4 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ~ 6.1.!00EI IDfilQ AMQ!.!NT QTHER PUR!:\nHASEQ ~ERVl!:\nES 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 4,000 lndudes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also include the cost for our fiscal agent. *Due to increased meeting adMties, Magnet Fair expenses, all other recruitment fundions, and contrad labor for incidental jobs, this amount has been increased from the 1997-98 budget. S!.!PPLIES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1,405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. PERIODICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its activities le.g .. Education Week. Arkansas Democrot-Goz~tt~. Arkansas Times. Magnet Schools of America materials). Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rote for the MSA Conference in the spring. *The amount requested has been adjusted to keep in line with the 1997-98 actual expenses.    MRC ExPf NDITURES IConttnuedl 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 6.1.J.QQE! ~ fil.!OOfI CAPIT Al OUll.AY 1,500 733 .45 500 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such as a copier, computer, or office furniture. ~with the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any major purchases for the off,ce. The copy machine and the telephone system are over ten years old. Some expenses are anticipated for this category. TOT AL EXPENOOURES 81,972 96,437.77 79,251 SALARIES ~ 7Q,749.00 7Q 749 TOTALS 150,000 167.186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year, after final negotiations are completed, and district salary increases are established. At that time, it will be determined if, and how much, an increase can be incorporated into the budget. Pages 1998-99 RfY!S..EQ AMO!,!NT 3,700 114,251 70,749 185,000 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 By Order dated May 10, 1999 [doc.#3261], this Court informed the parties that it was inclined to approve the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. 1 The Court allowed the parties a period of time in which to object to MRC' s request, and stated that should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court would enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that 1 The proposal was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999, which was attached to the Order. represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. The time for objecting to MRC's request has passed with no objections being filed. Accordingly, MRC's request is granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within one week of the date of entry of this Order, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998- 99 MRC budget hereby approved. Dated this L/l ~y of ~ 1999. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TrilS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ::~oMPL)i\nCE WITH RULE 58 A(/OR 79(a) FRCP ON Of 1.f,/1'7 BY~  7 2 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 By Order dated May 10, 1999 [ doc.#3261 ], this Court informed the parties that it was inclined to approve the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. 1 The Court allowed the parties a period of time in which to object to MRC's request, and stated that should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court would enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that 1 The proposal was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a lener dated January 6, 1999, which was anached to the Order. represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. The time for objecting to MRC's request has passed with no objections being filed. Accordingly, MRC's request is granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDEREO that within one week of the date of entry of this Order, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded. 1998- 99 MRC budget hereby approved. Dated this [/j__ ~ay of ~ 1999. ~JV~)~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -:-~is DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ~OMP[)/Ji\nIA/ITH RULE 58 ArJOR79(a)FRCP ON 6\n~~ BY ~  2 (!: Ji,,,,.,...,._ Magnet Review Conz,nittee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E -mail} June 30, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: RECEI 0 .. :,:.:. 1 lS99 OFF!aEGF tl!SEGREGATION MONITORING At its June 22, 1999 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and 4-0 vote (North Little Rock and Joshua lntervenors representatives were not present), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1998-99 school year (Draft l). FINAL 1998-99 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET. The total amount budgeted, $20,146,910, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $5,127 .00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of 3,929 .86 students. This budget reflects an increase of $473.00 per student over the 1997-98 budget, with the third year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. This final 1998-99 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1998. As you know, in correspondence dated May 7, 1999, the Magnet Review Committee requested a change in the magnet school grade configurations beginning with the 1999- 2000 school year. As described in that May 7, 1999 letter, tl:le changes result in an additional 132 magnet school seats. At its June 22, 1999 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee approved the proposed budget for the l 999-2000 school year for the six original magnet schools which reflected costs associated with the additio~al seats (Draft 1). PROPOSED 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: The total proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year is $22, 941 ,363, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $5,648 and an increase of $521 .00 per student over the 1998-99 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 1999-2000 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review CommitteE, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility rnay be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the l 998-99 finalized budget, as well as the proposed 1999-2000 budget, both att ached herewith. \"Pursue the Po.,, ihilitin of ,\\ta KIi i' / School 1: nro/1111111I \" . . ' The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 30, 1999 The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the original magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments - Actual 1998-99 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) Proposed 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 1) \\ SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kinderqarten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY SUPPORT 15 Secretaries STAFF 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL (10-20) PURCHASED 22 Ut1lit1es SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS 26 Pnnc1pal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL (40) CAPITAL 30 Equipment OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL 97-98 97-98 ,,.  \"''\\,. 97 98, F.T'.E\nBudger  :::::: .. ?f\\'Actua_l \",.\"\"\"'  6.0 $376,587 10.0 $488,462 39.2 $1,343,119 12.4 $505,887 6.5 $253,085 1.0 $26,065 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 12.6 $343,817 8.7 $289,709 5.4 $199,275 177.9 $6,147,115 0.0 $165,000 13.0 $425,964 292.7 $10,564,086 20.0 $407,495 5.4 $163,262 29.0 $356,470 1.0 $22,415 6.0 $133,806 37.0 $285,102 xxxxxxxx $3,090, 046 98 4 $4,458,595 xxxxxxxx $15,022,681 $617,803 $27,000 $0 )0000000( $156,919 xxxxxxxx $801,722 )0000000( $2,500 xxxxxxxx $574,289 XXX)OOO()( $35,450 XXlOO(X)O( $17,632 xxxxxxxx $629,871 xxxxxxxx $281,692 xxxxxxxx $0 $0 $281,692 $11 ,213 xxxxxxxx $0 xxxxxxxx $11,213 xxxxxxxx $1 ,724,498 391.1 $16,747,179 XXlOO(X)O( $1,412,026 xxxxxx $18,159,205 D JUL 1 1999 OffiCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITOat $379,403 $486,343 $1 ,364,146 $505,804 $247,844 $26,065 $0 $0 $344,417 $302,121 $199,275 $6,202,291 $127,946 $425,964 $10,611 ,619 $408,913 $163,742 $366,991 $22,416 $169,737 $312,321 $3,070,261 $4,514,381 $15,125,999 $559,062 $37,886 $0 $142,241 $739,1 88 $0 $462,324 $42,498 $17,721 $522,543 $334,791 $0 $0 $334,791 $32,049 $0 $32,049 $1 ,628,571 $16,754,570 $1 ,404,824 $18,159,395 98-99 / .,,,, ... .,,,., 98-99 ,:,,\u0026gt; ,, 'FlT\nE\n) t.,}.Prowsedt 6.0 $405,002 10,0 $538,313 40.2 $1,573,736 12.4 $562,628 6.5 $285,649 1.0 $29,673 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 12.6 $362,514 8.7 $358,938 5.4 $224,300 177.9 $6,850,936 0.0 $130,000 13.0 $507,181 293.7 $11,828,870 20.0 $442,653 5.4 $199,997 29.0 ,$453,656 1.0 $49,635 6.0 $173,752 37.0 $364,471 )0000000( $3,601,089 98.4 $5,285,254 $17,114,123 $607,657 $46,000 $0 $164,009 )(XX)OO()()( $817,666 XXX)O(XXX $1 ,500 \u0026gt;0000000\u0026lt; $510,244 )OOOO(XXX $43,250 $26,700 $58,~ ,694 XXX)O(XXX $412,097 XXiOOOOO( $0 $0 $412,097 $21,900 $0 XXX)O(XXX $21,900 XXX)O(XXX $1,833,357 392.1 $18,947,481 xxxxxxxx $1 ,199,429 xxxxxx $20,146,910 Line Item Costs - 1 \u0026lt;  Budget ./\\. ?ft:tK\n..-.,..\n..., ... .,.. ....., .. , .:.::: fi'frl\n{p~iiW F \\:: ..... :::?}: ::j:/::\n:::::/::~ : 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $33,837 $26,635 $37,366 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1,284,189 $1,284,189 $1,075,563 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics  $40,500 $40,500 $33,000 Gifted Programs $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 Enqlish $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 Tofal Line Items $1 ,412,026 $1,404,824 $1,199,429 Per Pupi!Cost/ 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1} 97-98 97-98 .,r .\" ,\n,97-98 \" . V 98c..99} \" 98-99){ :I Booker Magnet School F.T.E. Budget )? /,:/ Acttiar ..:\"':'-  f'/LE/ \"'\u0026gt;-, Pro.pos~cl}\".:. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $61 ,582 $61 ,582 1.0 $67,173 STAFF 02 Asst Pr1n 1.0 $43,757 $44,246 1.0 $56,872 03 Specialists 7.0 $268,408 $270,556 7.0 $293,535 04 Counselors 2.0 $76,155 $76,071 2.0 $85,862 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $42,653 $42,653 1.0 $46,975 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $26,065 $26,065 1.0 $29,673 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Specia l Education 1.3 $55,624 $55,624 1.3 $61 ,889 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,594 $39,594 1.0 $44,121 12 Classroom 30.2 $1,042,379 $1,067,326 30.2 $1,144,112 13 Substitutes 0.0 $30,000 $17,666 0.0 $21 ,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $105,300 $105,300 4.0 $146,338 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1,791,516 $1,806,681 49.5 $1,997,549 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $39,821 $40,661 2.0 $42,999 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $33,050 $33,530 1.0 $36,169 17 Custodians 4.0 $53,033 $58,134 4.0 $61 ,704 18 I nformat1on Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 . $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $56,973 $58,696 7.0 $68,802 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) $519,779 $517,153 $589,205 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.2 $706,392 $711 ,910 14.2 $807,152 TOTAL (10-20) $2,497,909 $2,518,591 $2,804,701 PURCHASED 22 Util1t1es $81,480 $75,300 $74,250 SERVICES 23 Travel $2,000 $10,143 $10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $13,350 $19,065 $28,584 TOTAL (30) $96,830 $104,508 $112,834 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Re\u0026lt;:iular Classroom $105,498 $75,760 $72,000 (40) 28 Media $5,250 $6,038 $5,500 29 Other $3,372 $3,453 $5,000 TOTAL (40) $114,120 $85,251 $83,500 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $65,760 $78,372 $77, 833 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. $0 $0 -- $0 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $65,760 $78,372 $77, 833 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $250 $2,655 $1 ,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $250 $2,655 $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) $276,960 $270,786 $275,1 67 TOTAL (10-60) 63.7 $2,774,869 $2,789,377 63.7 $3,079,868 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $217,370 $213,446 $186,314 I GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $2,992,238 $3,002,823 xxxxx.x $3,266,181 Line Item Costs. - . . .,., .. B u_dget .,,.. .. ,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ::\n-::. .. -:-.-:,::..-:-:-: i/i,\\ : 'efciiio.~~4it Booker ' '/? \u0026gt;} /} : ,:j 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $8,357 $4,434 $10,686 Other Objects Indirect Costs $205,499 $205,499 $172,114 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $153 $153 $153 Plant Services $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 Reading $80 $80 $80 Science $0 $0 $0 English $240 $240 $240 Special Education $640 $640 $640 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Lrne Items $217,370 $213,446 $186,314 Per Pupfl Cost 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 624.39 624.39 630.43 Total Costs $2,992,238 $3,002,823 $3,266,181 1998--99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1} 97-98 97 98 \\/c,  c ,\"' .. ,.97-98' . . \u0026gt; .. ,-98~9!\nh, \u0026gt;}C::C:t\\98'-99\\f\\c:  Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Budqet Actual F.T.E\n,.,. .. . Proi:\u0026gt;os\"ed CERTIFIED 01 Pnnc1pal 1.0 $57,650 $57,650 1.0 $63,061 STAFF 02 Asst. Prrn 1.0 $45,496 $45,496 1.0 $53,026 03 Speci alists 8.0 $285,971 $285,886 8.0 $315,292 04 Counselors 2.0 $70,795 $70,795 2.0 $74,292 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $54,248 $54,248 1.5 $61,288 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.5 $50,773 $50,773 1.5 $56,857 11 Gifted 1.4 $48,976 $48,976 1.4 $55,762 12 Classroom 24.3 $694,929 $723,844 24.3 $828,825 13 Substitutes 0.0 $25,000 $16,739 0.0 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $128,706 $128,706 4.0 $145,675 TOTAL CERTI FIED SALARY 44.7 $1 ,462,545 $1,483,113 44.7 $1,674,077 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $48,392 $48,392 3.0 $60,537 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,383 $24,383 1.0 $28,366 17 Custodians 4.0 $43,692 $43,462 4.0 $71,278 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $87,419 $87,718 11 .0 $112,097 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $456,456 $449,541 $544,184 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $664,078 $657,231 19.2 $824,735 TOTAL (10-20) $2,126,623 $2,140,345 $2,498,812 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es $81 ,653 $72,098 $83,707 SERVICES 23 Travel $9,000 $7 ,676 $10,000 , (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,560 $8,147 $1i,915 TOTAL (30) $99,213 $87,921 $106,622 MATERIALS 26 Pnnc1pal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regula r Classroom $57,660 $71 ,813 $57,800 (40) 28 Media $5,500 $9,651 $10,000 29 Other $3,600 $2,725 $3,200 TOTAL (40) $66,760 $84.189 $71 ,000 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $56,167 $35,442 $36,430 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repai r, etc XII I .... (50) 32 Other ,. . TOTAL (50) I $56,167 $35,442 $36,430 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $4,000 $8,287 $8,000 (60) 34 other TOTAL (60) $4,000 $8,287 $8,000 TOTAL (30-60) $226,140 $215,839 $222,052 TOTAL (10-60) 63.9 $2,352,763 $2,356,184 63.9 $2.720,864 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $217,167 $217,159 $183,238 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx SZ,569,930 $2,573,343 xxxxxx $2,904,102 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Carver . 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $13,390 $13,382 $12,010 Other Objects Indirect Costs $200,352 $200,352 $167,803 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $149 $149 $149 Plant Services $2,340 $2,340 $2,340 Reading $78 $78 $78 Science $0 $0 $0 English $234 $234 $234 Special Education $624 $624 $624 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $217,167 $217,159 $183,238 Per Pupil Cost 1997-98 1997-98 (( , 1998~99 .. 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 608.75 608.75 616.33 Total Costs $2,569,930 $2,573,343 $2,904,102 Per Pupil Cost $4\n222 y$4\n221   .. / $4:112 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1} 97-98 97-98 \\/ ,, ,.,/'97-98 ?,, . 98-99:, . ./\\::-,,.sa-99'\\'c\u0026lt;\\ . Gibbs Magnet School F.T.E. B Udctet)/.00:,  / 00c\u0026lt;Actua1c :,:,F,LE/ :):) Proo6$t'!c\nf ? CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $50,354 $53,170 1.0 $62,256 STAFF 02 Asst Pr1n 1.0 $58,119 $55,200 1.0 $48,518 03 Specialists 5.8 $169,956 $170,916 6.8 $230,842 04 Counselors 1.0 $43,567 $43,567 1.0 $48,507 OS Media Spec. 1.0 $43,696 $43,569 1.0 $49,766 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.5 $50,753 $58,247 1.5 $74,622 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,047 $31,047 1.0 $35, 111 12 Classroom 15.0 $485,954 $477,552 15.0 $522,415 13 Substitutes 0.0 $14,000 $7,009 0.0 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $67,312 $67,312 2.0 $76,237 TOTAL CERTIFIEb SALARY 29.3 $1 ,014,757 $1,007,589 30.3 $1,162,334 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $22,339 $22,260 1.4 $29,288 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,569 $14,569 0.8 $32,457 17 Custodians 3.0 $40,097 $39,684 3.0 $45,642 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Para professionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $40,499 $47,870 5.6 $36,188 .. 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $303,473 $307,216 $369,681 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11 .0 $424,712 $435,335 11.0 $521,529 TOTAL (10-20) $1,439,470 $1,442,923 $1 ,683,863 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $39,439 $36,305 .... ,.,..,.-,, $38,201 SERVICES 23 Travel $2,000 $9,268 :.-...\n.. $8,500  ,' (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $3,985 $5,957 $Hi,824 TOTAL {30) yy $45,424 $51,530 $62,525 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office $1,000 $0 $1,000 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $49,625 $35,821 $39,1 41 (40) 28 Media $3,500 $2,510 $3,000 29 Other $1,260 $1 ,488 $3,000 TOTAL (40) $55,385 $39,820 $46,141 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $62,059 $65,272 $183,040 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $62,059 $65,272 $183,040 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $1,000 $4,493 $1,000 {60) 34 Other ~ TOTAL (60) $1 ,000 $4,493 $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) $163,868 $161 ,115 $292,706 TOTAL {10-60) 40.3 $1,603,338 $1 ,604,038 41 .3 $1,976,569 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - {SECOND PAGE) $106,558 $106,558 $89,919 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $1 ,709,895 $1,710,596 xxxxx:x $2,066,488 Line Item Costs - / :: : .. /.Budge( ? .\n::::::\n:::::.:::'.:'11 ,,-.:\"' : \"'/ !  - '::':'c'i::  t tirc$~t~~~ l Gibbs\\ ::., .~ \u0026lt;\u0026lt; ,,,::rtt 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $540 $540 $835 Other Objects Indirect Costs $104,236 $104,236 $87,302 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $78 $78 $78 Plant Services $1,218 $1,218 $1,218 Reading $41 $41 $41 Science $0 $0 $0 English $122 $122 $122 Special Education $325 $325 $325 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $106,558 $106,558 $89,919 3rd Qtr ADM or Proj 316.71 316.71 324.80 Total Costs $1,709,895 $1,710,596 $2,066,488 . Pe?'\"piJpi(1\nost..- :. -:::::,:::::,:,:::\\\\ik)? .//\\kit . ,.~ ,.,., ,,.,.,.,,,.,.,,,.,.,.,.,  ,,\"'\"'\"'' ~- n, :,:,:,::::::::::,:\n:::::::::::::,:,i,_p,\n.,.9~:: 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 97-98 97-98 '\". '\u0026gt; \"' \" -i':97-98'''' 'i 9\u0026amp;\n'9m: :::::.:. ,,\u0026gt; 98-9'9 ,i'i/i Willi ams Magnet School F.T.E. Budget /}' Actual \"\". it ,,,F\nT\nE} .. , .  ,. Proposed.\\,, .. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $66,662 $66,662 1.0 $72,770 STAFF 02 Asst Pnn 1.0 $44,837 $44,837 1.0 $47,761 03 Specialists 5.0 $201,181 $201,181 5.0 $223,133 04 Counselors 1.4 $51 ,530 $51,530 1.4 $57,763 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $31 ,151 $26,038 1.0 $36,985 06 Art-Perf./P rod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.1 $39,220 $44,138 1.1 $50,456 11 Gifted 2.0 $79,658 $79,658 2.0 $89,246 12 Classroom 20.0 $703,555 $703,414 20.0 $807,642 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 $12,980 0.0 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $124,646 $124,646 3.0 $138,931 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1 ,362,442 $1,355,084 35.5 $1 ,544,686 SUPPORT 15 Secretanes 2.6 $47,016 $47,016 2.6 $53,584 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $39,749 $39,749 1.0 $44,854 17 Custodians 4.0 $47,750 $53, 006 4.0 $55,662 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $31 ,968 $43,637 9.0 $62,177 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) $397,919 $393,877 , $472,966 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.8 $568,138 $581 ,020 16.8 $697,515 TOTAL (10-20) $1 ,930,580 $1,936,104 $2,242,201 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $54,789 $49,789 ._._.,\n'.:.:::--.-.. $50,168 SERVICES 23 Travel $3,000 $4,233 $3,500 , (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $6,000 $4,267 .. $6,329 TOTAL (30) - $63, 789 $58,290 )()O()OOO(X $59,997 MATERIALS 26 Princ1pal's Office XXXXXXl\u0026lt;X SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $66,090 $72,633 )OO()OO(XX $62,608 (40) 28 Media $5,000 $4,662 $5,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx $1,400 $1 ,502 $2,500 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx $72, 490 $78,797 )(XX)()(X)()( $70,108 CAPITAL 30 Equipment . $34,480 $32,834 $34,400 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair, etc. XXXlOO\u0026lt;)()( (50) 32 Other $0 $0 )OO()O(X)O( $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $34,480 $32,834 xxxxxxxx $34,400 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx $800 $3,315 XXXlOOO\u0026lt;X $3,900 (60) 34 Other )0000000( .. TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx $800 $3,315 xxxxxxxx $3,900 TOTAL (30-60) )0000000( $171,559 $173,235 $168,405 TOTAL (10-60) 52.3 $2,1 02, 138 $2,109,339 52.3 $2,4 10,606 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $172,794 $164,394 $146,494 GRAND TOTAL xxxx:xx $2,274,932 $2,273,733 x:xxxxx .$2,557,100 Line Item Costs - w111iains.\u0026lt; 1997-98 1997-98 Stipends $8,400 $0 $8,358 Other Objects Indirect Costs $161,631 $161,631 $135,373 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $120 $120 $120 Plant Services $1,888 $1,888 $1,888 Reading $63 $63 $63 Science $0 $0 $0 English $189 $189 $189 Special Education $503 $503 $503 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $172,794 $164,394 $146,494 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 491.10 491.10 486.93 Total Costs $2,274,932 $2,273,733 $2,557,100 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 1) 97-98 97-98  .  . 97 -98 \" ...  98~99 \n,:?, .. :,:,98~S9)/t., Mann Magnet School F\nT.E. Budget: . ?'.\n:: \\\n\\\\. Actual \\ .......... . / F,T,E~\\ .tt,,,,.Pr.6.6Q~cj:.:.,) CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $68,177 $68,177 1.0 $67,313 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $134,985 $134,985 3.0 $150,847 03 Specialists 3.6 $94,123 $120,390 3.6 $137,303 04 Counselors 3.0 $122,979 $122,980 3.0 $138,140 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $44,702 $44,702 1.0 $49,770 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 MUSIC 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.6 $149,318 $149,686 5.6 $161,424 10 Special Education 1.3 $36,600 $36,600 1.3 $44,557 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 47.8 $1,605,497 $1 ,609,447 47.8 $1,736,395 13 Substitutes 00 $36,000 $36,915 0.0 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0,0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFlffi SALARY 66.3 $2,292,381 $2,323,881 66.3 $2,515,749 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $98,328 $98,328 5.0 $111,209 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $34,864 $34,864 1.0 $38,901 17 Custodians 6.0 $64,058 $66,190 6.0 $87,118 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $33,763 $33,087 1.0 $25,957 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $37,240 $41,005 2.4 $46,059 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) $657,749 $653,559 $738,034 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $929,738 $930,770 15.6 $1 ,055,550 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx:x $3,222,119 $3,254,651 $3,571,299 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $169,276 $143,189 $158,629 SERVICES 23 Travel $4,000 $2,1 24 $7,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 $0 $0 25 Other ... $61,474 $64,787 $58,878 TOTAL (30) $234,750 $210,100 $22,4,507 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office $1,000 $0 $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $129,299 $112,426 $119,615 (40) 28 Media \" $7,000 $10,227 .... $10,550 29 Other $3,000 $3,128 $5,000 TOTAL (40) $140,299 $125,780 $135,165 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $19,790 $25,448 $16,450 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc $0 $0 $0 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $19,790 $25,448 $16,450 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $1,500 $6,678 $4,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1,500 $6,678 $4,000 TOTAL (30-60) $396,339 $368,005 $380,122 TOTAL (10-60) 81 .9 $3,618,458 $3,622,656 81.9 $3,951 ,421 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $339,350 $339,350 $286,111 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $3,957,807 $3,962,006 xxxxxx. $4,237,532 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Mann 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $3,1 50 $3,150 $1 ,672 Other Objects Indirect Costs $296,283 $296,283 $248,150 Vocational $15,480 $15,480 $15,480 Athletics $19,592 $19,592 $15,964 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $3,461 $3,461 $3,461 Reading $115 $115 $115 Science $0 $0 $0 English $346 $346 $346 Special Education $923 $923 $923 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items  $339,350 $339,350 $286, 111 Per Pupil Cost ,., 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 900.23 900.23 889.83 Total Costs $3,957,807 $3,962,006 $4,237,532 Per Pupil Cost $4,396 .- 1998-99 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) \\l7J.l8  ?,-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;i 97-98 i!Jt\u0026gt;?r r: tt.n,.gsJ::: {}\\}  98:-99/ ?}i\\:98f9$ i?}J): Parkview Magnet School F.T\nE\n:  ,. Budget\\) ::: . {\\:t: A-cttlat tt\u0026gt;  Jffl\\E~ : { Pf6Whlic[ ) CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $72,162 $72,162 1.0 $72,429 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 3.0 $161 ,268 $161 ,579 3.0 $181,289 03 Speciali sts 9.8 $323,480 $315,218 9.8 $373,632 04 Counselors 3.0 $140,860 $140,860 3.0 $158,064 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $36,635 $36,635 1.0 $40,866 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.0 $194,499 $194,730 7.0 $201 ,089 10 Special Education 2.0 $56,739 $56,739 2.0 $70,559 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 40.6 $1,614,801 $1 ,620,709 40.6 $1,811 ,547 13 Substitutes 0.0 $40,000 $36,638 0.0 $25,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 67.4 $2,640,444 $2,635,271 67.4 $2,934,474 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $151,599 $152,256 6.0 $145,036 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $16,648 $16,648 0.6 $19,250 17 Custodians 8.0 . $107,841 $106,515 8.0 $132,253 18 Information Services 0.2 $3,736 $3,736 0.2 $8,273 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $100,043 $136,650 5.0 $147,795 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $31,002 $33,395 2.0 $39,149 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $754,670 $748,915 $887,018 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21 .8 $1,165,538 $1 ,198,115 21.8 $1 ,378,773 TOT AL ( 10-20) $3,805, 982 $3,833,385 $4,313,247 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $191,166 $182,381 \" $202,702 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,000 $4,441 ,.,.,,,,., .... ,,., -.. - $7,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 $0 $0 25 Other $63,550 $40,018 :i:.:.a I.\n~,_ $41,480 TOTAL (30) $261,716 $226,840 -  $25~, 182 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office $500 $0 $500 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $166,117 $93,871 ~ $159,080 (40) 28 Media $9,200 $9,410 $8,200 29 Other $5,000 $5,425 $8,000 TOTAL (40) r $180,817 $108,706 $175,780 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $43,437 $97,423 $63,944 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) r $43,437 $97,423 $63,944 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $3,663 $6,621 $4,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $3,663 $6,621 ' \" $4,000 TOTAL (30-60) $489,633 $439,590 $494,906 TOTAL (10-60) 89.2 $4,295,614 $4,272,976 89.2 $4,808,154 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $358,787 $363,918 $307,353 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $4,654,401 $4,636,894 xxxxxx $5,1.15,507 Line Item Costs - /\\\u0026gt;: :\": .-,,\".Budget: .,,:,:.:. . . :,,,,: 1:::::,? :-''.-:\"' .. _. -- ,,:-::,:, :: :: rH=lt$i\u0026amp;~t JJ Parkview:\"', \u0026gt;.  , \u0026lt;tt 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 Stipends $0 $5,130 $3,805 Other Objects Indirect Costs $316, 189 $3 16,189 $264,821 Vocational  $16, 520 $16,520 $16,520 Athletics $20,908 $20,908 $1 7,036 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $3,693 $3,693 $3,693 Reading $123 $123 $123 Science $0 $0 $0 English $369 $369 $369 Special Education $985 $985 $985 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items  $358 ,787 $363,918 $307,353 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj . 960.71 960. 71 981.54 Total Costs $4,654,401 $4,636,894 $5,115,507 OCT-18-99 HON 11:11 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLTRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LIT1LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * No. LR-C-82-866 P. 01 fjLED U.S. DIST~ICT COURT EASTE:R OISTRJCT ARKANSAS ocr t s 1999 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, * * * * Post-It\"' brand fax transmittal memo 7671 1-!RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * * * : TD Co. Ocpt. From Co. Phone KATHERINE Th1GHT, et al., Intervenors. * ---------------- ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1998-1999 school year. The YIB.C communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated June 30, 1999 (attached) The etter also contains a proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year\nhowever, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from entry of this Order to object to :MRC's final budget for 1998-1999. Should no objections be filed within the time aUowed, the Court will enter an Order approving the budget . .--ft'- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /j DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999 CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CO~PUAN~zwr~~ 56 ANDIOA 79(\u0026gt; FRCP ')llf / (j, I 5L . l!!V __ .tt::::: OCT-18-99 MON 11:11 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 M agli.t!9t Review C om.[~1ittee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} June 30, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Cour1 Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capi1ol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: At its June 22, -1999 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee. by formal motion and 4-0 vote (North Little Rock and Joshua lntervenors representatives were not present), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1998-99 school year !Draft 1). FINAL 1998-99 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: P. 02 The total amount budgeted, 520,146,910, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $5,127.00, calculated from an overage third-quarter enrollment of 3,929 .86 students. This budget reflects an increase of 5473.00 per student over the 1997-98 budget. with the third year of the five-year proposed program improvement pion included. This final 1998-99 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1998. As you know, in correspondence dated Moy 7, 1999, the Magnet Review Committee requested a change in the magnet school grade configurations beginning with the 1999- 2000 school year As described in that May 7, 1999 letter, the changes result in on additional 132 magnet school seats. At its June 22, 1999 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee approved the proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year for the six original magnet schools which reflected costs associated with the additional seats (Draft ll. PROPOSED 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET\nThe total proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year is $22,941,363, which results in o per-pupil expenditure of 55,648 and an increase of $521.00 per student over the 1998-99 actual budget. Salary negotiations ore in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 1999-2000 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requQsts the Court's review and approval of the 1998-99 finalized budget, as well as the proposed 1999-2000 budget, both attoched herewith. \"Pursue the Possibilities of,\",lagnet School Enrollment\" OCT-18-99 MON 11:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NQ 5013246576 P. 03 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 30, 1999 The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining !he existing quality of the original magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~, . ~..--- Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments - Adual 1998-99 Orlginal Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring OCT-18-99 MON tt:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COL1RT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LIT1LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintllf: * VS. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., * Defendants, *  :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Inteivenors, *  KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * :MEMO TO THE FILE FNLED us OIST/~ICT ccu\n.r EASTERN OIS'f\"RICT ARXANSAS 0('.-, t A I\"\"\" Jv f ~ r\"'J\"J'j JAMES 8'1: ----~~~JJL Defendant Pulaski County Special School District (PCS SD) requested an informal inchambers conference [docket no. 3291]. The Court granted PCSSD's request and held a conference on September 22, 1999, with all parties present. Accordingly, the Court requests that the Clerk make the necessary docket entry to remove PCSSD's request from the pending motions' list. Dated this 14th da of October, 1999 o-Jo Baldwin Law Clerk to Judge Wright f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 2 'l. 1999 JAME~VV.M:!MACK,ClERK By: \\J ,~U f\\ M V f'---- oep CLERK IV NOV 2 3 1999 OiRCEOf Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1998-1999 school year. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the budget as submitted. ,J IT IS SO ORDERED THIS Jib DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1999 QZ~,~2 'tttfjgF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated June 30, 1999. For a copy of the letter, see docket no. 3303, attachment.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_672","title":"Management audit","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":["1998/1999"],"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","School management and organization","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Management audit"],"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/672"],"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\nreceived OCT 3 0 1998 Office of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK FOR OUR PURUC SCHOOLS October 29, 1998 IMPORTANT INVITATION TO: Ann Brown FROM: Odies Wilson, HI / President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools SUBJECT: Invitation To Attend Public Input Session Regarding Our Schools Wednesday, November 4,1998 Drop By Anytime Between 4 p.m. - 8 p.m. Martin Luther King Elementary School 907 Martin Luther King Blvd. As you know, the Alliance is working in partnership with the Little Rock School District with a consulting firm to study the management and financial practices of our school district. The firm, MGT of America, will have a team of professionals visiting Little Rock on the evening of November 4*. You should have already been contacted to arrange a one-on-one interview with a member of the MGT Team. We want you to also feel free to attend the public input session. MGTs goal is to talk to as many people as possible about our school district. By hearing from as many people as possible, they will better understand the positive strides that have been made in recent years and months, as well as the unique challenges facing our district. I especially want to invite you to participate in the open forum being held at Martin Luther King Elementary School from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4*. It will not be necessary for you to attend the full, four-hour event. Time constraints will not allow the MGT team to visit with you extensively one-on-one at the open forum, but please plan to stay for as long as you like. The format for the forum will allow you to drop by.at any time during the four- hour event and contribute your thoughts and perspective to the team from MGT. Feel free to also invite any other guests who have comments they would like to share with MGT regarding the Little Rock School District. Thank you in advance for responding to this special invitation. We value your opinion and want you to be able to share them with the team from MGT. Please make every effort to drop by Martin Luther King School next Wednesday evening. Without your participation, the MGT team will not have the benefit of your insight as they work on a series of recommendations to help us plan for the bright future of our district and its students. I hope to see you next Wednesday evening. You will consider your attendance time well spent. 523 Louisiana Street  Lafayette Building  Suite 175  Little Rock  Arkansas  72201 Phone (501) 370-9300 . Fax (501) 375-877403/25/1999 23:31 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 sevann@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl 2.ar.us For Immediate Release March 25,1999 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Management Study Presented to LRSD A six-month management study of the Little Rock School District is complete, and results of the study were submitted to the LRSD Board of Education attonight s (Thursday) public meeting. The purpose of the study was to identify specific areas of the districts management structure and operations which could be improved and to provide a thorough review of the districts financial condition. The study was commissioned by a coalition of local entities, including the LRSD, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, Fifty for the Future, and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. The coalition hired MGT of America to conduct the study and report its findings to the community. Dr. Linda Recio of MGT of America outlined for the LRSD Board the scope of its work and presented copies of its 500 page report. Recio encouraged the Board to read the report prior to her return visit with the Board in May. at which time she will respond to questions that Board members may have. Superintendent Les Gamine notes that many changes have been underway during the time that MGT consultants have been surveying staff and community leaders, gathering data, and developing its report Even as we embrace the management study results and recommendations,\" Gamine says, we recognize that our district has been in the process of significant program changes since the study began. We realize that these changes in our curriculum, campus leadership initiative and middle school transition, just to name a few, tt must be considered as we review the recommendations.' Some of the recommendations address the districts organizational structure and suggest numerous changes in personnel alignment. Gamine says ttiat organizational changes can be accomplished through attrition including retirements and normal mobility of staff. The report also concludes that the district needs additional financial support from the community in order to maintain adequate school facilities. Gamine suggests a period of two to three months for review of the recommendations and establishment of a timeline for implementation. MGT \\ bfC- O f J C.0rnjile.4t, /\u0026gt;ook lc.\u0026lt;i A MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25,1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 } 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology......................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure..................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS 3-1 1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................... Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures................ ...3-2 ...3-5 .3-10 .3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS 4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results............................ Principal Survey Results............................................................. Teacher Survey Results.............................................................. Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys........................................................................ Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems............................................................ EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office................................................................ Division of School Services........................................................... Division of Instruction..................................................................... Operations Division........................................................................ Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 .4-12 .4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 .5-15 .5-30 .5-35 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs................... Assessment of Fund Balance...................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94i TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 PAGE ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 6.7 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes...................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................ Chapter Summary.............................................................................. FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction..................................................................... Funding for New Construction...................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair.......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations......................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan........................................................................ Technology Committee............................................................. Staffing....................................................................................... Infrastructure.............................................................................. Hardware.................................................................................... Staff Development.................................................................... Technical Support...................................................................... Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................... NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment...................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement................................................ Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts..................................................................... English as a Second Language........................................................ Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy................................................................................ Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation.......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................... APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results 6-99 6-115 6-116 ,7-1 ...7-1 ...7-4 .7-21 .7-25 8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 ,8-17 .8-23 8-27 8-30 9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 ,9-14 ,9-17 .9-22 .9-26 .9-30 9-32 9-35 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 i I 1 J 1 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational stnjcture that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the ManaQement Study  I The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\nI  the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instmctional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study . MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report. Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page IIExecutive Summary 1 1 ( including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. t Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review 1 During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review 1 During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following:  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. 1 During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page III? I i s f j I 1 Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. Fifty tor the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION 1 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school districts current financial position.' The RFP asked the consultant to \"1 analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future. The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-eValuation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v1 i Executive Summary J should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teachers union for expected settlement revenues. AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastnjcture to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vlExecutive Summary 1 The facilities study conducted by 3D\\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities, in some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. k These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. { AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES I Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: J .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 5 At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place  A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary I The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 9 I The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include: 1  Honors and Enrichment  Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education ] There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instmction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning  support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. i In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. I The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation,\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page vlllExecutive Summary 1 allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. k. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 1 Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. I 1 1 1 In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. i 1 The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. 1 The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LRSD shall Implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the T lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: i This strategy should be accomplished by  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement: 1  annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology: and I  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Page XExecutive Summary J 1 t The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. 1 J Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. j The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. I Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xl1 Executive Summary 1 The Importance of Implementation I The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. j As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xllExecutive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTIVITY October 15, 1998 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines. November 1998  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. I J November 2-6, 1998 Visited the Little Rock School District to: 1 I 1 4 i  I \u0026lt; J December 7-11,1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1.1999 March 1-24,1999 J March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc.  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xlilDate: To: From: Re: March 30, 1999 All isociates Viewing the LRSD Management Audit Attached are various parts of the recently released LRSD management audit. I regret to report that the superintendent wasnt very keen on sharing this document with us for reasons he did not express. At our next full staff meeting. Ill share what few comments he did give me on the audit. A complete copy of this hefty tome is in our library for anyone who wants to read the whole thing. Each of you has a copy of the Executive Summary and some other sections of the report, which Ive distributed more or less according to your particular area of interest or expertise. Heres how were going to eat this elephant: Read what youve been given, noting findings, comments, and recommendations that you think are (1) significant for the entire staff to be aware of and (2) which we also may want to somehow factor into our LRSD report thats currently underway. (A review of the entire Executive Summary isnt your individual responsibility, just the areas in it that relate to your other report sections.) I cant be more definitive on what you may uncover thats significant and might therefore be a candidate for factoring into our report or at least further investigation, because I havent read any of the audit and have only the vaguest idea whats in there. Just use your best judgment. The report subsections are pretty broad and cover a number of topics that apply to different staff members expertise. This appears to be especially true in section 9 of the audit. Within the separate sections youve been given, if you find a subtopic you know can be better analyzed by another associate by virtue of his or her experience, expertise, or interest, feel free to make trade-offs. (For example: Margie, youre responsible for Section 9, but youll want to give parts to your colleagues, such as ESL to Horace, ECE to Melissa, etc. Skip, the finance section is very lengthy, so youre free to rope in extra help if you want it.) Im not as concerned with who does what as I am about getting this document digested, so please be generous in helping each other out. Just let Polly know about any trading so she can keep a current listing of whos doing what. Underlining, highlighting, and writing in the margins of these documents is fine, as these are your copies to mark up. After youve completed your review, write up a brief, informal, in-house summary of the key points you noted, by section or subsection as appropriate. Include any observations you have about the relevance the section or subsection may have to our report and any recommendations you have about some sort of subsequent action we might need to take, such as additional research for our report or adding a topic to the report. Polly will compile the summaries, observations, and recommendations into one document to share with all of us. The deadline for getting your stuff to Polly is no later than Friday, April 9. Assignments are as follows: Section 1: Section 2: Section 3\nSection 4\nSection 5: Margie Melissa Gene Horace Gene Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Section 9: Appendix: Skip Melissa Skip Margie Horace (a cursory review will suffice)04/06/1999 09:55 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: Fax: (501)324-2020 (501)324-2032 DATE: April 6,1999 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Board Work Session/Spedal Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will have a work session and a special board meeting this afternoon in conjunction with its regular agenda meeting (the agenda meeting this month was moved from Thursday until this evening. The work session will include discussions of facility needs, the MGT study. Board goals, the district mid-term report, and establishment of an educational foundation. The special board meeting will be an executive session on a personnel matter. The meetings will begin at 5\n00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. # Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge i REVIEW OF THE LRSD MANAGEMENT AUDIT SECTION 1 - Introductlow Margie After reading the sections assigned to me, except for some budget data, I found no new information concerning my assigned sections. I have completed my editing of the Associates  LRSD revised plan report, and find that the audit report reflects much of what has already been written by the Associates. This section contains the time line for the management study which was completed on schedule (March 25, 1999). MGT lists the sources used to make the report, such as: Board policies and minutes, compliance reports, ODM reports, school improvement plans, and the like. Two reports made by outside agencies: A Plan for Success, by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, and Plain Talk, released by UALR, were also used as resources. According to the authors of this study, MGT interviewed over 100 campus-level employees, as well as members of the business community, and members of the central office staff. The report does not indicate how the interviewees were chosen or how many were interviewed on each level, such as elementary-level vs. secondary-level employees. The report reflects high praise for the spirit of cooperation between the LR business community and the school district. Additionally, the report cites several initiatives recommended in the LR Alliance report were already underway. The district had a new Board, a new superintendent, and a fairly good relationship between the superintendent and board members. The report indicates that one initiative recommended in A Plan For Success, the marketing of the LRSD, had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD. The MGT report strongly recommends that the district embrace the marketing plan and aggressively market the LRSD. SECTION 2 - Background on the LRSD Melissa This section consists of the following subsections: 2.1 Historical Background and future of Desegregation\n2.2 Current Environment of the LRSD\n2.3 Current Central Office Structure. A brief summary of each section follows. 2.1 Historical Background and the Future of Desegregation This section begins with reference to the history of desegregation in the LRSD and speaks to the district having struggled vrith lawsuit after lawsuit. It mentions that an end may be at hand to the friction bom of integration... The MGT study seems to praise the lack of over-prescription found in the revised plan. Page 1This section contains an erroneous conclusion: This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice , either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. The new assignment plan should end involuntary busing, but it will not enable students to attend the school of their choice. Choices are more limited under the new plan than the old. A large portion of the section consists of excerpts from the Revised Desegregation and Education plan. The section concludes with a brief description of ODM and the Joshua Intervenors. 2.2 Current Environment of the LRSD This section contains historic, demographic, and financial data regarding the LRSD. Much of their data is taken from the UALR Plain Talk. I found nothing especially new or noteworthy in this section. Page 2-12 contains some outdated or incorrect data where it mentions that some schools will become ninth grade only for a time. Page 2-14 also contains some confusing language regarding the Pay and Classification Study currently being conducted by the district. This section talks about creating a policy for over maximum and under maximum employees. I do not know what this means, nor does it make sense. 2.3 Current Central Office Structure This lengthy section is a collection of organizational charts for the central office and departments within the LRSD administration. Each group of charts is accompanied by a brief narrative that defines the responsibilities of the department and its director. Once again, I found some errors or omissions. The ombudsman position does not appear on the carts, but the narrative makes reference to the task of filling the position in the future. It appears that all information gathering by MGT stopped some time in late November or early December, and they made no real effort to update their findings to include changes made after that time. The section on the Reading/Language Arts Department includes one error and one mystery. The error involves the selection of textbooks. The report states that the director is responsible for selecting mathematics and science textbooks rather than reading and language arts (pg. 2-41). The mystery deals with the staff assigned to the reading department. The MGT chart on page 2-42 lists a reading troubleshooter position, which they say is shared with UALR. No such position exits. What the district docs have is an ESL specialist from UALR who conducts inservice training for the ESL tutors and visits the schools to assist teachers in tailoring instruction to meet the special needs of LEP students. In addition to the large collection of organizational charts, this subsection concludes with a chart that illustrates a total of the central office staff by division. The divisional chart does not include principals, school-based staff, food service workers, or the IRC building staff such as aides, security officer, and custodians. That chart is reproduced below. Page 2LRSD Central Office Staff Count by Division Position/Division Superintendent Special Assistant Special Assistant, Labor Relations Communications Technoloqy Administrative Services Division School Services Division Instructional Division Operations Division TOTAL Professional and Technical 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 20.0 26.0 7.0 92.0 61.0 212.0 Clerical and Labor 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 12.5 7.0 29.0 60.0 115.0 SECTION 3 - Comparisons to Other School Districts Gene Section 3 is a comparison of the LRSD with Caddo Parish School District (Shreveport, La.) Richmond City School District (Richmond, Va.) and the Savannah-Chatham County School District (Savannah, Ga.). School districts in Jackson, Mississippi and Columbia, South Carolina declined to be compared. MGT made no recommendations in this section. Salient Points of the Comparison with other Districts  District enrollments vary from 24,000 (LRSD) to 48,000 (Caddo Parish) and average 34,000.  African-American student percentages range from a low of 48% (Savannah) to a high of 77% (Richmond) and average 61%. The black percentage enrollment of each district is substantially higher than the black percentage population of the community served by each district. The LRSD has a lower percentage of students in poverty (21%) than any of the comparison districts and 8 percentage points lower than the average of 29%. LRSD has a lower student to building-level-administrator ratio than the comparison districts and lower than the national average ratio. The student to classroom teacher ratio ranked in the middle of the comparison districts but two students per teacher below the national average. Salaries of most employee classifications were lower in LRSD than in the comparison districts. LRSD has 12 positions with superintendent in the title, plus the superintendent. Caddo has three, Richmond has four, and Savannah has eight. With revenue of $5,417 per student, LRSD is in the middle of the comparison districts in revenue per student with Caddo being lowest at $4,021 and Richmond highest at $6,569. Expenditures per student reflected a comparison similar to the revenue comparison. Page 3SECTION 4- Survey Results Horace Background and Organization During October of 1998, MGT of America administered written surveys to LRSD central office administrators, building administrators and teachers. MGT surveyed all of the central administrators and principals, but only a random sample of teachers. The survey results are initially organized according to the three job categories surveyed. The consultants then compared the three group results and finally compared the LRSD results in each job category to a composite of 26 districts in which they have conducted surveys over the last six years. Summary of Key Points 4.1 Central Administration\n25 of 29 surveys returned (86% rate)  100% of the administrators rated the superintendents work as an educational leader as good or excellent.  While 84% of the administrators felt that principals cared about students needs, only 56% of them rated the principals work as educational leaders as good or excellent.  Administrators had a low opinion of parental efforts related to helping their children do better in school\nwith 68% rating parental efforts as fair or poor. Most administrators (83%) felt that teacher and staff promotions and pay increases are not based on individual performance. The top five programs most administrators indicated needed major improvement were Instructional Technology, Plant Maintenance, Administrative Technology, Custodial Services, and Personnel Recruitment. Food Services, Law Enforcement, Purchasing, Strategic Planning, Financial Management, and Community Relations all received combined adequate or outstanding ratings from more than 75% of the administrators. 4.2 Principals: 101 surveys disseminated and 67 returned (66% return rate) Principals were concerned with facilities. Forty-six percent of principals indicated that they did not believe that there is sufficient space and facilities to support instructional programs. In reference to the superintendent, 82% rated him as good or excellent as an educational leader. Most principals (91%) felt that teacher promotions and pay increases are not based on individual performance. The top five programs most principals indicated needed major improvement were Plant Maintenance, Instructional Technology, Pupil Transportation, Custodial Services, and Facilities Planning. The principals rated Law Enforcement, Food Service, Strategic Planning, and Staff Development as adequate to outstanding. 4.3 Teachers: 488 surveys distributed and 212 returned (43% return rate) While 49% ofthe teachers rated the superintendents work as an educational leader as good or excellent, 44% rated is work in this area as fair or poor. Page 4Only 42% of the teachers felt that their schools were safe and secure from crime and 33% dont think that their schools are safe. Only 24% of teachers rated parents participation in school activities as good or excellent. Only 36% of teachers believe that workloads are equitably distributed among teachers and staff. Like the central administrators and principals, 84% of the teachers indicated that teachers are not promoted or paid more based on individual performance and 65% indicated that the same was true for staff. The top five programs that teachers indicated were in need of improvement were Budgeting, Plant Maintenance, Instructional Technology, Curriculum Planning, and Custodial Services. The program with the highest combined adequate to outstanding rating was Staff Development. 4.4 Administration, Principal, and Teacher Survey Results Compared Teachers were the least optimistic about conditions in LRSD and central office administrators were the most optimistic. Generally, central office administrators and principals held similar attitudes while teacher attitudes were less optimistic. Teachers were less supportive and evenly divided in their assessments of the superintendents performance. By a 3\n1 ratio, all three groups indicated that schools are not kept in good condition. None of the groups had positive views of parent involvement in school activities and organization.  All survey groups were dissatisfied with the manner in which teacher and staff promotion and pay increases are allotted. Teachers are not overly impressed with any of the districts programs or functions\nwith only staff development receiving a combined outstanding or excellent rating of over 50%. However, 64% of central office administrators indicated that staff development needed major improvement. 4.5 Comparison of LRSD to Other School Districts The LRSD central administrations attitudes were generally less optimistic than that of their counterparts in other MGT districts. However, their opinions about the board and superintendent were significantly higher than the composite of other districts. The central administration viewed the performance of their principals and teachers less positively than administrators in other districts. Overall, the LRSD responses are comparable to those of their counterpart districts. Observations The MGT survey results are not particularly enlightening. I dont feel that the district will discover anything that was not already known. As with the districts ovm climate surveys, the point is not how much information is collected, it is how that information is used to bring about changes. Page 5The return rate for the principals was pathetic. Only 66% of them returned the surveys. I just assumed that participation was mandatory since the district had commissioned the study. Another observation I have is that only 25% of the teachers who returned surveys were African-American in a district that has a considerably higher percentage of African-American teachers. While the survey did not reveal anything striking or new, I do feel that one of the most significant results had to do with promotion and pay. High percentages of all three surveyed groups felt that promotion and pay were not tied to performance. I would think that this finding might have some bearing on how the district develops more equitable promotion policies and practices. SECTION 5 - Effectiveness of the Management Structure and Organization Gene Section 5 is an analysis of the effectiveness of the management structure of LRSD including the superintendents office and the four divisions of district-wide services. Salient Points of Management Structure Section Reduce the number of divisions from 4 to 3 by eliminating the division of administrative sei-vices and assigning the functions to others. MGT may have made this recommendation without knowing the historical significance of the administrative services division regarding the desegregation case. Because MGT gives short shrift to the desegregation case in general, their recommendation here may be another signal of their general disdain for the relationship of LRSD to the continuing desegregation case. Either way, ODM should support continuation of the administrative services division as a primary proponent of desegregation of LRSD. Create a position of chieffinancial officer so that the functions offinancial services report to the superintendent. ODM doesnt have a dog in this hunt but 1 suspect this recommendation is a standard one for MGT. Given the personnel presently in place in LRSD, I prefer the existing structure where the chief financial officer reports to an associate superintendent. Move the internal auditor to report directly to the board. ODM should support this recommendation and promote increased vigilance on the part of the auditor. Realign the instructional division into four major sections: NSF, early childhood/elementary, middle school, and high school. Move staff development into human resources. This recommendation is apparently based on MGTs druthers. I am not aware of research or experience that recommends this alignment of duties for a curriculum department. Neither do know of any reason for ODM to oppose it. Page 6 Create another assistant superintendents position in the school semces division to relieve the associate superintendent of the seventeen schools the position now supervises directly. The existing structure in school services is awkward and unwieldy, so ODM should support this recommendation or one similar to it. MGT recommends in another section that the instructional division be subgrouped around elementary, middle, and high school curriculum. It may be that school services should be divided similarly. MGT makes a host of other recommendations related to administrative structure that range from movement of functions to downgrading positions. My thought is that many of these arrangements are based personal preferences or personnel quirks or strengths. MGT may have gone too far. SECTION 6 - Assessment of Financial Condition Skip In my opinion this section of the report has so many flaws and errors, any suggestions that the authors made that might have value will be lost due to the total lack of credibility. I dont intend to list all of the specifics but just enough to illustrate my concerns. Recommendation 6-1 Transfer the responsibility for fringe benefits and leave reporting from Financial Services Department to the Human Resources Department, (page 6-4j The report goes on to suggest the existing 1.5 FTE positions assigned to handling these tasks be transferred from Financial Services to Human Resources. Comment: The authors have apparently mixed the tasks of developing employee benefits with the tasks of paying for them. Recommendation 6-1 Recommends transferring the responsibility from Workers Compensation from Financial Services to the Director of Safety and Security who is responsible for Risk Management, (page 6-4) Also relating to Workers Compensation, on page 6-84 the LRSD is commended for its reduced level of workers compensation costs at a time such costs are rising in many organizations. Comment\nSeveral years ago, the districts went to a state-wide averaging and the cost for each district is determined by the state-wide average. So if one district were to reduce their claims and another were to have a great increase in claims, each would only pay the state-wide average. Recommendation 6-8 Utilize the Association of School Business Officials Meritorious Budget Award as a goal to become the basis for achieving excellence in budget format, presentation, and improved fiscal accountability and budgetary communication with the community, (page 6-21) Page 7Comment: Previous consultants recommended another budget award program. This whole section appears to be straight boilerplate and I feel this approach is directed toward creating a pretty budget for award purposes rather than a functional and practical budget. The authors do state that: The time required to pursue this endeavor is considerable for the Financial Services staff. I just dont feel any efforts devoted to this recommendation has short or long term value. Recommendation 6-9 This recommendation is directed the magnet school budget and it appears the authors dont understand the relationship that the two other districts and ADE have with the overall magnet school budget and funding, (page 6-23) The authors devoted a sub section number 6.3 to the Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data. Comments: This section is filled with charts, tables, and graphs trying to explain the sources of revenue for LRSD. It is apparent to me through these pictures and narratives of explanation, the authors just dont have any idea of the complexity of school funding. The authors state the percentage of tax collected in an exhibit conflicts with the districts methodology. The authors state that this exhibit shows a five-year average of 95.3 percent in tax collections while the district indicates a collection rate of 92 percent. They seem confused by this difference. The answer lies in the fact that the amount of tax collected by the county on behalf of the LRSD is reduced by a known percentage the county charges as a collection fee. The amount LRSD receives is the amount of the total collected less the county collection fee and that is the amount shown as revenue by the LRSD. In Section 6.4 entitled Assessment of Operating Costs, the report refers to national profiles to compare LRSD with other districts. This section compares the current budgets for transportation, maintenance and operations, central and business services, classroom instruction, and other expenditures. The Cooper-Lybrand study several years ago and the methodology they use for evaluating expenditures appears to be the most realistic Ive studied. The Cooper-Lybrand method places past expenditures and budget items into a better defined and measurable set of groups such as school building administration versus central office administration, etc. The problem that 1 discovered after spending many hours and days developing an analysis of how LRSD expenditures within the Cooper-Lybrand system, only one other school district (Omaha, Nebraska) were using this system Although, more school districts were starting to use the system, no history was available to provide a comparison between districts of like-size. Based on my experiences, my feeling is that the comparisons made by MGT are not valid and should be taken with a grain of salt. Conclusions In my opinion, the MGT audit report on the Assessment of Financial Condition for LRSD is badly misleading and indicate to me the members of the audit team didnt spend enough time looking below the surface to investigate in-depth the information they gathered. Although there is, in my opinion, much that should have been said about the budgeting and control processes that now exist in LRSD, this report did not establish enough credibility to make any difference in the way LRSD does business. Page 8SECTION 7 - Facilities, Construction, Maintenance, and Repair Melissa This section consists of four subsections: 7.1 Introduction, which identifies some major issues: 7.2 Funding and New Construction: 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair\n7.4 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations. 7.1 Introduction After their review of the facihties services and maintenance departments of the LRSD, MGT identified the following six issues: The current condition of schools is a major concern for staff\", parent, and the community. The movement of ninth graders to the high schools wUl require facUity improvement which have not yet been fully identified. Community involvement in planning for facihty needs is minimal. The district lacks a fully-funded preventive maintenance program The continued enrollment decline projected by 3D/Intemational has not come to pass. A plan for public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical. This section also includes the organizational chart for the faculties department and describes elements of the 1995 FacUities Study conducted by 3D/Intemational. 7.2 Funding for New Construction This subsection includes information on capacities and facility utilization. In a chart designed to show percentage of facihty utilization, MGT uses two types of capacity figures. The use the capacities taken from the 3D/Intemational study as well as some figures based on 100 square feet per elementary student. 125 feet per junior high student, and 150 feet per high school student. As far as I know, this is the first time this particular measure has been used. One of the conclusions that the report draws is that the secondary schools lack adequate support facilities (cafeteria, halls, restrooms, and the like). The report also indicates that the high schools wUl suffer significant overcrowding as a result of the ninth grade reorganization. This subsection includes the recommendations summarized below\nConduct a through study of overcrowding at the high school level and include recommendations for change in the long-range facilities plan. Include a review of the middle school design implications within the discussion of long-term facilities needs. Continue with the plan to build the two new elementary schools, but the district should not reuse Mitchell and Garland faculties. Update the 1995 faculties study for all operating schools that received very low scores regarding quality of their facilities. Complete a long-rang facility plan (after the facility update is finished) and millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than fall 2000. Create a Facilities Planning Department within the current Facilities Department. Page 9Each of the recommendations is followed by implementation strategies and timeline. While some of these recommendations are very commonsensical, others will be more problematic. Updating the facilities study and planning for facilities needs related to middle school conversion are essential. The recommendation not to re-use Garland or Mitchell is contrary to the plan and to promises already made to the community. Of course, it is possible the MGT only meant for the district not to re-use the building as elementary schools. Who knows? The subject of a millage campaign for facilities needs has obviously been under consideration for some time, but the district needs to do some serious analysis of whether such a campaign has any chance of success. I wonder about the creation of a Facilities Planning Department. The cost estimates that MGT included seem low and they show the same dollar cost for five years. I think it is highly unlikely that no cost increase would occur from year to year. If the district passed a millage and actually had the money to upgrade facilities, this department would probably help ensure well-executed projects. It is possible that some of the existing staff (such as the construction supervisors) could be used for one or more of these positions. 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repairs This section includes the organizational chart for the maintenance department\na comparison of maintenance expenditures with national and regional averages\nand a comparison of custodial square footage to national and regional averages. LRSD custodians are responsible for fewer square feet than the regional or national average. Despite a larger than average custodial staff, the district spends less per square foot on maintenance than the national and regional average. MGT attributed this to a lower than average spending on suppUes and equipment. The study recommended: Increase the budget for maintenance and operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. MGT gave a cost estimate of $150,000 per year to accomplish this recommendation. They recommended adding four preventive maintenance staff and gradually reducing the number of custodians to the regional average (a reduction of ten positions). 7.4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations As the name of the subsection states, this final portion of the facilities chapter examines some of the opposition that could arise to impede implementation of the MGT recommendations. The most interesting part of the subsection is the step by step outline for gaining voter approval for school facility issues :  Develop strong public relations program Pre-plan, study, and analyze Study district historical data Survey your community Develop election campaign strategy Conduct special voter registration Develop targeted election materials, tools, and techniques Page 10Identify the yes vote Plan election day strategy Debrief and evaluate I dont think that any of these recommendations are especially revolutionary or groundbreaking, but they should give the district a bit more focus as they pursue a millage, which they seem determined to do. SECTION 8 - Administrative and Instructional Technology Skip Most of this report repeated the information provided to them through the Technology Task Force report. It appears that much of the verbiage in this section was boiler-plate stating things like: all districts should etc... What the report did provide was Section 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations that did have value and should be considered very carefully prior to approaching the community for an increase in millage or bonds. The report states that the main obstacle to the successful implementation to the technology plan is money. This point is brought out in most of the nine recommendations in the report. Unfortunately they had no substantive suggestions to overcome this very major obstacle. SECTION 9 - New Instructional Initiatives Margie 9.1 Honors and Enrichment (Horace) Summary of Key Points  In the LRSD, opportunities to do even basic coursework in the arts is very limited, outside of the magnet schools. The LRSD Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and National Science Foundation Grant all place emphasis on removing racial barriers to participation in advanced courses. There is a K-12 Talent Development Committee in place and is chaired by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. MGT identified direct relationships among the deseg plan, NSF, and the Strategic Plan. Starting in 1999-2000, the layer of honors/enriched courses between regular courses and students eligible for pre-AP and advanced placement coursework will no longer exist. The Board adopted new admission criteria for advanced work. Any student with a grade of at least C in a prior pre-AP or AP course can enroll in the next level without special permission. AVID is compatible with the LRSD vision and objectives and the outcomes mentioned in the desegregation plan.  At the time of the study, the district had not allotted any money for AVID beyond the $7500 for planning in 1998-99. Page 11Observations MGT captured all aspects of the districts efforts to increase minority participation in advanced courses. The study findings mirror my findings for that segment of the ODM report. Although the MGT study did not raise it as serious concern, beyond the NSF grant, the district has very little funding to effectively accomplish its goals for minority participation. The study did not reflect whether the district had a contingency plan in lieu of an adequate level of support for a program such as AVID. 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement (Melissa) While this subsection presents the information regarding mathematics in a different format than that we used for our report. It does not include any new information. It features an elaborate chart showing the close relationship between the Revised Plan and the NSF Grant. We also pointed out this close correlation, as well as giving the history that makes the interrelatedness inevitable. 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year-Oid, Headstart (sic), and HIPPY (Melissa) This section contains errors that seem emblematic of those made throughout the report. In reading the sections that I have been given, it seems that the people from MGT did a sloppy job. They seem to make many enors that result from accepting the first answer they stumbled upon. It seems only fitting that they would misspell Head Start, a well know federal program. This subsection of the report includes less than a page of narrative and two charts. The first exhibit shows the number of children served in the various programs. The second exhibit deals with funding for the programs. The second exhibit (9-13) indicates that the information it summarizes was furnished by the Division of Instruction. I spoke to Pat Price about the chart, and she said that she had not provided any financial information. Exhibit 9-13 indicates that both HIPPY and the four-year-old program receive substantial funds from desegregation funds. As you know the Settlement money ended with the 1996-97 school year. In that year, LRSD received its final payment of around $600,000. Contrary to these facts, MGT shows over 3 million of desegregation funds supporting early childhood programs. I called Pat Price and she had no idea what had prompted MGT to report desegregation funds. She also indicated that the amount of money they reported for the early childhood program was higher than any figures with which she was familiar. 9.4 Reading/Language Arts (Horace) Summary of Key Points  MGT surfaced several on-going initiatives in the Reading/Language Arts area. Among the districts involvements were the states Smart Start Initiative, the development of criterion- referenced tests in reading, revision of the Reading/Language Arts curriculum, reorganization of Page 12 the Title I program and staff, and alignment of the early childhood program with the K-3 literacy program. Tangible evidence in the form of committee reports, plans, and curricular materials of a strong correlation between the districts Reading/Language Arts initiatives and the goals established by the desegregation plan.  At the time of the MGT study, no specific funds had been earmarked for the initiatives. Observations The information provided by the MGT study reflects our findings regarding the districts Reading/Language Arts initiatives. The study did a good job of briefly outlining and complimenting the district on the tremendous amount of work that has been done in less than a year. However, the study did not examine whether the timelines the district had established for implementation of the initiatives was viable\nparticularly since they did point out that at the time of the study funding was still in question. 9.5 English as a Second Language (ESL) (Horace) Summary of Key Points The number of ESL students in the LRSD is 602\nan increase of 59% since the 1993-94 school year. As of June 1998, students with limited English proficiency represented 49 different languages. Those involved with the Newcomer Center schools believe that there is no overall ESL program in the LRSD. Rather, there is a total immersion experience, where students are fully mainstreamed, with tutoring support twice a week.  A clear need exists for additional support for the ESL students at Hall High School The study indicated that current and future funding for ESL to be inadequate to meet the needs of the students. Observations The MGT study did not surface information that the district didnt already have access to about its ESL population and its level of effectiveness in meeting their needs. The good news may be that the study in conjunction with the upcoming OCR investigation may finally wake the administration up the need to effectively serve ESL students. Some of the plans the district presently has to improve ESL services reflect some of the observations and recommendations made by the secondary schools work group I served on a couple of years ago. Much of the problem with the district doing an adequate job in meeting the needs of its limited-English speaking population has less to do with analysis and planning and more to do with will. Gene Parker is well aware of the student needs and has developed workable plans to begin to address them. However, up to this point the central administration has lacked the will and attentiveness to support and fund ESL programs. Also, the second tier of administrators who could help and support Gene in terms of policies and resources have been ignorant of the size and needs of the districts population of students for whom English is a second language. The district central administration has failed to comprehend the growth rate of this population and the districts legal obligations to them. Page 139.6 Alternative Education (Margie) This section simply describes the Accelerated Learning Center (ACC - yes, this is what its called), and the proposed Residential Alternative Elementary School, which I cover in my team report. The MGT report praises the LRSD for both initiatives as clear indications of the districts commitments to create a range of services and schooling options for students. The ACC was given a budget of $828,706. Funds were drawn from reserved funds, as this was not a budgeted item. The district has not identified any funds beyond 1998-99 to maintain or expand the ACC. The residential charter school received a $94,000 grant from the U. S. Dept. Of Education for each of two implementation years. The district estimates cost of $1.2 million annually to operate the school. Charter school costs 1999-2000 $1,200,000. $94,000 grant funds $1,106,000 estimated cost to the district first 2 years of implementation Since 1999-2000 budget had not been completed when this report was submitted, no funds had been assigned to this initiative. 9.7 Computer Literacy (Skip) The report focuses on the requirement of all 6\" grade students to take basic keyboarding for one semester starting in 1999-2000. The authors state that there has not been any specific decision made about funding for the new initiative, yet they continue to state that funding for this initiative which begins in 1999-2000 is not adequate. The summary offers that during the time of the study, work had not begun on the actual planning for the 1999-2000 budget. The middle school proposed technology standards details expectations for three different strands of technology for the three middle school grades. It would appear that in order to implement the methods to achieve these standards in a timely fashion, more planning should have taken place than what the auditors were able to discover. 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation (Margie) Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 which is organized to reflect the financial commitment to the districts new and ongoing instructional initiatives. Ensure that all initiative which are brought to and approved by the Board of Directors have detailed budge statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book. The Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any requests for ongoing or new initiatives. This should be a routine procedure. Page 14If the school board enacts a requirement for all students taking honors and enrichment classes to take AP exams, then funding for this initiative should appear in the expenditure side of the budget, even though expenses may be offset by students scoring 3 or better. The LRSD should replace lost desegregation funds for the HIPPY Program. Both alternative learning centers need permanent funding. 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations (Margie) 1. The decision-making process and the authority of the Campus Leadership teams have not been carefully connected. 2. Funding for staff development in not centralized within the Instructional Division nor with the budget for the staff development department. Additionally, funding is not in the school budgets either, rather the funds are dispersed throughout various departments. 3. The PRE department needs a clear priority list of program initiatives to evaluate. 4. No clear relationship exists between the mandated time lines of the science curriculum, and reading and math criterion-referenced tests to the Revised Desegregation Plans requirement of thematic instruction for grades K-5, and the board-approved program component of thematic learning for grades 6-8. 5. At the K-4 level, classroom teachers have several obstacles: developing new skills in 4 content areas over the next 4 years\nwriting and re-writing lesson plans in all these areas\ntrying different teaching strategies, getting coaching help for each initiative\nand, being successful with the students. 6. Each teacher in K-4 classrooms needs a very specific 4 to 5 year growth plan which will allow that teacher to be accountable for all he or she is responsible to do. 7. A great number of the initiative mentioned above depend on the districts guidance counselors. Counselors must have a long-range, ongoing plan of professional development and clear measurable expectations for their participation in each initiative. 8. Teachers are receiving mix messages when success is determined by a students achievement on a multiple choice test. 9. The contract between the LRSD and the LRCTA must evolve to reflect the language contained in the Revised Desegregation Plan. Page 15! j BESEGREGATIOHMONiroWHB RECm'ieO Jl 2 3 1939 UFHGE OF WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS 1999-2000 INTRODUCTION 1999-2000 WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS I. Management and Organization The first four recommendations essentially deal with administrative organizational structure of the school district. The superintendent recommends that we transition the structure of the organization based on the progress that the district makes in becoming Unitary. We have created in a very short time a series of strategies to ensure that the district will have obtained compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Based on that knowledge, and as you review a companion staffing recommendation, we will in a reasonable amount of time (1999-2002) succeed in obtaining similar efficiencies in both organization and cost abatement. And finally, we recommend that we advertise and hire a CFO, Internal Auditor and Coordinator for a Charter School. Note staffing recommendations. II. Assessment of Financial Condition Please note that we have already completed eight requirements of the fifty which MGT offered for the districts consideration. We have established a very aggressive timeline to adopt or adapt the other recommendations. We have, on several occasions, made the CFO and Internal Auditor central in the implementation of the recommendations. There are also several strategies which are dependent on the State of Arkansas changing the accounting system which is currently scheduled for the 2000-2001.Page 2 in. Facilities Construction, Maintenance and Repair As you review the eight MGT recommendations, please be reminded that the study concluded that the District should plan and proceed with a millage campaign. There are significant planning recommendations that we are capable of performing once the Board acts to confirm the 1999-2000 Critical Performance Priorities, including the call for a Millage and Bond Issue during the 1999-2000 school year. We would expect the Board to include as part of their decision making the plans which would satisfy the recommendations ofthe MGT Study. IV. Administrative and Instructional Technology The nine recommendations of the MGT study are exceptionally timely, as we see technology as an integral part of the instructional and operational future of the school district. Much of the discussion and debate will be completed through the work of an expanded technology advisory committee, whose recommendations will play an important part in the deliberations of the school board as they plan for the future of the school district. V. New Instructional Initiatives The one recommendation in this area will be part of the new state accounting system and the program budgeting system which we have previously discussed with the Board. We also expect by the time we will implement this recommendation an upgrade in compiler software will be operational. This will give campuses and divisional personnel enhanced capabilities for more efficient and effective decision making.1999-2000 WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Major Tasks/Activities\\^xivyJ or' -h\"* i. \u0026gt; Timelin^/, Completion Date if- Responsibility Evidence of Success 1. Reduce the number of divisions in the central office from four to three. Eliminate the Division of Administrative Services, including the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services and the respective Administrative Assistant, and realign the central office administrative positions to create a more focused approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. 2. Greate a second Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools and realign the Division of School Services to incorporate the departments transferred from the Division of Administrative Services. 3. Realign the organizational structure of the Division of Instruction to provide a comprehensive approach that focuses on curriculum and instruction. 4. Reorganize the Departments of Elementary, Middle and High School Gurriculum Programs. 5. Greate a position of Ghief Financial OfTicer to report directly to the Superintendent and move the Internal Auditor under the Board of Directors. 1999-2002 August 1999 2002 August 1999 Leslie V. Gamine Bonnie Lesley (Leslie V. Gamine) Bonnie Lesley (Leslie V. Gamine) Leslie V. Gamine A phased organizational plan will be presented that will restructure the administration of tlie district over a three-year period. Board confirmation Transition beginning by___organization chart change 2002 Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 2 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION  /Activities Tjmelin^ * ) Completion* S, 'Date',\n?' Responsibility Evidence of Success 7^ A 1. Transfer the responsibility for fringe benefits and leave reporting from the Financial Services Department to the Human Resources Department. July 1999 Richard Hurley (Mark Milhollen) Completed 2. Transfer responsibility for Workers Compensation from the Financial Services Department to the Director of Safety and Security who is responsible for risk management. July 1999 Bobby Jones (Mark Milhollen) Completed 3. Transfer the responsibility for submission of the Superintendents Quarterly Average Daily Membership Report to the Arkansas Department of Education from Financial Services to the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 1999-2000 (Jan. 2000) Junious Babbs Mark Milhollen John Ruffins Kathy Lease Leslie V. Camine This area is currently under study and a recommendation will be made in January 2000 4. Transfer responsibility for fixed assets and accounts payable from the Procurement Department to the Financial Services Department. NO The system is currently operational and there does not appear to be any savings or efficiency accomplished by the recommended transfer. 5. Establish formal performance standards and key benchmark indicators for monitoring, and develop a procedures manual for the Financial Services Department. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Manual completion 6. Revise and strengthen existing Board policy and administrative procedures for budgeting, and incorporate in the overall fiscal management policy and procedures. 1999-2000 (October 99) Linda Young Austin Mark Milhollen CFO lA Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 3 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Ni 4? - Mai i Major Tasks/Activities Tiiuelin^ Completion, Date Responsibility, Evidence of Success at- 7. Review current budget practices, in concert with development of a fiscal management policy and procedures, to develop the necessary background data to make changes that improve operational efficiency and effectiveness to restore credibility and the confidence of the community. 1999-2000 CFO Leslie V. Camine Suellen Vann Report to community and Board 8. Utilize the Association of School Business Officials Meritorious Budget Award as a goal to become the basis for achieving excellence in budget format, presentation, and improved fiscal accountability and budgetary communication with the community. 2000-2001 ADE Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Report to community and award granted. State will change accounting system in 2000-2001. 9. Revise method of displaying the Magnet School Budget within the approved budget document from an overall line item object only format to incorporate operational unit bre^downs by site, and an overall executive summary of highlights which should include the use of charts and graphs for better understanding of the budget by the community and the Board of Directors. May 1999 Mark Milhollen Jean Ring Completed 10. Coordinate districtwide budget and fiscal management staff development needs to include the Board of Directors, operational unit administrators, key accounting and bookkeeping staff, bargaining group representatives. Budget Committee members, when established, and other key stakeholders. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen CFO Plan developed and operational with named groups. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 4 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) SSptjf, yw K. .a Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/* Completion\" Responsibility Evidence of Success 11. Revise the budget projection criteria and standardize the use of five-year projections. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen CFO Board confirmation 12. Incorporate the use of a districtwide Budget Committee to assist in the development of the 1999-2000 budget. 1999-2000 CFO Committee convened 13. Revise the districts internal budget handbook for operational units to be more comprehensive and self- explanatory. 1999-2000 (January) ADE Mark Milhollen CFO lA Completed handbook 14. Implement a comprehensive district-level operational unit budgetary review by the Budget Committee in a series of workshops with the LRSD Board of Directors. 1999-2000 CFO Budget committee Plan approved by Board 15. Realign available dollars within existing revenue sources to match expenditure obligations. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen Leslie Carnine Board Board confirmation 16. Allocate the SIRS lawsuit settlement dollars to satisfy previously negotiated bargaining agreement commitments and place the balance of the funds into an unreserved fund balance to establish a first step towards a realistic fund balance. 1999 (May) Mark Milhollen Leslie V. Carnine Completed through 1997-98 budget year. 17. Reconsider estimated revenue from the local tax revenue projection. NO Changes in tax collection, etc., make the issue moot. Not consistent with state law. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 5 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities Jimeline/  Completion Date TT Responsibility Evidence of Success 18. Utilize any increase in revenue, due to the state base per student adjustment or district growth in ADM for the first quarter, to restore the enrollment adjustment defenal of $347,125 at school sites and place the balance into unreserved fund balance. 19. Form partnerships with each of the top ten taxpayers. 20. Reconcile tax collection calculation methodology and develop a strategy for communication with the public. 21. Research other state Medicaid programs and consider utilizing the services of a national consultant to evaluate the possibility of pursuing state law changes that would enhance the opportunity for the LRSD to receive more Medicaid revenue. 22. Update the current rental charges for facilities by adjusting for a CPI increase as reflected in Exhibit 6- 26. 23. Generate advertising revenue from educational-related advertising on the LRSD owned bus fleet and vehicles. February 1999 Mark Milhollen Completed Board confirmation 1999-2000 (January) 1999-2000 (February 00) 1998-99 1999-2000 1999-2000 Debbie Milam Suellen Vann CFO Leslie V. Camine Suellen Vann Mark Milhollen CFO lA Patty Kohler Mark Milhollen Vic Anderson Vic Anderson Suellen Vann CFO Recognition plan operational Communication strategy implemented Completed - contracted through ADE Board confirmation Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 6 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION .(continued) '   Major Tasks/Activities 'Jj Timeline/^ Coupletiqnt Date Responsibility ' . W\n. ' Evidence of Success 24. Annually review the current practice of outsourcing the transportation function utilizing a cost benefit analysis approach in an effort to contain or reduce costs, and justify the continuation of this outsourcing practice. 25. Establish a national and local comparative benchmark series of school districts and organizations. 26. Establish a task force to review cost accounting software options for purchase and implementation within the next two years. 27. Initiate bargaining strategies to discontinue the practice of automatic step increases and remain in compliance with existing state salary schedule and funding formula requirements. 28. Initiate a thorough review and analysis of existing bargaining contract language and practices. 29. Update and recalculate the five-year revenue and expenditures projections provided to the Board of Directors. 30. Incorporate an analysis of selected expense objects as part of the formal budget document. 1999-2000 (October 99) Vic Anderson Darral Paradis Mike Martello Board confirmation 1999-2000 (November 99) 2000-2001 1998-99 1999-2000 (January 00) 1999-2000 (February 00) 2000-2001 Mark Milhollen CFO Jean Ring lA CFO Mark Milhollen Brady Gadberry Brady Gadberry Richard Hurley Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Mark Milhollen CFO lA Presented to Board and community Report presented to Board Current Bargaining issue Plan developed to renew contract and presented to Board for their consideration. Board confirmation Board confirmation (Note ADE changes) Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 7 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities j-StS'.SS 31. Establish a positive and negative threshold for expenditure control purposes. 32. Implement a light duty loss control program to continue to reduce workers compensation costs. 33. Explore the cost benefit possibility of handling legal services in-house with a staff attorney. 34. Analyze all professional technical expenditures (e.g., physical therapists, speech pathologists, training consultants) for potential savings through consolidation or elimination of limited use services. 35. Establish a method to account for al! staff development costs regardless of operational unit or object for the expense. 36. Implement specific and strict guidelines to all operational units for overtime accountability authorization and documentation in compliance with Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) requirements. .Timeline/ Completion 'Date 1999-2000 1999-2000 2001-2002 1999-2000 1999-2000 1999-2000 Responsibility Mark Milhollen CFO lA Bobby Jones Dick Hurley Leslie V. Gamine Board of Education CFO Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Mark Milhollen Dick Hurley Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Kathy Lease lA CFO Vic Anderson Brady Gadberry Mark Milhollen Dick Hurley lA Evidence of Success iS Board confirmation Board confirmation Develop standards for word attendance and punctuality. Board review based on unitary status achievement Report presented to Board for consideration 1999-2000 budget 1999-2000 budget Revise regulations on overtime usage. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 8 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities  a-' A  Timeline/ Completion Date Responsibility Evidence of Success \\ 37. Reduce stipends for car allowances by 35 percent and review all stipend practices for other potential cost savings. 1999-2000 Dick Hurley Brady Gadberry CFO 38. Revise the current formal budget format to include a separate section on incentive school budget analysis. 1999-2000 budget Mark Milhollen CFO lA Board confirmation 39. Incorporate language within the revised fiscal policy to establish a benchmark minimum of five percent of expenditures for an emergency unreserved fund balance. 1999-2000 (October 99) CFO Mark Milhollen Leslie V. Carnine Board confirmation 40. Establish an immediate minimum of one percent fund balance base from any new available revenue not currently budgeted in the approved 1998-99 budget. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen 1999-2000 budget Board confirmation 41. Distribute combined personnel and payroll cutoff paperwork timelines as well as formal payroll dates throughout the LRSD. 1999-2000 Suellen Vann Mark Milhollen Publication of calendars completed. 42. Develop a priority list of technology enhancements for the areas of Financial Services, Human Resources, Risk Management, Procurement and other operational areas to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing manual or outdated computer applications. 1999-2000 Darrel Paradis Vic Anderson Mark Milhollen CFO Richard Hurley Bobby Jones John Ruffins Plan confirmed by Board Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 9 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Jis' Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/ * Completion pate*- * Responsibility Evidence of Success 43. Develop an action plan for implementation of a voter- approved millage increase for both operational needs and capital outlay needs. 1999-2000 Leslie V. Camine Board of Education Millage election 44. Revise current policy and practice related to sick and annual leave to provide the leave at the end of each month and eliminate the practice of advancing excess sick leave. 45. Enter into an exclusive vending contract for all vending services in the LRSD. 46. Develop an investment policy. 47. Negotiate sweep bank account services with a local financial institution. 48. Implement the use of a PC-supported formal cash flow forecasting process. 49. Require inventory and property control accountability to become part of every operational unit managers performance evaluation. NO 1999-2000 1999-2000 (October 99) 1999-2000 1999-2000 1999-2000 Contrary to Attorney Generals Opinion CFO Vic Anderson Darral Paradis Mark Milhollen Mark Milhollen CFO Mark Milhollen CFO Mark Milhollen Associate Superintendents Report received by Board Board confirmation Board confirmation Board confirmation Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 10 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) J Major Tasks/Activities 50. Revise signature control requirements for the Cafeteria and Activity fund accounts. Timeline/ Completion Date 1999-2000 (October 99) Responsibility Mark Milhollen Evidence of Success Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 11 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR t Maj or. Tasks/Act ivities 1 Timeline/.^^ \"  f 7?^ Completion^ Date^ 3* Responsibility Evidence of Success 1. Conduct a thorough examination of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure and include recommendations for changes in the long-range facility plan. 1998-99 Vic Anderson Junious Babbs Completed Long range facilities plan to be part of bond issue. 2. Include a review of the middle school design implications within the discussion of long-term facility needs. 1999-2000 (November 99) Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell Bonnie Lesley Junious Babbs Vic Anderson Linda Young Austin Board confirmation and bond election. 3. Continue with plans to construct two new elementary schools, one to replace Garland and Mitchell and the other in the West Little Rock area. 1998-99 Stephens 1999-01 West LR Vic Anderson Leslie V. Camine Stephens School has been bid and will be constructed. Plans for the new school will be included in the millage campaign.____________________ 4. Establish a policy on the use of temporary facilities that will provide the criteria for need and establish limits on the total amount of temporary space at a particular facility. 1999-2000 (November) Vic Anderson Junious Babbs Doug Eaton Board confirmation 5. Update the 1995 facilities evaluation study for all operating schools that fall in the lowest two categories. 1999-2000 (November) Vic Anderson Leslie V. Camine Doug Eaton Board confirmation 6. Complete a long-range facility plan (upon completion of the facility update study) and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct the deficiencies. 1999-2000 (February/ March 2000) Leslie V. Camine Board Board confirmaiton Bond election Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 12 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR (continued)  Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/ Completion 1 I Datef\n^''^ \u0026lt;-j! t f . Responsibility j'' Evidence of Success 7. Create a facilities planning department within the current facilities department. 1999-2000 (January 00) Vic Anderson Doug Eaton Board confirmation 8. Increase the budget for maintenance and operations, and target the additional funding for preventive maintenance. 2000-2001 Vic Anderson Mark Milhollen CFO Leslie V. Carnine Millage campaign Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 13 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Major Tasks/Activities 1. Establish a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this committee with monitoring and providing guidance on all technology operations in the LRSD. 2. Conduct a study of the salaries offered by LRSD for programmer positions to determine the degree to which they are competitive with the salaries offered by other employers in Little Rock and surrounding areas. 3. Establish a minimum level of technology that each LRSD school should possess. 4. Implement a procedure of allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools. 5. Develop an equipment replacement policy. 6. Provide annual funding for the replacement of equipment. 7. Review various strategies for delivering staff development and devise new creative approaches to address the significant need for enhanced training for teachers. Timeline/ Completion Date . 1999-2000 (October) 1999-2000 (December) 1999-2000 (January 00) 1999-2000 (February 00) Responsibility John Ruffins Lucy Neal Leslie V. Gamine Richard Hurley John Ruffins Technology Advisory Committee John Ruffins Lucy Neal J. Babbs CFO M. Milhollen Technology Advisory Committee Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Marion Woods John Ruffins Lucy Neal Evidence of Success Board confinnation Board confinnation Confinnation by Technology Advisory Committee and Board consistent with the equitable allocation of resources plan. Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 14 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY (continued) Major Tasks/Activities Timelin^ Completion Date Responsibility Evidence of Success 8. Place technology education specialists In every school in the district as specified in the districts Technology Plan. 1999-2000 (May) Technology Advisory Committee Plan for technology specialist assistance for every school and technical support. Board confinnation 9. Analyze, select, and implement some combination of strategies that, when fully operational, will provide an adequate level of technical support to LRSD schools and administrative offices. 1999-2000 (May) Technology Advisory Committee CFO Lucy Neal John Ruffins Board confirmation NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 3' i Major-Taslcs/Activities uw ji It 1 . Timeline/, tpiripleilibn * Date Responsibility ' Evidence of Success' 1. Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 which is organized to reflect the financial commitment to the districts new and ongoing instructional initiatives. Ensure that all initiatives that are brought to and approved by the Board of Directors have detailed budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. 2000-2001 CFO Bonnie Lesley Mark Milhollen Leon Adams Board approval of 2000-01 budget. Draft July 1999Arkansas Democrat \"^(fjazeltc  FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1998  Florida consultant to put LR schools to test In unanimous vote, School Board agrees to split $144,000 cost of study with businessmen BY CYNTl IIA I lOWISLL ARKANSAS OLMtX l\u0026lt;Al-( iAZI. I 11\nThe Little Rock School Board voted unanimously Thursday to join city business leaders in financing a $144,00(1 management and financial study of the school district as a way to strengthen public confidence in district operations. . The district will pay $72,000 to MGT of America Inc., an educational management consultant company based in Tallahassee, Fla.  Fifty for the Future, a group of senior central Arkansas business leaders, is contributing the other $72,000 to the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools for the study.  In June, alliance members suggested the management and financial audit to the School Board and pledged to raise half the cost if the board would agree to the proposal. The district and the alliance are partners in the resulting contract with MGT.  This is an exciting project that will really chart the course for our district, Odies Wilson, alliance president, told the School Board, lie said the study will give educators, parents and community members a common starting point in their efforts to identify and meet student needs. MGT is to complete its study by mid-March, when it will present recommendations for improvement based on its local findings and its knowledge of operations in other school systems similar to Little Rock in size and resources. Linda Recio, an MGT senior partner, will coordinate the study. The company has already scheduled an open house from 4-8 p.m. Wednesday at Martin Luther King Magnet Flemcntaiy School, 907 Martin Luther King Blvd., to collect commendations, recommendations and concerns about the districts management structure. A suiwcy will be distributed to teachers and administrators to solicit the same type of information. Company officials also arc planning to meet with School Board members and others over the next few weeks. The company will examine whether the district's organizational design and individual administrators duties arc conducive to meeting district goals. It also will look at the number and types of positions in the district. in addition, it will review the districts finances and budget to sec if they support the instructional program, the recently revised desegregation plan, building maintenance, expanded technology and construction of new schools. Also Thursday, the School Board approved program standards for the middle schools for grades six through eight that will replace the city's eight junior highs beginning next August. The standards establish the academic subjects to be taught, including visual and performing arts, foreign languages, health and physical education. They call for organizing staffs al the schools into teams that will be assigned common groups of students. The school will also, feature flexible school-day schedules, integrated lessons, school-based decision- inaking and teachers trained specifically for middle- school work. School district administrators gave board members progress re- i ports on efforts to redraw school i attendance zones for next year to create more neighborhood schools and on plans to open a new Stephens Elementary School and adjacent city community center by August 2000. The board is expected to meet again in early November to get a more complete report on the costs and design for the new school at 18th and Valentine streets, which will house more than 640 students. The proposed school attendance zones are still being scrutinized, Superintendent Les Car- nine said. Should further changes be necessary, affected parents will be notified, he said. Parents of students who now attend school outside tlieir proposed attendance zone will be surveyed in early November about whether they want their children to attend their current school, their neighborhood school or otli- er schools next fall.\n FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 'XX schools get favorable rating in finance study ' BY CYNTHIA HOWELL AllKANSAS UI.MIK HAl.liAZIJ ir ' ', A' Florida-based consulting firin' liircd last year to do a man- '. agemcnt and financial study of tlic  Little Rock School District pre- . sented its completed report, in-  eluding 72 recoinmendations for , iniprovemeiiL to the School Board .. on Thursday. Dr. Linda Rocio, senior partner .  in MGT of America, Inc., of Talla-  hassee, told the board that the vo- .  luminous audit found that the ur-  ban  school district is generally well run. '\n.' -Ilowever, there are significant ' \"'opportunities to improve manage- inent, instructional delivciy, com-   munication with internal and external stakeholders and financial  ^laljility, she said. 'About two-thirds of the recom- inepdations in tire report  wliich '.coiitains nine chapters and is sev- \nei\nal hundred pages in length  deal with the financial inanage- inent of the system. . 'i Recommendations include a \\ .call for property tax increases, no '. ^atec than September 2000, to fi- .hpngc as much as $05 million in renovations and expansions to district buildings. . Still other recommendations call for an updated study on dis- trict facilities in light of teclmolo- gy needs as well as the planned sliift to middle schools and high school\nthree. 'it!'- four grades instead of \"iRecio also rcconnnended ap- r pointinent of a chief financial officer and an internal auditor to re- port-dircctly to the school hoard, '. 'aild a review of district contract .' 'negotiating practices that would : eliminate outdated\" practices 'outdated' such as automatic annual pay increases to employees for their ad- ditidnal year of experience. '. LThe report calls for slreamlin- \\ing\"the districts top adininistra-  live,'\nstaff. Tlie reorganization 'should reduce the districts four .ijmiii divisions to three, by elimi- ^^Tpg the existing administrative '.Scfiiccs division and assigning du- ztlefi in that section to other divi- Sijbns. The administrative division ^dj^ntly includes school assign- \"Dnjjht, desegregation, and persou- l^iJieCduties. \" *'Tiic report suggests alternative revenue sources and recommends that'the district become more ag- .^essive in marketing itself to the public.' ftccio will return in May after boili'd members have had an opportunity to review the report and ,.iti [ecommendations. -iTlie $144,000 study was jointly commissioned last October by the School Board and the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, with' support from tire Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce :^nd Fifty for the Future. AI ArlcinsasDciuoGrdt T^OjiazeUv )  SUNDAY, APRIL 25. 1999 LR School District seeing finances sag, firms audit says Study suggests seeking tax increase, reconsideiing benefits to bolster funds BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS OEMOCRAT-OAZE'n E Financial conditions in the Little Rock School District are strained at best, according to a study of the districts financial and management operations. MGT of America, Inc., a Tallahassee. Fla., company, attributed tlie districts financial peril to the depletion of state desegregation funds and expenditures that exceed revenues. The MGT audit made 49 recommendations on how the states largest school district might bolster its financial health. Those proposals include asking voters for a tax increase, realigning expenditures to match revenues, building reserve funds, strengthening financial policies and reconsidering some longstanding employee benefits. MGT was hired last fall by a coalition of Little Rock organizations  including the district, the Little Rock  Alliance for Our Public Schools, Fifty For the Future and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce  to do Uie six-month, $144,000 audit The district paid half the fee. Besides a comprehensive review of district financial practices, the audit team headed by Dr. Linda Recio also evaluated and made recommendations about facilities, instructional programs, community relations, the administrative organization and technology systems, including preparation for the 2000 conversion of computer systems. Superintendent Les Gamine and his staff arc reviewing Uie study. Tlipy will give In llip Srhnol Hinnl probably in July, a detailed plan and. time line for responding to most rec- . . -  --------------- ommendations. However, a few of phasing in a reserve fund equal the proposed changes might be put to at least 5 percent of expenditures into place sooner. Gamine said last fw coping with emergencies.  \"  ........................... Still otlier recommendations call week. Others might be phased in. and still otlieis modified or rejected. Im very open to doing some things, Gamine said. I think tlie staff is, too. It's just a matter of work--------.--------.------------------------- vancing sick and aimual leave to em- ing tlirough tliem over a period of ployees, and reconsidering the longtime. The report is pretty solid.\" standing practice of giving automatic Gamine said tlie auditore assessment of tlie districts financial condition was no surprise but a confirmation of what district officials have said. District officials are in die very earliest stages of plamiing a campaign for a voter-approved tax increase to support tlie schools, paitic- ularly some construction and renovation needs. The MGT auditors noted that the district got the last of its total ^3 million in state desegregation payments in 1996-97 and, Uiis year, drew | the final $3 million available from a j employee groups. $20 million low-interest loan from The existing teaching contract the state. Tlie district will not have to repay the loan if it can show that standanlized test scores of black students are witliin 90 percent of tlie scores of white students. District officials say they believe the district ha.s met that goal, but Ilie state has not yet confinned it There is currently no revenue source in siglit tliat will begin to compensate for tlie loss of these fund sources. the auditors said. To offset tlie loss of desegregation money, the district has taken 'UiPir p 1 Audit  Continued from Page 1B money from its reseivcs to meet its expenses, they said. One scenario described by the auditors puts the district into a $1.1 million deficit by the end of the 1999-2000 school year and an $11 million hole by 2003. Those project- --------------------: , ' , . . ed deficits should be eased some- ^Quent superintendent changes in what by tlie recent $12 niillion state veal's resulted in insta- Feimbursement to the district for shortfalls in teacher retirement and health insurance payments. The re- imbui-scmcnl was not included in tlie initial calculations. Regardless of the [state reim- bursementj it is crucial tliat fiscal, bargaining and budgetary practices do not continue in a 'business as usual posture, die study said. Kecomniendations call for balancing revenues and expenditures for strengUieiiing board policies on budgeting, seeking a tax increase by late 2000, revising Uic practices of ad- pay increases for employee longevity. Tlie concept of automatic step increases is no longer as popular given todays environment of customer- based decision-making with accountability for results,\" the auditors said. Tliis practice clearly presents a liigli fiscal risk to tlie district.\" Auditois recommended an overall review of tlie districts contracts with its employees, pointing out tliat the district is not required by law to continue collective bargaining witli permits teachers to resign and take up to three years to be re-employed at the same salary and retain sick leave. The auditors suggested tliat provision be reconsidered. They also suggested Uiat the district curb overtime costs tliat increased 314 percent to $287,000 in 1998. Car allowances to employees should be reduced by 35 percent and payments of stipends belter controlled, auditor's said. Other suggestions in the study call for fonning partnerships with citys lop 10 taxpayers, updating current rental charges for district properties. and generating revenue from educational related advertising on district-owned buses and vehicles. The MGT study suggested extensive changes in tlie districts administrative structure, needed because bilily in the oiganizalional stiucLurc, 1 This poipetual change has ere- I ated a dysfunctional infrastructure with inefficiencies, duplication of , services, duplicative positions with overlapping responsibilities and a fragmented functional structure,\" auditore said. The {iroposed changes call for reducing divisions within the district from four to tliree. That can be accomplished by dismantling the existing administrative services division, currently headed by Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs. The sections witliin tlie administrative seivices division  dese\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_577","title":"Marketing","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Marketing"],"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/577"],"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\nT Pittman/ portis COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC RELATIONS MEDIA RELATIONS ISSUES MANAGEMENT i 1 J A Proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for the Little Rock School District 1 J May 1998 Prepared by: Pittman/Portis Comraunications 1021 West Second Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372-3001 s ) U 1 I 1021 WEST SECOND STREET  LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201  501 -372-3001 FAX 50 1 -374-0049Situation Analysis The Little Rock School District has been involved tn federal court desegregation litigation since 1957 and for more than a decade has been subject to active federal court supervision. While opinions about the effectiveness and outcome of the court- supervised desegregation plan have differed, the revised desegregation plan offers a clear opportunity for designing and implementing new communications and marketing ideas for the Little Rock School District. Among the groups that will be able to take advantage of this opportunity are: 1. The Little Rock School Board and LRSD administrators, who should realize expanded opportunities to make decisions based on the contents of the plan. 2. The parent community, which should see an opportunity to end confusion and increase its participation in local school decisions. 3. The Districts teachers, who should feel an increased sense of unity. With the Federal Court's recent approval of the Revised Plan, it is the intent of the Little Rock School District to develop a comprehensive communications plan that moves the school district forward and creates a more favorable image with its constituents. Pittman/Portis Communications recommends the implementation of a coordinated and proactive public relations and marketing plan. Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 21 i Mission of the Little Rock School District 1 1 The mission of the Little Rock School District is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive, contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Program Goal of LRSD Public Communications Campaign 1 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support tn the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD student. (Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, 1998) 1 t* LRSD shall establish a parent and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. (Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, 1998) f V J 1 5 I J Target Audiences  Parents of students enrolled tn the Little Rock School District  Parents of students enrolled tn private schools  Parents of pre-school age students  Little Rock teachers and staff  Business and community leadership  Little Rocks residential and commercial Realtors  Central Arkansas Media/Arkansas media  All Little Rock residents and taxpayers 1 i J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 3I Institutional Objectives I J Objective 1 1 i To retain children and families currently enrolled in the Little Rock School District and build confidence and support among the children and families it serves. . J I 1 I 1 1 J 1 1 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5' To effectively market the Little Rock School District in order that it may recruit new children and families to the district. To design and implement effective external communications that build public trust, confidence and community pride in the LRSD. To facilitate improved relations with the media as a tool for stability tn the district. To facilitate improved understanding among all LRSD employees. Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 4 J1  Communications Objectives ) Objective 1 Conduct ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families. Use the research results to improve the district. Objective 2 1 I J Create a new image for the district that focuses on its strengths and offer those strengths to its students. Objective 3 1 Establish a Communications Advisory Committee to provide professional advice and resources in communications and marketing activities. Objective 4 Establish Marketing Teams within each school building. 1 Objective 5 Communicate regularly with LRSD families. 1 Objective 6 Establish regular and timely communications with all LRSD employees. 3 Objective 7 Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families. Objective 8 J Develop and maintain relationships with the Central Arkansas news media. I Objective 9 Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. 3 1 I 4 Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 5 1 1 Objective 1 Conduct on-going market research to actively solicit feedback from current and prospective students/families. Use research results to evaluate and improve the current system. Background: 1 ! I Since 1991, the Little Rock School District has continued to see students and families depart the public school system. Naturally, as LRSDs enrollment has declined, enrollment has increased at the citys private schools and in public schools in surrounding communities such as Conway, Cabot, Benton and Bryant. 1 As enrollment has declined, LRSD has not allocated sufficient funds to evaluate customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction or monitor public perception of the educational programs and services offered. Without qualitative or quantitative data, it is impossible to accurately assess overall public perception including the reasons for enrollment decline. 1 Research is a vital part of the public relations planning process. It teUs you what's really going on. It allows you to establish benchmarks that can be used to measure the effectiveness of the program. Now is the time to dedicate adequate resources so that the district can seek reliable feedback from those it serves, those it no longer serves, and those who have made a decision not to enroll their children tn the district. Formal research means addressing the critical issues of performance, productivity, and perception. Only formal research can uncover solid information that can provide criteria for making decisions. J 1 The following strategies Eire proposed in an effort to monitor opinions and perceptions from the following target audiences:  families currently enrolled tn the Little Rock School District.  families currently enrolled tn private schools.  Little Rock residents/taxpayers without school-age students.  teachers, staff and administrators in the school district 4 ! Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD\nPage 6 JThe opinions of these audiences are critical to the successful future of the Little Rock School District. i Action Strategies: i J J 1. 2. Conduct Focus Group Interviews with the following target audiences:  parents of LRSD elementary students.  parents of LRSD junior hlgh/senlor high students. Seek to obtain the following information:  Why did they choose to enroll their children in LRSD?  Are they satisfied with the educational programs and services offered? Ask for specifics.  Is there room for improvement? Ask for specifics.  What conditions would cause you to leave LRSD?  What would you tell a newcomer to Little Rock about your experience with LRSD?  Have their children ever been enrolled in private schools or public schools outside Little Rock? If so, how do they compare the educational experiences? BUDGET: $5,875.00 (See Attached Proposal) 1 Conduct Public Opinion PoU by telephone with 400 Little Rock citizens who are registered voters. Seek to obtain statistically valid Information on these subjects:  Pubhc perception of the Little Rock School District  Public support for a possible millage increase. BUDGET: $5,900.00 Conununlcations and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 71 Objective 2 Create a new image for LRSD that focuses on the strengths it possesses and offers to its students. Action Strategies: T t I 1. Create a new LRSD logo I J An organizations logo serves as its most identifiable tool and often establishes an Immediate and forceful perception about that organization and its components. Because the current logo has been tn existence for at least 14 years, it is time to develop a new logo that will enhance the Districts image. 1 1 The logo must symbolically communicate the following:  excellence,  quality education,  stability in resources, and  a willingness to embrace diversity. BUDGET: $1,000.00 - $1,500.00 2. Develop a consistent message in all district communications that projects the strengths LRSD possesses and offers to its students. These strengths include: i I J  diversity among students, teachers, staff and administration that builds a solid foundation for productive interaction and relationships throughout ones adult life. 1 I Communications and Marketing Pian/LRSD: Page 8i  delivery of quality educational programs.  abundance of resources not available tn other schools and districts. s i  enhanced choice for specific academic focus.  a safe and secure environment where district staff and students are able to teach and learn. J  technological opportunities to establish competency for life and work tn the 21st Centuiy.   community partnerships that provide educational opportunities and resources available nowhere else in Arkansas. 11 1 i I i T ! Commuiilcations and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 9I ( 1 I Objective 3 Establish a LRSD Communications Advisory Committee that provides professional advice for and additional resources to all communications and marketing activities. 1 ( Action Strategies: I J 1. 2. Define the purpose and role of the LRSD Communications Advisory Committee. Committee responsibilities should include: I ] I 1 '  provide advice and resources for all print and broadcast materials\n support the media relations effort of LRSD\n assist tn developing effective market research methods\n provide feedback and professional cormsel as it relates to crisis communications\n provide professional cormsel and resources as the district seeks to empower school building leadership by providing the tools they need to create effective communication and marketing plans for their individual school building.  sheire professional tools and resources on an as-needed basis. Recruit communications professionals from the Little Rock business community to serve a minimum of one-year. 1 Six to ten professionals should be Invited by LRSD Superintendent Les Camine to serve a minimum of one year and attend regularly scheduled meetings to address the communications needs of the District. ] ] Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 101 I I J J 1 Potential members should possess:  a desire to see Little Rocks public schools succeed tn accomplishing their objective to provide superior educational programs and effectively communicate that to all its audiences.  a commitment to the role of public education.  a commitment to community service.  communications skills and resources that can be shared tn order to help LRSD meet its communications objectives. J 3. Assemble the Communications Advisory Committee regularly to review on-going communications projects with the intent of - seeking thoughtful and professional advice. 1 1 I j Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 11 J3  ) I J Objective 4 In an effort to establish a more customer-friendly environment and creative marketing approaches, LRSD will encourage the establishment of Marketing Teams within each school building through the leadership of the building principals and the Little Rock PTA Council. ! -J Action Strategies: ] 1. 2. 3. Develop a theme to be used tn all LRSD marketing and recruitment efforts. A suggested theme: \"An Individual Approach To A World Of Knowledge.\" I 1 Produce a LRSD Marketing Guide to be used by the local building Marketing Teams. The guide win address and provide the following information and resources:  Defines the role LRSD employees play tn serving thetr customers (students/families) and marketing and communicating with prospective customers\n Provides recommendations for organizing local building Marketing Teams, including the prospective make-up of the local team.  Provides sample plans of work and resources that would enable the teams to effectively cany out a proactive marketing and communications plan for the school families they serve and the prospective families who express an interest in their school. 1 1 BUDGET: Labor/graphic design and printing expenses 1 Provide professional training to all local Marketing Teams. Trainers should include district staff and marketing professionals from the Little Rock business community. J BUDGET: To be determined based on project needs and potential costs of consulting services. Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 12 ,J4. Provide communications support to those schools that require assistance (i.e. developing school Fact Sheets). 5. 1 i Develop an LRSD employee newsletter that focuses on the essential elements of customer service and marketing to prospective customers. The newsletter should be distributed four times per year and include information such as new marketing ideas and opportunities, success stories and so forth. J BUDGET: Review existing LRSD employee newsletter budget for labor, printing, graphic design, etc. 6. 3 1 1 - Establish an incentive program for LRSD schools and employees who play an active and creative role in marketing Little Rocks public schools. Establish a committee of building principals, teachers and parents that will establish incentive awards and recognition for the schools and district employees who meet marketing objectives as they relate to recruiting new school families. 7. 1 Seek the services of interns from central Arkansas colleges and universities, supervised by LRSDs Communications Department, who can enhance communications support to local school buildings. BUDGET: $500 stipend/per student per semester 3  1 J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 131 1 1 1 .J 1 ] 1 1 I i I i J i 1 J Objective 5 Communicate regularly with LRSD families and potential families. Action Strategies: 1. 2. Use the Districts Internet presence as a communications tool.  Send postcards to parents Informing them of the LRSD tntemet home page address.  Configure the home page to make it easy for parents/families to communicate easily and swiftly with the administration via the Internet.  Build an address database of parent/family e-mail addresses that will enable the District to communicate instantaneously with large groups of parents on matters requiring Immediate attention or action.  Consider the establishment of a Ustserve capability that can automatically distribute longer communications via the Internet to anyone who subscribes to the list.  Send out e-mail bulletins from the Superintendent at least once a month to parents/families on the e-mail address database. BUDGET POSTCARD: $1,025.17 for postage TOTAL (See Attached proposal) $845 for handling $1.500 printing $3,370.17 Use direct mail (postcards) to communicate directly with parents/famihes about district functions such as individual school meetings, changes tn policy, and so forth. BUDGET: $3,370.17 Conmuuilcations and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 141 J 3. 4. Four times a year establish phone banks composed of staff, administration and district/community volunteers to answer questions on any subject phoned in during well-publicized Call Your Kids School nights. 1 I Coordinate with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to allow Dr. Camine to write a periodic op-ed column tn which he wUl give a state of the schools report. ..J I 5. Establish Dr. Camine as a resource for the regularly scheduled KATV television feature, First Class, which carries good news reports about the schools. 6. 3 1 The Communications staff will make arrangements for Dr. Camine to serve as a regular guest on radio talk shows. Dr. Camine should be positioned to talk about education in general and the Little Rock schools in particular. I 7. 1 Improve the way the Districts cable television channel is used, including more effective programming, graphics and so forth, to make it a resource that parents/families actively seek out as an authoritative, reliable and vital source of information about their childrens education. BUDGET: to be determined by LRSD 1 1 1 ] 1 J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 151 1 1 J 3 3 3 3 : 7 ! J Objective 6 Establish regular and timely communications will all LRSD employees. Action Strategies: 1. 2. 3. 4. Prepare a weekly staff update to be faxed to each school building. Building principals will be responsible for copying and distributing to all staff. Department managers tn administrative offices will be responsible for copying and distributing to administrative staff. Arrange for the superintendent and other senior persoimel to periodically visit with school building personnel. Rather than creating a new organization, institute a new element to the \"Key Communicators\" role. Have Key Communicators also serve tn an advisory capacity to the administration regarding issues of LRSD employee communications. Consider writing and distributing a Communications Inventory Survey that asks district personnel to comment on current communication strategies and provide ideas for future communication efforts. Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 161 Objective 7 Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families. Action Strategies: 1 f 1. 2. Rename the Office of Student Assignment. This name conjures up negative perceptions that families have no control over where thetr children will attend school. Its name implies that students are M j assigned to school buildings by employees of this office. This sets up with prospective families a barrier to effective commimication about the real benefits of a Little Rock School ' District education. ] 1 Names to consider include:  Student and Family Services  Office of Student Enrollment  Recruitment and Enrollment Office 1 a J  1 Develop marketing brochures that target prospective students/families as weU as families of students who are moving to a higher level (junior high/middle school or senior high school). All marketing brochures should include registration forms. Separate marketing brochures should be produced for (1) (2) (3) elementary schools and programs, junior high/middle school programs, and senior high programs. j Brochures should highlight the overall programs and provide a capsule description of the individual school buildings. Whenever possible, the brochures should highlight those programs and services that are not offered by private schools or suburban public schools. J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 17i 1 t These brochures should be used by and distributed to:  building principals and Marketing Teams for use in school building recruitment efforts.  recruitment representatives from the Office of Student Assignment.  local Chamber of Commerce representatives for use tn economic development activities.  residential Realtors in the Little Rock area who have contact with newcomers to the city\n posted to the LRSD web site. 1 BUDGET: \" Graphic Design: Printing/15,000 count: 8 Page, four color, 4x9 8 Page, four color, 81/2 x 11 (See attached proposal) $3,500 - $5,000 $ 5,452.00 $ 8.903.00 3. 1 In order to give all print communications (brochures, ads, etc.) and possibly web page graphics a new and fresh look, LRSD should update its photo library with new photographs that focus on the primary themes established in Objective 2 (diversity, quality educational programs, abundance of resources, enhanced choice, and technological opportunities). I BUDGET: $ 2,000 for 3 days with free-lance photographer, supplies, processing and duplication of photos. This is at editorial rate vs. commercial rate. I 1 1 \"I J 4. Encourage the partnership with the Little Rock Alliance for Public Schools and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce in terms of their sponsorship and coordination of the \"Show 'n Tell' event. Seek additional support for this community-wide open house event from the building's Marketing Teams. n Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 18j 5. Produce a print and broadcast advertising campaign that focuses on the strengths of Little Rock's public schools and seeks to actively market LRSD to prospective families. Coordinate the advertising campaign with the \"Show 'n Tell\" event and LRSD registration. J BUDGET:  Print advertising campaign:  Radio campaign: (See attached proposal) $ 27,500 - $35,000 $ 52,500 - $ 65,500 I 6. Although extensive television advertising is cost prohibitive, there may be a way to have a presence on this medium. Specifically, here are the action steps that might allow this: 1 1 !  Approach potential corporate sponsors that are current television advertisers.  Solicit help  not tn terms of cash, but instead, tn terms of donated television time.  LRSD would produce 3 to 4 television commercials that are :15 tn length (NOTE: A local TV station could be approached to provide production)  Ask the corporate sponsors to run thetr : 15 commercials, backed by a LRSD :15 commercial, this totaling the cost of a standard :30 commercial. (NOTE: Several advertisers already own and run :15 commercials about their business: others might be persuaded to create one or two as part of this sponsorship program).  The corporate sponsor would simply be given copies of the LRSD spots and would produce them Into thetr own spots.  The corporate sponsor's media schedule would be placed as usual, and the LRSD would recognize the sponsor for thetr contribution tn the appropriate way. 1 J Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 191 J 1 1. Develop an initiative to make the residential and commercial Realtors of Little Rock into a powerful ally for growth and support of the Little Rock School District:  Maintain and provide to area Realtors informative brochtues about the Districts strengths and resources.  Communicate to Realtors the up-to-date capabilities now offered on the LRSD web site. Make certain they have the necessary information to refer prospective District patrons to the web site.  Arrange for Dr. Camine to serve as the main speaker at least once a year before the Little Rock Board of Realtors.  Arrange for local Realtors to participate in formal school tours so they may become more familiar with the educational opportunities offered. T i J J 1 i Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 201 I I Objective 8 Develop and maintain one-on-one relationships with the Central Arkansas news media that fosters open communicatinns and creates a better imderstanding of the districts educational programs and opportunities. 1 Action Strategies: 1 J 1. 1 mA 2. 3. 4. 1 Begin immediately a scheduled round of meetings with all Central Arkansas media outlets. These should be conducted with Dr. Gamine sitting down (either at the LRSD offices or at the offices of the individual media outlets) with the top decision makers at each outlet as well as every reporter who deals with education topics regularly. The meetings can be spaced to accommodate Dr. Gamines schedule but the whole series should be completed as soon as possible to introduce Dr. Gamine to the media. The meetings will be presented as background, off-the-record sessions in which Dr. Ccimlne win candidly answer all questions presented to him, but which win not generate articles directly (although they could lead to the development of articles later). 1 Develop a schedule of regular news briefings for the media that cover education tn Little Rock. These need not take the form of a formal news conference, but should be an opportunity for the media representatives to ask questions in a relaxed atmosphere with Dr. Gamine and a rotating series of LRSD administrators. I Gonsider delivering a Monday-morning e-mail briefing to all media representatives outlining what will be taking place tn the District that week that could prove of interest to the media. Recruit a local web site development expert to develop a portion of the site that the media can use as a resource for background 1 Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 21 Ji I 1 1 information about the district, the individual schools, policy and regulations, upcoming events and the Uke. The site also should be configured in such a way that the media can submit e-mail inquiries and have them answered expeditiously. The web site also should have a special subsection devoted to information from Dr. Camine to the media and public. 5. Develop an organized program of shooting B-roU video footage (non-nzirrated scenes) from various schools and classrooms to be used by the broadcast media to illustrate stories about the good things happening in the Little Rock School District. - BUDGET: $1,900 per day (filming and editing) 1 3 1  I Conununlcations and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 22J 1 I J ] 1 1 i I i J I I Objective 9 Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock comTnunity in order to effectively communicate the activities of the district. Action Strategies: 1. 2. 3. \"Leadership\" can include LRSD senior administrators, board members, and others who represent the district well in an ambassador position. Communications staff should regularly provide talking points to be ' distributed to those who actively communicate with area communiiy groups. Community groups to target should include, but not be limited to, the following:  Little Rock City Board and Education Commission  Pulaski County Quorum Court  Little Rock's State House and Senate delegation  Rotary, Kiawanis, Lion's, and other civic clubs  Neighborhood Organizations  Leadership Roundtable  Fifty for the Future  Little Rock Chamber of Commerce  Little Rock Alliance for our Public Schools Communications and Marketing Plan/LRSD: Page 23 I! i i .J J ! I Price Quote: 1 1 Qualitative Research I f I J 1 11 1 t ] 1 J I 1 1 1 J ] 1 rriPR-2\u0026amp;-1990 13146 P.02 1  I FROM: Staqr Pittman Pitti^ Portia Donna Creighton Decision Research, Inc. ftnii-jeGa' Sbiy wi eiJ' i.waidi ta DATE: March 20, 1998 5 I i RE\nProposal for Qualitative Research LOGY: J Three fixua groups, seating 12-15 and lasting one hour, will be conducted in Litde Rock, AR. These group will consist of one group each: parents of Elementary students, parents of Junior High students and parents of High School students. A list of prospectivn participants will be supplied by the client for rrcn tiring purposes. nimTABu:: ] Two (2) weeks lead tiine is desirable to allow ample time for recruitment and Held set-up. With signed authori2atioa of prqect confinnation, implementation can begin. I PyPGET: I $5,875 i 10% + client food (Includea screening questionnaire and discussion guide design, facility rental, hostesses, recruitment, respondent refreshments, project coordination, field direction, audio and videotaping, briefing and debriefing sessions, moderation and report) 1 J 1 i TOTAL P.a2 1 1 1 . J r J Price Quote: 1 I Postcard Mailing to LRSD Families 1 I 3,3 i r 1 I 1 i ! 1 J I 1 J .c- w cyd Schuh Company, Inc. noTCraaantf.  ute* Rodt. ar 72303 Rwnm 301.374-2332 ' ooPCT/cowyamnqi p QUOTATION FOR:_______ Pittman \u0026amp; Poirtia Attn : Stacy Pittman 1021 W. 2nd Little Rock, AR 72201 RBFHHgWCS Esc. Postage t $1,025.17 LR SCHOOL POST CARD Sxpiration Data: 04-18-98 Salaspaxaon\nGreg McMahon Quantity Deacription Setup Price w/setup 22,000 Data Processing Load Tape/Standardize Layout Provided Postal Code Merge/Purge by Household 15,012 Data Processing Non-Profit Sort Best Rate-Automation Print 4-up Cheshire list Permit 15,012 Machine Arfr-paB-j ng Apply Cheshire Labels Apply 4-up Cheshire Ledsels Postcard Mail Sort-LSC Provided Mail Non-Profit 25.00 25.00 25.00 $300.00 $175.12 $370.28 TOTAL: $845.40 1 I subject to final confirmation upon raeaipt o client supplied * iata, artwork, and/cr materials. Ark. sales tax (if applicable) additional. 3If Lloyd Schuh Company, Inc. 22O7CamaRa. * UtM Roe*. AR 73209 101.374.3133 QuoTs/caNroDfld^^ SSWWSB .J QUOTATION FOR\n_______ Pittman a Portia Attn\nStacy Pittman 1021 W. 2nd Little Rock, AR 72201 RBPBRSNCB Eat. Poataga t $1,502.38 HOME \u0026amp; SCHOOL CONNECTION Expiration Date: 04-18-98 Salesparson\nGreg McMahon Quantity Description Setup Price w/getup 22,000 Data Procaaaing Load Tape/Standardize Postal Coda Sort Best Rate-Automation Print 4-up Cheshire list Permit 22,000 Machine Addressing Apply Cheshire Labels Apply 4-up Cheshire Labels L^el Self-Mailer Apply 1 Tads Mail Sort-LSC Provided Mail Non-Profit 25.00 50.00 $410.00 $996.00 5SV !  1 1 1 TOTM.\niWftS'.' SSR^-1 I ya ritrw $1,406.00 1 Ml pricing gubject to final confirmation upon receipt of client supplied data, artwork, and/or materials. Ark. sales tax (if applicable) additional. !'XI 1 1 J ..j J Price Quote: 1 ] Printing Expenses for Brochures and Reports I JMAR 20 ' 90 0t:04PM ARKANSAS SRAPHICS ' p.2 .A i ! J DATE: PROPOSAL FOR: ] 1 .1 1 1 .XL-*. L ' 03/20/98 CJS.W Attn: Spencer May JOB DESCRIPTION: Stacy Quota 8 page + Cover SIZE: 4x9 NEGATIVES: PROOFS: STOCK: BINDERY: TURNAROUND: ADDITIONAL: PRESSWORK: Ink coion: Bleed: BILLING TERMS: QUANTITY AND PRICE: Olak Blualina, Mxcchprise 100# Snamal Taxc acoza, crim, old,\n\u0026amp; aeicch 10 Daya 4 c/p 2/a Taa Hat 30 13,000- $5,452.00 800 Soud: Gaines/P.O. Box 34080  Linle Rocle. Arlrar.9 779n?_dnan . \u0026lt;ni.i7k.aa:x xs^v \u0026lt;n,.77\u0026gt;C77\u0026lt;7MPR 20 ' 90 0i:04P!1 ARKANSAS CRPPHICS IC4 i WHra  ' '-J t-t r: J DATE: 03/20/98 1 PROPOSAL FOR: CJW Atta: Spancar Hay JOB DESCRIPTION: I SIZE: NEGATIVES: PROOFS: Scacy Quota 8 page Covar 8i X II Olak I Bluslinst KaCchpxint STOCK: 100# Snanal TaxC BINDERY: acors, Crla, fold, \u0026amp; acicch 1 TURNAROUND: 10 Days I J ADDITIONAL: 1 PRESSWORK: lok coion: z!^ Ht Bleed: Yas BILLING TERMS: HsC 30 I QUANirTY AiND PRICE: 15,000- $8,903.00  1 ( 100 South Giines/P.O. Box 34080  Little Roclc. Arkxnsii 71203-4080  *01-376.8435 FAY \u0026lt;01.774-7^*^n J Price Quote: Print Advertising Campaign 1 j -4   1 -J ] ] 1 1 JMfiR 590 13:55 FH CJRU aai 7s 4341 .Vj 1 rcss^:. St'-'- iaff . .ajc Cranford Johnson Robinson W\u0026lt; r' FAX TRANSMTITAL SHEET Date 3/5/^ To: Stacy Pittmany PittmanJPortis Phone: EA2Q_ 372-3001 371^1049 J From:Grey Harrison Number of pages including this sheet J, Time Sent 1:QQ PM Operator Our FAX number is (501) 975-4241 Telephone (501) 975-6251 / Direct (501) 975-7272 Capitol Center f 303 West Capitol Avenue / Little Rock. Arkansas 72201-3593 COMMENTS: 1 I i Estimated Costs for Little Rock School District j Arkansas Democrat Gazette - 4 column x 10\" ads, B\u0026amp;W 2 insertions per week (SundayiWednesday pick-up) Metro Section (Pulaski, Saline, Lonoke, PauDcner, White \u0026amp; Jefferson Counties) 8 weeks total (4 meeks in July 1998\n4 weeks m January 1999) Estimatod Cost: S27^ - $35,000 T1 Radio - Pre^corded spots (:30 or :60) 200  250 A28-^ GBPS weekly (approx. 20-25 spots per week on 5 stations) 8 weeks total (4 weeks in July 1998\n4 weeks in January 1999) Estimated Cost: $52,500 - $65,500 1 Vm on my way to the dentist, hut Ill call you hack when I return to explain things. Greg Harrison ton irrrcd OCT? itott A UTTLEROCK JT^ \\ I liance: FOR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS October 22, 1998 Fax Memo TO: Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Marketing Team Member FROM: Alma Williams SLUJECT\nUpcoming Marketing Team Meeting on 10/27 at 12 Noon. Make plans to attend our next Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Marketing Team Meeting on this coming Tuesday, October 27 at noon at the Little Rock School District Administration Buildings Board Room located at 810 West Markham. A brown bag luncheon with a presentation of the Little Rock School Districts plan for Middle Schools will be the starting point for this meeting. Suellen Vann of the LRSD will detail how the district.is implementing the middle school concept while also addressing questions and concerns. This bring-your-own-bag luncheon will provide the opportunity to listen and learn. Immediately following this presentation, we will re-convene to discuss how the Alliance Marketing Team can support the Middle School plan as well as a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for the Little Rock School District. Please RSVP by calling the Alliance office at 370-9300. 523 Louisiana Street  LaFayette Building  Suite 175  Little Rock  Arkansas  72201 Phone (501) 370-9300 . Fax (501) 375-8774 lO/IOd TO:t?T 86, 53 ^30 8T09-t7Z-t0S-T:X5J 33d3WWO3 30 33aWbH0 31I I Making Your School THE School of Choice I Principals Institute-1998 I W Todays Outcomes o Better understand why we need to market our schools o Review how and why parents choose a school o Assess internal marketing need I- o Understand image and how to control it J I* Public relations is developing relationships which change 1'^ attitudes that bring about desired behaviors. 11 Patrick Jackson Past President, FRSA 1t All institutions live or die by public opinion. K- b- Janies Tolley Former Vice President. Public Affairs Chrysler Corporation fell !* We re not tbe only game in town! S' 3 .I o private, for-Dront schools o private, non-profit schools o home schools o charter schools few Tbe Diffusion Process Iwitli an examnle al haw a param aelects a schaall o Awareness - finils a listing of all the possible choices - public \u0026amp; private - in the neighborhood\nreads about the schools in the newspaper\nbuilds a list of possible schools 217 I I The Diffusion Process twMi an example al hew a parent selects a schaall % Ul .1 l\u0026gt; o inters-obtains brochures, annual reports, and other written materials on each of the schools\nselects a smaller number which still seem to be possibilities I* The Diffusion Process Iwitli an example al haw a parent selects a schaall  o Evaluation - talks to friends who have children in those schools and asks about the strengths and weaknesses of all\neliminates a few more because of these conversations w The Diffusion Process (with an example al haw a parent selects a schaall k I \u0026gt; o Trial - visits classrooms of schools still considering\ntalks to the principals\nasks questions of the teachers about specific interests  I 3The Diffusion Process (with an example al hew a parent ulectt a schawl] I o flfloptlon - selects a school based on total input and enrolls the child \u0026gt; I I* Why do parents seiect a particuiar schooi? Criteria most cited by parents when choosing a new schooi o academically solid, but not so rigorous as to intimidate tbeir children o accredited o competitive in academic test scores o recognized for excellence o above-average expenditures on pupil expenditures o above-average teacher salaries o above-average library and media services o small class sizes IScheelMatchl 4^.l^H What do parents want? w ? I I* o each child to Ieam as much as he or she is capable of learning o a friendly, protective, yet stimulating learning environment I \u0026gt; Q prompt civil and understandable answers to their questions I o their kids to be happy  Characteristics of a Customer- FriendiySchooi I?  6 o responsiveness o flexibility o two-way communication o shared decision-making o accountability r' o adequate resources o individual recognition in K Total Quaiity Management Theory o build a quality product Ip o sell it at a fair price b \u0026gt; o give good, prompt service when something goeswrong bl o be pleasant to the consumer \u0026lt;: ,1- I 5Marketing VS. Selling \u0026gt; When selling, you've . already determined I i|* the nature of the product or service lil* that you're offering. When marketing, you create and adapt the product to meet the needs of your consumers. I I h \u0026gt; Internal Marketing... I \u0026gt; What it is and why its important I- I I I I Sharpen your schools image! The 4 Ps of Image\nI oPrice/value oPrograms oPlaces oPeople 6r Visitors must report to the office. I i Welcome! We re glad you're here! Please come to the office and introduce yourself! I I I Please let our office staff welcome you to the building! I' \u0026gt; Sharpen your schools image! I.. I I I I\nSi \u0026gt; The 4 Ps of Image: oPrice/value oPrograms oPlaces oPeople PPP = Positive Picture Phrasing Si I Si I 6^ I I Students Management Certified personnel Lounge Costs Learners Leadership Instructional start Workroom Investment t\n7Internal Marketing Sample Employee Self-Assessment Why do you work in our school? Passion for what I do Only job I could get Close to home I look forward to coming to work every day. Strongly agree Strongly disagree I feel that I make a difference every day. Strongly agree Strongly disagree I could contribute more to the students in my school by (fill in the blank)________________________________________ I plan to help my school/department this year by (fill in the blank)_________________________________________I hl Simple Ideas for...Principals o speak Simply\nforget educational iargon o view every contact - Dy phone, computer, in person - as an opportunity to build support o put something positive on every childs report card I I o reconsider school signs o print school pluses on a small card and have laminated\npass out to everyone Great School Public Relations Ideas I\" te- o Key Communicators - identify opinion leaders and build them into a team which understands and supports your school and communicates that suppoil o Know Whafs Right - brainstorm with your entire staff What's Right with Our School. Then, put that information on paper. 3 More Great School Public \u0026lt; Relations Ideas * Jr te: 5^ o let people see for themselves - plan and implement a Principal for a Day, Student for a Day, or Teacher for a Day program. Get people Into your school. o Use your well-read publications - dont start new publications. Put your important information into those that people already read. 8bl s Constructive PR is planned\n1^' r r r i\u0026gt; destructive PR lust happens. 9STUDENTS - ESTABLISHING A RAPPORT Public Relations The bottom line in education is, and always will be, children. As such, the most important of all school public relations is the relationship between the children and the staff and faculty who serve them. We need to continually focus upon what we can do to create a school and classroom environment where children feel good about themselves and their role in the educational process. Some sure fire ways of building rapport with the children in your classroom and school are listed below: Welcome students back to school in the fall by calling them on the phone or sending them a card or letter. Accentuate the positive. Taking the time to give a student a little extra attention may seem like an insignificant act. However, for some students, your pat on the back, the supportive comment, or the simple sticker on the paper may be their only source of positive feedback on that day. Invite a student to eat lunch with you once a week. This is an opportunity for both you and the child to get to know each other in an informal setting. Be available to your students, and let them know you are there if they need you. A good teacher is not only a good instructor but also serves in the capacity of a counselor, advisor, confidant, and a trusted friend. Dont be afraid to enjoy yourself and let your students know how you feel about what it is you do. The teacher sets the feeling tone for the classroom. Students are very perceptive, and will reflect the attitudes modeled by the classroom teacher. Give students an opportunity to develop leadership qualities by assigning such classroom responsibilities as monitors, tutors, and officers. Get to know each of your students as well as you can. What are their likes and dislikes? ...academic strengths? ...hobbies? ...home backgrounds? ...goals and aspirations? Remember that you are capable of making mistakes. Listen to children as they explain their concerns. When appropriate, be willing to change a decision or conclusion. Have a sense of humor. While what we do is very important, it does not always have to be serious. Kids of today have enough problems of their own to worry about. Dont take out your personal frustrations on your students. Dont forget that respect is not something a teacher gets\nit is earned - every single day of our professional lives. BUILDING A RELATIONSHIP WITH PARENTS  Public Relations Parents have a need to develop a relationship with the teachers to whom they entrust their children on a daily basis. Teachers have a need to get to know parents in order to better serve students. For the purpose of more effective instruction, and in order to develop meaningful relationships with parents, schools need to have good public relations programs. Some suggestions for building a positive rapport with parents follow: Get parents into the classroom by using them as resource people. Let them explain a hobby, skill, or interest. Increase parental contact. Positive contacts are especially appreciated by parents. Commit yourself to making one positive parent contact per week. Parents are more approachable regarding a concern if theyve had previous positive experiences with the school. Invite parents to after-school and weekend activities. Develop a list of activities which parents can do at home to support their childs educational program. Create an award for families that complete these activities. Send home letters to parents on a regular basis. These informal letters should let parents know what is happening in your class, current goals and objectives, and student achievements. Be open with parents regarding problems and concerns. Encourage parents to express their concerns so that you can deal with them and prevent the concerns from growing out of control. - Use parent volunteers in the classroom as tutors, to correct papers, assist on field trips, read to students, or work with small groups. - Let parents know that you value their input and suggestions. - Homework is the most consistent communication between the school and the home. Make sure homework is meaningful and clear. Let parents know they can contact you at home to clarify questions they might have regarding an assignment. Invite parents to observe classes, eat lunch with their child, or share morning coffee with you. Personal contact is an extremely important step in building a meaningful relationship. Always take the opportunity to let parents know you appreciate their efforts to support their children's educational endeavors.RECOGNITION, PROJECTS, ACTIVITIES fc\nPublic Relations Classroom projects and all-school activities promote involvement, increase motivation, and foster an interdisciplinary instructional approach. These activities are also excellent opportunities for positive public relations. They involve parents and community members, and also give the local media chances to feature classrooms, schools, and students. The following smorgasbord of ideas offers a wide variety of classroom projects, all-school activities, and means of recognizing students. Student Recognition Classroom Projects All-School Activities Newcomer Corrunittee -Greets new students and orientates them to the school. Student of the Week - Post pictures of the child and display items that are special to her/him. Invite parents into the class and for lunch during the week. Birthday Ribbons Happygrams Post student work. Make sure every child has something displayed which reflects success. Citizenship Awards Perfect Attendance Awards Positive phone calls to parents Quarterly Awards Assembly - The goal is for every child to be recognized for something during the course of the year. Science Fair - Students research and demonstrate a simple scientific concept. Display at an open house for the parents. Leisure Reading Club Student Book of Great Works - Have a book on you desk in which students can enter accomplishments of which they are proud. Sleepover/Pajama Party at the school, perhaps a campout, even at the teachers house. What a great way to get to know your students! Parents/Grandparents Day Lunch with the teacher Classroom newspaper Activity Day - Bowling, walking, rollerskating, cross country skiing, bicycling Pet Show Popcorn sales one day per week during lunch hour Brotherhood Week World Peace Week Wellness Activities Day American Education Week Artist-In-Residence School themes or slogans Cross-Grade Pals - Students in the primary grades are buddied\" with students in the intermediate grades. Students read to each other, exchange letters, and share other activities during the school year. Talent Show - Schedule it for the winter months, and combine it with a chili supper Walk younger children home during the first month of school to meet their parents. If they ride a bus, ride the bus with them. - Brown Bag Lunches - Invite parents to speak on areas of interest to kids during lunch hour. School Spirit Day - Students wear clothes in the school colors and/or with the school logo on it Honor Roll Catch Them Being Good - Pass out tickets or coupons redeemable for incentives when you see a student modeling appropriate behavior. Class breakfast Secret Pals at Christmastime, Easter, May Day Have a picnic in the park in May Celebrate the schools birthdayTELEPHONE TECHNIQUES Public Relations Phone calls are a vital link to the home and to the public, and can be your most effective means of developing a positive relationship with parents and community members. Following are some suggestions for insuring that the image you project over the telephone is both positive and professional: 1. 2. 3. 4. Answer the phone as promptly as possible. Upon answering, identify yourself and the school you represent. Be pleasant. Nobody wants to talk to a school or the teacher\n people want to talk to other people. A cheerful greeting and a warm tone of voice let the caller know they are dealing with someone capable of being friendly, helpful, and understanding. All callers, whether parents or concerned citizen, should be treated with the highest respect, and should never be considered as interruptions. Listen carefully to what the caller has to say. Your ability to concentrate on what the caller is saying and to maintain an attentive and helpful manner is even more critical when the caller has a problem or concern. In such situations your role should be to assist the caller and to help in solving the problem rather than making excuses or employing other defensive strategies. When calling a parent about a concern, be aware that such a call can be very uncomfortable for the parent. Be empathetic, state the concern, and avoid being judgemental. Let the parent know how you will handle the concern and how they can support you. Parents are less likely to be defensive if they perceive you as someone who cares about their child and who is trying to work with them to help their child succeed in school. 5. 6. 7. Use good voice control. - Speak directly into the mouthpiece. If the caller cant hear or understand you, s/he may become frustrated and discouraged. - Remember, a monotonous voice is perceived as boring, while a speaker who constantly changes inflection is perceived as flighty or insincere. Your inflection should convey an interested and helpful attitude. - Enunciate and articulate so that what you say is what people hear. Never put someone on hold without asking permission and explaining why it is necessary. Always thank the caller for waiting. If the caller will be on hold for an extended period of time, break in occasionally to let the caller know they have not been forgotten! If a callback is necessary, do so as soon as possible. People are very impressed with such attentiveness. On the other hand, getting back to people when you get around to it conveys a message of indifference on your part.= DEALING WITH NEGATIVE PEOPLE/COMPLAINTS = \u0026amp; Public Relations Even the best of educators will occasionally come under criticism from parents or community members. How you handle the negative feedback, whether or not the criticism is justified, will have a significant impact on how parents perceive you. There are guidelines that teachers can use to assist them in responding to negative parents, their concerns, and criticism. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Be open-minded. Consider the parents point of view. No matter how much professionalism, competency responsibility, or integrity you have, you are capable of making a mistake. Teachers need to accept the fact that they will occasionally make an error. Listen carefully, with the goal of fully understanding the concern. Let the parent talk while you listen. Interrupt only to clarify her/his point and confirm your understanding of it. Let the parent vent her/his concern. Such venting is not only therapeutic for the parent, but will give you the information you need to deal with the situation. Dont allow yourself to react emotionally to the parent. A negative response only serves to further alienate them. Talk only after thinking about what you can say to assist in the resolution of the concern. Remember always to be polite, honest, and open. Acknowledge your regret over the parents dissatisfaction. Express empathy for their inconvenience and/or problem. Let them know you will seek a solution to the problem. When the criticism is well-founded, respond to it. Take steps to insure that the source of criticism has been corrected. Respond quickly. The sooner the source of criticism has been addressed, the less the opportunity there is for the concern to mushroom. An irritated parent will become unnecessarily agitated if, upon reporting her/his concern, s/he is left with the impression that s/he has been ignored. Respond effectively. Seek a permanent, total solution to the problem. Try to end the discussion on a positive note. Inform the parent, in very specific terms, what you will be doing to resolve the issue. Follow up with a phone call or note to give the parent feedback on how you have followed through.GAINING SUPPORT FROM NON-PARENTS \u0026lt;4^ Public Relations All citizens help support schools and education through local, state, and/or federal taxes. Typically, a vast majority of the people in a school district do not have children in school. Educators are beginning to realize that it is essential for them to make the senior citizen, childless couples, and singles a priority audience. We must involve and educate the nonparents if we wish to gain their support for our schools and educational programs. Following are some suggestions and activities to help classroom teachers and schools reach out to this increasingly large and influential group: Involve the non-parent in the classroom/school. A bonding and support instinct is initiated when people are given opportunities to become a part of the program. Consider using non-parents to * serve as tutors and teachers helpers * help plan for special celebrations * read to primary students * share a craft, talent, or skill * work with students who have exceptional needs  be pen-pals to students * work in the IMC, computer lab, or office area * listen to children read stories or give book reports - Draw upon the knowledge, skills, and experience of non-parents when developing new programs and curriculum. One does not have to be an educator or parent to have something important to say about what needs to be taught in schools. Place non- parents on school committees (e.g., long term planning, curriculum, advisory, public relations). - Ask for the opinion and input of the non-parent. Survey them to find out what they think the strengths and needs of your school are. How do they feel the school could better serve the needs of the non-parents? - Unleash your best ambassadors, your students! Send them out to perform for area clubs and organizations. Let them visit the hospitals and retirement homes. Set aside a service day on which students volunteer to rake leaves and do small jobs for retired citizens. Or plan an Apprenticeship Day when students learn about a profession or occupation by spending the day at the worksite under the supervision of a non-parent. - Inform the non-parent. Send classroom newspapers and school newsletters to non- parents. Work with the local media to let the public know the significant and positive things which are happening in the schools. Once a month, invite non-parents to a morning coffee where information, questions, and concerns can be exchanged. - Acknowledge the non-parent. Have a special visitation day just for the non-parent. Give them a free lunch, a tour of the building, and an informative and/or entertaining school program. Get your class to adopt non-parents in the neighborhood, and hold special activities with them throughout the year. Issue Golden Age passes to senior citizens.\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_604","title":"Ombudsman","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":["1998/2000"],"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","School administrators","School management and organization","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Ombudsman"],"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/604"],"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\nThe Office of Ombudsman was established during the 1998-1999 school term and the position filled by James L. Washington, who had been principal of Henderson Junior High from 1994-1998.\nJOHN W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374.4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. received AUG 7 \" 1998 August 6, 1998 OTGEOf Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 Re: Job Description for Ombudsperson Dear Mr. Babbs: Mr. Walker asked that a share a copy of Joshuas draft of the job description for the Ombudsperson with you and Dr. Carnine. Enclosed is a copy of same. Please give me a call if you have questions. JCS/ Enclosure cc: Ms. Ann Brown Dr. Leslie Carnine Mr. Chris Heller Joshua Intervenors DRAFT JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE POSITION OF OMBUDSPERSON POSITION: Ombudsperson for the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Bachelors Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in management or supervisory capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Teachers Certificate. 4. making. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. REPORTS TO: Class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors will provide reports to the Superintendents of the Pulaski County school districts of Ombudspersons findings. SUPERVISES: Staff as may be designated by Joshua class counsel. JOB GOAL: To investigate and assist in the resolution of complaints about policies, procedures, practices of the Pulaski County school districts. The goal of the office of the Ombudsperson is to also assist the Pulaski County school districts with the task of ensuring that students and their parents and/or guardians are aware of their rights pursuant to district practices, policies and procedures, the student rights and responsibilities handbook, and all other applicable state and federal laws to ensure an equitable education to class members. The Ombudsperson will act as anadvocate on behalf of students and their parents and/or guardian involved in the discipline process, investigate parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and other complaints by students and parents relating to equitable access to and delivery of necessary educational opportunities and services being offered by the District. To this end, the Ombudsperson will work with District officials, students and parents to achieve equitable solutions. To communicate, assist and be available to help students and parents and/or guardians understand District educational philosophies, goals and objectives. JOB RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. To investigate and assist in the resolution of complaints regarding practices, policies, and/or procedures. 2. Attend discipline hearings on behalf of students and their parents and/or guardians to serve as an advocate regarding the discipline appeals process. 3. Attend administrative and/or teacher conferences on behalf of students and their parents and/or guardians to ensure proper educational needs and placement of students through proper assessment and other evaluations. 4. Attend Emergency Management Team conferences on behalf of students and/or their parents and/or guardians to ensure proper placement of students regarding their educational needs through proper assessment and other evaluations. 5. To investigate student and parent complaints of race, gender and disability-based mistreatment and attempt to mediate equitable resolutions. 6. To investigate student and parent and /or guardian complaints of race-based discrimination and attempt to achieve equitable solutions. 7. To provide summative quarterly reports to class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors outlining the relationship of the complaints to desegregation plan provisions, a summation of findings and conclusions and recommendations to remedy recurrence. 8. To provide written and/or oral reports to the Board of Directors regarding student and parent concerns. 9. Monitor all aspects of school operations. 10. Other duties as assigned by class counsel of the Joshua Intervenors.SALARY: Negotiable5013744107 UfiLKER LRU FIRM 847 P04Z0\u0026lt;1  17 '90 10: I I Attorney At Law . 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas tzzm Tslephone (501) 37.4^58 i FAX (601) 3744187 i J0H.X W. W.\\LSR RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN POSTER. UR, Via Facsimile - 324-2146 August 20, 1998 Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: I understand that Mr. Walker has already contacted you about my position as ombudsperson. School has started. I have started to receive telephone calls from parents and patrons of the District The first problem which I would like to bring to your attention for discussion is that of the elimination of the staff position of social worker at Rockefeller Incentive School. I refer to Rockefeller as an incentive school because the basic characteristics of the student population have not substantially changed since the approval of the revised plan. We believe that the social worker position is important and necessary for the school's ability to relate to community concerns and to the needs of the underprivileged children therein. The social worker position has been one which has bce.n regarded as successful for many years. It is my and Mr. Walkers understanding that programs that have been successRil in facilitating desegregation and remediating problems which are attributable to class status will be continued rather than eliminated. 1 would, therefore, like to visit with either you, Ms, Sadie Mitchell, Mr. Junious Babbs or the appropriate person who has responsibility for this area. Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. Sim JO OTua Josfiua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Julius Babbs Mr. Chris Heller 1 I02/10/1999 15:03 5013242090 lrsd human resourses RASE 02 Little Rock School District Job Description Job Title: Job Code\nDOT Code: Division: Department: Location: Reports To: Prepared By: Prepared Date: Approved By: Approved Date: FLSA Status: \"OMBUDSMAN\" Administrative Services Administrative Services Student Assignment Building Associate Superintendent - Administrative Services Associate Superintendent - Administrative Services 07/24/98 Director - Human Resources 10/22/98 Non-Exempt SUMMARY To serve as a student/parent advocate upon instances of conflict and/or concern within the student school experience while working to achieve equitable solution among all parties. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSTBIUTIES include the following. Other duties may be assigned. -Ensure that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. -Act as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process. -Investigate parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempt to achieve equitable solutions. SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES This job has no supervisory responsibilities. QUALIFICATIONS To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE Bachelors degree (B. A.) is preferred from four-year college or university\nor one to two years related experience and/or training\nor equivalent combination of education and experience. LANGUAGE SKILLS Ability to read and interpret documents such as policy manuals and procedure manuals. Ability to write routine reports and correspondence. Ability to speak effectively before groups of customers or employees of organization. MATHEMAHCAL SKILLS Ability to work with mathematical concepts such as probability and statistical inference, and fundamentals of plane and solid geometry and trigonometry. Ability to apply concepts such as Page 102/10/1999 15:03 5013242090 LRSD HUMAN RESOURStS PAGE 03 fractions, percentages, ratios, and proportions to practical situations. REASONING ABILITY Ability to define problems, collect data, establish facts, and draw valid conclusions. Ability to interpret an extensive variety of technical instructions in mathematical or diagram form and deal with several abstract and concrete variables. PHYSICAL demands The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to talk or hear. WORK ENVIRONMENT The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perfoim the essential functions. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet. Page 2Arkansas Democrat 7^(JjazcLk |  TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1998  Henderson principal named LR school district ombudsman BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAWJAZETTE James L. Washington, principal at Henderson Junior High School since September 1994, will become the Little Rock School District's ombudsman, a new position required by the districts recently revised desegregation plan. Superintendent Les Carnine said Monday that as an ombudsman, Washington will serve as an advocate for parents and students who have problems or conflicts with the school district. Much of the ombudsmans work is expected to be done on behalf of parents and students who want to appeal disciplinary  actions. A committee of parents and teachers will be formed soon to interview candidates for Hendersons principal. The schools enrollment is 603 this year, down from 724 ItJit year. The committees recommendations will be forwarded to the superintendent, who will endorse one candidate to the School Board. Carnine said he hopes to complete the selection process by the School Boards Dec. 17 meeting, and no later than early 1999, in time for student pre-registration for the next school year. It is during pre-registration, Jan. 25 to Feb. 5, that parents select the schools their children will attend in 1999-2000. Henderson is one of eight Little Rock junior highs that will become a middle school for grades six through eight. Because sixth- and seventh- graders will be new to Henderson next year. Gamine said parents from Hendersons feeder elementary schools will be included on the candidate screening committec. The primary feeders for Henderson are Terry, McDermott and Romine elementary schools in west Little Rock. Carnine said a new principal may assume duties at Henderson as soon as the second semester starts in January, but that will depend on the new persons current responsibilities. Washington will delay assuming his new job until the new principal can take over. Washington is a longtime district employee who has worked in the student assignment office and as assistant principal at Hall High. He has experience at both the elementary and secondary school levels. Carnine described the job change as a lateral move for Washington and said his salary will not change. The ombudsmans position will be included in the district's department of pupil serx'ices, headed by Jo Evelyn Elston. In addition to acting as a parent and student advocate, the ombudsman should ensure that students are aware of their rights in tile district and should investigate and resolve complaints of racebased mislreatiuent. The revised desegiegation plan was negotiated by representatives of the school district and tlie families of black students who intervened in the districts 1982 desegregation lawsuit.5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 777 P02Z02 AUG 26 99 13:46 John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, .Arkansas 72206 Telephont (501) 374-3755 RLX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH W.ASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. August 26,1999 Via Fax Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: So that there will be no possibility of misunderstanding about the duties of the ombudsperson for the next school year I respectfully request a meeting with your top level administrative staff regardmg tlie subject including his budget, his relationship to other administrators and to Joshua and his reponing responsibilities. I request that you be in this meeting along with Dr. Linda Watson. Mr. Junious Babbs, Dr. Marion Lacy, Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms. Sadie Mitchell. It is our view that the position was effectively diminished in status and responsibility when Mr, James Washington made the negative report regarding Ms. Gayle Bradfords administration and treatment of black students. It is clear by his retraction letter that he was taking orders from higher * 11wlMwiO XlViil iXl^XXwX authority' and that he is not in a favored position in this district by the nature of the expectations of his job. I believe that it is important that he directly report to you, Dr. Carnine, rather than to Mr. Babbs, and that his work be as required by the plan. He is not an agent of the district per se\nrather, he is an agent of justice and fairness for the students, as you are, and he is paid by the district. He is an extension of you. This inquiry will also delve into the responsibility for the assistant superintendent for the district because his duties are also unclear. I suggest that we meet on September 8,1999 at 10:00 a.m. for a meeting that I expect to last between one and two hours. I also request that Mr. Chris Heller and Ms, Ann Brown be present along with Mr. James Washington. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, '. Walker JWW:lp To: James Washington Little Rock School District Fax Number: 5013242213 FAX BLAST TO ALL MEMBER OFFICES USOA FROM\nRuth Cooperrider Deputy and Legal Counsel, Iowa - Office of Citizens' Alde/Ombudsman Capitol Complex, 215 E. Seventh Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0231 Phone: 515-281-3592: Fax: 515-242-6007 E-mail\nrcooper@leqis.state.ig.us I am the USOA's representative to an Ombudsman Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) which has been working to develop recommendations regarding the establishment of ombudsman offices. (The latest USOA newsletter has an article about the Committee.) The Committee's work has focused on defining vrtio is an Ombudsman, including what are the essential characteristics of an Ornbudsman^The CdmwlgeeT8~gettingTdoaBTo~completing its-work on a-Resolution-and an accompanyjDg,.epoilthat-WiJI be submitted to the ABA'S House of Delegates. Action taken by the House of Delegates on these documents or issues becomes official ABA policy. The Resolution is attached. The full report is available at www.abanet.org/adminlaw/ombud^atlanta.html. The Committee is presently reviewing various concerns and issues, most of which relate to defining or describing \"independence and \"confidentiality\". These unfinished issues include: 1. Whether the Resolution by itself adequately set out the defining essential characteristics of an ombudsman. 2. should confidentiality be guaranteed in light of current requirements in laws on\nequal employment opportunity. Freedom of Information Act, archives and record-keeping requirements, anv other law or agency want to access the Ombudsman's confidential records? Relationships between the Ombudsman and the federal Inspector Generals\nwho has access to a) b) what between these two agencies. a) b) Placing the Ombudsman outside the entity under the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Is it appropriate for an ombudsman to investigate those who appoint, confirm or have power to remove the ombudsman? c) d) e) 0 Ombudsman's access to information What are the ombudsman's fair procedures? Providing the ombudsman with independent counsel. Broad versus narrow jurisdiction and comment ,eelMdocumansaep.abtein P-dsentingourp^ionto 1) Do you------ to the three fundamental charactenstics of an ombudsman: independence, neutrality/impartiaiity and confidentiality? feel the report adequately supports the definition in communicabng a definition which might 2) Do you form the basis of US law? it this coming month? I NEED YOUR COMMENTS BY OCTOBER 13, 1999, 6:00 P.M. CDT. If you think something in either the Resolution or Report needs to be revised, please be specific and if possible, provide the suggested language change. You may respond to me by e-mail, fax, or postal mail.DRAFT RECOMMENDATION OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTEE TO THE SECTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND REGULATORY PRACTICE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the use of ombudsmen in the public and private sectors and further recommends the following principles for the establishment of ombudsman offices, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that only those individuals meeting these principles may legitimately call themselves ombuds-men , n ombudsman is authorized by an entity to  (1) receive complaints and inquiries about, and to address, investigate, and examine alleged acts, omissions, improprieties, and systemic problems within the jurisdiction specified by the entity m the law or written policy establishing the ombudsman s office (2) exercise discretion to accept or decline to act on a complaint or inquiry (3) act on complaints and inquiries on the ombudsmans own initiative t J J via 1---- , 1  ul (4) operate by fair procedures to aid in the just resolution of a complaint or problem (5) resolve issues at the most appropriate level of the entity (6) function by such means as: (a) educating .  . , (b) developing, evaluating, and discussing options available to affected individuals (c) mediating (d) investigating (e) conducting an inquiry and report findings, and VC) WUUUVWUJ5 *A*i^v**x^ --------------------- 1 t V (f) making recommendations for the resolution of a complaint or problem to those persons who have the authority to act upon them. B. An ombudsman must be provided with these essential characteristics at a minimum to discharge the duties of the office effectively  (1) independence from control by any officer of the appointing entity or person who may be the subject of a complaint or inquiry in structure, function, and appearance (2) impartiality and neutrality, and (3) confidentiality. C. An ombudsman does not  (1) accept or provide notice to the entity of an alleged violation (2) make, change or set aside a law, policy or administrative decision (3) conduct an investigation that substitutes for determining rights in administrative or judicial proceedings (4) make binding decisions or determine rights, or (5) compel an entity or any person to implement the ombudsmans recommendations.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 Fax: (501) 324-2213 JAMES L. WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN Introduction Ombudsman Monthly Report August 1999 Of Webster defines ombudsman as, \"...one who investigates complaints and assists in achieving fair settlements.\" The word itself is Scandinavian in origin and generally refers to someone who is a representative, agent, or authorized person who safeguards and serves the interest of a particular group. Today, the position of ombudsman in its various forms (client ombudsman and consumer ombudsman, for example) has the reputation as a fair-minded, neutral and powerful source of assistance to those coping with bureaucracy. Building trust and credibility is vital to the success of any business. Most of the time, problems and concerns are resolved through the normal chain of command. However, there are times when problems are not addressed in a satisfactory manner. Unfortunately, the problem does not disappear. It may grow until it contaminates the entire business relationship. Providing the services of an ombudsman to work with the people involved in the business can effectively demonstrate the commitment to everyone in a fair and equitable manner. Ombudsmen are institutions that are involved in doing impartial investigations of citizens' complaints. An ombudsman receives the complaint and then conducts a thorough and dispassionate investigation searching for points of law and proper procedure and questioning whether the district may have done an injustice to a citizen. At the conclusion of an investigation, the ombudsman makes a recommendation about how the case should be resolved. Although the ombudsman does not have the power to reverse decisions, he should use whatever political powers available to try to enforce the recommendations. The function may occasionally involve mediation. The mission of the organizational ombudsman is to provide a confidential, neutral and informal process which facilitates fair and equitable resolutions to concerns that arise in the organization. In performing this mission, the ombudsman serves as an information and communication resource, upward feedback channel, advisor, dispute resolution expert, and change agent. While serving in this role, the ombudsman should adhere to the following list knows as The Standards of Practice: 1. Adhere to The Ombudsman Association Code of Ethics. 2. Base the practice on confidentiality. 2.1 An ombudsman should not use the names of individuals without permission. Ombudsman Monthly Report August 1999 Page 2 2.2 During the problem-solving process, the ombudsman may make known information as long as the identity of the individual contacting the office is not compromised, unless necessary. 2.3 Any data should be scrutinized carefully to safeguard the identity of each individual whose concerns are represented. 2.4 Publicity about the office conveys the confidential nature of the work of the ombudsman. 3. Assert that there is a privilege with respect to communications with the ombudsman and resist testifying in any formal process inside or outside the organization. 3.1 Communications between an ombudsman and others (made while the ombudsman is serving in that capacity) are considered privileged. Others cannot waive this privilege. 3.2 Do not serve in any additional function in the organization which would undermine . the privilege nature of our work (such as compliance of officer, arbitrator, etc.) 4. Exercise discretion whether to act upon a concern or an individual contacting the office. The ombudsman may initiate action on a problem he or she perceives directly 5. Are designated neutrals and remain independent of ordinary line and staff structures. No additional role (within the organization) which would compromise this neutrality. 5.1 The ombudsman strives for objectivity and impartiality. 5.2 The ombudsman has a responsibility to consider the concerns of all parties known to be involved in a dispute. 5.3 Do not serve as advocates for any person in a dispute within an organization\nhowever, do advocate for fair processes and their fair administration. 5.4 Help develop a range of responsibility options to resolve problems and facilitate discussion to identify the best options. When possible, help people develop new ways to solve problems themselves. 5.5 The ombudsman should exercise discretion before entering into any additional affiliations, roles or actions that may impact the neutrality of the function within the organization. 5.6 Do not make binding decisions, mandate policies or adjudicate issues for the organization.Ombudsman Monthly Report August 1999 Page 3 6. 6.1 6.2 7. 8. 9. 10. Remain an informal and off-the-record resource. Formal investigations - for the purpose of adjudication - should be done by others. In the event that the ombudsman accepts a request to conduct a formal investigation, a memo should be written to file noting this action as an exception to the ombudsman role. Such investigations should not be considered privileged. Do not act as agent for the organization and do not accept notice on behalf of the organization. Do always refer individuals to the appropriate place where formal notice can be made. Individuals should not be required to meet with the ombudsman. Al! interactions with the ombudsman should be voluntary. Foster communication about the philosophy and function of the ombudsman's office with the people to be serviced. Provide feedback on trends, issues, policies and practices without breaching fidentiality or anonymity. Identify new problems and provide support for responsible systems change. con- Keep professionally current and competent by pursuing continuing education and training relevant to the ombudsman profession. Endeavor to be worthy of the trust placed in the ombudsman. Activities and Complaint Summaries: 1. The ombudsman was contacted by a LRSD parent whose child attended Crystal Hill in the PCSSD. Her complaint was that the child has numerous sanctions although he has been diagnosed with a handicap. The parent indicated that she told the school about the handicap. The school was contacted. The parent was referred to the appropriate assistant superintendent in the PCSSD and advised of her rights by the LRSD ombudsman. 2. 3. 4. 5. The ombudsman was contacted by grandparents seeking help with establishing guardianship while the parents moved to another city. The assignment office was contacted and the process was completed. The assignment office The ombudsman initiated the development of the LRSD Dropout Prevention Plan with assistance from the district's coordinator. A former student contacted the ombudsman for assistance in asking a school transfer so that he can continue his education to become a teacher. The visit to the admission officer was productive. Regular contact is maintained by phone. It was explained The parent of a student who had been recommended for expulsion during the previous school term contacted the ombudsman for reinstatement procedures, that the student was not eligible for reinstatement for one calendar year.Ombudsman Monthly Report August 1999 Page 4 6. The parent of a Hall High School student contacted the ombudsman to discuss transfer options. The student was experiencing attendance problems. It was explained that his attendance records would transfer with him and that changing schools would not solve the problem. They were referred to the assistant principal to develop strategies to improve his attendance. 7. The parent of a Hall student contacted the ombudsman for assistance with ...e pu.ein or a nail siuaenT contacted the ombudsman for assistance with getting her son transferred to Central. The process was explained to the parent and she was referred to the Student Registration Office. 8. The ombudsman was contracted by a parent about a recent change in guardianship. As result of the change, the child has a new address that justifies a school change. process was explained and they were referred to the Student Registration Office. The 9. A Henderson parent contacted the ombudsman for information about the -------------- -------- ...u magnet program\nspecifically, the course differences between magnet and non-magnet students. I, , ...... Wfl IIWII JIUUCHI3. Her questions were answered and she was referred to the principai for more detailed information. 10. A Hall- parent contacted the ombudsman to complain about her son's grade change from A ZK A I I_b _ - - *__ I I  . fl. the last school term. Inquires were made and it was discovered that the grade should have been changed. The assistant superintendent was notified and the grade changed. was a The process 11. The ombudsman was contacted for assistance with respect to getting M-to-M transfers to Clinton elementary in the PCSSD and transportation for her grandchildren. was explained and she was referred to the Student Registration Office for service. 12. A parent contacted the ombudsman because she could not get a L children to Jefferson. The school was contacted and a stop was established. courtesy bus stop for her 13. The ombudsman was contacted with a complaint about not being assigned to the school of her choice, Rockefeller. The assignment process was explained and her questions Z* M fl zJ * answered. were 14. The parent of a Central student appealed the assignment because of problems with students charged with crimes in the community. Her request was denied. A meeting arranged with the principal and her fears were addressed. was 15. The ombudsman was contacted by the guardian of a octumy officer at Henderson had consensual sex during the 1997-98 school year. The officer was student who alleged that a security transferred to Fair. The student was seeking a transfer to Fair. The ombudsman met with the guardian and a meeting was scheduled with the authorities. The meeting did not take place. Instead, they took the student to school and alleged that he fathered her child DNA test results proved that he did not father the child. 16. The ombudsman initiated talks to re-establish the Future 500 scholarship program for African-American students in the LRSD. 17. Dr. Terrence Roberts met with the ombudsman to discuss the role of the ombudsman in the district.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 JAMES L. WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN wi.5o, Fax: (501) 324-2213 wV A ~sasatesBt RSCS5VED Ombudsman's Monthly Report September 1999 JAN 2 i 2CC0 Introduction GiTiGSuF The ombudsman is a designated neutral or impartial dispute resolution practitioner whose major function is to provide confidential and informal assistance to students, parents, and administrators. When providing assistance, an ombudsman uses a variety of skills which include counseling, mediation^ information fact-finding, and upward feedback mechanisms that offer a range of options to those who contact the office. The ombudsman functions outside the ordinary line management structure and has access to anyone in the organization, including the superintendent. The ombudsman has a long and honorable tradition as the means of protecting against abuse, bias, and other improper treatment or unfairness. The LRSD ombudsman follows in this tradition by identifying and bringing forth such issues in a confidential and neutral environment. Guided by the requirement of terms of reference for the function, he also follows the code of ethics and standards of practice of the ombudsman's association. Activities/Summary of Complaints: 1. 2. 3. A parent contacted the ombudsman requesting information with respect to accessing the four-year-old program at Brady. The process was explained and the parent left satisfied. The parent of two students from McClellan contacted the ombudsman to discuss how she can get them into the ACC. They have had attendance problems and the mother wanted information about mentors, jobs, and work permits. The information was provided. The students decided to return to regular high school. A student and an adult met wit the ombudsman to discuss power-of-attorney documents and how it would impact the child. After the conference, they went to the Student Registration Office for the documents.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - September 1999 Page 2 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The ombudsman met with the principal at Wakefield to discuss a student who transferred to Franklin. She reported that they might be victims of abuse. The principal at Franklin was notified and SCAN was contacted. The parent of students who were retained contacted the ombudsman to complain that the retentions were not justified. The principal was contacted and their situation was explained. There was no substance to the complaint. The ombudsman communicated findings to parent. The parent of a McClellan student contacted the ombudsman about the Youth Challenge Program. The phone number and a contact person were given to the parent. She felt that the program is what her child should attend rather than high school because of discipline problems. The ombudsman was contacted by the grandparent/guardian of a student who had been placed in an alternative education setting. She had some fears that were based on hearsay. She also requested assistance in getting him a job. The ombudsman calmed her fears by scheduling a visit to the school with the parent. Applications were also provided. A parent phoned to obtain information about assignment patterns and .information about Parkview. The Director of Student Registration provided the information. The ombudsman assisted the parent in the analysis. 9. A Pulaski Heights Elementary School parent phoned to request assistance in getting reimbursed for the student's electronic device that was confiscated .and then lost by school staff. She also complained about the lack of  supervision while students wait for the bus after school. The ombudsman served as mediator and assisted in accomplishing resolution. 10. The parent of a Henderson student phoned to complain about the process for assigning students to the magnet program. The ombudsman explained the process and recommended the parent visit with the principal and/or his designee for clarity and additional information. 11. The ombudsman made a follow-up phone call to the parent who requested Youth Challenge information. The student decided to remain in public school. 12. A parent asked for assistance in getting his child's bus stop moved to a corner closer to his home. The walk was acceptable. The Director of Transportation was contacted with the appropriate forms signed by the parent. He explained the situation. The parent was not satisfied.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - September 1999 Page 3 13. Two parents with children at Southwest complained about he assistant principal, teachers, and staff. Several meetings using \"shuffle diplomacy\" took place before both sides were asked to sit at the same table. Resolution was achieved. They withdrew their requests for M-to-M transfers. 14. A parent phoned to complain about the lack of books at Southwest. She also complained about the negative school atmosphere. The ombudsman visited with the principal and the school regularly. He immediately addressed the book issue. The ombudsman found no substance to the complain about the atmosphere. 15. The parent of children who transferred from Watson to Terry phoned the ombudsman for help with the bus stop. After completing the appropriate form, by phone, the stop was changed to an acceptable distance from the new address. 16. A parent from the Pulaski County School District phoned for assistance. After hearing his story, the parent was referred to the appropriate assistant superintendent in the PCSSD. 17. The parent of a student at Southwest who wanted to challenge his son's eligibility status for athletics because there was no written policy contacted the ombudsman. The student was eligible by AAA rules. There were several meetings between the parent and school administration. The students status did not change inspite of his circumstances. 18. The parent of a student at Henderson contacted the ombudsman because the child could not afford an instrument to play in the school band. The principal was contacted and offered recommendations to assist the parent. The student got the instrument. 19. The ombudsman was contacted by the parents of a student at McClellan who had been charged with disorderly contact at school. She was referred to Juvenile Court. The ombudsman went to the court on behalf of the student. The court ordered mediation and she was given probation. 20. A student at Washington was charged with possession of a weapon at school. The parent contacted the ombudsman for assistance. After attending the conference with the principal, the process was explained to the parent and student. The parent believed the process to be fair.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - September 1999 Page 4 21. The parent of a student at Central contacted the ombudsman about problems his child was experiencing at school. It was recommended that he contact the principal for assistance. 22. A grandparent of a Southwest student contacted the ombudsman because she believed that her child's bus stop was near the home of a known sex offender. The address and identity were confirmed by the ombudsman. The parent and ombudsman contacted Safety and Security then met with the principal. The stop was changed. 23. The parent of a Fair High School student contacted the ombudsman for help with her child who often leaves the campus without permission. She reported that the administration at school have been contacted and are aware of his behavior. She was referred to the juvenile authorities for FINS petition. 24. A parent at Henderson phoned for information about a school transfer because she was unhappy with the assignment. There were no other problems. She was encouraged to get involved with the school through the PTA and perhaps volunteer her time. Active participation will resolve any issues, concerns, or hearsay about the program. 25. The parent who wanted a bus stop moved visited the ombudsman for more information about the process for changing stops. His questions were answered. 26. A parent from the Pulaski County School District phoned about her child's problems. She was referred to the appropriate assistant superintendent in  her home district. 27. There was a follow-up phone call to the parent of the Southwest student whose stop was near the residence of a known sex offender. She reported no problems. 28. The parent of a student at Western Hills contacted the ombudsman's office for help in getting her child's bus stop moved closer to her home. It was explained that she lives within the two-mile radius and that stops provided are courtesy stops. The ombudsman contacted Laidlaw but the stop was not changed. 29. The parent of a student to soon be released from a center for troubled youth contacted the ombudsman for information. Her questions were answered and she was referred to her home school principal prior to placement to explain her situation.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - September 1999 Page 5 30. The lead counsel for Joshua was visited to discuss several complaints received by his office. They were noted. 31. The ombudsman appeared in court to testify on behalf of a student from Fair charged with disorderly contact. The student was placed on probation. 32. A community activist contacted the ombudsman with quotations about the job and the Joshua's role in the desegregation case. The role of the ombudsman was explained. Questions about Joshua were referred to the associate superintendent. 33. A parent from Mann contacted the ombudsman to complain about her daughter not being eligible to play football. The athletic director and AAA were contacted and the rules and rationale were explained to the parent. 34. A group of Parkview parents contacted the ombudsman for clarity with respect to working concessions at Quigley. The issue was who would collect . the receipts. They alleged that the athletic director told them that he would be responsible for their receipts. The athletic director was contacted and he met with the group to explain the process. 35. The parent of a student from Fair contacted the ombudsman to request assistance in getting a school transfer as the result of a fight her daughter had with other students. The assistant principal was contacted and he addressed the situation to the satisfaction of the parent. 36. The father of a King student contacted the ombudsman to ensure that the  school followed due process, suspension for threatening compromised. His son had been recommended for long-term another student. Due process was not 37. The ombudsman spoke at September. four PTA meetings during the month ofLittle Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 Fax: (501) 324-2213 JAMES L WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN 'p Ombudsman's Monthly Report October 1999 JAN OfflCECF Introduction OESEGREttATiOJi MONITGRiNG The Office of the Ombudsman was established during the 1998-99 school term. He receives inquires and'complaints about the practices and services provided by the district. The ombudsman can investigate to determine if the district is being fair to the people it serves. The ombudsman is:  independent  responsible for making sure that practices and services of the district are fair, reasonable, appropriate and equitable  an officer of the district  able to conduct confidential investigations that are non-threatening and protect complainants against retribution  required to file regular reports The ombudsman is not:  an advocate for people  a defender of the actions of the district Who can complain? A student with parental participation, a teacher, and administrator, or anyone who feels that there has been unfair treatment that the ombudsman is authorized to investigate. Ombudsman Monthly Report October 1999 Page 2 What can the ombudsman do?  Advise you about what steps to take with the district  Refer you to available remedies.  Investigate your complaint.  Talk to anyone and see any documents or evidence a district staff member has in his/her possession.  Recommend that the district change a policy, practice, process, or guideline to make it fair.  Mediate a settlement or recommend a resolution. What can the ombudsman not do?  Make decisions for the district or reverse decisions it has made.  Reverse decisions of appeals. What can be investigated? A complaint that a decision\n Is unjust or oppressive  Discriminates against a person or group  Is unreasonable or arbitrary  Is based on wrong or irrelevant facts  Is based on the wrong interpretation of the policy. A complaint that an act:  Is done for an improper purpose  Is done negligently  Is done without adequate reasons. A complaint that a decision or act is unreasonably delayed. When you call the public body:  Have your questions and important facts ready.  Find out why and how the district made its decision  Make notes of your calls and the answers to your questions.  Ask about any review or appeal process you are entitled to.Ombudsman Monthly Report October 1999 Page 3 Complaint Summaries/Activities 1. The ombudsman transported a student to job interviews - Skate City and Schickel's Cleaners. His family is in great need of assistance. Social agency referrals were made. 2. A parent phoned to complain about an assistant principal's decision to suspend her from performing because of a fight she had before a football game. The process was fair and followed due process guidelines that were communicated to parent. 3. A parent contacted the ombudsman about his son who is in rehab for substance abuse. He is a former student from Hall. The young man was contacted and has regular meetings with the ombudsman as follow up. 4. The ombudsman met at McClellan with the Principal's Club as part of the intervention strategies for black males who are at-risk. Student rights were the topic of discussion. 5. A report was made at the monthly Biracial Committee meeting outlining the number of black and white families who have received services through the ombudsman's office. 6. A parent complaint about the principal's failure to follow due process when her daughter was suspended from McDermott. There was no substance to ' the complaint. The process was explained to the parent. 7. A Badgett parent and principal contacted the ombudsman's office to discuss the behavior problems of the male student. The ombudsman facilitated a meeting that led to an assessment conference for placement. 8. The ombudsman went to the home of a community activist to collect documents that she alleged are issues that the lead counsel for the Joshua Intervenors do not address. The documents were given to the lead counsel. The ombudsman does not engage in this type of activity. 9. The ombudsman made a home visit to assist the family with transportation. The student's brothers have been charged in a high profile murder case. He has been the victim of harassment. Discussed behavior alternatives to fighting.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - October 1999 Page 4 10. There was a follow-up visit at Badgett with the principal and the parents of the male student experiencing behavior problems to discuss sanctions. Original recommendation was modified, 11. The ombudsman arranged a meeting with the Director of the Division of Exceptional Student and the parent of a wheelchair bound student at Hall to discuss concerns about accessibility and participation. Concerns were noted. Plan of action developed. 12. Another meeting took place at Badgett involving the principal, counselor, teacher, and parent of the male student with behavior problems. The agreement was to initiate screening process. 13. The ombudsman, in his role as dropout prevention coordinator, provided training for teacher at Mann. 14. A parent contacted the ombudsman to discuss transfer options from area magnet (Washington) to King. Her options and process were explained. 15. The parent representative for a crossing guard at Meadowcliff was contacted with update on progress. The city is still trying to budget the money for the position. 16. A parent with a child receiving services at Southwest phoned to discuss her child's handicap. Charges are pending. The ombudsman explained how the conference should proceed and discussed the student's rights. 17. The ombudsman was contacted for additional assistance with having a courtesy bus stop added for her child at King. 18. An investigation was requested into the assignment process at Parkview. The allegations stated that preference was given to athletes and to students whose parents have influence. There was no evidence to support the complaint. 19. A foster parent contacted the ombudsman to assist in the reinstatement process. Agency representative met with the ombudsman and student. The process was discussed. The two were accompanied to the Alternative School and the student was permitted to re-enroll.James Washington Monthly Report - October 1999 Page 5 20. The parent of the child confined to a wheelchair at Hall was contacted with a progress report with respect to the school's efforts to accommodate her child. 21. The ombudsman held a group meeting for the \"Badgett Bunch.\" Appropriate behavior was the topic of discussion. 22. A Fair High School student was charge with disorderly conduct by the school's resource officer. The student has a handicap. The procedures wcr explained to the student and parent with respect to the school's procedures and those of the police officer. were 23. The parent representative from Meadowcliff contacted the ombudsman for an update with respect to the crossing guard. Still no word from City Hall. 24. A meeting was held with the parent of the student confined to a wheelchair at Hall for input into the accessibility issues that include getting on the stage for performances, drop-off and pickup area, and student parking. 25. A parent who lives within mile of Wakefield phoned for a courtesy stoo The ombudsman contacted Laidlaw with alternative routes and drove several routes from the home to the school. We were unable to assist the child within the guidelines of the transportation department. 26. There was a visit to the home of the Fair High School student with the disorderly conduct charge. A conference was held with the parent and student to discuss legal options and a plan of action in Municipal Court. 27. A parent (grandparent) contacted the ombudsman about an incident involving a staff person at Rockefeller's two years ago. The claim is that the ' ---------J J uy Vt J I IC CIO II i I Io LI IClL I child suffers emotionally as a result. The grandparent would like to know the outcome. 28. The principal at Central was notified of the pending investigation of the Mock Trial Team composition and selection process. 29. The Watershed Project was visited to get some cloths for a student in need at the Alternative School.James Washington Monthly Report - October 1999 Page 6 30. The Fair High School student with a disorderly conduct charge was contacted at home for her court appearance. He did not show for the meeting or court. 31. There was a visit to the Juvenile Court on behalf of the Southwest student with a disorderly conduct charge pending. The objective was to have the case moved to the court of a sympathetic judge. Plan was good and it worked. 32. 33. 34. A parent of a Rockefeller student complained about the fairness of her sanction for allegedly making a derogatory statement about a teacher. There was a meeting with the principal, assistant principal, counselor,'and teachers. The issue was resolved. Counseling will be provided if needed. A parent phoned about her son's sanction at Dunbar. The school did not violate due process procedures. This was communicated to the parent. A student was taken home from the Alternative School to avoid disruption. The parent and the ombudsman spoke with the child to calm him down. 35. The ombudsman served as an advocate during an EMT meeting for the student charged with disorderly conduct. The decision was to modify his sanction because there was a relationship between his behavior and his handicap. 36. The ombudsman met with the grandparent with concerns about the treatment of her grandson received at Rockefeller. Her issues were forward to the appropriate administrator who reported that he would meet with grandparent to answer her questions. 37. The ombudsman went to Municipal Court on behalf of the Fair student charged with disorderly conduct, the student failed to appear. A warrant was issued but it was explained that the charge would be dropped if the ombudsman can produce documentation about his being hospitalized. There was an effort to get those documents from the hospital. 38. The ombudsman visited the principal at Romine to clarify his role and answer questions. toJames Washington Monthly Report - October 1999 Page 7 39. The ombudsman went to Rockefeller to interview a student, at the parents request, about alleged mistreatment. The allegation was exaggerated. The situation was resolved. 40. A parent phoned to express her concern about the way her daughter was being treated at Henderson by a teacher. The principal was contacted and he addressed the concerns. 41. There was another visit to the hospital in an attempt to get documentation for the courts. Then, he went to the court to explain the student's status. 42. The ombudsman visited the home of the Wakefield student who lives in the walk zone in an attempt to find an acceptable route to walk. The route was established and the parent agreed. 43. There was a conference at the office of the lead counsel for Joshua to discuss several complaints received at his office. They were discussed and guidance for resolution was offered by the ombudsman. 44. there was a meeting at Rockefeller with the parent, administrators, counselor and teachers to resolve a dispute about alleged mistreatment and to address the child's potential problems. 45. The ombudsman met with the administrator responsible for transportation at . King to review the route sheets for a possible stop added for students who live within the walk zone. A stop was recommended. 46.The ombudsman met with the \"Badgett Bunch\" to work through some issues regarding their behavior. 47. A parent phoned to complain about her son's sanction after he made threat. There was a misunderstanding about the laws. The principal and parent came to an understanding. 48. The ombudsman met with the parent whose child faces disorderly conduct charged at Southwest to discuss a resolution. 49.There was an evaluation team meeting at Badgett for a student who may be eligible to receive additional services.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 JAMES L. WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN /J14. Fax: (501) 324-2213 cBIVso Introduction Ombudsman's Monthly Report - November 1999 -'ji\nUiiia ^tpigS^ JAN 2 i The ombudsman has the discretion to initiate action without waiting to receive a complaint or inquiry. The ombudsman also determines whether to accept or to act on a particular complaint or inquiry. This process is in contrast to the processes of the judiciary, mediators, or arbitrators. The ombudsman may determine that the complaint is without merit. Or, the ombudsman may receive a complaint or inquiry on a specific topic and conduct the inquiry on a broader or different.scope. The ombudsman may need access to all information relevant to a complaint or an inquiry so that the review is fair and credible. The ombudsman may make a formal or informal report of results and recommendations resulting from a review or investigation, in which case the ombudsman should:  consult with an individual or group prior to issuing a report critical of that individual or group, and will include their comments with the report\n 'communicate the outcome, conclusion or resolution of a complaint or an inquiry to the complainant and may also communicate with other concerned entities or individuals. The ombudsman uses the power of reason and persuasion to help resolve matters. Finally, the goal of the ombudsman's efforts is to provide an internal path to fairness and justice. Therefore, the ombudsman's quest is to seek the fair and just resolution of the matter undertaken.James Washington, Ombudsman Month Report - November 1999 Page 2 Complaint Summaries/Activities 1. 2. 3. On November 3\"*, the ombudsman received a complaint about the mock trial team at Central. The complaint was that the selection process favored white students whose parents work as lawyers, judges, etc. The principal acknowledged that the need to increase participation among black students exists. The school is developing strategies for improvement. Assistance is available from the Office of the Ombudsman. Jefferson Elementary has a no canned soda rule for lunch. A parent complained that the rule is not enforced for white students. The school was contacted. The rule is written in the school's handbook. The ombudsman visited the school and did not observe white students with canned sodas. The ombudsman visited the principal at Otter Creek Elementary to explain his role and to answer questions. 4. The ombudsman visited the principal at Geyer Springs Elementary to explain his role and to answer questions. 5. The ombudsman met with the principal and assistant principal at Southwest to follow-up with a handicapped student. There were several incidents reported about his behavior in the self-contained class. 6., There was a complaint reported by a parent at Bale Elementary. The parent reported that there was a serious incident and that a man that she did not know interviewed her daughter and that she was not notified. Because the incident involved a white student, she believed that the school attempting to cover the issue up. was The ombudsman discovered that the school followed the proper procedures. The mother was satisfied with the response. The principal had no knowledge of the incident. Efforts will be made to ensure parental notification in the future.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 3 7. 8. 9. An ongoing dispute between Hall High School and a parent with a child who is confined to a wheelchair resulted in another meeting to discuss the school's efforts to comply with federal regulations. Progress has been made. It is anticipated that we will have addressed all of her issues by December 16. The grandparent of a former student has requested answers to an incident at Rockefeller involving her grandson and a food service worker. There was also an incident at Fair Park (all during the 1997-98 school year). Her request (written) was given to the Director of Labor Relations. No response as of today's date.  A parent complained about the lack of awards presented to black children in her son's class at Otter Creek Elementary. The principal was contacted and as a result of the conference, the parent was satisfied. 10. A Mabelvale Elementary School parent complained about the a appropriateness of halloween decorations in the schools. Some have frightened her child. The principal was contacted and the decorations in question were removed. The parent then complained about her perceived lack of concerns on the part of the school when her child was held out of school for ten consecutive days. It was the mother's decision not to send her child to school. She declined an offer to meet with the principal and the ombudsman for resolution. 11. The principal at Dunbar was visited to discuss the ombudsman's role and to answer questions. 12. The principal at Mabelvale Middle was visited to discuss a complaint about an assistant principal's alleged mistreatment of a student. The complaint had no substance. 13. A student was interviewed in response to his mother's complaint that his trial team supervising teacher made threatening remarks about whether he should attend band practice or team practice.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 4 14. The lead counsel for the Joshua Intervenors was consulted about several calls. The ombudsman spoke with a parent about an issue at Romine. A meeting was scheduled with the principal. The principal was visited to discuss the complaint. The parent failed to attend the meeting. 15. The ombudsman had a session with the \"Badgett Bunch\" to discuss strategies to improve their reading skills. Activities were scheduled. 16. 17. 18. A parent phoned with questions about the magnet school assignment process. The ombudsman met with a representative from the Office of Civil Rights to discuss the job and activities. A parent contacted the ombudsman to complain about the lack of written guidelines that govern middle school athletics. He threatened to seek an injunction because his 6^ grade son was not permitted to participate in varsity athletics. He was told written guidelines exist. The athletic , director was contacted to respond to his specific concerns. 19. The aunt of a Henderson student phoned to express concerns about the principal's decision to change her class from regular to Pre-AP after a personal dispute with the teacher. The student was not able to achieve. The ombudsman intervened and the issues were resolved. She returned to . the regular class. 20. The \"Badgett Bunch\" was visited to discuss behavior issues at the school. 21. A parent phoned to complaint that due process was not followed when her child was suspended. The ombudsman reviewed the case and found no substance to the complaint.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 5 22. The ombudsman contacted the Juvenile Court on behalf of a Southwest student with psychological and physical handicaps after he was charged by the school's Resource Officer. He was able to negotiate for mediation in lieu of a charge. The mediation was successful. No court charges were filed. 23. The principal at Bale was contacted about procedures ensuring parental notification when students are interviewed in her absence. 24. There was an lEP team meeting at Southwest for a student. The ombudsman served as an advocate for the fairness of the process. 25. There was a complaint from the guardian of a Western Hills student alleging that the teacher did not properly notify her about her child's decline in achievement at a meeting two weeks prior to interim reports. She also alleged that the teacher displayed inappropriate behavior in the classroom, ' and is guilty of making comments to her child that enforced her feelings about the teacher not liking her. The investigation confirmed the lack of notification. Other recommendations were made to resolve the issues. The school accepted the recommendations and they were implemented. Several meetings were required to resolve the issues. 26. The parent of a child confined to a wheelchair at Hall met with the Director of Plant Services for the purpose of resolving the parent's concerns. Resolution was achieved. 27. The ombudsman answered questions of concern at the NAACP meeting on November 13. Care was taken to ensure that only public known information was given. Confidentiality was maintained. 28. A parent phoned for information about transfer options.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 6 29. The parents of a Dodd elementary student phoned to complain about the poor relationship between the home and their child's resource teacher. They also believe that the school and a staff member of the Division of Exceptional Children failed to act in their best interest. Several meetings were held and as a result, an acceptable recommendation was implemented. 30. A patron phoned for information about referral options to several social agencies for help with a foster child in our district. 31. The grandparents of a Western Hills student called to complain about letters being given to the parents of students asking for their written support to the ombudsman. As a result, their child has become the victim of harassment and threats of violence. An acceptable recommendation was implemented after the investigation. 3'2. The ombudsman volunteered to read at Terry Elementary School. Two books were read - wanted to start on No. 3. Ran out of time. 33. The ombudsman interviewed staff members with allegations of mistreatment of CBI students. The principal was present and contacted proper administrators and agencies. The teacher and staff members were interviewed by the principal and she outlined appropriate behavior. She reported that she will monitor the situation. 34. The ombudsman visited Hall to discuss the parking areas for busses with students confined to wheelchairs in response to a complaint about the inaccessibility. Parking for the handicapped was also reported to be inadequate. The complaints were found to be substantiated. The principal in cooperation with the Director of Plant Services initiated the proper correctives.James Washington Monthly Report - November 1999 Page 7 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. The ombudsman met with the principal to follow-up on the allegation of mistreatment of CBI students at Forest Heights. The ombudsman attempted to attend the Senate Interim Committee on Education. District responsibilities took priority - late for meeting. The ombudsman participated in the court-ordered mediation between the resource officer at Southwest and a student with multiple handicaps. There was an incident at the end of the session that motivated the ombudsman to make a change in placement recommendation for the student. The recommendation was approved. The ombudsman met with the grandparents of the Western Hills child to discuss the final report of his investigation. The ombudsman made follow-up visits to Southwest and Dodd. A guardian contacted the ombudsman for an answer to her request for information about her grandson. A parent phoned for information about transfer options. The ombudsman attended an intervention activity for black male students at McClellan. The ombudsman met with Western Hills grandparents to implement transfer process as a result of problems at school, note investigation There were complaints received about a McClellan teacher's use of a racial slur. Complainants were interviewed. The complaints were substantiated. Recommendations were given to the principal. 45. The school security officer at McClellan was consulted about gang note delivered to a student that may cause unrest among students. 46. A parent phoned to follow up on her complaint about due process at Otter Creek with respect to her daughter's suspension.James Washington Month Report - November 1999 Page 8 47. The aunt of a Henderson student filed a complaint about a personal conflict between the child's teacher, the parent, and herself. It was noted and communicated that the situation had been addressed. 48. 49. 50. 51. A staff member phoned regarding an expulsion recommendation for student at Metropolitan for assistance. Due process was followed. a There was a teem meeting for a Southwest student for a change in placement. The change was approved. There was a meeting to finalize the transfer process for a Western Hills student. Parents were accompanied to transfer school to assist in the enrollment. The principal at Bale requested assistance with a parent who had failed to cooperate in an effort to have her child assessed for resource assistance. The parent agreed to proceed. 52. A parent phoned for transfer assistance for his son from Mitchell. He alleges that the school has not responded to his request for help in stopping boys from fighting his son. The principal was contacted and supported the transfer request. The request was granted as a result of the ombudsman's support. 53. A copy of an investigation request was received from the Joshua's lead counsel. It was reported to the ombudsman by an associate superintendent that the incident had been reported to the proper authorities. 54. A complaint was given to the ombudsman by a guardian who wanted the bus stop changed to the front of her home. The process was explained. The parent accepted the information. 55. Laidlaw was contacted about a complaint stating that a bus is late more often than not.Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 324-2014 Fax: (501) 324-2032 JAMES L WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN \u0026lt;Otpig^ Introduction Ombudsman's Monthly Report December 1999 RECEIVED a JAi4 212080 The Essential Characteristics of the Ombudsman OfflCECF OESKREGATiQN MONITORING The original 1969 American Bar Association resolution contained characteristics there were deemed essential for the ombudsman. 12 These characteristics have been distilled here and applied. The core qualities are independence, impartiality and neutrality, and confidentiality. The characteristics are:  Functional autonomous  Operationally independent from administrative branch  Legally established  Investigative specialist  Administrative expert  Non-partisan   Client centered, not anti-administration  Accessible and visible  High status  Serves everyone Summary of Complaints and Activities: 1. The ombudsman received an anonymous complaint about the alternative room teacher at Brady. According to the complainant, some staff report that he is guilty of mistreating the children. The results of the subsequent investigation revealed that there was no substance to the complaint. 2. A parent contacted the ombudsman to complain about his son's grade depending on the class fundraiser. The principal was contacted. There was no evidence to support the allegation.Ombudsman Monthly Report December 1999 Page 2 3. The ombudsman was contacted on behalf of the parent of a student at Mann who had been charged with possession of a weapon on school property. He wanted to ensure that the process was followed. The administration was contacted and the case was reviewed. Due process was followed. 4. The guardian of a foster child contacted the ombudsman for payment assistance. DHS was contacted and visited on 3 occasions. The foster parent received her payment. 5. The aunt of a student at Rightsell phoned to complaint about an alleged comment made by the principal. The aunt was offended by the racial overtone of the comment. The principal was contacted and she explained that the comment was not spoken as explained by the aunt. The aunt refused to meet with the ombudsman and principal to mediate the dispute. 6s There was an EMT meeting at Badgett for a student experiencing behavior problems. The parent asked the ombudsman to serve as an advocate. 7. The ombudsman was contacted to assist the parents of a Dunbar student who had been recommended for long-term suspension for use of profanity directed at staff. The disciplinary recommendation was modified because of a mistake in the due process. 8. The parent of a Southwest student contacted the ombudsman to complain about the alleged mistreatment of the student during the process when her child was recommended for a long-term suspension. The school was contacted and it was confirmed that she was not mistreated. The ombudsman explained the process. The school modified the suspension and the child returned. 9. The ombudsman accompanied the student from Hall and his parent to the interview for a placement at the ACC. Questions were answered and circumstances were explained. He was admitted to the program. 10. The ombudsman attended a meeting at Mitchell to offer his services during their efforts to keep the school open. A brief presentation was made. 11. There was a follow-up meeting with the former Hall student to monitor his progress.Ombudsman Monthly Report December 1999 Page 3 12. A parent phoned to complain about cruel and unusual punishment at the Step-One Alternative School. The principal was contacted and steps were taken to ensure that there would not be a repeat of the incident. 13. The principal at Romine was visited to follow-up with a complaint from the previous month. Things are in order. 14. The employer of two students involved in a car accident was contacted and the situation was explained. Rather than terminate the students they were placed back on the payroll. 15. The ombudsman was inaccurate in a letter mailed to a parent explaining the outcome of a recent inquiry. Accurate information was forwarded to the parent after a conference with the principal. 16. There was a meeting at Dodd to review the findings of a recent inquiry. Present were the teacher and principal. 17. The ombudsman provided information about school ID pictures to a parent in heed for her child to get a job. 18. The parent of a Forest Heights student complained about unfair treatment. The parent reported that her child was punished for his role in a fight but nothing happened to the other students. The allegation was false. A behavior manifestation meeting has been scheduled for her child. 19. The principal at McDermott met with the ombudsman to discuss mentoring five of her male students who were having behavior problems at school. There are no males in their lives and she believes the ombudsman can fill a void that could result in an improvement. 20. The ombudsman met with parents at Badgett and then with the principal in an attempt to have them come together and discuss their issues. 21. An administrator at Hall asked the ombudsman to provide assistance for a student and parent who would like to attend the ACC. The director was contacted to schedule a meeting after the holidays.Ombudsman Monthly Report December 1999 Page 3 22. The counselor at Badgett was contacted to discuss the progress of the \"Badgett Bunch.\" 23. The ombudsman met with the parent at Hall for an on-site visit to verify accessibility for her child in a wheelchair. 24. The principal at Badgett was met to discuss the issues and a complaint from the parents of one of her students. 25. The ombudsman investigated a complaint that alleged that the counselor at Badgett choked a student. 26. The \"Badgett Bunch\" met with the ombudsman to follow-up on reading strategies and behavior goals.JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON XLARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Deceived FEB 2 2 2000 OfflCECi- DBffiRE6AWHOSgJS Via Facsimile - 324-2281 February 18, 2000 Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Babbs: J I have spoken with ?vlr. Billy Bowles of the Pulaski County Special School District and he has informed me that you all will be meeting sometime early next week to discuss whether Mr. James Washington may enter the Pulaski County School District to address complaints by m to m students from Little Rock. I also gleam from your letter to Mr. Walker dated February 17, 2000 that at this meeting you will be discussing the procedure for Mr. James Washington, the Little Rock ombudsman, to enter a PCCSD school. Mr. Bowles assured me that as it now stands, Mr. Washington can come to any Pulaski County school as a parent advocate if the parent so chooses him to do so. He further indicated, however, that Nir. Washington can not come into the Pulaski County as a Little Rock School District representative or ombudsman. I do not understand the latter statement by Mr. Bowles given the previous statement. As I recall both Districts plans, there is nothing in either plan regarding this, nor do I believe that allowing Mr. Washington to investigate complaints by Little Rock parents of mistreat in the County is contrary to each Districts commitment to cooperation and collaboration with one another. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the results of your meeting. Sincerely, /O (^y C. Springer On Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. Billy Bowles Ms. Ann Brown Mr. James WashingtonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 E-Mail: icbabbs@.stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us February 28, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 2 2000 Mrs. Joy Springer 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 OffICEOF iWBEGATlQN MONITORING Dear Ms. Springer: In an attempt to follow up on prior communication, Mr. Billy Bowles, PCSSD Associate Superintendent of Desegregation, and I met this afternoon to review procedures on investigation of complaints and/or alleged raced based mistreatment. Recognizing the role of Mr. Janies Washington, LRSD Ombudsman, it was agreed on that as students transfer between districts, appropriate policy is then enacted within the receiving district. While attempting to work cooperatively through issues that develop, I was assured of commitment toward prompt and fair resolution of complaints and/or instances of race based mistreatment. PCSSD policy was acknowledged that included resolution through appropriate staff, Mr. Bowles and/or respective PCSSD officials. Taking into account good faith, collaboration and cooperation with one another, we all share concerns of student mistreatment and will continuously work to remedy such instances that will help to assure fair treatment for ALL students. Sincerely, Jimious C. Babbs cc: Billy Bowles Ann Brown James Washington LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham UttleRock, AR 72201 Phone: (501)324-2014 Fax: (501) 324-2260 a JAMES L. WASHINGTON OMBUDSMAN I. Initial Callers Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 received SEP 6 2000 OfHCEOf oesesimojiiomG African/American Male 17 Female 153 White Male I 4 Other Male 1 Anonymous Female 4 Female 30 Male 0 Female 0 Out of District 10 Percentage of Callers by Race/Gender 80% 7 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 8% 70% 2% 0/Vrican/Mierican Male  African/American Female  White Male  White Female  Other Male 14% E1 Other Female  Anonymous Male 0% 0% 0% 2% 5%  Anonymous Female  Out-of-District 1 Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 2 IL Information/Assistance Academics Agency Referrals Athletics Attendance Co-curricular Desegregation Case Discipline Extracurricular Guardianship Juvenile Court Magnet Program PCSSD Runaway Child Safety School Assignment/ Transfer Special Education Transportation 8 5 1 1 1 1 17 0 2 2 1 2 1 5 41 12 10 45 40 B Academics a Agency Referrals 35 30 5i5\u0026gt;J \\ 4 Tjl- 'V'''\" \"'  '................  .  Athletics  AtterxJance' 25 20 15 10 5 0 a Co-curricLdar M- B Desegregation Case w .X V-'X'sfcJ. -:,\nJ a Discipline j\u0026lt;HsS^Sw?WS i' SSj SB5 ' J'  Bctracurricular sa a Guardianship a Juvenile Court W1 . ______\n__i ,J 5*^ feij^A'eV^  Magnet R-ogram  PCSSD a Runaway Child  Safety  School Assignment/Transfer B Specal Education 1 a TransportationOmbudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 3 III. Complaints Substantiated Unsubstantiated 30 T 25 20 15 10 5 0 Academics Agency Referrals Athletics Co-curricular Discipline Extracurricular Guardianship Race Religion Safety School Assignment/ Transfer School Climate School Rules Special Education Staff Conduct Transportation Totals Elaine, AR -2 Hot Springs, AR - 2 PCSSD z 43^ z ja -6 1 0 2 1 5 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 9 13 1 43 3 1 6 4 24 0 66 j a Substantiated\na Unsubstantiated 4 z Z X s X*  z \u0026lt;3^ 5P' o'- O' 0 Z z .8^Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 4 IV. Personnel Categories Principal Black Male 8 Black Female 8 White Male 4 White Female 14 Teacher Black Male 9 Black Female 8 White Male 2 White Female 12 StefL(Custodian, Secretary, Security Officer, etc.) Black Male 1 Black Female 2 White Male 0 White Female 0 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 *\u0026lt;v iii- L Black Male A 4s Black White Male Female 1 White Female E3 Principal  Teacher  Other StaffOmbudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 5 VIL Activities Agency Referrals Biracial Committee Circuit Court City Hall Conventions (National Ombudsman) Dropout Prevention Dr. Terrence Roberts Faculty Meetings Future 500 Scholarship Program Hearings Home Visits Intervention Activities Job Corps Advisory Board Joshua Intervenors Juvenile Court LULAC Mediation Meeting with Mitchell Parents Meetings with Principals Meetings/School Tours - Dir. Racial \u0026amp; Cultural Diversity Commission Municipal Court NAACP ODM Office of Civil Rights (Visit) Parent Conferences PCSSD PTA Meetings 1 3 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 5 6 11 2 16 7 3 7 1 83 3 4 4 3 1 243 3 4Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 6 School Conferences (Parents \u0026amp; Staff) Senate Interim Committee Shadowing Experience Special Education Meetings Transported Students to Find Job Watershed Project 11 1 1 13 2 4\\ I Ombudsman Monthly Report Summaries August 1999 - June 2000 Page 7 f/ a Agency Referrals  Circuit Court a Conventions (National Ombudsman) a Or. Terrence Roberts a Future 500 Scholarship R'ogram  Home Visits a Job Corps Advisory Board a Juvenile Court a Mediation  Meetings w/R'incipals  Municipal Court  OOM a Parent Conferences  PTA Meetings a Senate Interim Committee a Special Education Meetings a Watershed Project a BIracial Committee  City Hall  Dropout R-evention  Faculty Meetings a Hearings a Internvention Activities a Joshua Intervenors BLULAC  Meetings w /Mtchell Parents  Meetings/School Tours - Dir. Racial \u0026amp; Cultural Diversity Commission  NAACP  Office of Civil Rights aPCSSD  School Conferences (Parents \u0026amp; Staff) a Shadow Ing Experience  Transported Students to Find Jobs5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 434 16:38 /r/t JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVE Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 3, 2000 OCT 3 . 2000 Dr Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 CffICEOF DESEBMlOfl MONITORINS Re: LRSD Ombudsperson - Section 2.5.3 of Revised Desegregation Plan Dear Dr Carnine: I am writing on behalf of all parents in the District who seek to obtain the services of the Districts ombudsman. This office has received at least two complaints in the last two weeks from parents stating that school district officials have refused to provide the ombudsman information necessary for him to investigate their respective complaints. Your revised plan contemplates that district officials would give full cooperation to the ombudsman to ensure equitable solutions to student and parent complaints. May I suggest that you and/or Mr. Babbs have a conference with Mr. Washington to determine whether he believes that he has had the full cooperation of district administrators in the last several weeks regarding his investigations. May 1 also suggest that he identify specific instances whereby he believes that he did not have the full cooperation of your staff persons. If asked to do so, 1 will be happy to share the instances that I am aware of. By copy of this letter to Mr. Washington, I am requesting that he share a copy of his job description with this office including any other administrative directives, district polices and procedures which guide him in the performance of his duties as ombudsman. Since 1 am charged with monitoring the Districts good faith plan implementation of its revised plan, would please share with this office all documentation which supports the premise that Mr Washington has the full cooperation of your staff when investigating student and parent complaints. Thank you for your cooperation.5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 434 P03/03 OCT 03 00 16:39 merely, Springer On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc\nMr. James Washington Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Gus Taylor 10/06/2000 16:44 501-324-2281 LRSD SRO RASE 01/01/ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT October 5, 2000 Mrs. Joy Springer 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Springer: complaintsthadisWaoffi'XlsSto^Melh^Omtud *regarding attempt to assist a parent to view th*, ci does reflect a void resulting ir a parent to view the students Individual Education Plan (lEP). PP-Pnate follow up ,p pa^ep records, improved clarity and understand^^! confidentiality of student enacted tdat wit, help to provide the Ombudsman with necessary , dfto fte s mJ  I _I. . t  , and in an are In response to requested information under separate cover. your attention however, we enJouradTtS'SfJ^ 70u refer\ninquiry. exists and seek continued The compliance philosophy is based performance responsibilities of the r-fully expected to comply. | assure Employees are with the provisions and philosophy of the Revis^erf n co^niitment to compliance sopny or the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. on internalizing the Revised Plan through the respective organizational divisions Sincerely, Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools cc: Junious Sabbs Ann Brown Gus Taylor James Washington 810 West Markhatn Street * Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SOI) J24-2012\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":"usm_oh_mus-coh-banksf2","title":"Oral history with Judge Fred L. Banks","collection_id":"usm_oh","collection_title":"Oral History","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Banks, Fred L., 1942-","Bolton, Charles C"],"dc_date":["1998"],"dcterms_description":["Oral history.; Interview conducted on March 5, 1998 with Judge Fred L. Banks, Jr. (born 1942). In the late 1960s, Judge Banks began his law career by serving for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. He was elected three times to the House of Representatives and served alternately as chair of the House Ethics committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the Legislative Black Caucus. In February 1985, he was appointed judge of the Seventh Circuit Court District (Hinds and Yazoo Counties) and is projected to continue to serve until 2004 when his term is over.","Electronic version made available through a National Leadership Grant for Libraries from the Institute for Museum and Library Services to the University of Southern Mississippi.","This item is part of the Civil Rights in Mississippi Digital Archive."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["University of Southern Mississippi. Center for Oral History and Cultural Heritage."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights workers","Civil rights movement"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history with Judge Fred L. Banks"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Southern Mississippi. Center for Oral History and Cultural Heritage"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://usm.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_04196f40-70df-4fac-9115-7104626af2de"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1979"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["University Libraries provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. When possible, we have provided information regarding the copyright right status of an item; however, the information we have may not be accurate or complete. Obtaining permissions to publish or otherwise use is the sole responsibility of the user."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Banks, Fred L., 1942- --Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":164,"next_page":165,"prev_page":163,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1956,"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}}]}}