{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_7","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1995-01","1995-02","1995-03","1995-04","1995-05","1995-06","1995-07","1995-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/7"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"hbcula_becu_236","title":"The B-Cean Yearbook, 1995-1996","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":["The B-Cean Yearbook."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","Universities and colleges--Employees","Greek letter societies","College yearbooks"],"dcterms_title":["The B-Cean Yearbook, 1995-1996"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/236"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["yearbooks","school yearbooks"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ndd_bsams_01024","title":"Box 1, Folder 24: Miscellaneous writings on Black history, 1995-1998 and undated","collection_id":"ndd_bsams","collection_title":"Black Student Alliance records, 1969-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862"],"dcterms_creator":["Duke University. Black Student Alliance"],"dc_date":["1995/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Black Student Alliance Records, 1996-2006, Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American college students--North Carolina--Durham","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--History","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Political activity","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social conditions","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social life and customs","African Americans--North Carolina--History--Archival resources","African Americans--North Carolina--Political activity","Duke University. Black Student Alliance","Duke University--Students--Social conditions","Duke University--Students--Societies, etc.","Duke University--Students--Political activity","Race relations","Durham (N.C.)--Race relations","Reparations for historical injustices--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Box 1, Folder 24: Miscellaneous writings on Black history, 1995-1998 and undated"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/uabsa/#bsams01024"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["[Identification of item], Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["newsletters","electronic mail","newspapers","speeches (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_862","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District 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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District 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/862"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nTHJEN ORTH lLJIT'JrlLRlEO CK lPlIBlLKCO CHOOlL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys At Law Ju 1 y 2 1 , 19 9 5 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 W Capitol Little Rock AR 72201-3472 Dear Steve: RECEIVED\n-lam:/- /Jd,'vc\n-c ,L /l.'S:7a,..,, JUL 2 4 1995 Office cf 0esegregat,0,1M onitcr:ng As directed by the July 13, 1995 court order, this document represents the 1995-96 budget for North Little Rock School District. The document contains seven sections--Revenue and Expenditures\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for the Salary, Operating, and Debt Service Funds\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for Federal Funds\nFive Year Revenue and Expenditure Projection\nBudget Notes\nSalary Schedules\nand Program Analysis. The Revenue and Expenditure section provides graphs for 1995-96 projected revenue and expenditures. The revenue graph shows the amount of local, state, and federal revenue projected for the operating, debt service, capital outlay, and federal funds. The expenditure graph shows the combined expenditures projected for the funds included on the revenue graph and the salary fund. This section also provides detailed revenue for the operating budget and the federal programs. The beginning balance, ending balance, and a summary of expenditures for the operating, capital outlay, building/bond, and federal budgets are also included in this section. The second section provides expenditures by function, object, and function/object for the salary, operating, and debt service funds. The third section provides expenditures for Federal Funds. The fourth section of this document provides a five year projection of revenues and expenditures for operating, capitol outlay, buildings, and federal programs. The Budget Notes section provides information regarding local tax revenue reduction, state funding, workers compensation, the need for millage increases, and the loss of desegregation settlement funds. The sixth section of the document contains the end-of-the-year (FY94) salary schedules for administrators, teachers, and classified employees. The program analysis for one new program and one expanded program is included in the final section of the document. P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 so1m1-aooo \"'- .. ,. The 1995-96 budget will be presented for board approval at the August school board meeting. After final approval, the budget will then be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent Business Services NORTH LITTLE OCK SCHOOL DI T CT BUDG 995-9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 ANNUAL BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Board of Directors, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Revenue Graph ................................................................ 2 Expenditure Graph ............................................................. 3 Revenue ..................................................................... 4 EXPENDITURES FOR SALARY, OPERATIONS AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS by Function ............................................................... 7 by Object ................................................................ 14 by Function/Object ......................................................... 19 EXPENDITURES FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS by Function .............................................................. 71 by Object ................................................................ 73 by Function/Object ......................................................... 76 Budget Summary Reports ...................................................... 95 State/Local Funded (Unrestricted) Programs- ...................................... 100 State/Local Restricted Programs ................................................ 103 Federal Programs ............................................................ 124 Salary Schedules ............................................................ 142 NORlH UTTI..E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Marty Moore, President Larry Shadid, Vice President Teresa Burl, Secretary Pat Blackstone Lynn Hamilton Mable Mitchell Louella Thomas James R Smith, Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Bobby Acklin - Desegregation Bobby New - Instruction Donald Watkins - Business Services -1- NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE STATE REVENUE $21,718,550 51% 1995-1996 LOCAL REVENUE $17,414,350 41% FEDERAL REVENUE $3,057,400 7% TOTAL REVENUE = $42,190,300 -2- NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES SALARIES $30,365,500 1995-1996 DEBT SERVICE $1,304,410 INSURANCE/OTHER $245,750 CAPITAL OUTLAY $1,324,670 SUPPLIES $1,581,700 SERVICES $2,601,320 TUITION $1,317,000 BENEFITS $3,903,770 TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $42,644,120 -3- REVENUE NORTHL ITI'IJI ROCICS CHOOLD ISTRICT RllVBNt7B SUMARY ui.-RESTRICTEDF UNDS LOCAL RBVl!NUE CURRBNTT AXES PULLBACIC ACCRUBD PULLBACIC DBLINQUl!NTT AXES LAND RBDBMPTION COUNTYIN TBRBST BXCESS COMMISSIONS COUNTYG BNERAL SEVERANCET AX INTBRBST TUITION-PCSSD Rl!NT MISCELLANEOUS 1S94-1995 BUDGBT 8,320,000 3,250,000 1,000,000 1,150,000 100,000 50,000 30,000 27,939 4,280 60,000 110,000 20,000 15,000 TOTAL LOCAL UNRESTRICTBDR BVBNUB 14,137,219 STATB RBVl!NUE MINIMUMF OUNDATION SPECIAL EDUCATION M - TO - M PROGRAM 17,693,840 67,150 l,030,000 TOTAL STATB UNRESTRICTBDR BVBNUB 18,790,990 FEDERAL RBVENUE - UNRESTRICTBD PL 874 ROTC/TROOPS-TO-TEACHBRS TOTAL FEDERALU NRESTRICTEDR BV SUBTOTAL OTIIER STATB TRANSPORTATION MAGNBT/M-TO-MTR ANSPORT WORKER'S COMP TOTAL 0'n!ER STATE FUND TRANSFERS TOTAL LOCAL, STATE, \" FEDERALU NRESTRICTBDR BVBNUE 25,000 50,700 75,700 33,003,909 582,575 275,000 141,500 999,075 45,000 34,047,984 1994-1995 ACTUAL 8,519,142.54 3,877,785.03 994,735.19 1,038,918.05 108,438.36 116,547.96 31,760.13 41,908.50 7,822.93 67,270.66 130,367.43 19,760.33 5,675.99 ------------- 14,960,133.10 17,943,314.00 67,150.00 1,065,124.00 19,075,588.00 23,828.00 48,780.43 72,608.43 34,108,329.53 585,122.00 275,000.00 138,524.10 998,646.10 66,572.34 35,173,547.97 -4- 199:,-1996 BUDGET 9,420,500 4,000,000 927,100 1,050,000 100,000 50,000 30,000 28,080 4,385 60,000 120,000 20,000 5,000 ----------- 15,815,065 18,135,103 67,150 1,100,000 19,302,253 20,000 51,150 71,150 35,188,468 585,000 275,000 110,000 970,000 45,000 36,203,468 RBSTRICTBD PONDS LOCAL RBVBNUB TUITION-SUMMERSC HOOL G/T SUMMERO UBST SCHOOL ACTIVITY SALBS CUSTODIAL SERVICES TOYOTA FAMILY LITERACY ROCICBPBLLBRRB STRUCTORING DBSBG AJ:D-LR  PCSSD MISCBLLANBOUS TOTAL LOCAL RBSTRICTED RBVBNUB STATB RBVBNUB VOCATIONALE OUIPMBNI' VOCATIONALS TART-UP KINDERGARTEMN ATERIALS DESBGRBGATIOANI D COMPENSATORAYID CPBP/ACT K-4 SUMMERS CHOOL ABC PRESCHOOL SPECIAL BD. PRESCHOOL SPECIAL BO. RESIDBNI'IAL ALTERNATIVEE DUCATION CARNEGIE RESTRUCTURING MPPA PRIOR YEAR MISCBLLANBOUGSR ANTS TOTAL STATB RBSTRICTED RBVBNUB TOTAL LOCAL  STATE RESTRICTED RBVBNUB FOOD SERVICB RBVBNUB MEAL COLLECTIONS FEDERAL RBIMBURSBMBNT STATE RBIMBURSBMBNT INTEREST OTHER TOTAL FOOD SERVICB NORTH LITI'LB ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RBVBNUB SUMARY 1994-1995 1994-1995 BODGBT ACTUAL 70,000 83,787.00 15,000 19,735.25 50,000 58,036.05 24,000 24,999.99 11,500 11,500.00 3,000 9,000.00 460,000 481,075.62 54,278 75,338.17 ------------- ------------- 687,778 763,472.08 19,202 18,495.65 9,360 9,347.19 8,148 8,148.00 389,025 389,025.00 222,000 218,086.00 25,000 55,597.78 145,000 93,512.01 234,116 234,116.00 287,638 339,586.00 35,000 35,029.81 37,750 37,750.00 12,500 12,500.00 135,137 135,137.65 123,000 123,550.00 ------------- ------------- 1,682,876 1,709,881.09 ------------- ------------- 2,370,654 2,473,353.17 ------------- ----------- 638,000.00 689,399.43 1,320,000.00 1,321,184.89 25,000.00 24,462.46 15,000.00 2,395.41 3,000.00 14,641 .15CR ------------- ------------- 2,001,000.00 2,022,801.04 -------------- - -5- 1995-1996 BODGB'I' 80,000 19,000 55,000 26,000 0 15,000 207,670 57,000 ------------ 459,670 18,000 0 0 389,025 125,100 40,000 145,000 234,116 356,085 35,000 0 12,500 0 500 ------------ 1,355,326 ------------- 1,814,996 ............ 648,000.00 1,350,000.00 25,000.00 12,000.00 15,000.00 ------------ 2,050,000.00 -------------- PB'OERAl, RBVENOE-RFSTRI':T!'!l CHAPTIIR I CHAPTIIR II VOCATIONAL, CAIIL PIIIUCINS TITLB VI-B PL U-313 MBDICAID MBDICAID, PRBSCHOOL SPBCIAL ID. PRBSCHOOL SPICIAL BDOCATiaf BCC IIBAD START BVB11 START JTPA LBAIUf-A-LIVIJIG 1'0RTB LI'lTLI IIOCX SCIIOOL DISTllICT -.vlllltlS SCNART 1994-1995 1994-1995 BUOCE'. ).::!\"\\,\n_ l,8'0,,25 l, H2, 953. 00 59,791 59,791.00 l\u0026lt;l7,209 l\u0026lt;l7,209.00 3\"5,912 3\u0026lt;l5,162.00 15,1'8 1',118.00 30,000 \u0026lt;ll,113.1' 15,000 2,831.72 U\u0026lt;l,530 U\u0026lt;l,529.00 36,70\u0026lt;( \u0026lt;l0,38\".00 ,a.no U,181.00 116,100 11',100.00 2,,000 23,603.U JTPA-CAPDD LBAIUf-A-LIVDIG 85,295 75,702. o, DRUG BDOCATIOII 54,49\" 54,49\".00 MATII/SCIINCB, BISBIIHOIIBR ,2,,21 51,216.00 HOMBLISS ASSISTAHCI 21,000 11,539.00 ENERGY, EXXON 47,950 33,048.00 ---------- ------------ TOTAL PEDERAl, RBVBNOII 3,\u0026lt;(04,379 3,354,374.38 CAPITAL OUTLAY RBVBNUB: CUR.REln' TAXIS 186,900 193,009.1, PULLBACJt TAXIS 125,000 385,417.10 PULLBACIC - ACCRUBD 37,300 111,822.68 DBLINQUBNT TAXIS 33,000 30,\u0026lt;(57 .96 EXCESS COMMISSION 800 882. 07 INTEREST 2,000 2,491.76 ............................. ----------- TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 385,000 724,080.73 BUILDING FUND REVENUB: SALES 0 3,000.50 INTEREST 50,000 76,532.92 OTHER 0 .00 ------------- ------------- TOTAL BUILDING FUND 50,000 79,533.42 SALB OP BONDS 0 .00 TOTAL RBVBNOII \u0026lt;(2,259,017.00 \"3,827,690.71 -6- 1995-1996 9,'IY\"E'T 1,623,000 77,558 1\"0,043 353,100 0 ,0.000 10,000 ,oa. 195 36,70\u0026lt;( 58,UO 116,100 0 0 40,000 51,205 17,000 H,950 ------------ 2,986,265 634,000 385,U0 86,960 30,000 800 2,400 ----------- 1,139,600 2,000 U,000 0 ---------- 50,000 3,225,000 \u0026lt;l7,4U,329 EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION\nOBJECT\nAND FUNCTION/OBJECT FOR SALARY (01) OPERATING (02) AND DEBT SERVICE (04) North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salary (01 ): Operatina (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses BudQet 01 1000 INSTRUCTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,857.62 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 119,761.99 170,817.77 129,944.00 122,192.41 127,152.00 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1,125,722.30 1,084,841.48 1,118,200.00 1,157,672.93 1,145,000.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 93,805.50 98,542.71 101,848.00 107,420.26 101,450.00 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 4,942,200.72 5,352,864.41 5,195,500.00 5,216,809.35 5,273,000.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 513,465.65 559,819.76 811,003.00 624,057.84 702,777.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 2,451.76 4,285.45 1,000.00 1,973.87 1,100.00 02 1122 LANGUAGE ARTS 21.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1123 MATHEMATICS 556.76 0.00 0.00 14,625.59 5,500.00 02 1124 SCIENCE 72.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,700.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,025,258.66 2,354,532.83 2,421,600.00 2,332,390.81 2,262,800.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 253,749.33 296,486.86 374,637.00 311,421.98 361,236.00 02 1131 MUSIC 934.71 8,805.50 12,297.00 11,450.31 2,530.00 02 1132 LANGUAGE ARTS 1,197.49 1,139.79 1,483.00 934.85 1,738.00 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 1,598.93 6,548.26 6,111.00 1,914.59 3,994.00 02 1134 SCIENCE 3,633.06 2,303.78 2,748.00 2,638.19 1,975.00 02 1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 716.89 1,056.22 1,030.00 871.38 1,055.00 02 1136 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 81.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1137 ART 1,707.73 1,483.84 2,680.00 3,648.32 2,770.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 721.13 387.13 1,405.00 824.90 1,277.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 3,426,737.10 3,679,926.22 3,700,700.00 3,793,052.15 3,676,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 329,844.19 410,072.03 582,278.00 505,270.29 587,748.00 02 1141 MUSIC 56,440.14 19,237.04 19,450.00 16,707.68 3,000.00 02 1142 LANGUAGE ARTS 1,154.39 1,036.71 1,600.00 1,644.67 1,600.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 7,228.82 863.68 1,400.00 1,730.82 1,400.00 02 1144 SCIENCE 2,811.59 3,045.56 3,700.00 7,527.70 5,900.00 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 917.14 1,387.56 1,250.00 1,515.80 1,150.00 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 353.19 0.00 400.00 88.10 300.00 02 1147 ART 2,854.22 2,687.48 1,700.00 647.38 1,300.00 Page: 7 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperatin~ (2)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses BudQet 02 1148 RADIOfTV 2,029.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 587.40 416.10 500.00 487.69 400.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 922.50 21,993.61 3,500.00 5,576.70 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 48,525.33 48,428.68 54,750.00 49,672.17 56,850.00 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 19,121.21 14,532.51 22,000.00 19,802.80 22,400.00 02 1153 (:OMBINED ATHLETICS 8,292.74 16,304.51 19,800.00 18,815.44 22,450.00 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 0.00 7,051.09 1,000.00 889.40 9,025.00 02 1161 CHEER 2,964.59 11,786.45 8,110.00 6,225.99 0.00 02 1162 DRILL 1,875.46 0.00 7,800.00 6,803.99 0.00 02 1165 BAND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,820.00 02 1166 CHOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 593.76 6,030.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 89,059.92 93,393.39 240,470.00 255,088.61 242,346.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 18,601.08 19,315.86 22,995.00 21,611.61 22,200.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 4,630.44 4,494.03 5,000.00 4,585.06 5,000.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOO 29,669.41 27,905.27 36,457.00 35,906.77 34,486.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 5,465.74 5,110.96 6,675.00 4,620.20 6,675.00 01 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 0.00 0.00 83,300.00 74,845.42 77,100.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,291.49 38,460.00 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOUND 75,015.07 78,925.33 81,250.00 93,483.12 96,700.00 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOUND 5,786.21 7,995.42 7,050.00 8,018.66 10,200.00 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,043.96 26,850.00 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,163.94 2,200.00 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1,164,399.94 1,535,149.75 1,580,000.00 1,908,256.00 1,916,500.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 88,209.13 116,962.39 134,885.00 159,613.16 160,710.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1: 15 5,832.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/BA 659,049.10 529,506.64 545,000.00 375,754.39 387,200.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/BA 49,077.48 57,708.52 102,860.00 79,040.09 145,077:00 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 188,085.82 179,976.77 185,500.00 90,131.85 93,800.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 28,486.45 29,362.68 33,400.00 23,964.83 25,196.00 Page: 8 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 0.00 63,001.89 25,000.00 134,879.95 125,000.00 02 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1271 ACT 591 HANDICAPPED, RE 8,629.20 11,066.61 10,000.00 12,051.54 10,000.00 02 1272 ACT 591, NON-HANDICAPPE 17,571.13 30,291.27 25,000.00 23,008.67 25,000.00 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 130,713.72 136,403.28 140,400.00 154,081.04 158,700.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 12,889.62 13,080.51 21,150.00 17,969.60 31,757.00 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK PRO 0.00 12,489.12 12,425.00 14,393.61 14,140.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANOI 108,711.27 161,866.71 160,824.00 157,867.98 194,655.00 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 80,524.69 86,127.89 88,700.00 44,764.32 46,400.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 10,733.13 10,733.83 9,969.00 5,416.72 6,054.00 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 366,005.06 391,647.97 396,500.00 409,517.76 421,800.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 68,227.45 66,084.40 81,793.00 95,956.86 74,383.00 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 259,903.38 278,527.46 282,000.00 238,423.78 156,900.00 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 77,329.25 67,949.63 52,267.00 40,187.65 25,536.00 01 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 63,137.94 67,499.54 69,700.00 69,801.48 72,000.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 33,933.71 6,026.53 7,900.00 6,562.25 8,536.00 02 1354 TELEVISION PRODUCTION 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCTION 0.00 0.00 13,500.00 12,872.96 23,984.00 01 1360 HOME EC 286,119.03 282,091.81 291,000.00 295,346.14 304,600.00 02 1360 HOME EC 34,395.05 39,782.80 42,119.00 38,039.87 35,319.00 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 48,449.20 53,913.34 55,600.00 78,639.47 81,100.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 9,231.33 6,264.81 10,840.00 12,857.78 9,480.00 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINESS 0.00 4,546.77 1,000.00 316.35 1,150.00 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATIO 363,105.62 350,815.36 362,000.00 345,306.96 355,200.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATIO 71,257.64 69,797.52 47,433.00 41,452.17 39,514.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 0.00 4,362.79 4,087.00 2,353.97 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTION 19,931.81 14,738.08 15,720.00 14,565.54 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 11,798.37 10,328.44 13,350.00 1,279.18 13,000.00 01 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PROGRA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,950.00 Page: 9 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PROGRA 223,574.19 229,784.31 368,515.00 325,845.46 37,160.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 124,898.65 120,760.93 111,147.00 111,647.56 2,940.00 02 1555 HIPPY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87,374.00 01 1560 READING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 02 1560 READING 0.00 79,685.61 74,630.00 75,709.52 72,700.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 152,333.13 167,730.99 157,325.00 150,500.16 178,000.00 02 1591 COMPEDPARENTIHOMEW 115,841.03 109,134.13 89,518.00 75,868.38 75,895.00 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND DAY 29,957.18 499.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,225.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 42,826.09 42,771.43 43,900.00 33,646.05 1,780.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 58,295.09 10,966.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 405,353.20 390,136.80 401,900.00 378,380.58 389,800.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 67,758.57 49,117.85 74,981.00 54,017.06 72,790.00 01 1911 GfT PROJECT PROMISE 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GfT PROJECT PROMISE 2,424.63 7,624.89 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 02 1912 GfT SUMMER QUEST 2,675.74 16,200.52 23,000.00 22,932.72 23,605.00 01 1913 GfT MATHEMATICS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,500.00 02 1913 GfT MATHEMATICS 7,149.61 19,818.44 23,200.00 18,027.89 3,635.00 01 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 251,150.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200,815.00 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL SE 2,718.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2101 54,612.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2102 * 166,860.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK SE 15,669.53 69,798.26 45,450.00 50,304.30 61,252.00 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELING S 843,592.20 905,111.89 932,000.00 919,726.65 949,500.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELING S 170,218.18 177,093.39 191,500.00 189,001.54 255,615.00 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 14,044.28 12,833.53 16,700.00 15,519.97 10,700.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 86,756.63 92,450.67 97,800.00 104,196.23 107,020.00 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICE 158,965.08 174,376.81 179,700.00 152,138.13 156,900.00 Page: 10 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICE 69,707.68 78,503.21 66,825.00 74,304.74 12,980.00 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY 387,373.48 389,677.14 401,100.00 359,791.83 370,400.00 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY 71,168.22 169,571.20 210,095.00 205,918.58 168,265.00 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 62,688.24 61,774.94 71,200.00 71,362.96 73,500.00 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 4,686.25 23,806.74 50,300.00 50,278.40 6,039.00 01 2190 PTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SE 0.00 0.00 62,200.00 51,327.62 61,300.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SE 34,518.96 4,230.33 42,450.00 49,058.36 57,065.00 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND GR 0.00 7,514.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CL 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,625.29 154,000.00 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISIO 415,391.85 555,826.07 572,000.00 638,940.43 663,800.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISIO 358,615.51 432,415.69 461,735.00 467,951.61 481,456.00 02 2211 INSTRUCTION COE/NGA 4,112.74 4,788.47 10,200.00 1,558.73 10,200.00 02 2212 ELEMENTARY INSERVICE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 2215 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 13,987.57 29,875.38 30,900.00 15,417.75 16,000.00 02 2215 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 6,349.67 7,934.50 8,600.00 14,164.43 14,778.00 02 2216 CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK 18.80 585.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2217 CELEBRATION OF TEACHIN 0.00 1,058.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2218 INSERVICE-ADE CURRICUL 15,138.45 37,371.68 75,000.00 22,969.44 52,000.00 02 2219 INSERVICE-ADE READING 3,087.45 1,024.26 16,160.00 2,882.83 13,277.00 01 2220 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVIC 587,960.59 583,299.87 600,500.00 572,554.59 591,100.00 02 2220 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVIC 389,728.15 393,832.93 522,555.00 409,280.82 412,182.00 02 2225 INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTE 18,376.87 31,540.40 21,120.00 17,326.04 24,000.00 02 2295 * 3,432.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SE 256,980.24 232,666.92 250,000.00 259,918.27 257,950.00 01 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFIC 84,204.50 90,110.93 92,800.00 94,041.52 95,780.00 02 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFIC 64,552.63 71,545.48 81,000.00 61,625.21 75,592.00 01 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 56,890.69 61,420.65 63,400.00 65,456.68 67,400.00 02 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 28,456.94 31,254.60 33,500.00 32,766.13 35,943.00 01 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINESS SER 55,764.93 60,260.25 62,100.00 61,528.15 63,400.00 - Page: 11 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINESS SER 28,921.34 32,146.80 35,480.00 33,486.67 36,090.00 01 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SERVICE 55,925.22 60,260.38 0.00 9,871.22 0.00 02 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SERVICE 30,917.11 32,046.62 250.00 5,081.49 0.00 01 2324 ASST SUPT DESEGREGATI 52,149.08 56,351.85 58,050.00 56,272.34 58,100.00 02 2324 ASST SUPT DESEGREGATI 40,007.65 45,566.17 53,050.00 43,701.22 43,495.00 01 2400 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 1,040,705.36 1,092,383.33 1,125,000.00 1,089,182.79 1,121,680.00 02 2400 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 596,111.12 664,246.46 697,927.00 703,381.72 758,663.00 01 2401 ASST. PRINCIPALS 0.00 0.00 610,000.00 629,884.45 648,310.00 02 2401 ASST. PRINCIPALS 0.00 0.00 51,600.00 52,685.60 53,530.00 01 2410 ASST PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 449,509.91 592,413.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2410 ASST PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 33,473.10 44,953.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2510 BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVI 104,622.58 113,937.05 120,500.00 119,373.14 126,160.00 02 2515 BUSINESS-FINANCE/AUDIT! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82,540.00 01 2540 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SERVICES 55,794.93 60,298.41 62,150.00 61,565.76 63,500.00 02 2540 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SERVICES 3,873,345.31 1,488,145.08 1,144,950.00 1,610,805.83 1,435,128.00 02 2541 M \u0026amp; O-CUSTODIAL SERVICE 0.00 1,241,626.19 1,280,300.00 1,324,593.18 1,343,000.00 02 2549 M \u0026amp; 0 UTILITIES \u0026amp; INSUR 0.00 1,428,033.30 1,468,675.00 1, 160,628.52 1,240,250.00 02 2550 PUPIL TRANSPORTATIONS 1,121,656.19 1,050,789.35 1,089,330.00 1,033,987.82 268,120.00 02 2551 MECHANICS 0.00 0.00 0.00 236,077.16 245,220.00- 02 2552 BUS DRIVERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 774,350.00 02 2553 BUS AIDES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74,460.00 02 2555 MAGNET/M-TO-M TRANSP. 0.00 31,619.12 16,064.00 32,757.14 13,700.00 01 2570 INTERNAL SERVICES 55,795.01 60,298.53 62,150.00 65,555.10 67,600.00 02 2570 INTERNAL SERVICES 60,570.76 91,199.29 45,150.00 81,583.01 78,985.00 02 2630 INFORMATION SERVICES 35,111.12 35,494.94 13,000.00 37,460.01 39,150.00 01 2640 PERSONNEL SERVICES 55,794.96 60,298.41 62,150.00 61,565.76 63,500.00 02 2640 PERSONNEL SERVICES 31,535.66 36,929.52 66,700.00 64,468.88 65,330.00 01 2660 DATA PROCESSING SERVIC 45,833.07 48,590.49 50,100.00 49,590.96 51,100.00 02 2660 DATA PROCESSING SERVIC 120,055.54 140,061.19 152,730.00 158,442.38 163,840.00 Page: 12 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salary (01 ): Operating (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2900 OTHER SUPPORTING SERV 890.00 2,718.67 1,000.00 890.00 0.00 02 2901 CROSSING GUARDS 0.00 56,271.57 59,000.00 63,877.05 67,260.00 02 2902 BREAKFAST/LUNCH AIDES 0.00 187,129.87 197,850.00 199,195.63 217,200.00 02 2905 VIPS 0.00 4,478.28 5,350.00 188.00 3,000.00 02 3900 OTHER COMMUNITY SERVI 425.33 3,108.00 4,500.00 3,589.50 1,500.00 01 4100 PAYMENTS TO OTHERS 1,067,374.16 1,116,219.65 1,092,000.00 1,104,025.15 1, 192,000.00 02 4400 INDIRECT COSTS 3,472.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 4900 PAYMENT TO STATE 5,178.96 12,253.92 9,000.00 8,002.46 12,000.00 04 5100 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 711,056.79 1,130,326.40 1,047,525.00 1,048,392.25 1,251,700.00 04 5101 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS-P 43,619.74 23,351.50 23,350.00 18,769.85 18,578.00 04 5102 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS-L 35,164.62 35,092.04 35,095.00 35,416.64 34,130.00 District Totals 33,015,228.07 36,224,356.65 37,293,525.00 37,339,951.78 38,432,067.00 Page: 13 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 16,742,398.94 18,069,269.74 18,382,600.00 18,369,424.17 18,587,800.00 02 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 359,620.58 606,633.28 671,329.00 680,513.42 656,517.00 01 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 2,490,301.96 2,790,319.05 2,874,200.00 2,851,452.52 2,941,700.00 02 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 15,403.00 31,900.82 61,723.00 63,990.96 19,088.00 02 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATE 4,433,555.87 4,797,606.80 4,724,852.00 5,234,121.81 5,640,501.00 02 00125 NON-CERTIFIED ADMIN 222,770.10 224,202.98 186,425.00 188,483.34 253,150.00 01 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 281,727.57 306,194.40 309,000.00 269,446.00 283,000.00 02 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 2,385.56 260.00 10,000.00 437.80 4,720.00 01 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 59,687.70 71,807.90 72,000.00 83,661.00 66,000.00 02 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 0.00 2,075.00 2,074.00 0.00 02 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 22,268.10 24,835.20 24,800.00 34,267.80 26,300.00 02 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 24,500.38 28,220.59 29,060.00 30,666.25 15,498.00 02 00151 STIPENDS NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 560.00 0.00 02 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 1,300.95 6,530.00 8,482.04 483.00 02 00156 STIPENDS-OTHER NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 170.00 170.00 02 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,474,276.85 1,627,892.40 1,728,152.00 1,670,082.91 1,726,751.00 02 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 346,599.03 375,122.62 401,043.00 406,633.11 443,097.00 02 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 2,189.28 5,200.00 2,345.74 1,599.00 02 00213 SS TAX STIPENDS NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.84 0.00 02 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 99.52 260.00 648.87 0.00 02 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 2,105.00 0.00 3,500.00 02 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYS 62,632.45 61,803.78 62,550.00 60,971.50 66,775.00 01 00240 INSURANCE 524,031.13 528,287.71 448,550.00 538,040.63 545,495.00 02 00240 INSURANCE 7,233.85 8,777.82 13,345.00 12,035.30 12,040.00 02 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 160,878.40 167,475.73 175,655.00 175,531.80 228,455.00 02 00250 UNEMPLOYMENTCOMPENSA 25,064.50 33,729.21 38,6.90.00 33,552.77 13,142.00 02 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 7,997.67 7,332.51 9,110.00 8,142.93 9,573.00 - 02 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP,STIP 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 36.00 -- 02 00260 WORKERS COMP 13,177.96 23,104.34 106,912.00 191,829.96 161237.0Q Page: 14 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Operatina (02): Debt Service (04t 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 3,032.38 5,310.35 117,591.00 150,546.12 158,677.00 02 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 151.00 01 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 9,637.00 10,000.00 8,309.50 15,000.00 02 00300 PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 (52,305.88 0.00 02 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 227,589.66 236,917.38 317,505.00 304,098.30 242,350.00 02 00311 CONSOLIDATION LAWSUIT SE 77,853.85 85,080.99 85,000.00 78,995.70 85,000.00 02 00312 LEGAL SERVICES 42,489.33 32,551.77 35,000.00 19,091.24 35,350.00 02 00313 ELECTION SERVICES 9,734.22 8,636.03 9,500.00 11,640.24 9,500.00 02 00314 DESEGREGATION MONITOR 41,211.61 50,322.00 60,000.00 62,253.00 67,500.00 02 00315 AUDIT SERVICES 15,700.00 15,950.00 16,250.00 16,100.00 16,500.00 02 00316 SECURITY SERVICES 43,605.93 46,942.81 53,125.00 43,742.25 46,250.00 02 00317 MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE 50,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 02 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 8,664.68 12,403.12 11,850.00 24,230.84 12,500.00 02 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 6,025.66 3,756.04 4,700.00 4,805.69 4,850.00 02 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 22,795.45 18,147.81 16,975.00 25,799.90 13,925.00 02 00321 UTITLITY SERVICES-GAS 212,020.84 218,463.09 224,125.00 159,194.84 185,700.00 02 00322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECT 764,066.41 799,413.36 787,275.00 689,241.78 712,200.00 02 00323 UTILTITY SERVICES-WATER 61,988.98 67,832.82 70,225.00 60,777.89 59,700-.00 02 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 275.74 477.58 900.00 43.06 1,000.00 02 00325 REPAI RS/MAINT-BLD/GRNDS 45,546.71 48,636.18 11,000.00 71,399.13 20,500.00 02 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 103,340.24 84,652.77 105,417.00 96,586.50 92,200.00 02 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 12,860.03 25,190.82 23,949.00 17,764.41 20,550.00 02 00328 REPAIRS/MAINT-SEC SYSTEM 1,702.13 2,342.10 1,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 02 00329 WASTE DISPOSAL 35,571.83 51,843.37 62,100.00 53,038.07 49,300.00 02 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 78,784.03 177,064.18 225,007.00 185,342.66 76,415.00 - 02 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 16,933.70 33,884.59 62,293.00 24,890.85 66,535.00 - 02 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 17,993.55 27,067.40 33,265.00 29,379.67 24,445.00 --- 02 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 23,055.00 24,451.06 22,790.00 24,713.10 23,985.00 -- 02 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 10,227.24 12,858.10 13,436.00 9,119.38 11,750.0-0 Page: 15 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (041 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Description_ Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 - 00338 ENTRANCE FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,150.00 02 00340 REPAIRS-TELEPHONE 573.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00341 TELEPHONE 118,770.02 171,947.59 171,154.00 116,510.03 119,469.00 02 00342 POSTAGE 18,348.12 42,491.81 31,248.00 53,211.74 27,226.00 02 00350 ADVERTISING 1,245.92 2,347.52 2,950.00 1,125.27 3,085.00 02 00355, WRECKER SERVICE 1,940.00 2,490.00 2,200.00 2,150.00 1,600.00 02 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 26,086.14 17,286.91 31,220.00 20,699.00 20,685.00 02 - 00361 DATA PROCESSING SERVICE 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 01 00370 TUITION 21,988.00 84,173.89 52,000.00 159,368.95 152,000.00 02 - 00370 TUITION 45,400.33 50,177.88 47,000.00 35,060.21 49,100.00 01 00371 TUTION - PCSSD 122,087.84 110,453.11 115,000.00 130,181.69 115,000.00 01 00372 TUITION - MAGNET 923,298.32 984,594.54 950,000.00 949,354.46 1,050,000.00 02 00380 FOOD SERVICES 2,012.61 5,421.86 12,300.00 13,076.27 8,040.00 - 02 00383 FIRE SAFETY SERVICE 1,158.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 2,044.00 0.00 9,785.00 6,574.00 9,785.00 02 -00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICE 5,178.96 61,293.77 41,000.00 84,282.29 63,690.00 02 00391 PHOTOGRAPHY 222.43 367.28 400.00 623.22 500.00 02 00392 TRASH/WASTE SERVICES 1,094.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 02 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICE 1,410.00 3,725.00 5,000.00 3,685.50 5,100.00 02 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 3,500.00 2,872.50 13,500.00 10,066.23 8,000.00 02 00400 SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 (281,409.07 (75,000.00 ,-. - 02 00401 SUPPLIES, TOOLS \u0026amp; SM EQUI 3,156.13 3,086.20 3,000.00 3,289.24 2,000.00 02 - 00405 SALES AND USE TAX 0.00 0.00 160.00 0.00 160.00 02 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 549,757.65 615,622.06 584,473.00 695,746.85 544,631.00 02 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 66,375.02 59,798.76 56,400.00 98,139.53 200.00 ---- 02 00412 --SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL 55,842.24 42,562.86 30,000.00 60,289.12 40,000.00 02 00413 SUPPLIES PLUMBING 15,285.59 25,882.25 28,000.00 33,780.19 27,000.00 02 00414 SUPPLIES FLOORING 1,648.56 1,407.96 2,500.00 752.21 _ 2,500.QQ -02 00415 SUPPLIES ROOFING 9,281.83 9,564.81 10,000.00 __ 7,670.59 7,000.00_ Page: 16 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salary (01 ): Operatina- (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 00416 SUPPLIES HARDWARE 39,840.67 36,903.71 25,000.00 35,319.07 30,000.00 02 00417 SUPPLIES PAINTING 36,829.92 35,532.54 35,000.00 29,692.68 30,000.00 02 00418 SUPPLIES PUTTY/GLASS 14,914.92 8,196.71 15,000.00 8,819.15 8,000.00 02 00419 SUPPLIES-HVAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 02 00420 TEXTBOOKS 81,315.32 79,976.98 94,375.00 71,324.28 396,260.00 02 00422, STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 363,544.00 0.00 0.00 02 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 60,727.36 58,215.40 75,454.00 58,849.06 62,010.00 02 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTION 15,223.89 15,654.82 18,995.00 20,620.20 18,867.00 02 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 22,101.33 24,909.82 25,531.00 26,101.78 26,980.00 02 00451 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 0.00 184.44 160.00 0.00 160.00 02 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 50,676.27 117,158.36 46,550.00 133,546.35 99,820.00 02 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 290.22 350.06 1,725.00 370.47 4,577.00 02 00491 #* UNDEFINED ACCOUNT*# 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00492 BUILDING MATERIALS  51,228.16 61,645.60 0.00 56,091.01 30,000.00 02 00495 FOOD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 02 00496 PARTS/SUPPL, VEHICLE BUS 124,954.17 124,773.81 45,000.00 113,289.87 65,500.00 02 00497 PARTS/SUPPL, EQUIP REPAIR 40,050.83 52,624.86 42,800.00 37,836.32 42,800.00 02 00499 AWARDS 5,349.38 5,537.78 7,500.00 4,856.91 6,900.00 02 00521 CARPET 2,556.05 954.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00525 BLINDS 1,178.44 0.00 0.00 3,829.12 2,000.00 02 00528 WATER FOUNTAINS 388.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-.00 02 00532 FENCE 1,749.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00533 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 8,529.92 8,927.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00540 EQUIPMENT 170,006.45 130,133.86 130,754.00 126,213.91 112,239.00 02 00541 FURNITURE 4,706.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00549 BAND INSTRUMENTS 29,178.24 553.88 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 02 00550 VEHICLES 0.00 24,264.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04 00610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL 224,285.46 474,843.71 463,005.00 460,534.18 586,499.00 04 00620 INTEREST 564,799.49 709,800.03 638,935.00 638,210.06 -----r:r28,7 9.0 0 Page: 17 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04\u0026gt; 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Desc~iptio__n_ _______ E__,xp_e_n_se_s_f--_Ex__,__p__ e_nBs__ue-_'dsg _..-_+e-_Et _xL-pe_n__s_e__ s Bu_.1.d.g. .'.- -et_--1 02 00630 DUES AND FEES 16,200.75 15,782.50 18,670.00 15,885.25 17,890.00 04 -00630- DUE~S= A-=N-D--. ,F--E::E--S~ ---=--=---t---:--::--c--=c:--=7-5-6=.-2-=0- +------'-4::,-1--2-:6-.-2:-0+ --~----:-4-:,-0--3-0:-.-0,,0-+ ---~----3--,'8--3--4-.-5t 0 5,030.00 02 00641 PROPERTY INSURANCE 161,730.68 132,949.00 148,400.00 110,301.80 92,400.00 02 ~ 00642 LIABILITY IN SU RANC-=E----+--~....,..o_,,. o-o+-----,,5~,4....,..6..,,,...5.-20-+-0---60,-'--+o---o-5o--'.- ,-51__25- o-+---6-\"--,o-o-oo---.- lo 02 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE-- --+--~-------'---f--6-4-\",-9-8--0--.0+0-- --'----1+0--2--,'8--4-3--.-0l 0 105,209.00 54,079.00 54,860.00 02 00645, ACCIDENT INS-STUDENTS 7,685.46 15,196.00 18,000.00 17,714.20 18,000.00 02 00646 ACCIDENTAL DEATH INS 1,261.00 0.00 0.001---~-o-.oc-cco-t---~---,-0.-00---i -c--:-==..,...,.-----:--=:-c,=-:-,=-=--+---~--::c---t------------=-+-----::c--=-=--=--=--1r--------,:-=--:---+-------i 02 00650 LEGAL AGREE/JUDGEMENTS 0.00 69.30 800.00 37,002.26 1,000.00 02 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 4,446.12 0.00 4,104.00 3,779.92 5,715.00 02- 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 9,875.56 5,700.00 700.00 0.00 02 -00699-EXPENDI_T_U_R_E_R_E_F_U_N___D__ S 0.-00-+---(:2-4-3,'--8-60-.0-8--~-0-.0-0-+-----o-.o-o+-----0.-00----1 -- -----------t---,---,-----+--~~--'f-----f---------+--------4 33,015,228.07 36,224,356.65 37,293,525.00 37,339,951.78 38,432,067.00 Page: 18 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 1000 INSTRUCTION 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,857.62 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,910.60 3,240.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,589.40 96,968.11 92,500.00 90,562.18 92,000.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 222.66 247.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,673.45 7,373.65 8,000.00 6,825.57 7,038.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 5,631.32 6,789.28 8,200.00 6,410.84 16,360.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 129.57 136.29 150.00 135.39 138.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 26.21 93.48 150.00 784.99 734.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 751.00 100.00 100.00 123.50 150.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 289.41 38,346.83 16,812.00 8,011.24 9,000.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 28.00 0.00 0.00 3,650.00 275.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 990.59 950.00 990.00 957.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 11,204.56 3,831.24 1,450.00 4,498.70 500.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00521 CARPET 2,556.05 373.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00532 FENCE 1,749.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00533 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 8,529.92 8,927.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,470.84 3,400.07 0.00 200.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,332.00 0.00 0.00 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,092,499.27 1,054,269.70 1,085,900.00 1,124,931.79 1,110,000.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 2,820.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 81,302.96 79,610.54 83,100.00 85,505.37 84,900.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 215.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00240 INSURANCE 33,223.03 30,571.78 32,300.00 32,741.14 35,000.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 214.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 1,375.59 1,693.37 1,800.00 1,681.94 550.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 6.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00260 WORKERS COMP 675.47 1,140.92 8,800.00 9,612.39 7,800.00 - Page: 19 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooerating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund- -Fn-c1F unction Description_ Q~jec.!__Q bjectD escription Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,107.05 798.87 0.00 97.10 0.00 ,0_2 1110 KINDERGARTE-N- 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,344.43 11,073.83 8,148.00 10,523.46 8,200.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 968.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1120 -E-LEMENTARY -- 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,614,691.08 4,982,083.12 4,823,600.00 4,895,868.77 4,950-,000.00 .0.2. - -1120 ELE-MENTARY 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 10,487.04 11,414.86 22,900.00 27,651.75 29,700.00 -01 1120 ELEM~NTARY 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 165,050.60 181,388.50 182,000.00 126,504.30 140,000.00 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 24,887.60 37,801.90 38,000.00 50,046.30 30,000.00 - _,__ ,_ 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 13,452.40 13,551.90 13,500.00 27,840.10 19,000.00 - - - 02 1120 E--LEMENTARY 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 354,750.65 387,737.93 409,800.00 379,590.82 391,700.00 02 1120 E--LEMENTARY 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,738.52 1,876.86 2,900.00 4,211.34 3,730.00 -01 -1120 E-L-E-MENTARY 00240 INSURANCE 137,571.44 145,348.39 145,700.00 140,502.48 144,000.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 830.22 856.66 1,500.00 2,022.13 3,370.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 6,098.60 8,088.27 8,100.00 7,622.94 2,560.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 47.77 39.74 100.00 83.50 80.00 - - - 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00260 WORKERS COMP 3,025.74 5,685.59 3,600.00 43,963.55 35,900.00 -02 -1120 E--LEMENTARY 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 17.55 25.31 300.00 447.42 400.00 01 -1-120 E--LEMENTARY 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 6,242.50 6,200.00 3,887.50 9,000.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 125.00 2,245.50 0.00 1,398.00 0.00 -- - -- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 342.78 0.00 3,170 62 0.00 -02 -1120 E--LEMENTARY 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 174.08 0.00 0.00 269 03 0.00 02 1120 E-L-EMENTARY 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,193.80 6,658.43 7,115.00 6,681.30 6,930.00 02 1120 E-L-EMENTARY 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 000 643.87 0.00 0.00- 0.00 02 - -11-20 E-L-EMENTARY 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0 00 0.00 650.00 -55.00 2-00.00 -02 ,_11_2 0 -E-LEMENTARY 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.63 -- - 50.00 -02 _,1_1 20 ELEME-NTARY 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 24.34 168.00 420.00 0.00 225.00 - - ---- -02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 51,417 18 62,845.58 68,888.00 67,378.38 62,132.00 \u0026gt;- -- -- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00420 TEXTBOOKS 61,220 51 55,860.33 71,745.00 50,815 48 146,500.00 -- - 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 197,810.00 000 0.00 -- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 163.20 0.00 0.00 0.-00 0.00 Page: 20 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01)\nOperatin~ (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnci Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,699.05 1,740.15 1,375.00 825.85 300.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 38.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 876.30 994.66 1,000.00 1,177.29 1,100.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 9.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,575.46 3,281.75 0.00 796.58 0.00 02 1122 LANG\\JAGE ARTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 21.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1123 MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 556.76 0.00 0.00 14,625.59 5,500.00 02 1124 SCIENCE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 72.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,700.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,908,435.80 2,203,650.99 2,269,800.00 2,181,811.05 2,110,000.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 57,039.52 60,520.08 62,300.00 65,545.66 69,400.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 49,256.07 66,864.00 67,000.00 68,973.40 67,000.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 11,620.50 24,185.00 24,000.00 22,019.50 24,000.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 6,945.10 8,338.10 8,300.00 4,059.60 4,300.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 146,436.69 172,254.29 180,800.00 170,879.60 168,400.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 4,530.44 5,016.92 5,400.00 5,103.10 5,940.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 55,946.29 59,280.84 59,500.00 59,181.86 60,300.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,235.14 4,283.65 4,400.00 4,220.64 4,200.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 2,539.72 3,561.83 3,600.00 3,409.24 1,100.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 125.60 110.09 150.00 103.40 100.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 1,288.19 2,482.76 2,900.00 19,542.19 15,400.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 37.43 75.31 6,500.00 590.82 560.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 552.00 1,300.00 405.00 1,500.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 525.65 1,000.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00320 RENTALJLEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 88.30 0.00 313.08 0.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 3,334.12 230.17 300.00 35:40 225.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,676.05 1,375.43 2,700.00 1,631.40 3,000.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 270.95 270.00 194.00 300.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 475.00 1,000.00 0.00 5-00.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 345.58 1,001.37 1,000.00 1,384.84 1,400.00 Page: 21 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratinq (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund- Fnc Function Descripti~ _Q_bjectQ bject Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 1,281.60 2,131.46 3,750.00 1,574.75 2,800.00 - - 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 631.86 106.80 1,485.00 300.28 1,470.00 -- -- -- - - - 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 500.00 ,- - 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 17,712.52 21,880.95 21,167.00 28,660.01 21,221.00 -- - 02- - -1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00420 TEXTBOOKS 2,980.45 6,206.96 5,585.00 141.05 50,125.00 02 1130 MIDDl,E SCHOOL 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 55,830.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 -- - 02 1130 -MIDDLE SCHOOL 00521 CARPET 0.00 366.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1130 M-IDDLE SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,534.32 5,709.99 6,500.00 2,895.02 8,660.00 -02 -1130 -MIDDLE SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 75.00 0.00 300.00 312.25 535.00 02 1131 MUSIC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 575.00 0.00 100.00 - - 02 1131 MUSIC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 50.00 1,295.52 3,432.00 1,298.48 550.00 - --- 02 1131 MUSIC 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 467.50 1,575.75 2,500.00 2,618.50 460.00 -- 02 1131 MUSIC 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.60 200.00 - - 02 1131 MUSIC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 252.00 168.00 300.00 84.00 100.00 -- 02 1131 MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 165.21 3,332.47 3,500.00 2,944.42 1,020.00 - ,0_2 -1131 MUSIC 004-20 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,290.22 0.00 0-2- 1131 MUSIC 00499 AWARDS 0.00 249.25 850.00 0.00 - 0.00 -0-2 -1131 MUSIC 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 1,714.51 600.00 1,679.09 0.00 02 1131 MUSIC 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 470.00 540.00 355.00 100.00 02 1132 LANGUAGE ARTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,197.49 1,139.79 1,483.00 934.85 1,738.00 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,534.62 6,548.26 6,111.00 1,914.59 3,994.00 1-- - 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 00540 EQUIPMENT 64.31 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 02 1134 SCIENCE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,179.76 2,303.78 2,748.00 2,638 19 1,975.00 - 02 1134 SCIENCE 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 2,453.30 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 - - - 02 1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 716.89 0.00 1,030.00 871.38 1,055.00 -- - 02 - -1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 00540 EQUIPMENT 0 00 1,056.22 000 000 0.00 02 - 1136 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 81.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----- 0.00 02 1137 ART 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,707.73 1,483.84 2,680.00 1,660.01 - 2,~ Page: 22 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1137 ART 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,988.31 103.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 100.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 648.52 387.13 1,115.00 824.90 877.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 72.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 220.00 0.00 200.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 3,246,173.56 3,522,525.32 3,628,200.00 3,616,804.71 3,500,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 32,518.80 33,500.00 34,871.04 36,950.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,788.56 12,100.00 41,150.72 42,600.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 67,420.90 57,941.90 60,000.00 73,968.30 76,000.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 23,179.60 9,821.00 10,000.00 11,595.20 12,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 1,870.60 2,945.20 3,000.00 2,368.10 3,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 6,014.50 4,373.50 2,500.00 6,656.25 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 246,234.28 268,275.86 285,550.00 278,046.78 277,320.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 579.72 1,127.35 1,200.00 3,310.70 3,490.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 334.57 500.00 509.22 460.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 89,963.04 87,071.50 0.00 86,666.94 83,500.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 785.38 850.00 844.20 850.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 856.54 900.00 2,461.54 2,550.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 4,320.37 5,617.56 5,650.00 5,616.90 1,844.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 26.53 22.25 100.00 65.08 70.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP,STIPEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 2,250.81 3,943.90 7,300.00 32,096.88 25,500.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 11.60 7.99 1,300.00 358.95 370.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 2,566.50 2,500.00 4,017.00 4,500.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 450.00 0.00 363.98 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00312 LEGAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00316 SECURITY SERVICES 132.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 23 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ) Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 ,--.... Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget -02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 33.51 874.31 0.00 2,708.44 0.00 -02 -1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 3,149.28 3,706.04 2,600.00 3,665.69 2,600.00 -02 _11,4_0 HIGH SCHO-OL 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 11,665.95 1,898.80 7,000.00 2,794.74 4,000.00 02 1140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 8,943.26 1,232.72 3,050.00 2,847.52 3,200.00 0-2 114_0, .H..I GH SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,787.94 5,551.98 7,250.00 4,202.10 1,750.00 -02 1140 ,-H-.I.G.. H ~. CHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 \u0026gt;- - - \u0026gt;- 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 709.72 1,489.54 1,500.00 1,130.39 1,200.00 \u0026gt;-- -- .0_2 -1140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 5,083.81 9,176.11 7,100.00 9,057.16 5,000.00 02 1-140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 1,123.92 196.61 200.00 0.00 0.00 02 1-140 HIGH SCHOOL 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 1,385.00 3,725.00 3,800.00 3,685.50 3,800.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 17,885.79 34,366.06 55,179.00 33,635.09 34,900.00 \u0026gt;-- -02 - 1140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00420 TEXTBOOKS 12,619.09 8,431.05 12,845.00 17,128.28 120,725.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 109,904.00 0.00 0.00 ,- -- ,0_2_ -1140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,01151 5,062.35 15,000.00 14,779.04 11,029.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,005.00 1,314.00 1,900.00 916.00 1,700.00 I- - 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 930.00 I- 02 1141 MUSIC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 350.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 I- 02 1141 MUSIC 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 000 274.25 200.00 0.00 0.00 t-- - -02 1141 MUSIC 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 145.00 459.98 900.00 000 0.00 02 1141 ,M_U_S IC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 4,663.83 2,024.27 3,100.00 2,864.55 1,~ 02 1141 MUSIC 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 4,864 61 3,916.74 3,700.00 4,719.95 1,500.00 ,--.... - - \u0026gt;-- - -- 02 - -1141 MUSIC 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 578.45 665.62 600.00 937- 12 - 0.00 02 1141 MUSIC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 142.80 0.00 200.00 00-0 0.00 02 1141 MUSIC 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 232.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 -1141 MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 13,854.30 8,240.30 6,500.00 6,875 88 400.00 \u0026gt;-- - -02 - -11-41 MUSIC 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 25.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ - -~ - - 02 - 1-141 MUSIC 00499 AWARDS 1,189.93 198.08 1,000.00 81.08 0.00 ,--. -- 02 1141 MUSIC 00540 EQUIPMENT 268.66 2,091.31 600.00 779.10 - -0.00 Page: 24 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Qperatina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1141 MUSIC 00549 BAND INSTRUMENTS 29,178.24 553.88 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 02 1141 MUSIC 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,179.00 580.00 850.00 450.00 0.00 02 1142 LANGUAGE ARTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,154.39 1,036.71 1,600.00 1,644.67 1,600.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 360.00 0.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.54 0.00 02 1143 MATHJ:MATICS 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.88 0.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 7,228.82 863.68 1,400.00 1,339.86 1,400.00 02 1144 SCIENCE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,811.59 3,045.56 3,500.00 6,077.17 5,500.00 02 1144 SCIENCE 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 200.00 1,450.53 400.00 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 917.14 1,387.56 1,250.00 1,515.80 1,150.00 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 88.10 100.00 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 353.19 0.00 300.00 0.00 200.00 02 1147 ART 00410 SUPPLIES ANO MATERIALS 2,854.22 2,687.48 1,700.00 647.38 1,300.00 02 1148 RADIOfTV 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 547.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1148 RADIOfTV 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,482.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 587.40 416.10 200.00 487.69 200.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 200.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 922.50 0.00 1,500.00 840.00 0.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 21,993.61 2,000.00 1,986.70 0.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,750.00 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 95.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 8,998.33 7,325.23 8,500.00 8,101.53 9,500.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 9,564.39 11,548.97 12,400.00 12,821.56 16,000.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 24,236.24 25,512.16 28,500.00 26,817.59 29,000.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00499 AWARDS 2,079.83 2,175.37 2,350.00 1,931.49 2,350.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,544.27 1,866.95 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 - 400.00 Page: 25 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 }: Qperatina CO2}: Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 -Fund Fncl ~ction Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,678.40 5,797.36 7,100.00 8,065.06 8,900.00 -- 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 10,278.58 7,992.29 12,000.00 9,990.05 12,000.00 - -- - 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00499 AWARDS 1,568.15 742.86 1,100.00 1,302.13 1,100.00 - 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00540 EQUIPMENT 596.08 0.00 1,400.00 445.56 0.00 - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 62.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1153 COME\\INED ATHLETICS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 4.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0_2_ 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 58.86 0.00 106.14 0.00 -- 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 --- - - - - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 -- - - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 206.25 360.00 205.47 260.00 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 110.30 150.00 180.89 150.00 - - -- 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 193.10 250.00 68.74 250.00 -- - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,250.00 - - - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00645 ACCIDENT INS-STUDENTS 7,685.46 15,196.00 18,000.00 17,714.20 18,000.00 - - 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 7,051.09 1,000.00 889.40 0.00 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 825.00 -- -- 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,400.00 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 1,800.00 -- - 02 1161 CHEER 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 820.09 800.00 0.00 0.00 02 1161 CHEER 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 62.74 60.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1161 CHEER 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 140 00 0.00 02 1161 CHEER 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 70.37 875.00 316.90 0.00 02 1161 CHEER 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.00 0.00 - - 02 1161 CHEER 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 565.10 130.00 525.00 0.00 0.00 -- - 02 1161 CHEER 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,399.49 10,703.25 5,850.00 5,589.09 0.00 - - 02 1162 DRILL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 903.17 0.00 625.00 0.00 0.00 - - 02 1162 DRILL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 535.99 0.00 275.00 0.00 0.00 -- - 02 1162 DRILL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 436.30 0.00 6,900.00 6,803.99 0.00 - - Page: 26 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1165 BAND 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 02 1165 BAND 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 02 1165 BAND 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600.00 02 1165 BAND 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,300.00 02 1165 BAND 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 860.00 02 1165 BAND, 00338 ENTRANCE FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,300.00 02 1165 BAND 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,210.00 02 1165 BAND 00499 AWARDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 950.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 151.20 1,100.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00338 ENTRANCE FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.56 1,200.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00499 AWARDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 700.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 700.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 260.00 0.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 50,587.50 50,520.00 127,900.00 154,892.50 154,575.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 8,153.00 11,745.50 15,533.00 15,249.00 16,763.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 3,445.00 4,566.00 8,600.00 12,090.00 8,055.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 5,400.00 0.00 0.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 540.00 620.00 580.00 0.00 2,820.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,370.30 4,763.04 14,134.00 13,015:79 13,639.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 288.66 349.28 1,811.00 924.97 633.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 47.43 450.00 0.00 200.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 46.99 1.50 4,054.00 255.22 267.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 9.99 0.00 602.00 18.14 -12.00 Page: 27 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nQperatinQ (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct ,- - Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 111.61 0.00 1,740.00 1,361.13 1,474.00 - -- - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 6.55 0.00 341.00 96.72 58.00 ....- - - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,215.00 0.00 8,600.00 0.00 9,600.00 - - - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.09 150.00 02 - 1191 .S_U_M MER SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 47.95 100.00 0.00 0.00 -02 1191 SUM~ER SCHOOL 00370 TUITION 19,200.00 8,820.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,100.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 7,636.45 3,000.00 i-- - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 4,789.00 8,000.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,636.71 0.00 - t- - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,085.32 11,552.62 22,625.00 7,382.12 11,000.00 - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 360.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,658.77 0.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 15,120.00 15,841.00 17,794.00 18,294.00 17,787.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,124.93 1,211.84 1,361.00 1,399.54 1,361.00 - -0-2 -1192- -DRIVER EDUCATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 12.10 0.00 18.00 27.44 27.00 02 -- 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00260 WORKERS COMP 28.73 0.00 178.00 146.35 142.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 1,600.00 1,550.00 2,000.00 420.00 1,575.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 62.51 32.95 549.00 66.00 250.00 - -02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00342 POSTAGE 000 17.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 197.81 0.00 0.00 14.28 158.00 - 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 455.00 662.67 750.00 900.00 900.00 - 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 345.00 344.-00 0.00 -0-2- - 1193 MINI GRANTS 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 02 - 1193 -MINI GRANTS 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 325.00 300.00 50.00 0.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 260.00 160.20 0.00 \u0026gt;- - \u0026gt;--- -02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3,717.25 3,596.80 3,520.00 4,182.63 -- 5-,000.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 537.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - ----- - 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 13.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 _E:Oi - - Page: 28 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00540 EQUIPMENT 362.92 572.23 590.00 192.23 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 19,575.00 19,860.00 24,325.00 24,875.22 24,875.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 2,250.00 2,300.00 2,300.00 2,342.88 2,325.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 74.00 290.00 600.00 200.00 200.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 183.00 183.00 02 1194 ACT/RSAT SUMMER SC 00156 STIPENDS-OTHER NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 170.00 170.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,669.59 1,695.20 2,037.00 2,082.34 2,081.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5.66 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 22.18 0.00 15.28 29.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.98 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 26.00 41.42 40.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP,STIPEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 266.00 220.80 218.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 46.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 329.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 35.07 50.00 15.24 15.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 199.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 2,044.00 0.00 1,785.00 1,785.00 1,785.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,464.99 3,503.78 5,068.00 3,946.99 2,550.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 237.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 973.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,160.00 3,442.50 4,000.00 3,105.00 4,000.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 607.50 1,000.00 1,147.50 1,000.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 316.07 263.16 300.00 237.38 300.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 46.44 50.00 87.72 50.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 7.87 4.18 25.00 4.60 20.00 Page: 29 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02- 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 5.00 -02 -1195 -SATURDAY DETENTIO 00260 WORKERS COMP 2.22 4.77 40.00 26.72 40.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00261 WORKERS COMP, NONCERT 0.00 0.21 10.00 9.58 10.00 - -,- 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 979.58 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 - -02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 742.20 750.00 0.00 750.00 -01 1199 JROT~INSTRUCTOR 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 83,300.00 73,227.83 75,400.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00120 REGULAR NONCERTIFICATED 000 0.00 0.00 26,761.72 28,250.00 ,- ,0-2 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,559.87 5,800.00 02 - 1199 -JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00211 SS TAX, NONCERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,047.30 2,160.00 ,0_1_ _ 119--9 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,617.59 1,700.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00241 INSURANCE, NONCERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 432.74 850.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 109.85 40.00 f- - --- 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.13 40.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 585.78 550.00 ,0_2 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00261 WORKERS COMP, NONCERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 214.10 230.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00334 CAR ALLOWANCEMONTHL Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 540.00 540.00 -- 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 73,231.27 77,212.26 79,500.00 91,795.20 95,000.00 - 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00 0.00 - - 02 1210 -ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 5,341.07 5,617.82 6,100.00 6,737.87 7,280.00 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00214 SS TAX STIPENDSOTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.24 0.00 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00240 INSURANCE 1,783.80 1,713.07 1,750.00 1,687.92 1,700.00 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 117.10 138.00 150.00 138.34 50.00 -1- . 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00260 WORKERS COMP 39.00 83.55 800.00 787.21 670.00 - --- --- -02 - ,-1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 289.04 2,156.05 0.00 0.00 yoo.oo 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,200.00 26.~ 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,924.47 1,990.00 f-- -- -- 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 843.96 850.00 -- - 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.87 20.00 --- --- -- 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 201.60 - - 1-90.00 Page: 30 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,132,640.52 1,494,469.24 1,539,300.00 1,859,615.51 1,865,500.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 83,872.79 110,603.71 113,400.00 138,787.71 142,710.00 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00240 INSURANCE 31,759.42 40,680.51 40,700.00 48,640.49 51,000.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 1,444.11 2,346.19 2,500.00 2,782.83 940.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00260 WORKERS COMP 716.69 1,572.40 15,000.00 15,765.63 13,060.00 02 1220 RESORCE ROOM 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 250.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,175.54 2,440.09 3,685.00 2,098.69 3,650.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 100.00 178.30 100.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 5,391.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1 :15 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 412.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 23.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 4.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1: 10/B 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 640,302.24 514,275.65 529,700.00 364,852.61 375,800.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 14,772.92 46,400.00 41,120.97 98,900.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 46,866.20 38,071.86 40,500.00 27,258.17 28,750.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 1,130.50 3,500.00 3,137.27 7,570.00 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00240 INSURANCE 18,746.86 15,230.99 15,300.00 10,901.78 11,400.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 1,284.81 3,750.00 3,049.24 5,095.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 815.20 800.16 800.00 547.41 190.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 25.72 75.00 61.62 95.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00260 WORKERS COMP 399.54 505.35 5,000.00 3,232.99 2,650.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 3.90 100.00 335.02 730.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 161.27 107.29 475.00 0.00 75.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 751.40 1,006.01 2,160.00 297.40 1,022.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 83.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 183,255.96 175,532.62 180,800.00 88,281.73 91,000.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 12,910.56 14,081.25 15,000.00 14,580.24 15,300.00 -- ---- 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 13,725.38 13,252.92 13,800.00 6,721.73 7,00-0.00 Page: 31 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1.6 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 987.56 1,077.20 1,900.00 1,115.35 1,200.00 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00240 INSURANCE 4,829.86 4,444.15 4,700.00 1,850.12 2,800.00 -- -02 1250 -SPECIAL CLASS, 1.6 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 463.34 463.04 1,000.00 456.24 850.00 02 1250 ~PECIAL CLASS, 1.6 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 231.86 273.47 300.00 132.44 46.00 -02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 19.42 21.92 50.00 21.74 25.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00260 WORKERS COMP 113.57 178.11 1,300.00 812.31 650.00 - f--- 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1.6 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 2.76 14.77 50.00 124.78 125.00 -- f-- 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 32.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - -- 02 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -01 126-0 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 00370 TUITION 0.00 63,001.89 25,000.00 134,879.95 125,000.00 -02 1271 ,A- CT 591 HANDICAPPE 00370 TUITION 8,629.20 11,066.61 10,000.00 12,051.54 10,000.00 02 1272 ACT 591, NON-HANDIC 00370 TUITION 17,571.13 30,291.27 25,000.00 23,008.67 25,000.00 - 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 126,626.49 132,263.27 136,200.00 149,368.75 153,900.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 5,050.00 -- -- 02 1280 PU-BLIC DAY SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 9,188.60 9,608.89 10,400.00 10,925.06 11,800.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 230.00 0.00 385.00 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 4,087.23 4,140.01 4,200.00 4,712.29 4,800.00 \u0026gt;--- - 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 161.21 203.87 200.00 224.12 77.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 15.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 79.29 142.50 1,000.00 1,276.01 1,080.00 -- 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 400.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 15.00 0.00 350.00 0 00 200.00 \u0026gt;- f-- -02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 137.97 190.08 150.00 149.-19 -- 225.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 140.00 185.00 150.00 205.00 250.00 -- --- 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00380 FOOD SERVICES 564.37 694.71 600.00 810 00 900.00 ,- r - - -02 128-0 .P..U.B..L.I.C DAY SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,289.23 1,434.78 3,056.00 1,756.11 ___ 3~ -02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 23.73 0.00 0.00 000 --- --- 0.00 ,0_2_ 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 290.22 350.06 425.00 370.47 -- -4-25.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00525 BLINDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,00-0.00 Page: 32 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 270.62 269.00 2,253.64 4,250.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 0.00 1,500.00 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,575.63 11,400.00 12,838.83 12,600.00 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 886.16 900.00 983.35 965.00 02 1285 BARlf'iG CROSS WORK 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 16.23 100.00 19.43 35.00 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 11.10 25.00 552.00 540.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 98,512.08 147,864.92 137,450.00 137,448.11 172,560.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 0.00 2,075.00 2,074.00 0.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 7,292.73 11,098.93 10,000.00 10,000.69 13,290.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00240 INSURANCE 2,732.94 2,597.63 3,125.00 3,123.52 4,200.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 124.75 190.80 210.00 211.79 260.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00260 WORKERS COMP 48.77 114.43 1,225.00 1,226.30 1,390.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 6,739.00 3,783.57 2,955.00 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 78,562.32 84,414.58 86,900.00 43,920.00 45,500.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 5,788.66 6,252.90 6,650.00 3,322.57 3,490.00 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00240 INSURANCE 1,962.37 1,713.31 1,800.00 844.32 900.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 104.75 131.25 130.00 65.84 25.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00260 WORKERS COMP 61.43 89.50 870.00 396.71 320.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 990.00 990.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00335 IN DISTRICT TRAVEL 259.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 438.72 324.00 438.72 324.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 607.49 425.75 900.00 697.88 800.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 156.66 0.00 100.00 o:oo 100.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,764.81 2,405.71 300.00 0.00 300.00 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 356,120.34 382,226.08 386,900.00 400,234.20 412,500.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 26,192.32 28,437.99 29,600.00 30,142.04 31,600.00 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00240 INSURANCE 9,884.72 9,421.89 9,600.00 9,283.56 9,-300.00 Page: 33 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 ): Operating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget - 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 476.71 593.90 600.00 600.36 210.00 -- 02 1330 B-USINESS EDUCATION 00260 WORKERS COMP 260.92 403.13 3,000.00 3,407.70 2,900.00 02 -1-3-30 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 441.65 0.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 3,642.76 2,237.66 3,300.00 666.21 1,760.00 - ,- ._ 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 450.46 450.45 0.00 463.22 500.00 \u0026gt;---1- - 02 --1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 406.96 324.00 406.96 646.00 -02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 22,171.67 17,456.10 24,014.00 32,694.12 13,950.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 414.76 52.70 700.00 0.00 500.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 14,102.63 15,546.51 19,760.00 26,617.40 21,600.00 - 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 252,779.19 271,659.66 275,000.00 232,666.16 151,000.00 - 02 - 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 10,449.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 16,622.36 21,090.94 21,000.00 17,565.67 11,600.00 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00240 INSURANCE 7,124.19 6,667.56 7,000.00 5,535.60 5,900.00 -- 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 214.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 339.15 436.46 400.00 349.34 76.00 - - 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00260 WORKERS COMP 203.02 292.96 2,000.00 2,011.77 1,060.00 -- - 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,417.22 1,344.66 1,700.00 131.56 1,150.00 - - -02 -1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00341 TELEPHONE 000 1,626.24 1,620.00 1,221.12 610.00 -02 1-350 TRADE -AND INDUSTRI 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,922 43 15,910.55 12,645.00 9,634.37 7,240.00 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 194.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -02 -1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 14.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 90.56 100.00 - 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00540 EQUIPMENT 43,415.40 16,562.26 12,502.00 9,163.02 3,500.00 - - ---- 01 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 61,563.60 66,213.64 66,200.00 66,534.64 70,600.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,513.46 4,905.96 5,250 00 5,11006 5,400.00 - -- - ,.__ 01 - 1352 -PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00240 INSURANCE 1,574.34 1,265.70 1,500 00 1,26-6-.64 1,400.00 \u0026gt;-- -- 0-2 -1-352 -PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 62.06 102.90 100.00 102.63 -- 36.00 -02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00260 WORKERS COMP 46.06 70.19 550.00 56-3 60 -- 5-0-0.00 Page: 34 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 )\nQperatinq (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,700.56 947.46 1,400.00 314.76 1,400.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 104.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00540 EQUIPMENT 26,485.15 0.00 400.00 450.80 1,000.00 02 1354 TELEVISION PRODUCT 00540 EQUIPMENT 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 800.00 912.52 1,150.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 162.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 1,533.63 2,500.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 11,200.00 10,426.81 20,172.00 01 1360 HOME EC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 278,086.20 275,260.60 283,500.00 288,481.09 297,500.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 20,360.89 20,130.08 21,700.00 21,489.18 22,800.00 01 1360 HOMEEC 00240 INSURANCE 8,032.83 6,831.21 7,500.00 6,865.05 7,100.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 369.00 427.92 450.00 432.83 150.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00260 WORKERS COMP 213.06 304.76 2,250.00 2,458.75 2,100.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,964.25 1,523.34 1,800.00 1,602.69 1,500.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 200.00 425.00 495.00 450.00 495.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 324.00 0.00 324.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 8,705.74 8,720.97 7,050.00 7,864.96 4,350.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 134.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 109.98 56.00 250.00 111.75 200.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 400.03 769.05 800.00 1,036.29 650.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00540 EQUIPMENT 1,937.20 7,425.68 7,000.00 2,593.42 2,750.00 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 47,372.64 52,689.00 54,300.00 77,064.82 79,500.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,583.26 3,822.38 4,150.00 5,661.40 6,080.00 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00240 INSURANCE 1,076.56 1,224.34 1,300.00 1,574.65 1,600.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 62.90 82.45 100.00 115.56 40.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00260 WORKERS COMP 36.70 57.91 450.00 645.01 560.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 300.00 - 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 662.47 1,653.77 1,900.00 1,643.05 1,150.00 Page: 35 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): OperatinQ (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget -02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 251.62 150.00 217.59 150.00 - 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 267.38 0.00 650.00 37.10 450.00 02 1370 -CAREER ORIENTATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 4,507.79 396.68 3,040.00 4,538.07 750.00 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 -- --1-- 02 1380 -WORKPLACE READINE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 896.52 700.00 0.00 750.00 02 1380 ,- WOR~PLACE READINE 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 3,650.25 200.00 316.35 200.00 ,0_1_ - 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 353,914.23 343,484.33 353,800.00 338,505.60 348,700.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,760.00 5,573.73 5,000.00 643.52 750.00 I- - 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 6,731.59 22,633.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 I- ~ 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 26,600.78 26,265.29 27,480.00 25,791.70 26,760.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 515.03 1,731.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00240 INSURANCE 9,191.39 7,331.03 8,200.00 6,801.36 6,500.00 f- 02 -1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 214.03 856.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 02- 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 453.36 540.59 560.00 508.77 185.00 - - 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 47.47 37.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00260 WORKERS COMP 287.82 387.53 2,860.00 2,897.33 2,560.00 \u0026lt;-- - -- 02 - 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 19.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,875.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 196.68 115.00 900.00 201.22 750.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 191.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,475.00 1,485.00 1,485.00 1,485.00 1,485.00 1--- - ,0_2_ 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 228 23 596.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 139-0 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 424.80 648.00 424.80 324.00 \u0026gt;--- 02- 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 234.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;- ,0_2_ 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,166.28 3,606.56 5,700.00 8,733.76 4,4-0-0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 100.64 244.57 200.00 283.89 100.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 37.10 80-0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00540 EQUIPMENT 17,605.73 4,853.74 1,600.00 445.08 1,400.00 ~ - Page: 36 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): OoeratinQ (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 1,677.43 250.00 13.75 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 397.49 250.00 0.00 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 250.00 62.70 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 485.75 250.00 0.00 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 35.69 100.00 84.26 0.00 02 1510 BASIG SKILLS 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 37.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,298.93 2,287.00 781.88 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 711.38 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 430.00 700.00 700.00 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 11,732.78 12,769.70 13,410.00 12,689.69 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 897.54 976.65 1,025.00 970.85 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 11.71 19.77 25.00 18.99 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00260 WORKERS COMP 7.22 13.44 110.00 109.37 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,321.91 54.15 100.00 52.70 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 960.65 904.37 1,050.00 723.94 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 7,710.00 8,400.00 0.00 8,400.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 7,524.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 589.81 650.00 0.00 600.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 575.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,872.40 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 87.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,643.20 1,940.73 2,700.00 1,279.18 3,000.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 183.14 0.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 01 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,100.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 25,390.08 26,647.79 22,000.00 19,860.48 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 101,334.48 101,786.28 98,440.00 90,834.05 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 500.00 4,000.00 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,942.31 1,935.75 1,600.00 1,519.26 1,650.00 - Page: 37 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratinc:1(0 2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 -Fund Fncl Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00211 SS.TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7,329.94 7,633.89 8,220.00 6,778.70 0.00 - - - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 300.00 38.20 300.00 -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 11.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 361.94 78.18 100.00 0.00 0.00 01 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 \u0026gt;- 02 1525 ALTE~NATIVE ED PRO 00240 INSURANCE 475.00 999.29 850.00 843.96 0.00 \u0026gt;- .0_2 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 7,612.23 7,379.73 8,060.00 5,869.43 0.00 \u0026gt;- - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 31.97 37.02 50.00 30.49 30.00 - - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 175.08 160.22 190.00 136.31 0.00 - -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP,STIPEN 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00260 WORKERS COMP 16.11 23.91 200.00 173.63 170.00 t-- - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 68.25 113.60 985.00 778.85 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 61,395.24 51,854.46 93,100.00 93,673.45 0.00 - ,___ -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 1,892.41 2,000.00 2,573.87 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 986.43 295.82 800.00 266.38 0.00 - -t- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 229.95 495.48 76,800.00 72,646.80 4,000.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 591.77 1,870.00 108.43 1,000.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 20.00 1,650.00 500.00 750.00 0.00 r 02 1525 ALTE-RNATIVE ED PRO 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 180.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 67.20 151.20 200.00 33.60 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 29.00 100.00 96.00 0.00 r - - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00380 FOOD SERVICES 315.35 0.00 0.00 22.57 0.00 -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 5,600.00 1,200.00 - -02 - 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 6,096.78 6,936.22 14,900.00 10,771 92 4,560.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00420 TEXTBOOKS 4,495.27 8,914.19 2,500.00 775.95 0.00 - -- - -- -02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 2,957.54 4,000.00 3,448.67 0.00 - - 02 - -1-525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 339.00 500.00 664.8-7 -- - 0.-00 -02 -1-525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 784-.92 - 0.0-0 Page: 38 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,420.33 6,540.09 22,400.00 5,093.52 20,200.00 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 00541 FURNITURE 2,810.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,121.15 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 399.00 300.00 450.00 450.00 0.00 02 1550 EARL y CHILDHOOD ED 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 75,861.61 73,570.46 64,740.00 73,907.58 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30.50 22.95 35.00 34.44 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,433.70 5,252.79 6,592.00 5,368.94 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 4.59 100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 2,105.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 3,037.00 5,329.86 2,100.00 1,119.22 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 145.08 98.31 220.00 110.42 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 39.05 73.96 320.00 629.12 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 1,450.00 4,086.40 6,350.00 7,875.45 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 972.53 270.39 300.00 93.77 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 911.94 1,078.01 1,000.00 701.98 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 255.00 170.50 500.00 300.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 330.00 2,801.06 2,100.00 2,365.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,007.37 385.00 880.00 380.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 31.50 100.00 77.22 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00380 FOOD SERVICES 36.55 191.68 200.00 o:oo 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 34,866.57 15,753.63 18,283.00 16,990.14 1,000.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,834.28 500.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 529.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 39 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Qperatina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;- - ,0_2 1-550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00630 DUES AND FEES 122.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 --1-550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 711.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,572.00 0.00 1,940.00 - - - -02 - 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 9,445.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1555 HIPPY, 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,146.00 - - ,0_2_ __ -1555 HIPPY 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 520.00 02 1555 HIPPY - 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,500.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,245.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 205.00 ,- - 02 1555 HIPPY 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 ,- - 02 1555 HIPPY 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 50.00 ,--- 02 1555 HIPPY 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 675.00 f- - -- ,0_2_ 1555 HIPPY 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,800.00 - - 02 1555 HIPPY 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 t- - 02 1555 HIPPY 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 ,- -- 02 1555 HIPPY 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 - 02 1555 HIPPY 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,258.00 - 02 1555 HIPPY 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 620.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 500.00 \u0026gt;-- - ,__ 02 1555 HIPPY 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,345.00 02 1560 READING 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 59,006.16 61,960.00 63,432.00 65,350.00 ~- - 02 1560 READING 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 4,414.30 4,740.00 4,835.48 5,000.00 -- - 01 1560 READING 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 f- - - ,0- 2 1560 RE-ADING 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 1,726.14 1,710.00 1,687.80 - 1~ 02 1560 READING 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 76.10 125.00 94.79 100.00 f- - --- --- - 02 1560 READING 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 22.93 495.00 542.12 5-50.00 Page: 40 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1560 READING 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 10,360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1560 READING 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 241.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1560 READING 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 3,838.09 5,600.00 5,117.33 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 95,820.14 98,588.54 101,500.00 102,065.49 108,000.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 200.00 80.00 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7,329.56 7,542.11 7,800.00 7,808.03 8,200.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 25.00 6.12 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 5,665.85 5,013.41 8,000.00 5,337.62 6,000.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 199.62 151.54 250.00 152.16 160.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 61.33 107.94 850.00 873.68 850.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 38,032.03 260.00 3,300.00 225.00 300.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 . 0.00 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 120.37 100.00 0.00 800.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,195.00 890.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 361.28 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 49,002.35 32,000.00 32,756.30 50,000.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 4,863.32 6,944.73 0.00 0.00 2,200.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,315.76 79,065.04 75,840.00 64,533.06 65,000.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,571.95 5,786.37 6,350.00 4,673.91 4,830.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,053.12 4,467.82 4,500.00 4,431.26 4,500.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 180.41 137.60 163.00 96.19 100.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 51.00 84.70 665.00 561.93 550.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 22,017.72 17,614.79 500.00 0.00 0.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 180.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 7,377.09 1,977.81 1,500.00 1,572.03 915.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 93.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 41 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct -F-u-nction Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget -02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 23,348.66 464.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 1592 -COMP ED ELE EXTEND 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,787.17 35.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 - 1592 -COMP E-D ELE EXTEND 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 23.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 13.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 99.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 02 1592 ~MP. ED ELE EXTEND 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 4,684.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 01 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,800.00 -- -02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 36,186.00 38,391.78 39,060.00 29,861.04 0.00 -02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 2,726.15 2,921.51 3,080.00 2,274.80 1,590.00 -01 1-593 -COMP ED TURNING PO 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00240 INSURANCE 863.86 856.54 860.00 773.63 0.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 42.80 59.68 80.00 44.52 30.00 -02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00260 WORKERS COMP 23.70 40.71 320.00 261.08 160.00 -02 -1-593 -COMP ED TURNING PO 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,044.00 60.24 100.00 38.10 0.00 -02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 133.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 806.06 440.97 400.00 392.88 0.00 - \u0026gt;-- 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 52,009.46 9,817.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,617.04 732.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0_2 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00240 INSURANCE 1,717.09 357.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;-- - \u0026gt;- 02 ,_15 94 COMP ED PALS LAB 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 65.74 10.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00260 WORKERS COMP 29.63 48.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 73.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00540 EQUIPMENT 782.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,- ~01- - 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 349,719.41 379,858.62 391,300.00 369,097~ 380,500.00 - -01 - -1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 44,610.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0-2 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 13,628.88 0.00 16,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 1-- - --- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 2,289.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 560.00 0.00 0.-00 - -0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 28,868.47 27,933.30 29,900.00 27,342.95 -- 29,1~ Page: 42 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nQperatim::1(0 2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,153.53 0.00 1,200.00 0.00 190.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 42.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00240 INSURANCE 11,022.83 10,278.18 10,600.00 9,283.44 9,300.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 907.90 0.00 850.00 0.00 2,700.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 502.75 590.62 600.00 553.66 600.00 02 1910 GIFT~D AND TALENTE 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 20.68 0.00 50.00 0.00 40.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00260 WORKERS COMP 250.83 400.21 3,150.00 3,187.07 3,120.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 10.14 0.00 150.00 0.00 120.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,470.00 1,225.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 91.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,804.34 1,087.76 2,600.00 1,424.10 1,000.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 2,175.00 2,120.00 2,000.00 2,770.00 1,000.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 564.55 225.41 806.00 212.39 300.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 442.81 500.00 482.04 500.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00342 POSTAGE 239.71 333.65 300.00 411.06 300.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,765.87 12,954.43 13,000.00 14,388.49 14,000.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 198.14 200.00 97.92 200.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 586.92 391.98 600.00 576.31 600.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 2,550.00 2,051.07 3,500.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00630 DUES AND FEES 25.00 25.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 01 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 930.00 6,975.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 272.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 761.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 90.48 533.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 16.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 1.77 8.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00260 WORKERS COMP 6.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Page: 43 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): OperatinQ (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 -Fund Fnc ~nction Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 - -1-911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.60 4.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00342 POSTAGE 16.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00370 TUITION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 f- - I--. - 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 329.27 102.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,160.00 15,300.00 15,262.50 18,975.00 t-- -- 02 1912 GIT SVMMER QUEST 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 100.00 69.00 0.00 02 - 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 853.74 1,300.00 1,167.71 1,450.00 I- 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 27.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.28 0.00 -02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.99 30.00 -02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 122.65 150.00 -02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 200.00 204.00 0.00 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 905.00 1,380.00 1,343.10 0.00 i--- I- 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 53.28 20.00 12.35 0.00 I- - I- 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,675.74 2,840.96 4,700.00 4,723.14 3,000.00 \u0026gt;- 01 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,500.00 I-- 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 14,500.50 15,000.00 14,700.24 0.00 .0.2. . 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 5,706.05 2,820.85 3,000.00 1,354.18 1,500.00 -f-- f- 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 260.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;-- -02 .1..9.1.3.- GIT MATHEMATICS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 232.00 700.00 0.00 0.00 -02 .1.9.1.3 GIT MATHEMATICS 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 300.00 300.00 375.00 300.00 -02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 1,128.79 1,150.00 1,124.55 1,500.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 436.44 215.84 100.00 103.54 130.00 1-- 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 17.76 25.00 0.00 10.00 ~ -02 - 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 22.96 50.00 28.70 0.00 1-- -\u0026gt;-- - 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 14.91 25.00 22.82 30.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 5.72 3.80 25.00 1.98 5.00 - - -- 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 13.77 125.00 12--8.32 -140.00 Page: 44 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fncl Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 1.40 4.46 25.00 15.26 15.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 14.67 75.00 0.00 0.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 268.13 600.00 0.00 0.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00420 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 1,700.00 173.30 0.00 01 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 243,500.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90,050.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,650.00 02 1950 Al TERNA TIVE SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,900.00 01 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,650.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,720.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 365.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 130.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,950.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 720.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,000.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 02 1950 Al TERNA TIVE SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 900.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 128.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 140.00 02 1950 Al TERNA TIVE SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 6,320.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 212.00 -- 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 550.00 -- 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,350.00 Page: 45 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 }: Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget - - 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,520.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,-- 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 192.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;- - 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 6.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2101 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 50,433.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 02 2101 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 3,848.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 2101 _, 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 257.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -02 - 2101 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 29.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2101 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 43.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 02 2102  00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 154,106.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - --- - 02 2102  00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 11,799.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 02 2102  00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 40.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2102  00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 817.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --\u0026gt;- - 02 2102  00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 96.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,350.00 4,350.00 - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 12,304.08 32,948.30 35,000.00 36,930.07 44,400.00 --- - 0-2 - -211-0 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 290.95 300.00 0.00 0.00 -02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 332.76 340.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 673.45 2,233.61 2,700.00 2,579.45 3,350.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 22.24 25.00 0.00 0.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 850.61 2,080.87 2,125.00 2,160.00 2,535.00 02 -2110 -ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.53 7.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 18.81 54.85 75.00 55.24 65.00 - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.80 35.00 - -- -- -02- - 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 3.29 20.69 275.00 3-37.12 - 360.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 0.00 0.00 500.00 139.18 500.00 -- - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 294.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 -- - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 100.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 405.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 -- - --- - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 29.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 - ~ Page: 46 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00341 TELEPHONE 1,384.89 4,533.41 1,200.00 1,240.10 2,000.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 194.12 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 84.80 500.00 267.05 500.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 468.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00550 VEHICLES 0.00 24,264.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 1,758.00 1,800.00 1,422.00 860.00 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 824,164.07 885,880.38 912,400.00 900,703.15 930,000.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 92,650.68 93,177.21 96,000.00 95,530.34 100,000.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 61,004.98 66,823.49 69,800.00 68,251.60 71,200.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 6,753.96 6,928.12 7,400.00 7,117.18 7,650.00 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00240 INSURANCE 19,428.13 19,231.51 19,600.00 19,023.50 19,500.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,808.58 4,302.30 4,400.00 4,621.31 5,100.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 942.00 1,360.50 1,400.00 1,350.90 465.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 131.85 141.64 150.00 142.72 150.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00260 WORKERS COMP 498.10 935.25 7,300.00 7,711.95 6,550.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 69.61 100.28 750.00 807.89 800.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 44.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,452.81 1,223.19 1,500.00 881.02 1,000.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,644.78 1,320.11 2,500.00 2,074.93 2,200.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 277.00 100.00 175.72 150.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 265.00 0.00 140.98 150.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 195.00 200.00 195.00 200.00 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 1,100.00 2,200.00 0.00 2,200.00 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,160.50 0.00 500.00 1,100.00 500.00 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,883.78 11,733.53 14,000.00 14,419.97 8,000.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,083.24 79,620.73 82,500.00 89,890.99 93,400.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,536.30 5,889.57 6,300.00 6,663.71 7,150.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 3,019.99 3,069.12 3,200.00 2,964.38 3,350.00 Page: 47 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Operatina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00251 UN.EMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 90.22 114.92 130.00 134.44 250.00 - - - 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 51.25 89.99 700.00 758.38 750.00 - 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 220.00 334.44 500.00 220.00 300.00 ---- I--- \u0026gt;- 02 2130 -HEAL TH SERVICES 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 312.50 1,000.00 378.70 0.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 125.00 332.00 300.00 100.00 100.00 - ,-...- 02 2130 HEALTH SERVICES 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 700.00 700.00 720.00 720.00 720.00 - - 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 930.63 1,272.37 1,950.00 2,365.63 1,000.00 - 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 715.03 500.00 0.00 0.00 - - 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 104,130.00 114,174.00 117,600.00 149,239.55 153,800.00 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 51,602.16 57,153.60 58,900.00 0.00 0.00 I- ~ I- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 1,484.00 0.00 ,- - - I- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 11,552.27 12,764.66 13,500.00 11,059.88 11,800.00 ,-- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 125.00 113.53 0.00 f- ,-...- 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00240 INSURANCE 3,232.92 3,049.21 3,200.00 2,898.58 3,100.00 ,- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 183.40 265.88 300.00 226.10 80.00 I- -f- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00260 WORKERS COMP 108.01 180.56 1,400.00 1,421.23 1,100.00 ,__ - ---- -02 - 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 57,324.00 64,752.11 50,000.00 60,000.00 0.00 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -\u0026gt;- 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 377,103.12 379,296.64 390,700.00 351,079.40 361,700.00 .-- 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 37,758.08 129,737.76 145,780.00 145,778.08 122,945.00 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30,820.39 38,213.15 40,900.00 37,418.76 37,100.00 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00240 INSURANCE 10,270.36 10,380.50 10,400.00 8,712.43 8,700.00 1--f- -1- 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00240 INSURANCE 1,444.96 0.00 3,025.00 3,028.11 3,360.00 ,- 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 462.93 746.32 815.00 743.89 360.00 ,-. 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 214.90 431.62 4,375.00 4,313.37 3,450.00 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 14,000.00 14,220.00 0.00 f- -f- 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 466.96 442.35 1,200.00 416.37 ___!,0~ 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 61,092.96 60,061.50 69,400.00 69,674.64 71,800.00 ---- -- -- 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 7,281.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- Page: 48 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Qperatina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fncl Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,584.71 5,115.53 5,300.00 5,318.14 5,500.00 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00240 INSURANCE 1,595.28 1,713.44 1,800.00 1,688.32 1,700.00 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 69.38 104.70 150.00 104.52 36.00 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00260 WORKERS COMP 32.16 69.98 550.00 599.01 503.00 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 11,234.75 44,000.00 43,972.08 0.00 02 2160 PHYS,\u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 300.00 284.65 0.00 01 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 0.00 0.00 61,300.00 50,624.02 60,400.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 29,713.52 0.00 29,600.00 33,671.74 41,000.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 4,700.00 3,872.73 4,650.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 2,189.94 0.00 3,000.00 2,476.39 3,140.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 12.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 900.00 703.60 900.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 1,596.50 0.00 900.00 1,758.16 1,800.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 100.00 75.90 30.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 42.18 0.00 50.00 55.94 60.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 450.00 404.92 430.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 18.94 0.00 200.00 309.15 320.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,800.00 2,500.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.90 100.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 778.16 0.00 1,500.00 41.60 800.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 698.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 540.00 495.00 540.00 -- 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 60.00 47.60 50.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 689.89 250.00 743.73 470.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 172.00 175.00 126.85 150.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 179.72 2,498.20 725.00 2,034.75 -975.00 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 253.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 49 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 7,260.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,192.15 131,000.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,003.88 10,000.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,180.29 11,800.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.31 200.00 02 2195 STUDf:NT ASSIGNMEN 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 209.66 1,000.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 407,067.90 546,426.72 562,800.00 628,590.25 653,100.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 5,000.00 17,855.32 43,890.00 46,399.08 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 148,297.98 173,135.14 177,532.00 190,358.05 181,500.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00125 NON-CERTIFIED ADMIN 39,933.84 43,515.80 2,025.00 2,229.96 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 2,368.10 0.00 4,000.00 437.80 4,720.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 7,629.38 19,755.00 19,880.00 23,310.00 8,478.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00151 STIPENDS NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 560.00 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 4,130.00 4,770.00 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30,687.24 41,241.91 51,720.00 50,718.98 51,970.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 14,621.01 16,330.59 13,440.00 14,437.29 13,610.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 1,541.66 3,660.00 1,783.04 600.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00213 SS TAX STIPENDS NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.84 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 35.00 364.90 0.00 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00240 INSURANCE 8,323.95 9,123.35 9,200.00 10,350.18 10,700.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 351.70 425.00 844.08 430.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 7,179.43 8,171.60 8,760.00 7,746.12 9,500.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 481.06 883.34 897.00 1,057.26 778.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 252.31 335.26 370.00 286.31 268.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP ,STIPEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 15.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00260 WORKERS COMP 304.34 574.81 4,758.00 5,800.13 5,205.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 130.11 238.47 1,820.00 1,612.57 1,350.00 --- 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -55.00 Page: 50 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ) Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 276.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 5,720.10 75.00 3,800.00 1,597.22 3,600.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SU PE RV 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 21.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 140.00 50.00 150.00 300.00 300.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 175.45 100.00 411.15 200.00 02 2210 INST~UCTION/SUPERV 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 3,838.76 2,875.39 3,700.00 722.21 1,000.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 134.10 184.45 745.00 0.00 100.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 2,589.19 5,030.31 13,253.00 13,372.11 21,520.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 5,489.00 15,138.88 17,115.00 13,677.37 8,725.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,790.00 3,215.00 3,235.00 4,230.00 3,350.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,248.67 147.80 1,500.00 133.52 500.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 6,367.51 2,624.00 1,795.07 800.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00342 POSTAGE 170.38 941.94 1,185.00 1,389.93 1,000.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 10\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_848","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District 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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District 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/848"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nTHJEN ORTH lJITI1LJER OCK lPUIBlXCC HOOl ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys At Law July 21, 1995 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 W Capitol Little Rock AR 72201-3472 Dear Steve: RECE~VED f/anr:f- lJd,'vc,.e ,L //.'S7a-. JLIL 2 4 1995 Office of DesegregatioMn onitoring As directed by the July 13, 1995 court order, this document represents the 1995-96 budget for North Little Rock School District. The document contains seven sections--Revenue and Expenditures\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for the Salary, Operating, and Debt Service Funds\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for Federal Funds\nFive Year Revenue and Expenditure Projection\nBudget Notes\nSalary Schedules\nand Program Analysis. The Revenue and Expenditure section provides graphs for 1995-96 projected revenue and expenditures. The revenue graph shows the amount of local, state, and federal revenue projected for the operating, debt service, capital outlay, and federal funds. The expenditure graph shows the combined expenditures projected for the funds included on the revenue graph and the salary fund. This section also provides detailed revenue for the operating budget and the federal programs. The beginning balance, ending balance, and a summary of expenditures for the operating, capital outlay, building/bond, and federal budgets are also included in this section. The second section provides expenditures by function, object, and function/object for the salary, operating, and debt service funds. The third section provides expenditures for Federal Funds. The fourth section of this document provides a five year projection of revenues and expenditures for operating, capitol outlay, buildings, and federal programs. The Budget Notes section provides information regarding local tax revenue reduction, state funding, workers compensation, the need for millage increases, and the loss of desegregation settlement funds. The sixth section of the document contains the end-of-the-year (FY94) salary schedules for administrators, teachers, and classified employees~ The program analysis for one new program and one expanded program is included in the final section of the document. P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 _, .. ,,.. The 1995-96 budget will be presented for board approval at the August school board meeting. After final approval, the budget will then be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent Business Services 07/31/95 11:29 FAX 501 771 8069  NLR School Dist 14!001 N1!D1Bs.TIILEJII TTILJE~ CQ)(CiJl F1UIB3ILITCCI EI@@JL ADMINISTRATIVEO FFICES 2'700P OPLAR STREET Fax Number(:5 01) 771-8069 FAX COVER SHEET Date: ______ ,_7-_'3_/-__'7___5_ ___________ _ TransmittinTgo : _ -'{J\"'-[).\n._/_lv___\"_---____________ _ FAX Numbcr_: ___ 3_\n_1_-_0_1 _o_ u_ ______________ _ Attention_: ___ ~----.~'-/-\".:\n_,\n.\n_ ____________ _ I~ Numbero f Pages,I ncludingC overS heet:_ __\n_::\n_ _________ , _ From: ---~- 1 __ L.fl-.l..__,\n=-._ l. Jaa....\nD.\n.\n4.\n\n.\u0026gt;.:---_::,:\n::\ni-=---------------Comments: AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LI'ITLE ROCK, AR 721:15/0687 50l1771-8000 N 0 0 I .-\u0026lt; 0 0 .c u Cfl 0::: .....I /. \u0026lt;\"D' 0 00 N\". '. -\u0026lt; -\u0026lt; \"\"'' '- -\u0026lt; h ,'- ....... ,. 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES SALARIES $30,552,120 1995-1996 DEBT SERVICE $1,304,410 INSURANCE/OTHER $286,100 CAPITAL OUTLAY $1,316,700 SUPPLIES $1,555,410 SERVICES $2,529,920 TUITION $1,240,000 BENEFITS $3,958,660~ TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $42,743,320 -3-  \u0026lt;I) ..... C, ..... 0 0 .c: u VJ 0:: ..J 7. a, co 0 \u0026lt;O .......... tr.) a..,. ._ .,.,.,. . ...._ I'- . 0. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 OPERA TING BUDGET 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 SALARIES (01), OPERATING (02), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE (04) ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $34,680,190.72 $36,953 926.81 $36 827 843.00 $38,287, 118.1 J EXPENDITURES Salaries $24 654,619.76 $26 9621118.71 127,243,645.00 $27 863,295.15 Benefits $2 624,924.22 $2.841 125.27 $3155 388.00 $3 258.713.98 Tuition $1,067,374.16 $1,229 399.42 $1 085 000.00 $1,239,950.00 Services $2159,022.38 $2,420 129.81 $2 482,594.00 $2,262,676.98 Supplies $1,244,849.46 $1,379,589.79 $1,157,982.00 $1,356,006.55 Equioment $218,292.93 $164,833.43 $129,754.00 $132,412.08 Insurance/Other $256,304.01 $311320.48 $306,538.00 $221,462.63 Debt Service $7119,841.15 $1,188,769.94 $1,105,970.00 $1,102.578.74 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $33,015,228.07 $36,224,356.65 $36,546,869.00 $37,437,116.11 ENDING BALANCE $1,664,962.65 $729,570.16 $180,974.00 $850,002.02 FEDERAL PROGRAMS 1061 TOTAL REVENUE ANO BALANCE $3 560 377.92 $3,598 093.54 $3 641 169.00 $3 660 124.78 EXPENDITURES Salaries $1,644,091.99 $1,967 932.113 $2 014,031.00 $2,022,586.80 Benefits $441,367.07 $539 817.68 $596 338.00 $565,991.45 Services $472,493.90 $421,038.73 $407 002.00 $416,207.75 Suoolles - $371,965.64 $205,874.02 $228,831.00 $171,185.15 Equipment $206,103.77 $115,140.30 $216 712.00 $188,975.14 Other M $42,809.42 $40,626.02 $49 077.00 $12,494.75 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,178,831.79 $3,290 429.58 $3,511,991.00 $3,377,441.04 ENDING BALANCE $381,546.13 $305,663.98 $129,178.00 $282 683.74 CAPITAL OUTLAY (OS) BEGINNING BALANCE $185,463.82 $34,828.03 $1,882.00 $1,892.64 REVENUE $391,650.75 $389 503.75 $385,000.00 $724,080.73 EXPENDITURES $542,286.34 $422449.14 $382,195.00 $701122.98 ENDING BALANCE -- ~~4,828.03 ~1.882.64 $4,687.00 $24~0.39 BUILDING 1031/BOND (10) FUNDS BEGINNING BALANCES $1,027,013.50 $3 277,801.44 $1,321,857.00 $1,321 829.65 REVENUE .. $4,012,465.94 $168,411.99 $50,000.00 $79,533.42 EXPENDITURES $1,761,678.00 $2,124,355.78 $500,000.00 $417,890.93 ENDING BALANCE $3,277,801.44 $1 321,857.65 $871,857.00 $983.472.14 -4- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $38,746,676.00 $459 557.87 $28,555 600.00 $692.304.85 $3,315,200.00 $56 486,02 $1,240 000.00 $50.00 $2,217 960.00 ($4,4 716.98 $1,377,470.00 $21,463.45 $97,280.00 ($35, 132.08 $245,610.00 $24,127.37 $1,304,410.00 $201,831.26 $38,353,530.00 $916,413.89 $393146.00 ($456,856.02 $3,268 978.00 ($391,146.78 $1 997 520.00 ($25 066.80 $583,460.00 $17,468.55 $371,960.00 ($4,4 247.75 $177,940.00 $6,754.85 $60,425.00 ($128 550.14 $40,490.00 $27,995.25 $3,231,795.00 ($145,646.04 $37183.00 ($245,500.74 $24,840.00 $22,957.36 $1,139,600.00 $415 519.27 $1 159,000.00 $457,877.02 $5,440.00 ($19 400.39 $983,472.00 1$338,357.65 $3,300,000.00 $3,220 466.58 $3,225 000.00 $2,807,109:of $1,058,472.00 $74,999.86 .,,. 0 0 ~ ~,. ,, ..... Q ..... 0 0 .c u CJ) CG ....J z C) ~ 0 00 ...\n0 ,r., C) N .. ...\n...\n,r., C) '...\nM ',- 0  NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 OPERA TING BUDGET 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 SALARY (011, OPERATING (021, \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCES $34,680,190.72 $36,953,926.81 $36 827 843.00 $38,287,118.13 SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATORS $2,389 830.04 $2,790,319.05 $2 803,200.00 $2,851,452.52 TEACHERS $16,842,870.86 $18,069,269.74 $18,453,600.00 $18 369,424.17 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS $341,415.27 $378,002.30 $381,000.00 $353,107.00 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARIES $19,574,116.17 $21,237,591.09 $21,637,800.00 $21,573,983.69 FRINGE BENEFITS $524,031.13 $537,924.71 $,458,550.00 $546,350.13 TUITION $1,067 374.16 $1179,221.M $1,117,000.00 $1,239,950.10 TOTAL SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES $21166 521.46 $22,95'6,737.34 $23 213,360.00 $23,360,283.92 OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES REGULAR PROGRAMS $1,627,825.46 $1 860 739.69 $2,163,030.00 $2 392 243.73 SPECIAL EDUCATION $327.404.86 $440 823.23 $45'6646.00 $493,188.52 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $319,065.38 $271, 186.29 $265 321.00 $244 821.89 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $782,927.75 $790,763.62 $776 554.00 $707 897.46 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $82 727.23 $92.761.70 $137 920.00 $91 205.63 PUPIL SUPPORT $466,769.73 $635,801.50 $651,325.00 $715.521.77 STAFF SUPPORT $795,427.64 $910,551.76 $1,044198.00 $926.687.85 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $449,835.91 $445,226.59 $453,280.00 $411,107.95 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE $629.584.22 $709,199.75 $756,527.00 $763 326.79 BUSINESS SUPPORT $5, 160,19'.84 $5,445,349.38 $5,143,269.00 $5,575,347.89 CENTRAL SUPPORT $186,702.32 $212,485.65 $204,830.00 $260,340.87 OTHER SUPPORT $225 795.84 $250 598.39 $263.150.00 $267,918.66 NON-BOND/NON-PROGRAM/COMMUNITY $5,604.29 $15,361.93 $13,500.00 $23,502.87 TOTAL OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES $11,059,865.46 $12,080,849.38 $12.327 .549.00 $12 873 111.118 DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES PRINCIPAL $224.285.46 $474,843.71 $463,005.00 $460 534.18 INTEREST $564J799.49 $709,800.03 $638,935.00 $638 210.06 FISCAL FEES $766.20 $4,128.20 $4,030.00 $3,834.50 -- TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES $789,841:.!! .. _ $1,188,769.94 $1,105,970.00 $1102 578.74 CERTIFIED SALARIES - LAKESIDE CASE $101,141.57 -- TOTAL SALARY, OPERATING AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS EXPENDITURES $33,015 228.07 $36,224 356.66 $36,646 869.00 $37,437,116.11 ENDING BALANCES $1,664,962.65 $729,570.15 $180,974.00 $850,002.02 -6- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $38, 7 46.646.00 $459,627.87 $2,850,490.00 1$962.52 $19,279 550.00 $910, 125.83 $373,000.00 $19,893.00 $22 503,040.00 $929,056.31 $626,330.00 $79,979.~ $1,240,000.00 $49.90 $24,369,370.00 $1,009,086.08 $2 467 700.00 $75 456.27 $487,960.00 ($5,228.52 $258,480.00 $13,658.11 $717,030.00 $9,132.54 $159170.00 $67 964.37 $648, 130.00 ($67 391.77 $1,091,500.00 $164 812.15 $492,830.00 $81,722.05 $606,560.00 ($156,768.79 $5 291,300.00 ($284,047.89 $194,360.00 ($65,980.87 $252,480.00 ($15,438.66 $12,250.00 ($11,252.87 $12 679,750.00 ($193,361.681 $586,600.00 $125,965.82 $712,880.00 $74,669.94 $5,030.00 $1, 195.~0 $1,304,410.00 $201 83-1.26 $38,353,530.00 $916 413.8!:I $393 116.00 1$456,886.02 ,,, 0 0 (1 ...... 0 0 .c: u V) 0::: ....l ~ C) (0 0 00 ,..-.. ,- ...... 0, ,, \u0026gt;..,\u0026lt;:: ., C) \"\" .......... ,,, C) ' .... \"', -' 0 ,I .. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJEC~IO S 1sss-2000 l i~ OPERAT ING BUDGET 1995-98 1996-97 I 1997-98 SALARY (01), OPERATING (01), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE (4) PROJECTION PROJECTION,/ ,, PROJECTION TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $38,748,680.00 $38 379 566.00 $38,965,282.00 EXPENDITURES Salaries $28 555 600.00 $28 326 700.00 $28,769,000.00 Beneflls $3,315,200.00 $3,342 700.00 $3 411,600.00 Tuition $1,240,000.00 $1,264,800.00 $1 290 100.00 Services $2 217,960.0il $2 101 000.00 $2,144,000.00 SuDclles , $1 377,470.00 $1,305,000.00 $1,333,000.00 Equipment $97 280.00 $99:200.00 $101,200.00 Insurance/Other $245 610.00 $250 500.00 $255,500.00 Debt Service $1,304 410.00 $1 330 500.00 $1,357 000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $38,353 530.00 $38,020 400.00 $38,661 400.00 ENDING BALANCE $393150.00 $359, 166.00 $303,882.00 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $3 268,980.00 $3,334 278.00 $3,380,000.00 EXPENDITURES Salaries $1 997,520.00 $2,067 400.00 $2 300 000.00 Benefits $583 460.00 $595100.00 $660,000.00 Services $371 960.00 $375 000.00 $40,000.00 Suoclies $177 940.00 $185 000.00 $240,000.00 Eaulnment $60,425.00 $61 600.00 $75,000.00 Other $40490.00 $40 600.00 $48,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3 231 795.00 $3 324.700.00 $3 363 000.00 ENDING BALANCE $37,1115.00 $9 578.00 $17 000.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY (051 BEGINNING BALANCE $24 840.00 $5440.00 $45,440.00 REVENUE $1, 1311,600.00 $1 240 000.00 $1,280,000.00 EXPENDITURES $1159,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1 310 000.00 ENDING BALANCE $5440.00 $45 440.00 $15,440.00 BUILDING (031/BOND 110) FUNDS BEGINNING BALANCES $983,472.00 $1,058,472.00 $888,472.00 REVENUE $3,300,000.00 $30 000.00 $35,000.00 EXPENDITURES $3.225,000.00 $200 000.00 $0.00 ENDING BALANCE $1.058,472.00 $888 472.00 $923,472.00 -96- 1998-99 1999-2000 PROJECTION PROJECTION $39,541,798.00 $40,133 614.00 $29150,000.00 $29 540,000.()0 $3,500 800.00 $3 572,600.0U $1,315.900.00 $1,342,200.00 $2,195,100.00 $2,241 ooo.oo $1 371,600.00 $1,400,000.00 $103,000.00 $100,100.00 $260,600.00 $265,900.00 $1,394 000.00 $1,400,000.00 $39,291,000.00 $39 881,800.00 $250 798.00 $271 814.00 $3,447 600.00 $3,585,500.00 $2,346,000.00 $2 439,800.00 $673 200.00 $686 700.00 $41,000.00 $43,000.00 $245 000.00 $260 000.00 $90,000.00 $92,000.00 $49,000.00 $50100.00 S3 444 200.00 $3 571 600.00 $3,400.00 $13 900.00 $15 440.00 $1 240.00 $1,305,800.00 $1,332,960.00 $1 320,000.00 $1 330,000.00 $1,240.00 $4,200.00 $923,472.00 $865472.00 $42,000.00 $50 000.00 $100 000.00 S150 000.00 $865 472.00 $765,472.00 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1995-96 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96A NNUALB UDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Boardo f DirectorsS, uperintendent REc~~'.1.r=\"l f-1,:,,nJ . J\u0026gt;t.l,'v\u0026lt;V'J\u0026lt;,-, 11:na..., , II II 2 1t 1995 O fficeo f DesegregatiMono nitoring and Assistant Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES RevenueG raph. ............................................................. 2 ExpenditureG raph .......................................................... 3 Revenuea nd Expend\"rture- sO peratingC, apitalO Jtlay, Building/Bonda,n d FederalP rograms ........................................... 4 Revenue- C)peratingB udget. ................................................... 5 Expenditure-s OperatingB udget ............................................... 6 Revenuea nd Expenditure-s FederalP rograms ...................................... 7 EXPENDITUREFSO RS ALARYO, PERATIONSA ND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Expenditurebs y Function. ...................................................... 8 Expenditurebs y Function'Object ................................................ 15 Expenditurebs y Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 , EXPENDITUREFSO RF EDERALP ROGRAMS Expenditurebs y Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Expenditurebs y FunctiorvObject. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Expenditurebs y Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 FIVE-YEARR EVENUEA ND EXPENDITURPER OJECTIONS RevenueP rojections- 1995-2CXX). ............................................. 95 ExpenditureP rojections- 1995-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 BUDGET NOTES BudgeNt otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 SALARY SCHEDULES Adrrinistrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 OassifiedE .rrl\u0026gt;loyees.. ..................................................... 101 PROGRAMA NALYSIS Second Lien Bond Issue ..................................................... 104 The BementaryI nterventioana ssroom Project .................................... 107 AlternativeE ducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISlRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Marty Moore, President Lany Shadid, Vice President Teresa Burl, Secretary Pat Blackstone Lynn Hamilton Mable Mitchell Louella Thomas James R Smith, Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Bobby Acklin - Desegregation Bobby New - Instruction Donald Watkins - Business Services -1- REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE STATE REVENUE $21,615,670 52% 1995-1996 LOCAL REVENUE $17,280,730 41% FEDERAL REVENUE $2,950,300 7% TOTAL REVENUE = $41,846,700 -2- NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES ... SALARIES $30,552,120 1995-1996 DEBT SERVICE $1,304,410 INSURANCE/OTHER $286,100 CAPITAL OUTLAY $1,316,700 SUPPLIES $1,555,410 SERVICES $2,721,920 TUITION $1,048,000 BENEFITS $3,958,660 TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $42,743,320 -3- NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 OPERA TING BUDGET SALARIES (01), 0 PERA TING (02), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE (04) TOTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITU~ BALANCE - Salaries Benefits Tuition Services ~upplies Eql!_i_pment Insurance/0th Debt Service TOTAL EXPEN - er DITURES ENDING BALANCE -- FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE EXPENDITURES - Salaries Benefits Services --- Supplies - Eauioment - Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE CAPITAL OUTLAY (051 BEGINNING BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE BUILDING (O3)/BOND (101 FUNDS BEGINNING BALANCES REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED \u0026gt;--- $34,680,190.72 $36,953,926.81 $36,827,843.00 $24,654,619.76 $26,962,188.71 $27,243,645.00 $2,624,924.22 $2,841,125.27 $3,155,386.00 $1,067,374.16 $1,229,399.42 $1,065,000.00 $2,159,022.38 $2,420,129.61 $2,482,594.00 $1,244,849.46 $1,379,589.79 $1,157,982.00 $218,292.93 $164,833.43 $129,754.00 $256,304.01 $38,320.48 $306,538.00 $789,841.15 $1,188,769.94 $1,105,970.00 $33,015,228.07 $36,224,356.65 $36,646,869.00 $1,664,962.65 $729,570.16 $180,974.00 $3,560,377.92 $3,596,093.54 $3,641,169.00 $1,644,091.99 $1,967,932.83 $2,014 031.00 $441 367.07 $539,817.68 $596 338.00 $472,493.90 $421,038.73 $407,002.00 $371,965.64 $205,874.02 $228,831.00 $206,103.77 $115,140.30 $216,712.00 $42,809.42 $40,626.02 $49,077.00 $3,178,831.79 $3,290,429.58 $3,511,991.00 $381,546.13 $305,663.96 $129,178.00 $185,463.62 $34,828.03 $1,882.00 $391,650.75 $389,503.75 $385,000.00 $542,286.34 $422,449.14 $382,195.00 $34,828.03 $1,882.64 $4,687.00 $1,027,013.50 $3,277,801.44 $1,321,857.00 $4,012,465.94 $168,411.99 $50,000.00 $1,761,678.00 $2,124,355.78 $500,000.00 $3,277,801.44 $1,321,857.65 $871,857.00 -4- 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ACTUAL BUDGETED CHANGE $37,287,118.13 $38,746,676.00 $1,459,557.87 $27,863,295.15 $28,555,600.00 $692,304.85 $3,258,713.98 $3,315,200.00 $56 486.02 $1,079,536.15 $1,078,000.00 ($1,536.15 $2,423,090.83 $2,379,960.00 ($43,130.83 $1,356,006.55 $1,377,470.00 $21,463.45 $132,412.08 $97,280.00 ($35,132.08 $221,482.63 $245,610.00 $24,127.37 $1,102,578.74 $1,304,410.00 $201,831.26 $37,437,116.11 $38,353,530.00 $916,413.89 $850,002.02 $393,146.00 ($456,856.02 $3,660,124.78 $3,268,978.00 ($391,146.78 $2,022,586.80 $1,997 520.00 ($25,066.80 $565,991.45 $583,460.00 $17 468.55 $416,207.75 $371,960.00 ($44,247.75 $171,185.15 $177,940.00 $6,754.85 $188,975.14 $60,425.00 ($128,550.14 $12,494.75 $40,490.00 $27,995.25 $3,377,441.04 $3,231,795.00 ($145,646.04 $282,683.74 $37,183.00 ($245,500.74 $1,882.64 $24,840.00 $22,957.36 $724,080.73 $1,139,600.00 $415,519.27 $701,122.98 $1,159,000.00 $457,877.02 $24,840.39 $5,440.00 ($19,400.39 $1,321,829.65 $983,472.00 ($338,357.65 $79,533.42 $3,300,000.00 $3,220,466.58 $417,890.93 $3,225,000.00 $2,807,109.07 $983,472.14 $1,058,472.00 $74,999.86 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE 1992-1996 OPERATING BUDGET 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 SALAJlY (01), OPERATING (02), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE (0) ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL BEGINNING BALANCE $533,896.92 $1,664,962.00 $729,570.00 $729,570.21 REVENUE, LOCAL Property Taxes $8,463,731.24 $8,514,794.30 $8,320,000.00 $8,519 142.54 40% Pullback $2 659 432.57 $3,289 950.09 $3 250 000.00 $3,877 785.03 40% Pullback (Accrued) $1 584 228.23 $869 400.91 $1 000,000.00 $994,735.19 Dellnquent Taxes $960,646.26 $1,203,584.16 $1,150,000.00 $1 038,918.05 Excess Commissions $31,612.84 $30,561.43 $30,000.00 $31,760.13 Land Redemption $92,073.43 $102,947.89 $100,000.00 $108,438.36 Tuition - Summer School $66,435.00 $91,076.02 $85,000.00 $103,522.25 Interest $144,538.58 $119,250.61 $110,000.00 $183,818.62 Pupll Activltv Sales $56,616.18 $55,259.04 $50,000.00 $58,036.05 Rent and Miscellaneous $131,122.06 $126, 125.88 $118,300.00 $147,324.48 Desegregation - Sec. VIII.C - LR $283,862.40 $345,000.00 $360,806.72 Deseareaation - Sec. VIII.C - PCSSD $94,620.79 $115,000.00 $120,268.90 Tuition - PCSSD $96,047.54 $117,254.41 $110,000.00 $130 367.43 County General and Severance Tax $35,830.83 $35 369.94 $32,219.00 $49,731.43 TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $14,322,314.76 $14,934,057.87 $14 815 519.00 $15 724 655.18 REVENUE STATE MFPA $16 096 402.01 $16 733 932.00 $17 693 840.00 $17 951 462.00 State Armortlonment/Workers' Compensation $28,479.49 $141,500.00 $138 524.10 Transportation Aid $513,002.00 $537,899.00 $582,575.00 $585, 122.00 M-to-M Incentive $1,131,696.00 $1,034,620.00 $1,030,000.00 $1,065,124.00 Comoensatorv Education $251,557.04 $382,057.01 $365,000.00 $311,598.01 Special Education Suoervlsor $67,150.00 $67,150.00 $67150.00 $67.150.00 Act 591 Residential $26,957.82 $41,246.75 $35,000.00 $35,029.81 Soeclal Education Preschool $156,202.00 $321,255.00 $287,638.00 $339 588.00 Vocational Education $80,435.96 $24,802.34 $28 562.00 $27 842.84 ABC Preschool $274,585.00 $234, 116.00 $234, 116.00 $234,116.00 Desegregation - Sec. VIII.B $389,025.00 $389,025.00 $289,025.00 $389 025.00 Deseareaatlon - Sec. VIII.C $455,368.81 $57,082.32 Magnet/M-to-M Transportation $260 337.00 $271 430.00 $275,000.00 $275 000.00 Other State $36 039.95 $177 074.21 $127 648.00 $172,750.00 Public Law 874 and Other $22 762.00 $25 665.00 $75 700.00 $72 608.43 MFPA - LAKESIDE $135137.85 TOTAL STATE AND UNRESTRICTED FEDERAL REVENUE $19,790,000.08 $20 297,154.63 $21 232,754.00 $21,800 075.84 1ufAL LOCAL, COUNI T, ::\n1A1t: AND UNRESTRICTED FEDERAL REVENUE I ,~.112,Ji.J.8411 135,m ,212.5011 IJil,048,273.0011 l3'7,s24,73U211 '\"UNl'tr:VENUE Rr- -\"'~ I\n:, l:SAl.r-.\u0026gt;. INSUR , - - ,Mil\u0026gt;~.) $55,264.44 ~lU,fllll.21 $5,uuu.oo TRANSFERS TO/FROM OTHER FUNDS I ($21,285.48 $48 963.10 $45,000.00 $32,818.90 ~t\u0026lt;AND IUfAL --,..!!:,NUN-REVENUE, II I BALANCES AND I+ OR -1 TRANSFERS I 134,680,190.72! 138,953,926.81 II 136,827,843.0011 138,287,118.1311 -5- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $850,000.00 $120,429.79 $9,359,000.00 $839,857.46 $4 000,000.00 $122,214.97 $875 000.00 ($119 735.19 $1,050,000.00 $11,081.95 $30,000.00 ($1,760.13 $100,000.00 ($8,438.36 $99,000.00 ($4,522.25 $110,000.00 ($73,818.62 $55,000.00 ($3,036.05 $103,000.00 ($44,324.48 $155,750.00 ($205,056.72 $51,920.00 ($68,348.90 $120,000.00 ($10,367.43 $32465.00 1$17 286.43 $16 141135.00 $416 479.82 $18 135 100.00 $183 638.00 $140 000.00 $1 475.90 $585,000.00 ($122.00 $1,100 000.00 $34,876.00 $270,000.00 ($41 598.01 $67,150.00 $0.00 $35,000.00 ($29.81 $356,000.00 $16,414.00 $18,000.00 ($9 842.84 $234, 118.00 $0.00 $389,025.00 $0.00 $275 000.00 $0.00 $40,000.00 ($132 750.00 $71150.00 ($1,458.43 ($135 137 .85 $21,715,541.00 ($84 534.84 131,i!iil,67il.i!i!II 1m,!i44.!lil s10,uuu.oo $10,uuu.OO $30 000.00 ($2,818.90 13\u0026amp;,74\u0026amp;,67\u0026amp;.0011 ~69,557.871 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 OPERA TING BUDGET 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 SALARY (01), OPERATING (02), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCES $34,680,190.72 $36,953,926.81 $36,827,843.00 $38,342,715.66 SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES 1ADMINISTRA TORS $2,389,830.04 $2,790,319.05 $2,803,200.00 $2,851,452.52 TEACHERS $16,842,870.86 $18,069,269.74 $18,453,600.00 $18,369,424.17 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS $341,415.27 $378,002.30 $381,000.00 $353,107.00 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARIES $19,574,116.17 $21,237,591.09 $21,637,800.00 $21,573,983.69 FRINGE BENEFITS $524,031.13 $537,924.71 $458,550.00 $546,350.13 TUITION $1,067,374.16 $1,179,221.54 $1,117,000.00 $1,239,950.10 TOTAL SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES $21,165,521.46 $22,954,737.34 $23,213,350.00 $23,360 283.92 OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES REGULAR PROGRAMS $1,627,825.45 $1,860,739.59 $2, 163,030.00 $2,392,243.73 SPECIAL EDUCATION $327 404.86 $440,823.23 $454,645.00 $493, 188.52 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $319,065.38 $271,186.29 $265,321.00 $244,821.89 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $782 927.75 $790 763.62 $776,554.00 $707,897.46 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $82,727.23 $92,761.70 $137 920.00 $91 205.63 PUPIL SUPPORT $466,769.73 $635,801.50 $651,325.00 $715,521.77 STAFF SUPPORT $795,427.64 $910,551.76 $1,044,198.00 $926,687.85 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $449,835.91 $445,226.59 $453,280.00 $411107.95 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE $629,564.22 $709,199.75 $756,527.00 $763 326.79 BUSINESS SUPPORT $5,160, 194.84 $5,445,349.38 $5 143,269.00 $5,630,945.42 CENTRAL SUPPORT $186,702.32 $212 485.65 $204,830.00 $260,340.87 OTHER SUPPORT $225,795.64 $250,598.39 $263, 150.00 $267 918.66 NON-BOND/NON-PROGRAM/COMMUNITY $5,604.29 $15,361.93 $13 500.00 $23,502.87 TO. TAL OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES $11 059,865.46 $12,080,849.38 $12,327,549.00 $12 928 709.41 DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES PRINCIPAL $224,285.46 $474 843.71 $463,005.00 $460,534.18 INTEREST $564,799.49 $709 800.03 $638 935.00 $638,210.06 FISCAL FEES $756.20 $4126.20 $4,030.00 $3,834.50 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES $789,841.15 $1,188 769.94 $1105,970.00 $1102,578.74 CERTIFIED SALARIES  LAKESIDE CASE $101.141.57 TOTAL SALARY, OPERATING AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS EXPENDITURES $33 015,228.07 $36 224,356.66 $36,646 869.00 $37,492,713.64 ENDING BALANCES $1 664,962.65 $729,570.15 $180,974.00 $850 002.02 -6- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $38,746,646.00 $403,930.34 $2,850,490.00 ($962.52 $19,279,550.00 $910,125.83 $373,000.00 $19,893.00 $22,503,040.00 $929,056.31 $626,330.00 $79,979.87 $1,290,000.00 $50,049.90 $24,419,370.00 $1 059,086.08 $2,467,700.00 $75,456.27 $487,960.00 ($5,228.52' $258,480.00 $13,658.11 $717 030.00 $9,132.64 $159 170.00 $67,964.37 $648, 130.00 ($67,391.77 $1 091,500.00 $164,812.15 $492,830.00 $81,722.05 $606 560.00 ($156,766.79 $5,241,300.00 ($389 645.42 $194,360.00 ($65 980.87 $252,480.00 ($15438.66 $12,250.00 ($11 252.87 $12,629,750.00 ($298 959.41 $586,500.00 $125,965.82 $712,880.00 $74 669.94 $5,030.00 $1195.50 $1 304 410.00 $201,831.26 $38,353,530.00 $860,816.36 $393, 116.00 ($456 886.02' NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 FEDERAL GRANTS 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL BEGINNING BALANCES $392,286.73 $370,093.99 $305,750.00 $305,750.40 REVENUE EVEN START $125,578.00 $122,396.00 $116,110.00 $116,100.00 CHAPTER 1 $1,691,172.00 $1,593,471.00 $1,860,625.00 $1,842,953.00 CHAPTER 2 $73,515.00 $65,593.00 $59,791.00 $59,791.00 MEDICAID $39,619.78 $68,819.89 $45,000.00 $46,644.88 SP ED PRESCHOOL !SECTION 619 AND ECCi $354,585.00 $396,305.00 $471,234.00 $474,913.00 HEAD START $48,646.00 $71,325.00 $48,180.00 $48,181.00 TITLE VI-B $309,238.00 $319,554.00 $345,912.00 $345, 162.00 P.L. 89-313 $21,704.00 $18,410.00 $15,168.00 $16,818.00 HOMELESS ASSISTANCE $21,000.00 $21,875.00 $21,000.00 $18,539.00 JTPA $114,151.39 $199,660.66 $109,295.00 $99,305.50 CARL PERKINS VOCATIONAL AID $134,578.12 $148,911.00 $147,209.00 $147,209.00 EISENHOWER MATH/SCIENCE $42,740.00 $22,000.00 $62,421.00 $51,216.00 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION $92,818.00 $85,230.00 $54,494.00 $54,494.00 EXXON ENERGY $39 705.00 $82,627.00 $47 950.00 $33,048.00 OTHER $59,040.00 $9,822.00 TOTAL REVENUE $3,168,090.29 $3,225,999.55 $3,404,389.00 $3,354,374.38 TOTAL F EDERAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $3,560,377.02 $3,596,093.54 $3,710,139.00 $3,660,124.78 EXPENDITURES REGULAR PROGRAMS $32,270.60 $27,126.04 $29,325.00 $18,165.28 SPECIAL EDUCATION $457,219.61 $412,930.10 $389,342.00 $502,151.30 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $163,807.83 $213,678.55 $146,747.00 $165,387.97 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $1,355,723.69 $1,672,116.72 $1,921,279.00 $1 709,768.60 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $14,738.70 $12,578.27 $0.00 $14,710.88 PUPIL SUPPORT $441,017.06 $395,686.85 $504,917.00 $520,868.20 STAFF SUPPORT $420,312.43 $445 465.77 $396 354.00 $367 499.03 BUSINESS SUPPORT $121,729.51 $34,328.37 $39,010.00 $42 286.04 OTHER/CENTRAL SUPPORT $28,799.11 $23,798.02 $17,500.00 $17 750.35 NON-PROGRAMMED $41,954.42 $39,576.02 $46,017.00 $10 000.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES $101,258.83 $13,146.87 $22,500.00 $18,853.39 TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES $3 178,831.79 $3,290,429.68 $3,611,991.00 $3,377 441.04 ENDING BALANCE $381,545.23 $306,663.96 $198,148.00 $282,683.74 -7- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $282,683.00 ($23,067.40 $116,100.00 $0.00 $1,623,000.00 ($219,953.00 $77,588.00 $17,797.00 $50,000.00 $3,355.12 $444,899.00 ($30 014.00 $58,410.00 $10,229.00 $353,100.00 $7,938.00 $0.00 ($16,818.00 $17,000.00 ($1,539.00 $0.00 ($99,305.50 $140,043.00 {$7166.00 $51,205.00 1$11.00 $40,000.00 ($14,494.00 $14 950.00 ($18 098.00' $0.00 $2,986,295.00 ($368.079.38 $3,268,978.00 ($391,146.78 $21,160.00 $2,994.72 $482,150.00 ($20 001.30 $162,485.00 ($2,902.97 $1,620 770.00 {$88 998.60 $8,700.00 ($6 010.88 $480,840.00 ($40 028.20 $348,376.00 ($9,124.03 $40,166.00 ($2121.04 $20,670.00 $2,819.66 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $16,580.00 {$2 273.39 $3,231,795.00 ($145,646.04 $37,183.00 ($245,600.74 EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION\nOBJECT\nAND FUNCTION/OBJECT FOR SALARY (01) OPERATING (02) AND DEBT SERVICE (04) Fund Fnct 01 1000 02 1105 01 1110 02 1110 01 1120 02 1120 02 1121 02 1122 02 1123 02 1124 01 1130 02 1130 02 1131 02 1132 02 1133 02 1134 02 1135 02 1136 02 1137 02 1139 01 1140 02 1140 02 1141 02 1142 02 1143 02 1144 02 1145 02 1146 North Little Roel~ Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01): Ooeratimi (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 INSTRUCTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRESCHOOL 119,761.99 170,817.77 129,944.00 KINDERGARTEN 1,125,722.30 1,084,841.48 1,118,200.00 KINDERGARTEN 93,805.50 98,542.71 102,005.00 ELEMENTARY 4,942,200.72 5,352,864.41 5,195,500.00 ELEMENTARY 513,465.65 559,819.76 798,303.00 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 2,451.76 4,285.45 1,000.00 LANGUAGE ARTS ~ 21.57 0.00 0.00 MATHEMATICS 556.76 0.00 0.00 SCIENCE 72.22 0.00 0.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,025,258.66 2,354,532.83 2,421,600.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL 253,749.33 296,486.86 374,637.00 MUSIC 934.71 8,805.50 12,297.00 LANGUAGE ARTS 1,197.49 1,139.79 1,483.00 MATHEMATICS 1,598.93 6,548.26 6,111.00 SCIENCE 3,633.06 2,303.78 2,748.00 SOCIAL STUDIES 716.89 1,056.22 1,030.00 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 81.61 0.00 0.00 ART 1,707.73 1,483.84 2,680.00 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 721.13 387.13 1,405.00 HIGH SCHOOL 3,426,737.10 3,679,926.22 3,700,700.00 HIGH SCHOOL 329,844.19 410,072.03 579,278.00 MUSIC 56,440.14 19,237.04 19,450.00 LANGUAGE ARTS 1,154.39 1,036.71 1,600.00 MATHEMATICS 7,228.82 863.68 1,400.00 SCIENCE 2,811.59 3,045.56 3,700.00 SOCIAL STUDIES 917.14 1,387.56 1,250.00 SPEECH AND DRAMA 353.19 0.00 400.00 Page: 8 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 11,857.62 122,038.81 93.92% 1,157,672.93 103.53% 107,420.26 105.31% 5,216,809.35 100.41% 624,057.84 78.17% 1,973.87 197.39% 0.00 14,625.59 0.00 2,332,390.81 96.32% 311,421.98 83.13% 11,450.31 93.11% 934.85 63.04% 1,914.59 31.33% 2,638.19 96.00% 871.38 84.60% 0.00 3,648.32 136.13% 824.90 58.71% 3,793,052.15 102.50% 507,923.99 87.68% 16,707.68 85.90% 1,644.67 102.79% 1,730.82 123.63% 7,527.70 203.45% 1,515.80 121.26% 88.10 22.03% Fund Fnct 02 1147 02 1148 02 1149 02 1150 02 1151 02 1152 02 1153 02 1160 02 1161 02 1162 02 1166 02 1191 02 1192 02 1193 02 1194 02 1195 01 1199 02 1199 01 1210 02 1210 01 1215 02 1215 01 1220 02 1220 02 1230 01 1240 02 1240 01 1250 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01): Operatine (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budgel ART 2,854.22 2,687.48 1,700.00 RADIO/TV 2,029.62 0.00 0.00 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 587.40 416.10 500.00 ATHLETICS 922.50 21,993.61 21,500.00 BOYS ATHLETICS 48,525.33 48,428.68 54,750.00 GIRLS ATHLETICS 19,121.21 14,532.51 22,000.00 COMBINED ATHLETICS 8,292.74 16,304.51 19,800.00 STUDENT ACTIVITIES .. 0.00 7,051.09 5,500.00 CHEER 2,964.59 11,786.45 8,110.00 DRILL 1,875.46 0.00 7,800.00 CHOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUMMER SCHOOL 89,059.92 93,393.39 233,855.00 DRIVER EDUCATION 18,601.08 19,315.86 22,200.00 MINI GRANTS 4,630.44 4,494.03 5,000.00 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 29,669.41 27,905.27 32,852.00 SATURDAY DETENTION 5,465.74 5,110.96 6,675.00 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 0.00 0.00 83,300.00 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 ITINERANT/HOME BOUND 75,015.07 78,925.33 81,250.00 ITINERANT/HOME BOUND 5,786.21 7,995.42 9,250.00 VISION IMPAIRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 VISION IMPAIRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 RESOURCE ROOM 1,164,399.94 1,535,149.75 1,580,000.00 RESOURCE ROOM 88,209.13 116,962.39 134,885.00 SPECIAL CLASS 1: 15 5,832.17 0.00 0.00 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/BA 659,049.10 529,506.64 545,000.00 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/BA 49,077.48 57,708.52 67,135.00 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 188,085.82 179,976.77 185,500.00 Page: 9 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 647.38 38.08% 0.00 487.69 97.54% 5,576.70 25.94% 49,672.17 90.73% 19,802.80 90.01% 18,815.44 95.03% 889.40 16.17% 6,225.99 76.77% 6,803.99 87.23% 593.76 254,587.18 108.87% 21,611.61 97.35% 4,585.06 91.70% 35,906.77 109.30% 4,620.20 69.22% 74,845.42 89.85% 36,291.49 93,483.12 115.06% 8,018.66 86.69% 26,043.96 2,163.94 1,908,256.00 120.78% 159,613.16 118.33% 0.00 375,754.39 68.95% 79,040.09 117.73% 90,131.85 48.59% Fund Fnct 02 1250 01 1260 02 1260 02 1271 02 1272 01 1280 02 1280 02 1285 02 1290 01 1320 02 1320 01 1330 02 1330 01 1350 02 1350 01 1352 02 1352 02 1354 02 1355 01 1360 02 1360 01 1370 02 1370 02 1380 01 1390 02 1390 02 1510 02 1520 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01) Ooeratirn:\u0026gt;' (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budget SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 28,486.45 29,362.68 42,400.00 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 0.00 63,001.89 25,000.00 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 ACT 591 HANDICAPPED, RESI 8,629.20 11,066.61 10,000.00 ACT 591, NON-HANDICAPPED 17,571.13 30,291.27 25,000.00 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 130,713.72 136,403.28 140,400.00 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 12,889.62 13,080.51 21,150.00 BARING CROSS WORK PROG\" 0.00 12,489.12 12,425.00 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANDICA 108,711.27 161,866.71 269,000.00 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 80,524.69 86,127.89 88,700.00 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 10,733.13 10,733.83 9,969.00 BUSINESS EDUCATION 366,005.06 391,647.97 396,500.00 BUSINESS EDUCATION 68,227.45 66,084.40 81,793.00 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 259,903.38 278,527.46 282,000.00 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 77,329.25 67,949.63 64,267.00 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLOG 63,137.94 67,499.54 69,700.00 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLOG 33,933.71 6,026.53 7,900.00 TELEVISION PRODUCTION 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 TELEVISION PRODUCTION 0.00 0.00 13,500.00 HOME EC 286,119.03 282,091.81 291,000.00 HOME EC 34,395.05 39,782.80 42,119.00 CAREER ORIENTATION 48,449.20 53,913.34 55,600.00 CAREER ORIENTATION 9,231.33 6,264.81 10,840.00 WORKPLACE READINESS 0.00 4,546.77 1,000.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 363,105.62 350,815.36 362,000.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 71,257.64 69,797.52 47,433.00 BASIC SKILLS 0.00 4,362.79 4,087.00 DROPOUT PREVENTION 19,931.81 14,738.08 15,720.00 Page: 10 94-95 Percent 01 Expenses Exp/Bud 23,964.83 56.52% 134,879.95 539.52% 0.00 12,051.54 120.52% 23,008.67 92.03% 154,081.04 109.74% 17,969.60 84.96% 14,393.61 115.84% 157,867.98 58.69% 44,764.32 50.47% 5,416.72 54.34% 409,517.76 103.28% 95,956.86 117.32% 238,423.78 84.55% 40,097.07 62.39% 69,801.48 100.15% 6,562.25 83.07% 0.00 12,872.96 95.36% 295,346.14 101.49% 38,039.87 90.32% 78,639.47 141.44% 12,857.78 118.61% 316.35 31.64% 345,306.96 95.39% 41,452.17 87.39% 2,353.97 57.60% 14,565.54 92.66% Fund 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 02 02 01 02 01 02 01 Fnct 1522 1525 1550 1560 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1910 1910 1911 1911 1912 1913 1990 2101 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatini,t (2) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 11,798.37 10,328.44 13,350.00 ALTERNATIVE ED PROGRAMS 223,574.19 229,784.31 318,815.00 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 124,898.65 120,760.93 128,647.00 READING 0.00 79,685.61 69,030.00 OTHER COMP ED 152,333.13 167,730.99 133,325.00 COMPEDPARENTIHOMEWOR 115,841.03 109,134.13 90,018.00 COMP ED ELE EXTEND DAY 29,957.18 499.93 0.00 COMP ED TURNING POINT ' 42,826.09 42,771.43 43,900.00 COMP ED PALS LAB 58,295.09 10,966.98 0.00 GIFTED AND TALENTED 405,353.20 390,136.80 401,900.00 GIFTED AND TALENTED 67,758.57 49,117.85 74,381.00 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 2,424.63 7,624.89 10,150.00 GIT SUMMER QUEST 2,675.74 16,200.52 23,400.00 GIT MATHEMATICS 7,149.61 19,818.44 23,200.00 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL SER\\I 2,718.68 0.00 0.00 54,612.91 0.00 0.00 2102 * 166,860.00 0.00 0.00 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK SEV 15,669.53 69,798.26 51,450.00 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELING SER 843,592.20 905,111.89 932,000.00 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELING SER 170,218.18 177,093.39 191,500.00 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 14,044.28 12,833.53 21,700.00 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 86,756.63 92,450.67 97,800.00 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES 158,965.08 174,376.81 179,700.00 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES 69,707.68 78,503.21 66,825.00 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY S 387,373.48 389,677.14 401,100.00 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY S 71,168.22 169,571.20 34,800.00 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 62,688.24 61,774.94 71,200.00 Page: 11 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 1,279.18 9.58% 325,845.46 102.21% 111,647.56 86.79% 76,210.95 110.40% 150,500.16 112.88% 75,868.38 84.28% 0.00 33,646.05 76.64% 0.00 378,380.58 94.15% 54,017.06 72.62% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 22,932.72 98.00% 18,027.89 77.71% 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,304.30 97.77% 919,726.65 98.68% 189,001.54 98.70% 15,519.97 71.52% 104,196.23 106.54% 152,138.13 84.66% 74,304.74 111.19% 359,791.83 89.70% 205,918.58 591.72% 71,362.96 100.23% Fund 02 01 02 02 02 01 02 02 01 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 02 02 02 01 02 01 02 01 02 01 02 01 Fnct 2160 2190 2190 2193 2195 2210 2210 2211 2215 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2220 2225 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatine (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budqel PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 4,686.25 23,806.74 6,000.00 OTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SERV 0.00 0.00 62,200.00 OTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SERV 34,518.96 4,230.33 35,250.00 NATL SCIENCE FOUND GRAN 0.00 7,514.17 0.00 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CLAS 0.00 0.00 0.00 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISION 415,391.85 555,826.07 572,000.00 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISION 358,615.51 432,415.69 468,329.00 INSTRUCTION COE/NCA ' 4,112.74 4,788.47 10,200.00 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 13,987.57 29,875.38 30,900.00 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 6,349.67 7,934.50 8,600.00 CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK 18.80 585.01 0.00 CELEBRATION OF TEACHING 0.00 1,058.82 0.00 INSERVICE-ADE CURRICULUM 15,138.45 37,371.68 75,000.00 INSERVICE-ADE READING 3,087.45 1,024.26 16,160.00 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVICES 587,960.59 583,299.87 600,500.00 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVICES 389,728.15 393,832.93 524,555.00 INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTER 18,376.87 31,540.40 33,120.00 2295 * 3,432.93 0.00 0.00 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVI 256,980.24 232,666.92 250,000.00 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 84,204.50 90,110.93 92,800.00 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 64,552.63 71,545.48 81,000.00 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 56,890.69 61,420.65 63,400.00 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 28,456.94 31,254.60 33,500.00 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINESS SERVI 55,764.93 60,260.25 62,100.00 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINESS SERVI 28,921.34 32,146.80 35,480.00 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SERVICES 55,925.22 60,260.38 0.00 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SERVICES 30,917.11 32,046.62 250.00 2324 ASST SUPT DESEGREGATION 52,149.08 56,351.85 58,050.00 Page: 12 94-95 Percent of Expenses Exp/Bud 49,993.75 833.23% 51,327.62 82.52% 49,058.36 139.17% 0.00 30,625.29 638,940.43 111.70% 462,805.31 98.82% 1,558.73 15.28% 15,417.75 49.90% 14,164.43 164.70% 0.00 0.00 22,969.44 30.63% 2,882.83 17.84% 572,554.59 95.35% 409,280.82 78.02% 17,326.04 52.31% 0.00 234,918.27 93.97% 94,041.52 101.34% 61,625.21 76.08% 65,456.68 103.24% 32,766.13 97.81% 61,528.15 99.08% 33,486.67 94.38% 9,871.22 5,081.49 2032.60% 56,272.34 96.94-% Fund Fnct 02 2324 01 2400 02 2400 01 2401 02 2401 01 2410 02 2410 02 2510 01 2540 02 2540 02 2541 02 2549 02 2550 02 2551 02 2555 01 2570 02 2570 02 2630 01 2640 02 2640 01 2660 02 2660 02 2900 02 2901 02 2902 02 2905 02 3900 01 4100 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01): OoeratinQ' (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses BudQe1 ASST SUPT DESEGREGATION 40,007.65 45,566.17 53,050.00 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 1,040,705.36 1,092,383.33 1,125,000.00 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 596,111.12 664,246.46 704,927.00 ASST. PRINCIPALS 0.00 0.00 610,000.00 ASST. PRINCIPALS 0.00 0.00 51,600.00 ASST PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 449,509.91 592,413.59 0.00 ASST PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 33,473.10 44,953.29 0.00 BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVIC 104,622.58 113,937.05 120,500.00 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SERVICES 55,794.93 60,298.41 62,150.00 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SERVICES 3,873,345.31 1,488,145.08 1,144,950.00 M \u0026amp; O-CUSTODIAL SERVICES 0.00 1,241,626.19 1,320,600.00 M \u0026amp; 0 UTILITIES \u0026amp; INSUR 0.00 1,428,033.30 1,468,675.00 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SER 1,121,656.19 1,050,789.35 1,032,330.00 MECHANICS 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAGNET/M-TO-M TRANSP. 0.00 31,619.12 16,064.00 INTERNAL SERVICES 55,795.01 60,298.53 62,150.00 INTERNAL SERVICES 60,570.76 91,199.29 45,150.00 INFORMATION SERVICES 35,111.12 35,494.94 13,000.00 PERSONNEL SERVICES 55,794.96 60,298.41 62,150.00 PERSONNEL SERVICES 31,535.66 36,929.52 39,100.00 DATA PROCESSING SERVICE 45,833.07 48,590.49 50,100.00 DATA PROCESSING SERVICE 120,055.54 140,061.19 152,730.00 OTHER SUPPORTING SERVIC 890.00 2,718.67 1,000.00 CROSSING GUARDS 0.00 56,271.57 59,000.00 BREAKFAST/LUNCH AIDES 0.00 187,129.87 197,850.00 VIPS 0.00 4,478.28 5,350.00 OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICE 425.33 3,108.00 4,500.00 PAYMENTS TO OTHERS 1,067,374.16 1,116,219.65 1,092,000.00 Page: 13 94-95 Percent 01 Expenses Exp/Bud 43,701.22 82.38% 1,089,182.79 96.82% 703,381.72 99.78% 629,884.45 103.26% 52,685.60 102.10% 0.00 0.00 119,373.14 99.06% 61,565.76 99.06% 1,610,805.83 140.69% 1,324,593.18 100.30% 1,137,133.52 77.43% 1,034,141.42 100.18% 236,077.16 32,757.14 203.92% 65,555.10 105.48% 81,583.01 180.69% 37,460.01 288.15% 61,565.76 99.06% 64,468.88 164.88% 49,590.96 98.98% 158,442.38 103.74% 890.00 89.00% 63,877.05 108.27% 199,195.63 100.68% 188.00 3.51% 3,589.50 79.77% 1,104,025.15 101.10% Fund Fnct 02 4400 02 4900 04 5100 04 5101 04 5102 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01): Overatinf{ (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budge! INDIRECCTO STS 3,472.21 0.00 0.00 PAYMENTTO STATE 5,178.96 12,253.92 9,000.00 BONDEDIN DEBTEDNESS 711,056.79 1,130,326.40 1,047,525.00 BONDEDINDEBTEDNES~PCS 43,619.74 23,351.50 23,350.00 BONDEDINDEBTEDNESS~R 35,164.62 35,092.04 35,095.00 DistricTt otals 33,015,228.07 36,224,356.65 37,101,267.00 Page: 14 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 8,002.46 88.92% 1,048,392.25 100.08% 18,769.85 80.38% 35,416.64 100.92% 37,288,588.95 100.50% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 01 1000 INSTRUCTION 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expendihrres by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Oneratim::f l02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,910.60 3,240.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,589.40 96,968.11 92,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 222.66 247.84 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,673.45 7,373.65 8,000.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 5,631.32 6,789.28 8,200.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 129.57 136.29 150.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, f.lON-CERT 26.21 93.48 150.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 751.00 100.00 100.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 289.41 38,346.83 16,812.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 28.00 0.00 0.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 990.59 950.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 11,204.56 3,831.24 1,450.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 100.00 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 00521 CARPET 2,556.05 373.29 0.00 00532 FENCE 1,749.00 0.00 0.00 00533 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 8,529.92 8,927.10 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,470.84 3,400.07 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,332.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,092,499.27 1,054,269.70 1,085,900.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 2,820.48 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 81,302.96 79,610.54 83,100.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 215.76 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 33,223.03 30,571.78 32,300.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 214.13 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 1,375.59 1,693.37 1,800.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 6.63 0.00 Page: 15 94-9E Percent o1 Expense~ Exp/Bud 11,857.62 0.00 90,562.18 97.91% 0.00 6,825.57 85.32% 6,410.84 78.18% 135.39 90.26% 784.99 523.33% 123.50 123.50% 7,857.64 46.74% 3,650.00 990.00 104.21% 4,498.70 310.26% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00% 1,124,931.79 103.59% 0.00 85,505.37 102.89% 0.00 32,741.14 101.37% 0.00 1,681.94 93.44% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Ooeratine' (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00260 WORKERS COMP 675.47 1,140.92 8,800.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,107.05 798.87 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,344.43 11,073.83 8,305.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 968.18 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,614,691.08 4,982,083.12 4,823,600.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 10,487.04 11,414.86 11,700.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 165,050.60 181,388.50 182,000.00 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 24,887.60 37,801.90 38,000.00 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 13,452.40 13,551.90 13,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 354,750.65 387,737.93 409,800.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,738.52 1,876.86 2,000.00 00240 IN.SURAN CE 137,571.44 145,348.39 145,700.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 830.22 856.66 900.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 6,098.60 8,088.27 8,100.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 47.77 39.74 100.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 3,025.74 5,685.59 3,600.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 17.55 25.31 300.00 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 6,242.50 6,200.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 125.00 2,245.50 0.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 342.78 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 174.08 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,193.80 6,658.43 7,115.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 643.87 0.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 650.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 24.34 168.00 420.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 51,417.18 62,845.58 68,888.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS 61,220.51 55,860.33 71,745.00 Page: 16 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bud 9,612.39 109.23% 97.10 10,523.46 126.71% 0.00 4,895,868.77 101.50% 27,651.75 236.34% 126,504.30 69.51% 50,046.30 131.70% 27,840.10 206.22% 379,590.82 92.63% 4,211.34 210.57% 140,502.48 96.43% 2,022.13 224.68% 7,622.94 94.11% 83.50 83.50% 43,963.55 1221.21% 447.42 149.14% 3,887.50 62.70% 1,398.00 3,170.62 269.03 6,681.30 93.90% 0.00 55.00 8.46% 30.63 0.00 0.00% 67,378.38 97.81% 50,815.48 70.83% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 02 1122 LANGUAGE ARTS 02 1123 MATHEMATICS 02 1124 SCIENCE 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Qperatine (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 197,810.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 163.20 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,699.05 1,740.15 1,375.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 38.00 300.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 876.30 994.66 1,000.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 9.04 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,575.46 3,281.75 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 21.57 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 556.76 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 72.22 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,908,435.80 2,203,650.99 2,269,800.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 57,039.52 60,520.08 62,300.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 49,256.07 66,864.00 67,000.00 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 11,620.50 24,185.00 24,000.00 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 6,945.10 8,338.10 8,300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 146,436.69 172,254.29 180,800.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 4,530.44 5,016.92 5,400.00 00240 INSURANCE 55,946.29 59,280.84 59,500.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,235.14 4,283.65 4,400.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 2,539.72 3,561.83 3,600.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 125.60 110.09 150.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 1,288.19 2,482.76 2,900.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 37.43 75.31 6,500.00 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 552.00 1,300.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 88.30 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 3,334.12 230.17 300.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,676.05 1,375.43 2,700.00 Page: 17 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 0.00% 0.00 825.85 60.06% 0.00 0.00% 1,177.29 117.73% 0.00 796.58 0.00 14,625.59 0.00 2,181,811.05 96.12% 65,545.66 105.21% 68,973.40 102.95% 22,019.50 91.75% 4,059.60 48.91% 170,879.60 94.51% 5,103.10 94.50% 59,181.86 99.47% 4,220.64 95.92% 3,409.24 94.70% 103.40 68.93% 19,542.19 673.87% 590.82 9.09% 405.00 31.15% 525.65 313.08 35.40 11.80% 1,631.40 60.42% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1132 LANGUAGE ARTS 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 02 1134 SCIENCE 02 1134 SCIENCE 'North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatine (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 270.95 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 475.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 345.58 1,001.37 00342 POSTAGE 1,281.60 2,131.46 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 631.86 106.80 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 0.00 0.00 94-95 Budge1 270.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,750.00 1,485.00 300.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 17,712.52 21,880.95 21,167.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS ~ 2,980.45 6,206.96 5,585.00 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 55,830.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 100.00 00521 CARPET 0.00 366.45 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,534.32 5,709.99 6,500.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 75.00 0.00 300.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 575.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 50.00 1,295.52 3,432.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 467.50 1,575.75 2,500.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 252.00 168.00 300.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 165.21 3,332.47 3,500.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00499 AWARDS 0.00 249.25 850.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 1,714.51 600.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 470.00 540.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,197.49 1,139.79 1,483.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,534.62 6,548.26 6,111.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 64.31 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,179.76 2,303.78 2,748.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 2,453.30 0.00 0.00 Page: 18 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Buo 194.00 71.85% 0.00 0.00% 1,384.84 138.48% 1,574.75 41.99% 300.28 20.22% 0.00 0.00% 28,660.01 135.40% 141.05 2.53% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 2,895.02 44.54% 312.25 104.08% 0.00 0.00% 1,298.48 37.83% 2,618.50 104.74% 180.60 84.00 28.00% 2,944.42 84.13% 2,290.22 0.00 0.00% 1,679.09 279.85% 355.00 65.74% 934.85 63.04% 1,914.59 31.33% 0.00 2,638.19 96.00% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 02 1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 02 1136 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 02 1137 ART 02 1137 ART 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Ooeratimi \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-9~ 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 716.89 0.00 1,030.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 1,056.22 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 81.61 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,707.73 1,483.84 2,680.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 70.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 648.52 387.13 1,115.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 72.61 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 220.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 3,246,173.56 3,522,525.32 3,628,200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 32,518.80 33,500.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,788.56 12,100.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 67,420.90 57,941.90 60,000.00 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 23,179.60 9,821.00 10,000.00 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 1,870.60 2,945.20 3,000.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 6,014.50 4,373.50 2,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 246,234.28 268,275.86 285,550.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 579.72 1,127.35 1,200.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 334.57 500.00 00240 INSURANCE 89,963.04 87,071.50 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 785.38 850.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 856.54 900.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 4,320.37 5,617.56 5,650.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 26.53 22.25 100.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 2,250.81 3,943.90 7,300.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 11.60 7.99 1,300.00 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 2,566.50 2,500.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 450.00 0.00 Page: 19 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 871.38 84.60% 0.00 0.00 1,660.01 61.94% 1,988.31 0.00 0.00% 824.90 73.98% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 3,616,804.71 99.69% 34,871.04 104.09% 41,150.72 340.09% 73,968.30 123.28% 11,595.20 115.95% 2,368.10 78.94% 6,656.25 266.25% 278,046.78 97.37% 3,310.70 275.89% 509.22 101.84% 86,666.94 844.20 99.32% 2,461.54 273.50% 5,616.90 99.41% 65.08 65.08% 32,096.88 439.68% 358.95 27.61% 4,017.00 160.68% 363.98 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Ooeratinp' \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-92 93-9~ 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00316 SECURITY SERVICES 132.00 0.00 0.00 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 33.51 874.31 0.00 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 3,149.28 3,706.04 2,600.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 11,665.95 1,898.80 7,000.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 8,943.26 1,232.72 3,050.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,787.94 5,551.98 7,250.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 500.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 709.72 1,489.54 1,500.00 00342 POSTAGE 5,083.81 9,176.11 7,100.00 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 1,123.92 196.61 200.00 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 1,385.00 3,725.00 3,800.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 17,885.79 34,366.06 55,179.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS 12,619.09 8,431.05 12,845.00 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 109,904.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,011.51 5,062.35 12,000.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,005.00 1,314.00 1,900.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 350.00 0.00 300.00 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 0.00 274.25 200.00 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 145.00 459.98 900.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 4,663.83 2,024.27 3,100.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 4,864.61 3,916.74 3,700.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 578.45 665.62 600.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 142.80 0.00 200.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 232.61 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 13,854.30 8,240.30 6,500.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 25.32 0.00 0.00 00499 AWARDS 1,189.93 198.08 1,000.00 Page: 20 94-9E Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 2,708.44 3,665.69 140.99% 2,794.74 39.92% 2,847.52 93.36% 4,202.10 57.96% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 1,130.39 75.36% 9,057.16 127.57% 0.00 0.00% 3,685.50 96.99% 33,635.09 60.96% 17,128.28 133.35% 0.00 0.00% 17,432.74 145.27% 916.00 48.21% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 2,864.55 92.40% 4,719.95 127.57% 937.12 156.19% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 6,875.88 105.78% 0.00 81.08 8.~ Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1142 LANGUAGE ARTS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1144 SCIENCE 02 1144 SCIENCE 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 02 1147 ART 02 1148 RADIOnY 02 1148 RADIOnY 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1150 ATHLETICS 02 1150 ATHLETICS 02 1150 ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Ooeratim\n,' l02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00540 EQUIPMENT 268.66 2,091.31 600.00 00549 BAND INSTRUMENTS 29,178.24 553.88 1,500.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,179.00 580.00 850.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,154.39 1,036.71 1,600.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP  0.00 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 7,228.82 863.68 1,400.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,811.59 3,045.56 3,500.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 917.14 1,387.56 1,250.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 353.19 0.00 300.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,854.22 2,687.48 1,700.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 547.24 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,482.38 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 587.40 416.10 200.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 300.00 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 922.50 0.00 1,500.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 21,993.61 20,000.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 95.00 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7.27 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 8,998.33 7,325.23 8,500.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 9,564.39 11,548.97 12,400.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 24,236.24 25,512.16 28,500.00 00499 AWARDS 2,079.83 2,175.37 2,350.00 Page: 21 94-95 Percent ol Expenses Exp/Bue 779.10 129.85% 0.00 0.00% 450.00 52.94% 1,644.67 102.79% 360.00 27.54 0.54 2.88 1,339.86 95.70% 6,077.17 173.63% 1,450.53 725.27% 1,515.80 121.26% 88.10 88.10% 0.00 0.00% 647.38 38.08% 0.00 0.00 487.69 243.85% 0.00 0.00% 840.00 56.00% 1,986.70 9.93% 2,750.00 0.00 0.00 8,101.53 95.31% 12,821.56 103.40% 26,817.59 94.10% 1,931.49 82.19% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1162 DRILL 02 1162 DRILL 02 1162 DRILL 02 1166 CHOIR 02 1166 CHOIR North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nQperatine' (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge! 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,544.27 1,866.95 3,000.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,678.40 5,797.36 7,100.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 10,278.58 7,992.29 12,000.00 00499 AWARDS 1,568.15 742.86 1,100.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 596.08 0.00 1,400.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 62.50 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERilFIED 4.78 0.00 0.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 58.86 0.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 500.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540.00 540.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 206.25 360.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 110.30 150.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 193.10 250.00 00645 ACCIDENT INS-STUDENTS 7,685.46 15,196.00 18,000.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 7,051.09 5,500.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 820.09 800.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 62.74 60.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 70.37 875.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 565.10 130.00 525.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,399.49 10,703.25 5,850.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 903.17 0.00 625.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 535_99 0.00 275.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 436.30 0.00 6,900.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 22 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 8,065.06 113.59% 9,990.05 83.25% 1,302.13 118.38% 445.56 31.83% 0.00 0.00 106.14 0.00 0.00% 540.00 100.00% 205.47 57.08% 180.89 120.59% 68.74 27.50% 17,714.20 98.41% 889.40 16.17% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 140.00 316.90 36.22% 180.00 0.00 0.00% 5,589.09 95.54% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 6,803.99 98.61% 151.20 182.56 - Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1166 CHOIR 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Operatine (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-92 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 50,587.50 50,520.00 127,900.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 8,153.00 11,745.50 15,533.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 3,445.00 4,566.00 8,600.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 5,400.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 540.00 620.00 580.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,370.30 4,763.04 14,134.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 288.66 349.28 1,811.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 47.43 450.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 46.99 1.50 4,054.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 9.99 0.00 602.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 111.61 0.00 1,740.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 6.55 0.00 341.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,215.00 0.00 8,600.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 47.95 100.00 00370 TUITION 19,200.00 8,820.00 12,000.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,085.32 11,552.62 16,010.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 360.07 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 15,120.00 15,841.00 17,794.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,124.93 1,211.84 1,361.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 12.10 0.00 18.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 28.73 0.00 178.00 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 1,600.00 1,550.00 1,550.00 Page: 23 94-9E Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 260.00 154,892.50 121.10% 15,249.00 98.17% 12,090.00 140.58% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 13,015.79 92.09% 924.97 51.08% 0.00 0.00% 255.22 6.30% 18.14 3.01% 1,361.13 78.23% 96.72 28.36% 0.00 0.00% 82.09 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 7,636.45 95.46% 4,789.00 59.86% 34,636.71 6,880.69 42.98% 0.00 2,658.77 18,294.00 102.81% 1,399.54 102.83% 27.44 152.44% 146.35 82.22% 420.00 27.10% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Ooeratimi \u0026lt;02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 62.51 32.95 549.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 17.40 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 197.81 0.00 0.00 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 455.00 662.67 750.00 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 300.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 30.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 325.00 300.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 260.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3,717.25 3,596.80 3,520.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 537.08 0.00 0.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 13.19 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 362.92 572.23 590.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 19,575.00 19,860.00 24,325.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 2,250.00 2,300.00 2,300.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 74.00 290.00 600.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00156 STIPENDS-OTHER NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,669.59 1,695.20 2,037.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5.66 0.00 0.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 22.18 0.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 26.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 266.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 46.00 0.00 0.00 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 329.13 0.00 0.00 Page: 24 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 66.00 12.02% 0.00 14.28 900.00 120.00% 344.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 50.00 16.67% 160.20 61.62% 4,182.63 118.82% 0.00 0.00 192.23 32.58% 24,875.22 102.26% 2,342.88 101.86% 200.00 33.33% 183.00 170.00 2,082.34 102.23% 13.00 15.28 13.98 41.42 159.31% 0.26 220.80 83.01% 1.36 0.00 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 01 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 01 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Oneratiw:1 \u0026lt;02) Debt Service \u0026lt;04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 35.07 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 199.04 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 2,044.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,464.99 3,503.78 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 237.13 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 973.91 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,160.00 3,442.50 00120 REGULAR NON-CE~TIFICATED 0.00 607.50 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 316.07 263.16 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 46.44 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 7.87 4.18 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 2.22 4.77 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.21 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 979.58 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 742.20 94-9E Budge 50.00 0.00 1,785.00 1,463.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 1,000.00 300.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 40.00 10.00 500.00 750.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 83,300.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 73,231.27 77,212.26 79,500.00 Page: 25 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 15.24 30.48% 0.00 1,785.00 100.00% 3,946.99 269.79% 0.00 0.00 3,105.00 77.63% 1,147.50 114.75% 237.38 79.13% 87.72 175.44% 4.60 18.40% 1.70 26.72 66.80% 9.58 95.80% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 73,227.83 87.91% 26,761.72 5,559.87 2,047.30 1,617.59 432.74 109.85 40.13 585.78 214.10 540.00 91,795.20 115.47% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): OoeratinP (02) Debt Service (04) 92-9~ 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 5,341.07 5,617.82 6,100.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,783.80 1,713.07 1,750.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 117.10 138.00 150.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 39.00 83.55 800.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 289.04 2,156.05 2,200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,132,640.52 1,494,469.24 1,539,300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 83,872.79 110,603.71 113,400.00 00240 INSURANCE 31,759.42 40,680.51 40,700.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 1,444.11 2,346.19 2,500.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 716.69 1,572.40 15,000.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,175.54 2,440.09 3,685.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 100.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 5,391.51 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 412.76 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 23.78 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 4.12 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 640,302.24 514,275.65 529,700.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 14,772.92 15,400.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 46,866.20 38,071.86 40,500.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 1,130.50 1,200.00 Page: 26 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 330.00 6,737.87 110.46% 25.24 1,687.92 96.45% 138.34 92.23% 787.21 98.40% 0.00 0.00% 25,200.00 1,924.47 843.96 37.87 201.60 1,859,615.51 120.81% 138,787.71 122.39% 48,640.49 119.51% 2,782.83 111.31% 15,765.63 105.10% 0.00 0.00% 2,098.69 56.95% 178.30 178.30% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 364,852.61 68.88% 41,120.97 267.02% 27,258.17 67.30% 3,137.27 261.44-% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 01 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 02 1271 ACT 591 HANDICAPPED 02 1272 ACT 591, NON-HANDICA 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratimt (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00240 INSURANCE 18,746.86 15,230.99 15,300.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 1,284.81 1,325.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 815.20 800.16 800.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 25.72 75.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 399.54 505.35 5,000.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 3.90 100.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 161.27 107.29 475.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MA'T'ERIALS 751.40 1,006.01 2,160.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 83.87 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 100.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 183,255.96 175,532.62 180,800.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 12,910.56 14,081.25 24,000.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 13,725.38 13,252.92 13,800.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 987.56 1,077.20 1,900.00 00240 INSURANCE 4,829.86 4,444.15 4,700.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 463.34 463.04 1,000.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 231.86 273.47 300.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 19.42 21.92 50.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 113.57 178.11 1,300.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 2.76 14.77 50.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 32.00 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 00370 TUITION 0.00 63,001.89 25,000.00 00370 TUITION 8,629.20 11,066.61 10,000.00 00370 TUITION 17,571.13 30,291.27 25,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 126,626.49 132,263.27 136,200.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 9,188.60 9,608.89 10,400.00 Page: 27 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 10,901.78 71.25% 3,049.24 230.13% 547.41 68.43% 61.62 82.16% 3,232.99 64.66% 335.02 335.02% 0.00 0.00% 297.40 13.77% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 88,281.73 48.83% 14,580.24 60.75% 6,721.73 48.71% 1,115.35 58.70% 1,850.12 39.36% 456.24 45.62% 132.44 44.15% 21.74 43.48% 812.31 62.49% 124.78 249.56% 0.00 0.00 134,879.95 539.52% 12,051.54 120.52% 23,008.67 92.03% 149,368.75 109.67% 0.00 0.00% 10,925.06 105.05% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Oneratino' \u0026lt;02) Debt Service \u0026lt;04) 92-9~ 93-9'1 94-9E Object Object Description Expense~ Expense~ Budge 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 230.00 00240 INSURANCE 4,087.23 4,140.01 4,200.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 161.21 203.87 200.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 79.29 142.50 1,000.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 15.00 0.00 350.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES- 137.97 190.08 150.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 140.00 185.00 150.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 564.37 694.71 600.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,289.23 1,434.78 3,056.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 23.73 0.00 0.00 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 290.22 350.06 425.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 270.62 269.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 100.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,575.63 11,400.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 886.16 900.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 16.23 100.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 11.10 25.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 98,512.08 147,864.92 242,100.00 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 7,292.73 11,098.93 26,900.00 00240 INSURANCE 2,732.94 2,597.63 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 124.75 190.80 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 48.77 114.43 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 78,562.32 84,414.58 86,900.00 Page: 28 94-95 Percent ol Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 0.00% 4,712.29 112.20% 224.12 112.06% 0.00 0.00% 1,276.01 127.60% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 149.19 99.46% 205.00 136.67% 810.00 135.00% 1,756.11 57.46% 0.00 370.47 87.17% 2,253.64 837.78% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 12,838.83 112.62% 983.35 109.26% 19.43 19.43% 552.00 2208.00% 137,448.11 56.77% 2,074.00 10,000.69 37.18% 3,123.52 211.79 1,226.30 3,783.57 43,920.00 50.54% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA North Little Roel~ Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatintt (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge! 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 5,788.66 6,252.90 6,650.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,962.37 1,713.31 1,800.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 104.75 131.25 130.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 61.43 89.50 870.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 200.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 990.00 990.00 495.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 259.33 0.00 0.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 438.72 324.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 607.49 425.75 900.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 156.66 0.00 100.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,764.81 2,405.71 300.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 356,120.34 382,226.08 386,900.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 26,192.32 28,437.99 29,600.00 00240 INSURANCE 9,884.72 9,421.89 9,600.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 476.71 593.90 600.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 280.92 403.13 3,000.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 3,642.76 2,237.66 3,300.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 450.46 450.45 0.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 408.96 324.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 22,171.87 17,456.10 24,014.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 414.78 52.70 700.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 14,102.63 15,548.51 19,760.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 252,779.19 271,659.88 275,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 10,449.18 10,800.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 18,822.36 21,090.94 21,900.00 00240 INSURANCE 7,124.19 6,867.58 7,000.00 Page: 29 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 3,322.57 49.96% 844.32 46.91% 65.84 50.65% 396.71 45.60% 0.00 0.00% 495.00 100.00% 0.00 438.72 135.41% 697.88 77.54% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 400,234.20 103.45% 30,142.04 101.83% 9,283.56 96.70% 600.36 100.06% 3,407.70 113.59% 441.85 666.21 20.19% 495.00 100.00% 483.22 408.96 126.22% 32,694.12 136.15% 0.00 0.00% 26,617.40 134.70% 232,888.18 84.69% 0.00 0.00% 17,585.87 80.30% 5,535.60 79.08% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 01 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 01 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1354 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 01 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 01 1360 HOMEEC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOMEEC North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratimi \u0026lt;02): Debt Service \u0026lt;04) 92-9~ 93-94 94-9f Object Object Description Expense~ Expense~ Budge 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 214.10 250.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 339.15 438.48 450.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 203.02 292.98 2,000.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,417.22 1,344.88 1,700.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 1,626.24 1,620.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,922.43 15,910.55 12,845.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 194.90 0.00 0.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 14.77 0.00 0.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 43,415.40 16,582.28 12,502.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 61,563.60 66,213.84 68,200.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,513.46 4,905.98 5,250.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,574.34 1,285.70 1,500.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 82.06 102.90 100.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 48.08 70.19 550.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,700.56 947.46 1,400.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 104.40 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 26,485.15 0.00 400.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 800.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 11,200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 278,086.20 275,260.60 283,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 20,360.89 20,130.08 21,700.00 00240 INSURANCE 8,032.83 6,831.21 7,500.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 369.00 427.92 450.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 213.06 304.76 2,250.00 Page: 30 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 0.00% 349.34 77.63% 2,011.77 100.59% 131.58 7.74% 1,221.12 75.38% 9,634.37 75.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 9,163.02 73.29% 68,534.64 100.49% 5,110.06 97.33% 1,266.84 84.46% 102.83 102.83% 583.80 106.15% 0.00 0.00% 314.76 22.48% 0.00 450.80 112.70% 0.00 912.52 114.07% 1,533.63 102.24% 10,426.81 93.10% 288,481.09 101.76% 21,489.18 99.03% 6,865.05 91.53% 432.83 96.18% 2,458.75 109.28% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Oneratim:i \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge' 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,964.25 1,523.34 1,800.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 200.00 425.00 495.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 324.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 8,705.74 8,720.97 7,050.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 134.90 0.00 0.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 109.98 56.00 250.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 400.03 769.05 800.00 00540 EQUIPMENT ~ 1,937.20 7,425.68 7,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 47,372.64 52,689.00 54,300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,583.26 3,822.38 4,150.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,076.56 1,224.34 1,300.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 62.90 82.45 100.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 36.70 57.91 450.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 662.47 1,653.77 1,900.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 251.62 150.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 267.38 0.00 650.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 4,507.79 396.68 3,040.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 896.52 700.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 3,650.25 200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 353,914.23 343,484.33 353,800.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,760.00 5,573.73 5,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 6,731.59 22,633.19 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 26,600.78 26,265.29 27,480.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 515.03 1,731.53 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 9,191.39 7,331.03 8,200.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 214.03 856.54 0.00 Page: 31 94-9E Percent o Expenses Exp/Bud 1,602.69 89.04% 450.00 90.91% 0.00 0.00% 7,864.96 111.56% 0.00 111.75 44.70% 1,036.29 129.54% 2,593.42 37.05% 77,064.82 141.92% 5,661.40 136.42% 1,574.65 121.13% 115.56 115.56% 645.01 143.34% 0.00 0.00% 1,643.05 86.48% 217.59 145.06% 37.10 5.71% 4,538.07 149.28% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 316.35 158.18% 338,505.60 95.68% 643.52 12.87% 0.00 25,791.70 93.86% 0.00 6,801.36 82.94% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO  North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) OoeratinQ (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 453.36 540.59 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 47.47 37.05 00260 WORKERS COMP 287.82 387.53 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 19.83 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,875.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 196.68 115.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 191.57 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,475.00 1,485.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 228.23 596.47 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 424.80 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 234.53 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,166.28 3,606.56 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 100.64 244.57 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 17,605.73 4,853.74 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 1,677.43 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 397.49 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 485.75 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 35.69 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 37.50 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,298.93 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 430.00 94-95 Budge1 560.00 0.00 2,860.00 0.00 0.00 900.00 0.00 1,485.00 0.00 648.00 0.00 5,700.00 200.00 1,000.00 1,600.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 0.00 2,287.00 0.00 700.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 11,732.78 12,769.70 13,410.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 897.54 976.65 1,025.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 11.71 19.77 25.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 7.22 13.44 110.00 Page: 32 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 508.77 90.85% 0.00 2,897.33 101.31% 0.00 0.00 201.22 22.36% 0.00 1,485.00 100.00% 0.00 424.80 65.56% 0.00 8,733.76 153.22% 283.89 141.95% 37.10 3.71% 445.08 27.82% 13.75 5.50% 0.00 0.00% 62.70 25.08% 0.00 0.00% 84.26 84.26% 0.00 781.88 34.19% 711.38 700.00 100.00% 12,689.69 94.63% 970.85 94.72% 18.99 75.96% 109.37 99.43% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Overatin!:\"t (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,321.91 54.15 100.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 960.65 904.37 1,050.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 7,710.00 8,400.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 7,524.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 589.81 650.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 575.63 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,872.40 0.00 1,000.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 87.90 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,643.20 1,940.73 2,700.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 183.14 0.00 600.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 25,390.08 26,647.79 22,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 101,334.48 101,786.28 107,440.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 150.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,942.31 1,935.75 1,600.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7,329.94 7,633.89 8,220.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 300.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 11.47 0.00 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 361.94 78.18 100.00 00240 INSURANCE 475.00 999.29 850.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 7,612.23 7,379.73 8,060.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 31.97 37.02 50.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 175.08 160.22 190.00 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP.STIPEND 0.00 0.00 10.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 16.11 23.91 200.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 68.25 113.60 39,485.00 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 40.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 61,395.24 51,854.46 58,100.00 Page: 33 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Buo 52.70 52.70% 723.94 68.95% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 1,279.18 47.38% 0.00 0.00% 19,860.48 90.27% 90,834.05 84.54% 500.00 12.50% 0.00 1,519.26 94.95% 6,778.70 82.47% 38.20 12.73% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 843.96 99.29% 5,869.43 72.82% 30.49 60.98% 136.31 71.74% 0.00 0.00% 173.63 86.82% 778.85 1.97% 0.00 0.00% 93,673.45 161.23% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01), OneratinP \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9~ Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 1,892.41 2,000.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 986.43 295.82 800.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 229.95 495.48 4,800.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 591.77 1,870.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 20.00 1,650.00 500.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 180.00 200.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 67.20 151.20 200.00 00342 POSTAGE . 0.00 29.00 100.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 315.35 0.00 0.00 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 6,096.78 6,936.22 14,900.00 00420 Tl:XTBOOKS 4,495.27 8,914.19 9,500.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 2,957.54 4,000.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 339.00 500.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,420.33 6,540.09 25,200.00 00541 FURNITURE 2,810.25 0.00 0.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 399.00 300.00 450.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 75,861.61 73,570.46 79,740.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 60.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30.50 22.95 35.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,433.70 5,252.79 6,592.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 4.59 100.00 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 2,105.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 3,037.00 5,329.86 4,600.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 34 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 2,573.87 128.69% 266.38 33.30% 72,646.80 1513.48% 108.43 5.80% 750.00 150.00% 0.00 0.00% 33.60 16.80% 96.00 96.00% 22.57 5,600.00 155.56% 10,771.92 72.29% 775.95 8.17% 3,448.67 86.22% 664.87 132.97% 784.92 5,093.52 20.21% 0.00 50.00 1,121.15 450.00 100.00% 73,907.58 92.69% 0.00 34.44 98.40% 5,368.94 81.45% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1,119.22 24.33% 0.68 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1555 HIPPY 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING North Little Roel~ Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratinQ' (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 145.08 98.31 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 39.05 73.96 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 1,450.00 4,086.40 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 972.53 270.39 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 911.94 1,078.01 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 255.00 170.50 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 330.00 2,801.06 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,007.37 385.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 31.50 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 0.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 36.55 191.68 94-9E Budge 220.00 0.00 320.00 6,350.00 300.00 1,000.00 500.00 2,100.00 880.00 100.00 1,100.00 200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 34,866.57 15,753.63 18,283.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,834.28 500.00 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 500.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 122.75 0.00 0.00 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,572.00 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 9,445.56 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 59,006.16 61,960.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 4,414.30 4,740.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 1,726.14 1,710.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 76.10 125.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 22.93 495.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 10,360.00 0.00 Page: 35 94-9E Percent ol Expenses Exp/Bud 110.42 50.19% 3.60 629.12 196.60% 7,875.45 124.02% 93.77 31.26% 701.98 70.20% 300.00 60.00% 2,365.00 112.62% 380.00 43.18% 77.22 77.22% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 16,990.14 92.93% 0.00 0.00% 529.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 711.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 63,432.00 102.38% 4,835.48 102.01% 1,687.80 98.70% 94.79 75.83% 542.12 109.52% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratim.1 (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 241.89 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 3,838.09 94-95 Budge1 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 95,820.14 98,588.54 101,500.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 200.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7,329.56 7,542.11 7,800.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 25.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 5,665.85 5,013.41 8,000.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 199.62 151.54 250.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 61.33 107.94 850.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 38,032.03 260.00 3,300.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 120.37 100.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 361.28 0.00 300.00 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 49,002.35 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 4,863.32 6,944.73 8,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,315.76 79,065.04 75,840.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,571.95 5,786.37 6,350.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,053.12 4,467.82 4,500.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 180.41 137.60 163.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 51.00 84.70 665.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 22,017.72 17,614.79 1,000.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 180.08 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 7,377.09 1,977.81 1,500.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 93.90 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 23,348.66 464.42 0.00 Page: 36 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 5,618.76 102,065.49 100.56% 80.00 40.00% 7,808.03 100.10% 6.12 24.48% 5,337.62 66.72% 0.12 152.16 60.86% 0.64 873.68 102.79% 225.00 6.82% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1,195.00 0.00 0.00% 32,756.30 0.00 0.00% 64,533.06 85.09% 4,673.91 73.60% 4,431.26 98.47% 96.19 59.01% 561.93 84.50% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 1,572.03 104.80% 0.00 0.00 - Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Ooeratimi \u0026lt;02) Debt Service (04) 92-9~ 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge! 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,787.17 35.51 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 23.72 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 13.63 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 99.46 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 4,684.54 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 36,186.00 38,391.78 39,060.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 2,726.15 2,921.51 3,080.00 00240 INSURANCE ~ 863.86 856.54 860.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 42.80 59.68 80.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 23.70 40.71 320.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,044.00 60.24 100.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 133.52 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 806.06 440.97 400.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 52,009.46 9,817.68 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,617.04 732.76 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,717.09 357.04 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 65.74 10.52 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 29.63 48.98 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 73.32 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 782.81 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 349,719.41 379,858.62 391,300.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 44,610.96 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 13,628.88 0.00 16,000.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 2,289.00 0.00 0.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 560.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 28,868.47 27,933.30 29,900.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,153.53 0.00 1,200.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 42.85 0.00 Page: 37 94-9E Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,861.04 76.45% 2,274.80 73.86% 773.63 89.96% 44.52 55.65% 261.08 81.59% 38.10 38.10% 0.00 392.88 98.22% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 369,097.14 94.33% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 27,342.95 91.45% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 01 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE  North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Oneratino' \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 94-95 Budge! 00240 INSURANCE 11,022.83 10,278.18 10,600.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 907.90 0.00 850.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 502.75 590.62 600.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 20.68 0.00 50.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 250.83 400.21 3,150.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 10.14 0.00 150.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,470.00 1,225.00 0.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OFCOPIERS 0.00 91.69 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,804.34 1,087.76 2,000.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 2,175.00 2,120.00 2,000.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 00335 lf'lDISTRICT TRAVEL 564.55 225.41 806.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 442.81 500.00 00342 POSTAGE 239.71 333.65 300.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,765.87 12,954.43 13,000.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 198.14 200.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 586.92 391.98 600.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 2,550.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 25.00 25.00 30.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 930.00 6,975.00 7,500.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 272.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 761.26 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 90.48 533.65 550.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 16.06 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 1.77 8.97 50.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 6.37 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.60 4.47 50.00 Page: 38 94-9E Percent ol Expenses Exp/Bud 9,283.44 87.58% 0.00 0.00% 553.66 92.28% 0.00 0.00% 3,187.07 101.18% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 1,424.10 71.21% 2,770.00 138.50% 495.00 100.00% 212.39 26.35% 482.04 96.41% 411.06 137.02% 14,388.49 110.68% 97.92 48.96% 576.31 96.05% 2,051.07 80.43% 25.00 83.33% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) OoeratinQ' (02) Debt Service (04) 92-92 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 00342 POSTAGE 16.82 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 329.27 102.80 94-95 Budge! 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,160.00 16,200.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 360.00 0.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 853.74 1,100.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS  0.00 27.54 0.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 905.00 0.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 53.28 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,675.74 2,840.96 5,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 14,500.50 15,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 5,706.05 2,820.85 3,000.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 260.00 300.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 232.00 700.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 300.00 300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 1,128.79 1,150.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 436.44 215.84 100.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 17.76 25.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 22.96 50.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 14.91 25.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 5.72 3.80 25.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 13.77 125.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 1.40 4.46 25.00 Page: 39 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 15,262.50 94.21% 0.00 69.00 6.27% 1,167.71 106.16% 0.00 5.28 22.99 122.65 204.00 1,343.10 12.35 4,723.14 94.46% 14,700.24 98.00% 1,354.18 45.14% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 375.00 125.00% 1,124.55 97.79% 103.54 103.54% 0.00 0.00% 28.70 57.40% 22.82 91.28% 1.98 7.92% 128.32 102.66% 15.26 61.04% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 02 2101 02 2101 02 2101 02 2101 02 2101 02 2102  02 2102  02 2102  02 2102  02 2102  02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv \u0026lt;01)\nOperatine (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 1,000.00 0.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 14.67 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 268.13 00420 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,520.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 192.60 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 6.08 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 50,433.42 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 3,848.96 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 257.39 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 29.82 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 43.32 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 154,106.26 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 11,799.02 0.00 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 40.41 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 817.89 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 96.42 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 94-9~ Budget 0.00 75.00 600.00 1,700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 12,304.08 32,948.30 35,000.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 290.95 300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 673.45 2,233.61 2,700.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 22.24 25.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 850.61 2,080.87 2,125.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 18.81 54.85 75.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 3.29 20.69 275.00 Page: 40 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 173.30 10.19% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,350.00 36,930.07 105.51% 0.00 0.00% 332.76 2,579.45 95.54% 0.00 0.00% 2,160.00 101.65% 6.53 55.24 73.65% 34.80 337.12 122.59% -- Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): OoeratinQ' (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 0.00 0.00 500.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 294.00 300.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 100.00 200.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 405.00 450.00 450.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 29.40 0.00 0.00 00341 TELEPHONE 1,384.89 4,533.41 5,200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 194.12 1,000.00 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 84.80 500.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 468.42 1,000.00 00550 VEHICLES 0.00 24,264.00 0.00 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 1,758.00 1,800.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 824,164.07 885,880.38 912,400.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 92,650.68 93,177.21 96,000.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 61,004.98 66,823.49 69,800.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 6,753.96 6,928.12 7,400.00 00240 INSURANCE 19,428.13 19,231.51 19,600.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,808.58 4,302.30 4,400.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 942.00 1,360.50 1,400.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 131.85 141.64 150.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 498.10 935.25 7,300.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 69.61 100.28 750.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 150.00 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 44.30 0.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,452.81 1,223.19 1,500.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,644.78 1,320.11 2,500.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 277.00 100.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 265.00 0.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 195.00 200.00 Page: 41 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 139.18 27.84% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 450.00 100.00% 0.00 1,240.10 23.85% 0.00 0.00% 267.05 53.41% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 1,422.00 79.00% 900,703.15 98.72% 95,530.34 99.51%  68,251.60 97.78% 7,117.18 96.18% 19,023.50 97.06% 4,621.31 105.03% 1,350.90 96.49% 142.72 95.15% 7,711.95 105.64% 807.89 107.72% 0.00 0.00 881.02 58.73% 2,074.93 83.00% 175.72 175.72% 140.98 195.00 97.50% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER\\/ 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER\\/ 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER\\/ 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER\\/ 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratirni \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-92 93-94 94-9!: Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 1,100.00 2,200.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,160.50 0.00 500.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,883.78 11,733.53 19,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,083.24 79,620.73 82,500.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,536.30 5,889.57 6,300.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 3,019.99 3,069.12 3,200.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 90.22 114.92 130.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 51.25 89.99 700.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 220.00 334.44 500.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 312.50 1,000.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 125.00 332.00 300.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 700.00 700.00 720.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 930.63 1,272.37 1,950.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 715.03 500.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 104,130.00 114,174.00 117,600.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 51,602.16 57,153.60 58,900.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 11,552.27 12,764.66 13,500.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 125.00 00240 INSURANCE 3,232.92 3,049.21 3,200.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 183.40 265.88 300.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 108.01 180.56 1,400.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 57,324.00 64,752.11 50,000.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 377\n103.12 379,296.64 390,700.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 37,758.08 129,737.76 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30,820.39 38,213.15 29,900.00 00240 INSURANCE 10,270.36 10,380.50 10,400.00 Page: 42 94-9!: Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 0.00% 1,100.00 220.00% 14,419.97 75.89% 89,890.99 108.96% 6,663.71 105.77% 2,964.38 92.64% 134.44 103.42% 758.38 108.34% 220.00 44.00% 378.70 37.87% 100.00 33.33% 720.00 100.00% 2,365.63 121.31% 0.00 0.00% 149,239.55 126.90% 0.00 0.00% 1,484.00 98.93% 11,059.88 81.93% 113.53 90.82% 2,898.58 90.58% 226.10 75.37% 1,421.23 101.52% 60,000.00 120.00% 0.00 351,079.40 89.86% 145,778.08 37,418.76 125.15% 8,712.43 83.77% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 01 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 01 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Ooeratini\nt (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00240 INSURANCE 1,444.96 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 462.93 746.32 600.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 214.90 431.62 3,100.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 466.96 442.35 1,200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 61,092.96 60,061.50 69,400.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 7,281.78 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,584.71 5,115.53 5,300.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,595.28 1,713.44 1,800.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 69.38 104.70 150.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 32.16 69.98 550.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 11,234.75 0.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 0.00 0.00 61,300.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 29,713.52 0.00 23,600.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 160.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 4,700.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 2,189.94 0.00 1,800.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 12.24 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 900.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 1,596.50 0.00 900.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 42.18 0.00 50.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 450.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 18.94 0.00 200.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 778.16 0.00 1,500.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 698.00 0.00 Page: 43 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 3,028.11 743.89 123.98% 4,313.37 139.14% 14,220.00 416.37 34.70% 69,674.64 100.40% 0.00 5,318.14 100.34% 1,688.32 93.80% 104.52 69.68% 599.01 108.91% 43,972.08 50,624.02 82.58%  33,671.74 142.68% 0.00 3,872.73 82.40% 2,476.39 137.58% 0.00 703.60 78.18% 1,758.16 195.35% 75.90 75.90% 55.94 111.88% 404.92 89.98% 309.15 154.58% 2,800.00 85.90 85.90% 41.60 2.77% 8.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI  North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Ooeratim:i \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9~ Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 540.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 60.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 689.89 250.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 172.00 175.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 179.72 2,498.20 725.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 253.20 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT ... 0.00 7,260.97 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00251 lJNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 407,067.90 546,426.72 562,800.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 5,000.00 17,855.32 39,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 148,297.98 173,135.14 177,532.00 00125 NON-CERTIFIED ADMIN 39,933.84 43,515.80 2,025.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 2,368.10 0.00 4,000.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 7,629.38 19,755.00 19,880.00 00151 STIPENDS NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 4,130.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30,687.24 41,241.91 51,688.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 14,621.01 16,330.59 13,440.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 1,541.66 3,660.00 00213 SS TAX STIPENDS NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 35.00 00240 INSURANCE 8,323.95 9,123.35 9,200.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 351.70 0.00 Page: 44 94-9~ Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 50.00 50.00% 495.00 91.67% 47.60 79.33% 743.73 297.49% 126.85 72.49% 2,034.75 280.66% 0.00 0.00 26,192.15 2,003.88 2,180.29 39.31 209.66 628,590.25 111.69% 46,399.08 118.97% 190,358.05 107.22% 2,229.96 110.12% 437.80 10.95% 23,310.00 117.25% 560.00 4,770.00 115.50% 50,718.98 98.13% 14,437.29 107.42% 1,783.04 48.72% 42.84 364.90 1042.57% 10,350.18 112.50% 844.08 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatine' (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 7,179.43 8,171.60 8,760.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 481.06 883.34 867.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 252.31 335.26 370.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 304.34 574.81 4,568.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 130.11 238.47 1,820.00 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 276.00 0.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 5,720.10 75.00 3,800.00 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 21.05 0.00 0.00 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 140.00 50.00 150.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 175.45 100.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 3,838.76 2,875.39 3,700.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 134.10 184.45 745.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 2,589.19 5,030.31 20,853.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 5,489.00 15,138.88 20,115.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,790.00 3,215.00 3,235.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,248.67 147.80 1,500.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 6,367.51 2,624.00 00342 POSTAGE 170.38 941.94 1,185.00 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 10,336.04 7,592.48 14,500.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 723.28 1,286.76 1,025.00 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 3,500.00 2,400.00 7,600.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 56,253.91 51,276.44 41,422.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 564.45 0.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 894.08 0.00 550.00 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 500.02 500.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 1,197.15 3,339.21 3,100.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 6,685.00 6,445.00 6,850.00 Page: 45 94-9E Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 7,746.12 88.43% 1,057.26 121.94% 286.31 77.38% 5,800.13 126.97% 1,612.57 88.60% 0.00 1,597.22 42.03% 0.00 300.00 200.00% 411.15 411.15% 722.21 19.52% 0.00 0.00% 13,372.11 64.13% 13,677.37 68.00% 4,230.00 130.76% 133.52 8.90% 1,795.07 68.41% 1,389.93 117.29% 11,542.45 79.60% 2,804.49 273.61% 4,466.23 58.77% 43,654.90 105.39% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 437.44 79.53% 0.00 0.00% 1,559.81 50.32\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_276","title":"Business cases","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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/276"],"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\nS~\"\u0026gt; r-: 1 5  Office :r C-g\n:- 5?' BUSINESS CASE Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is committed to quality education for all students, reducing the disparity between sub-groups, balancing the budget, and implementation of the current Desegregation Plan. The HIPPY Program is an intervention program that focuses upon the parent as the first teacher of four and five year olds. However, there has been a decline in recent years of the enrollment of five year olds in the HIPPY program due to the mandatory kindergarten program in public schools. The HIPPY USA guidelines advocate teaching a specific curriculum to young participants. The earlier that we begin with an educational program, the sooner students will experience learning that is valued and needed in early schooling. Further, research has proved that early learning impacts a childs motivation and ability to achieve as he/she progresses through school. Restructuring of the HIPPY Program, its staff, and responsibilities will allow the District to continue to provide quality services to designated students, incentive schools, and portions of Southwest Little Rock, as well as reduce and/or realign our spending.A. BACKGROUND Those The Little Rock School District was one of the first of four sites to begin implementation in Arkansas in 1986 Those '  programs included the Little Rock School District, Pulaski Countv Center i^Harrison^\" Childhood Development^ reflects the participation of families HIPPY Program since 1986. in the 3CC - I I\n250 -}-233  i! 220 230 --------230..... 150 Ji li 175  ..140___ .125 ------- I 100 -' 50\nii2 32  100 s 101't 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 ENROLLMENT BY AGE GROUP (150 219 1 4-YEAR OLD FAMILIES .W'5-YEAR OLD FAMILIES 200 H H I i 0 ' i I 0 ' I I i*' II I I I 2 B. PROBLEM DEFINITION There exists a need to improve the delivery and quality of the HIPPY Program, as well as reduce the budget. After a study of the decline in five-year-old student participation, high turnover of Home Visitors, delivery of services, and utilization of resources, it was determined that some problems existed and the District needed to improve the effectiveness of the program at a reduced cost. a result of mandatory kindergarten There has been a decline in the participation of five year olds as kindergarten. Many parents of five year olds are not participating as they did in earlier years. The quality of Home Visitors services are difficult to maintain as a result of high turnover of staff. There is a need to review the current pay schedule in order for us to attract and maintain highly skilled Home Visitors. Further, there is a need to restructure the program. This will allow the resources, human and financial, to be used in a more efficient and effective manner. Annual reviews for several years of the program indicate a need to reorganize. The HIPPY Program productivity is affected by a high turnover in staff. Stability is lacking when time and effort are being used to train beginners. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Weekly staff meetings were Ideas were generated that were designed to improve the quality of the HIPPY Program. Issues were used as inservice topics, others were assessed for the purpose of developing alternatives that would be cost effective, saving the district money, and would maintain a high quality program. ... held\nalternatives were discussed and developed. and suggestions were considered. Group meetings and Home visitor reports during weekly inservices have been helpful in gathering parental input. Some suggested alternatives included: Parent requests 1. Assignments of Home Visitors to one specific geographical area to save mileage. Each Home Visitor would be allowed several days to recruit the required number of families and would be limited to a specific 32. 3. 4. location. Most of the Home Visitors recruit in areas across the city and may not reach the required enrollment number. Additional assignments would be made based upon enrollment. Consequently, the family assignments could be dispersed across the city. Fundraisers were suggested with the emphasis on securing private donations. Initially, not enough donors were identified. This option will be pursued in order to expand services. Salary increases for Home Visitors were discussed. This alternative is in direct conflict with reducing the budget. This alternative was rejected because of the Districts current financial condition. Provide services to HIPPY families in the incentive schools and designated families in southwest Little Rock. D. RECOMMENDATION Given the Districts current financial condition and the need continue to provide services to designated four year olds, the following recommendations are proposed: Eliminate the HIPPY program except for parents within the incentive schools. Continue to provide service to designated families in southwest Little Rock using Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) funds\nseek funding from the citys Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)\nand refer families to appropriate city and state agencies for services (Headstart, Children \u0026amp; Family Services, private daycare providers etc.) to E. OBJECTIVE The objective of these recommendations is to continue to serve families in our incentive schools and southwest Little Rock, as well as reduce spending to maintain a high quality HIPPY program. 4Evaluation Criteria Maintenance of enrollment of four year olds in the incentive schools will be evidenced by enrollment numbers for the 1995-96 school year. 2. Restructuring of staff responsibilities will be evidenced by a more efficiently managed office. 3. Align staff development activities as in Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock and narrow the focus to be more effective. 4. The numbers of students entering kindergarten ready to learn will be maintained and/or increased. The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students which will result in reducing the disparity between black and white students in our district. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. The recommendations will promote savings for the District and enhance the quality of services provided by the HIPPY Program. Human Resources will be better utilized as a result of restructuring the staffs responsibilities. Spending will be decreased as a result of the reduction of positions. ! More time will be available for home visits as a result of decreasing the weekly inservice time. Negative Impact Fewer families will be served in the HIPPY Program. Impact on the Desegregation Plan All recommendations will impact the Desegregation Plan in a positive manner. Each recommendation is in harmony with the components of the Desegregation Plan that outlines the expectations of the HIPPY Program. F \\ ' assist in reducing the disparity and provide quality achievement for all students. Early intervention can 5Impact on Court Orders This modified plan will assist in balancing the budqet Fl irtho n ^nn oT om um n  ___ __________- Further the plan will improve productivity by maintainina TnP numnop pt __________I____I__I.  number of families that can be served and adequate utilization of resources. Further, it will assist in meeting the goals of the Desegregation Plan. Political Factors The success of the recommendations will depend upon how wen central office and the Board of Directors communicate the programs vision to the community. There are no major risks for implementing the recommendations. The risk against implementing these recommendations could result in the HIPPY Program not improving the qualitv of services to families as well as assist the district in reducing its spending. G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Provided is a listing of personnel before and after implemented. uxuxuy puui , ,-un. wn V ^5 personnel can be selected from parents and participating in the program. Tiiei _ additional expense for training because the Regional Technical Office provides training at the beginning of as part of the program. Additic\"*   by trained central office staff. the The recruiting pool from which There will -----=, each year Additional training will be done weekly e* 4* Program Year 1994-95 Salary Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Supervisor Home Visitors In-Office Aides Secretary Coordinators 1 20 2 1 2 $27,801.00 143,004.00 19,671.35 17,915.00 42,516.00 5,665.85 28,702.73 4,009.02 3,651.08 8,664.76 33,466,85 171,706.73 23,680.37 21,566.08 51,180.76 26 $250,907.35 $50,693.44 $301,600.79 Materials/Supplies: 296 families x $100 29,600.00 TOTAL Home Visitors working 40 hours per week $331,200.79 NUMBER OF FAMILIES SERVED 1994-95 296 6Program Year 1995-96 (Desegregation Fund) Salary Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Supervisor Home Visitors Secretary Coordinators 1 3 1 0 $29,191.05 23,133.60 18,810.75 44,641.80 5,949.14 4,714.64 3,833.63 9,098.00 35,140.19 27,848.24 22,644.38 53,739.80 $115,777.20 $23,595.41 $139,372.61 Materials/Supplies: 70 families x $100 7,000.00 TOTAL $146,372.61 5 *Home Visitors working 40 hours per week TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS $ 185,828.18 Program Year 1995-96 Salary (Arkansas Better Chance Grant (ABC) Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Supervisor Home Visitors Secretary Coordinators 0 3 0 0 $23,133.60 4,714.64 27,848.24 Materials/Supplies: 60 families x $100 6,000,00 TOTAL $33,848.24 *Home Visitors working 40 hours per week PROJECTED NUMBER OF FAMILIES TO SERVE 1995-96 130 7H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The supporters of the recommendations are those who are inclined to promote and advocate early Intervention programs. The recommendations are philosophically sound and designed to imorove services when reducing the budget for the 1995-96 school year. Among the supporters are: Parents of hippy participants Home Visitors Regional HIPPY office HIPPY USA Community Early Childhood Education Task Force Early Prevention Advocates HIPPY Advisory Board detractors may be families not served in other wI L11C wX lV areas 8I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE 1. Restructure program 03/95 Supervisor 2. Restructure of staff, responsibilities \u0026amp; schedules 03/95 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 3. Parents will enroll four year olds 07/95 Supervisor/ Home Visitors 4. Reduce Inservice time to accommodate additional families 08/95 Supervisor 5. Maintain or increase the number of families that Home Visitors serve each week 07/95 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 6. Monitor on a regular basis the effectiveness of the program 06/96 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 9I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ^995 BUSINESS CASE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ij' on iViOotiot Currently, the Little Rock School District offers an Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) program at all eight (8) junior high schools to 7th, 8th, and 9th graders. The curriculum content in Exploring Industrial Technology is directed toward four major clusters: ( ' ' manufacturing, E.P.T. (energy, power and transportation), exposed to using computers, robots, other modern equipment and concepts, four years. and communication, construction, Students are lasers, pnuematics, telecommunication, and The program was implemented over a period of Start-up funding was obtained through a proposal for New or Expanded Programs offered by the Arkansas Department of Education, Vocational Division. The equipment used in these labs are very costly, with the initial cost, including materials and supplies, rising well above $40,000.00. personnel changes, a lack of student discipline and/or student carelessness, of these labs have been almost demolished. Within the last three years. many Equipment in two of the junior highs have been severely damaged, lost or stolen. Due to funding circumstances and budget cuts, it has been futile to try to maintain or re-equip some labs. Thus, the Little Rock School District cannot continue to meet state department required equipment standards. Certified personnel in the field of Industrial Arts/ Technology continues to be another problem surfacing as the years pass, either through teacher retirement or those teachers not meeting required certification standards. Thus, As graduation requirements become more rigid, vocational courses, as well as other elective courses, begin to experience low enrollment problems, education and training are undergoing major restructuring. system no longer meets the needs of society. Thus, the Tech Prep movement was initiated. The purpose of Tech Prep is to better prepare students for the changing demands of the workplace through a combination of strong academic and technical skills training for entry and/or mid-level careers. To do so means having a strong curriculum as well as high tech equipment to train our students. Several courses in vocational education are experiencing low enrollment either due to a lack of interest or scheduling conflicts relative to graduation requirements.............. courses need to be eliminated because of low enrollment, the Little Rock School District must be careful to not eliminate courses that are \"capstone\" or completer courses for Tech Prep programs of study which are mandated by Act 980 of 1991. the other hand, the elimination of a course or courses not affecting a Tech Prep program of study would provide additional funding to purchase equipment, supplies and materials direly needed by other vocational courses in order to meet the Nationwide, Our present educational While some II On standards required by the Arkansas Department of Education, Vocational Division,A. BACKGROUND Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, the Little Rock School District Full replaced the traditional, but outdated. Industrial Arts program with a new concept designed to provide students with learning experiences in modern industrial technology. This new educational program is Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) and is taught as a semester course for seventh and eighth graders, and a full year course for 9th graders. implementation was completed during the 1992-93 school year when the last lab was installed at Southwest junior high, f\" LL, T._,._____ Industrial Arts teachers, who had to receive additional training and college credit to become certified to teach the course. All of the instructors were certified communication, The curriculum content in Exploring Industrial Technology Education is directed toward four major clusters for 7th, 8th, and 9th graders: communication, construction, manufacturing, and E.P.T. (energy, power and transportation). Students are exposed to using computers, robots, lasers, pneumatics, telecommunication, and other modern equipment and concepts. This course should be taken by any student declaring a Tech Prep course of study in Trade and Industry skilled training programs. This course should B. Tech Prep is a national movement to better prepare students for the complexities of life in the 21st century. Tech Prep is considered a \"dual- purpose program of study\", which means that upon completion of the Tech Prep core, students are prepared to enter a vocational college preparatory program or a combination. or technical program, a Act 980 of 1991 requires that schools establish a Tech Prep core curriculum. _____ has made great progress in implementing the Tech Prep initiative, but still has a lot of work to complete. During the 1993-94, and 1994-95 school years, changes have been made and capstone or \"completer\" courses have been put in place to provide the linkage needed to have complete programs of study in the home schools. The Tech Prep programs of study are available in Consumer Home Economics, Business Education and Marketing, and Trade and Industry in all of the home schools. These programs of study will give students what they need to be employable or to continue their postsecondary education or training after high school graduation. The new standards require each school to make available programs of study in three occupational programs. Because Metropolitan Area Vocational Center is a part of the Little Rock School District, the skills training programs offered there are an extension of the Trade and Industry program of study. In the Little Rock School District home schools. Trade and Industry programs are limited, almost non-existent. The Little Rock School District II PROBLEM DEFINITION I I I lab. Current funding and the high cost of equipment, supplies and materials prohibits the opportunity to fully comply with state required standards for an E.I.T.E. Further, the lack of trained, certified personnel to teach the course provide additional problems for this program. There are currently three schools with long-term substitutes or non-certified personnel teaching the course. Since these teachers are not trained to teach this course, it is not cost effective to continue to offer it unless certified personnel are hired and adequate funding is available to maintain the labs or bring them up to required standards. Another problem vocational programs are facing is that of low enrollment in some skills programs or lack of equipment needed to adequately support the program, caution. While trying to eliminate these courses, the District must use Several vocational courses are needed to make complete programs ofstudy available to those students declaring Tech Prep rather than College Pr courses of study. Under Act 969 of 1993, students who graduate after May 1, 1997, shall have successfully completed either the college preparatory core curriculum or the technical core curriculum. \u0026amp;D 1 1 I I C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The acceptable alternative is to eliminate the E.I.T.E. course at these schools and distribute the equipment to the other schools. Two of the schools have had such severe equipment loss/damage within the last 2-3 years, it would be impossible to purchase the equipment needed to bring the labs up to standards. The initial cost of setting up these labs amounted to well over $45,000.00. Those two schools are Forest Heights and Pulaski Heights. high, a certified teacher is needed. The equipment and lab at Southwest was the last to be installed in the District, and is currently being well- --- The minority teacher recruiter has been contacting several col lege/universities in search of certified E.I.T.E. personnel. maintained. At Southwest junior Those vocational courses with low enrollment at the home schools should continue if their elimination would in effect, eliminate the completion of a program of study. If programs of study are not implemented, the District could lose federal and state funds. D. RECOMMENDATION The Little Rock School District recommends that the E.I.T.E. labs at Forest Heights and Pulaski Heights be eliminated and also, that vocational courses in the home schools not in high student demand, be eliminated if it would not negatively impact a vocational course of study. The following vocational courses have been identified by the vocational director and principal of the identified home schools. 1) 2) Computer Tech: RPG Programming -McClellan Business Magnet Due to low enrollment in some of the Home Economics programs at J. A. Fair, one of the FTE Home Economics positions should be cut to .5 FTE ! E. OBJECTIVES 1. Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) labs not meeting state standards either through equipment needs or lack of certified staff, will be eliminated to allow funds/equipment needed to operate other E.I.T.E. labs to be transferred, thereby ensuring their success. 2. Vocational courses with consistent low enrollments will be eliminated to provide adequate funding for other, more viable vocational courses in that school or in the District. These objectives support District goal #4, which will allow for the securing of financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support district schools and programs. Evaluative Criteria: The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved: 1) The amount of additional funds and equipment made available2) 3) 4) for the remaining labs\nstudents having access to the E.I.T.E. lab will also have access to all of the required equipment and materials needed to meet state standards\nstudents will be able to transfer learning experiences to skilled training programs in Trade and Industry\nand immediate cost savings is realized. Expected The District will be able to meet the state required equipment standards for the E.I.T.E. programs remaining in existence and provide adequate Tunaing for other vocational programs relative to eouioment ciiinnlioc: matorijic Benefits: and staff. programs relative to equipment, supplies, materials F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. Pro^r^ - There will be students at two junior high schools who will not have access to the learning experiences gained in an Also, this program is used as a \"back-up\" course at these schools which may present a scheduling problem for school administrators. E.I.T.E. lab. 2. 3. 4. The changing of two FTE Home Economics positions at J. to 1.5 FTE would not adversely affect the program, with the present enrollment, this would have been change this school year. The .5 FTE could travel between J. A. Fair and another school with a need for a .5 FTE. A. Fair Currently, a more resourceful The Computer Technology: RPG Programming course at McClellan has never been in full force since being implemented in the 1993-94 equipment needed to teach the programming course {AS400) IS housed at Metropolitan Area Vocational Center and was tied into by McClellan in 1993. Many mechanical difficulties were experienced and, low enrollment and/or lack of student interest has resulted in this recommendation to eliminate the course. TLI^ vul not have a negative impact on the magnet program, nor the Tech Prep programs of study. school year. This would Desegregation Plan No negative impact is noted. Court Order No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Each year, the vocational programs are monitored through the State Equipment standards required by the State Department is a part of that monitoring system. The District can be cited for lack of required equipment as well as certified staff. S^,^ parents and students may complain because they will not have access\"to these classes. Administrators will be displeased if the elimination of courses cause master scheduling problems. Department of Education. The District can be Some* * .5 FTE 1 FTE $ 13,850.00 or 27,700.00 *Based on average teacher salary. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Primary supporters of this proposal will be central office staff, including the vocational director.  . These are the supporters who will not be directly affected by the recommendation. Those opposed to the recommendation will include school administration, teacher some parents, and students attending that school. The opposition by teacher and administration will stem from the loss of a program and possible scheduling problems. Students and parents will object to the loss of an opportunity to experience the learning activities or exposure to modern technology in the E.I.T.E. lab. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DATE ACTIVITY PERSON RESPONSIBLE 1/13/95 Business Case submitted to PRE and Deputy Superintendent Vocational Director 1/26/95 Recommendation presented to LRSD Board of Directors Superintendent 2/01/95 Building Administrator and Counselors notified of Program changes Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent 2/10/95 Course Selection forms and brochures reflect changes Deputy Superintendent 3/01/95 Spring Recruitment begins Vocational Administration and Staff5. Ri sks If these courses are not eliminated, the District runs the risk of being cited for not meeting state standards. Complaints may also arise from parents and students due to the lack of equipment, supplies and materials needed to properly operate the lab. Further, there may be complaints from parents, students, administrators, staff and other student interest groups due to a lack of understanding why these budget cuts are necessary. I 6. Timing The major timing issues are those of spring registration and recruitment for the 1995-96 school year. j G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS 1. Personnel - The elimination of two (2) E.I.T.E. labs would also eliminate two (2) FTE positions. The reduction of two (2) FTE positions at J. A. Fair in Home Economics to 1.5 FTE positions would have no impact since that .5 FTE position would in effect, travel to another building as a .5 FTE. The elimination of the Comouter Technoloav\nRPG Programming course Computer Technology: would not affect personnel. 2. Financial Analysis - Provided is a listing of equipment that must be purchased to meet state standards for E.I.T.E. labs. Additionally, tools, supplies, and materials will need to be purchased. EQUIPMENT PRICE 1. CAD Drafting Station W/Auto CAD and Mouse $ 1,845.00 2. IBM Printer (2) 500.00 3. Software Packages Aldus PageMaker, Word Processing, and Flight Simulator 710.00 4. Lego Technic Control - #968 670.00 5. IR02-EMU-Into to Robotics 2,995.00 6. SIP 250 Communications Trainer 1,980.00 7. ECI Into to Electronic Systems 689.00 8. EET-IL #200-2002 Modular Electronics W/Lego 1,199.95 9. C.A.D.E.T. II #325-1450 Exploring Technology Trainer W/Lego 1,075.00 10. C.A.D.E.T. II #325-1450 W/#200-1403 Exploring Fiker Optics 875.00 11. Exploring Technology Trainer W/Power Base Plate 575.0012. 13. Exploring Fiker Optics Trainer W/Power Base Plate Amatrol H-l-Hydraulics W/90-VHI-VHS Tape 275.00 1,399.00 14. Amatrol P-1 Pnuematics 1,099.00 15. Compressor for P-1 and #-l 445.00 16. Amatrol M-l-Mechanisms 1,199.00 17. Lenco Welding Simulator 3,010.00 18. CNC Mill W/Tool Kit and Engraver 4,945.00 19. CMC Lathe 0 #104 W/Tool Kit 4,580.00 20. Intro to Power Mechanics 3,210.00 21. Solar Energy Test Center 1,800.00 22. Solar Sterling Engine 695.00 23. Holography - SLC-ALT HO 1 759.00 24. Laser W/Voice Transmission 659.00 25. Structural Systems Kit 150.00 26. Surveying Package To include: Transit Level, Transit Tripod, Plumbob and Survey Rod 599.00 27. Small Gas Engine Module 1,850.00 28. Structure Module 1,995.00 29. Electronic Publishing Module 599.00 30. Audio/Video Module 2,460.00 Total Equipment Cost: $ 44,841.95 Materials/Supplies, Etc. 5,000.00 Total Estimated Program Cost: (Per Lab) $ 49,841.95 Through the elimination of two E.I.T.E. labs, the following cost savings will be realized: 1. Equipment, Supplies and Materials - 2 @ $ 49,841.95 each $ 99,683.90 2. Two teachers positions - 2 @ $ 27,700.00 each $ 55,400.00 $ Total savings: $155,083.90 The recommendation to eliminate one Home Economics teacher at J. A. Fair or reduce the staff from 2 FTE's to 1.5 FTE would yield the following cost savings:Business Cases Requiring Additional Expenditures Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues Social Studies Curriculum RevisionBUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION ! 5 19 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oike of  C ui* V'ClJIi? At the end of the 1990-91 school year, the three Pulaski County School Districts elected to disband the Tri-District Alternative Education Program junior high students that they had collaboratively operated for two years in a facility owned by the Little Rock School District located at 800 Apperson Street. for In August of 1991, the Pulaski County School District opened its program in a District owned property in Scott, Arkansas\nThe North Little Rock School District located its program in the North Little Rock Boys Club and the Little Rock School District choose to maintain its alternative education program in the old Carver Elementary School at the Apperson site. program. Center nine. The District renamed the the Little Rock School District Alternative Learning and continued to serve students in grades seven, eight and Typically, students accepted into the program have evidenced a pattern of low achievement, lack of motivation, poor attendance, low self-concept, are over age for their grade level and have experienced moderate to extensive behavioral problems in traditional school environment. the In recent years, the number of LRSD students in need of alternative programming has far exceeded the number that could be served at the Alternative Learning Center with its present staffing limitations. A waiting list of thirty to forty students who cannot be placed is Expansion of the program to serve a larger pool of at-risk students has been identified as a critical need by building common. principals, teachers, and parents. program enrollment, there is also In addition to increasing the a improvements to the program in general. need to make qualitative Several options for expanding and refining the current Alternative Learning Center program were considered: 1. 2 . Double the enrollment to serve additional students. Establish additional ALC sites at other District owned 3 . 4 . facilities. Do nothing. Maintain the status quo. Explore the feasibility of implementing pilot alternative classrooms in several junior high schools. Alternative one would require a significant expansion in certified and support staff that would be financially prohibitive due to the precarious financial condition of the District at this time. Alternative two, expanding into other District facilities, could greatly increase the operational costs that would be incurred by opening additional buildings and would also result in increasedadministrative costs, unfeasible at this time. Financially, this option also appears The third alternative, ... _______ confidence of parents. \"do nothing If is unacceptable as we would raicn ana parents, staff and the community for failing to appropriately respond to the ' youth. needs of our high-risk The expansion proposed would result from implementing within-a-school\" concept at two pilot \"ilininr* H n e-r-iK. Xv- wouia result trom implementing a \"school- junior high schools, strategy would open up additional seats at the Alternative referrals. Qualitative changes are Kude^t improve discipline, academic achievement, student motivation, and ensure that the staff commitment, training and skills This Learning  discipline. assigned has the vuiiiii.iuii.enc, necessary to provide a quality educational experience to this most at-risk population. These programmatic enhancements would only cost $34,965 in new S:? 1SS5-56 school year. This option would also allow sonoept with an eye toward cost $34,965 in replication if it proves successful. A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District Alternative venue commenced operation in the fall of the 1991-92 school vear AS r'aeo T___________1____ . _ Learning Center As IS the case in many other large urban school districts, the need for alternative educational programs arose in response to the steadily increasing numbers of students in urban districts whose educational . as their personal and social needs were not being met in the traditional educational Generally, alternative school .programs take one following forms: .programs take setting. of the a) Nontraditional instructional, organizational, and . , . , programs designed to engage and challenge students who have become disenfranchised within traditional administrative organizational, school settings. These are typically schools of choice* serving as an alternative within a district's overall school program options. Last b) uasU cnance programs to which students administratively assigned, usually in lieu of suspension expulsion. chance which are or on academic and social-emotional remediation, with the intent of eventual successful transition of the student back school program. Schools with remedial programs which focus to their regular Alternative are nontraditional Intervention strategies are in constant flux, and modes must be reevaluated often. schools by nature. Learning styles ----- The alternative school staff must be flexible and open to change. Each situation is - 2 -unique and instructional schools become requires programs. specialized operate in the staffing, just another educational alternativ\"\"^l Unfortunately same manner ' support and as school alternative regular schools. instead of a They \"true\" The Little Rock has functioned y-9 Me _ J e admi School District as a ' ' upon the recotnmonria*.\n__ blending-oZ/o^rnative recommendation Alternative Learning CeSer' Dunior high schools. Little Rock -  to the  Alternative placement staff and a Students a and , i'^^^ning Center a and b. Students are u Learning Center team Students composed of from the may also be Rock School District Board of n?r^nt by the xPttLion.   alternative S-S-? through the Alte%Vt?vran\" wlU Sudent eventually return l Learning Cente7 i students from the ' to thei-r \"in  beaming Center i------- _ heir home school . Presently,\" the school. program and Several ei'rrht -i ' Staffed to eight junior high , accommodate sixtv schools. ia-Lxcy conditions be effective: must be met for an alternative school to a - PosiffS! trained i - school climate - high expectations parent involvement - respect at all levels - freedom for the with in alternative clearly de^ined\"\"\" limits staff to During the 1994-95 school year - - the structure and ooeratin/ '  Center as current!v Procedures identified: organized. and year 1) 2) 3) 4) experiment a committee was formed to examine of the Alternative Several areas nf conc'e^m concern were areas of Learning High absentee director, the averaqe daiiv co of enrollment. daily attendance hovers rate of students. According to the program around 60% High suspension A disproportionate cehavioral the process at ffe\" CeXt\"' term suscension or expulsion. d' students have are disruptive to suspension and end the program. serious up receiving either learning a long Limited number certifiod *. students ^^^'^bers have a students.  students. have served. Th in- ratio This ratio dictates a The staff Of to twelve capacity of one sixty The absence of an on-^ enhance skills and sxiiis and understand^^^^ development high risk students in program to working with - 3 -5) The absence of a strong transition component that effectively paves the and way follow-up for the student's eventual reintegration into the regular school setting. After an examination of issues relating to the educational and support needs of the target students and the fiscal limitations of the Little Rock School District, it was concluded that a plan to pilot an expansion of the program and to implement specific strategies to improve and refine the existing program would be the most effective and fiscally responsible path to take for the 1995- 96 school year. - 4 -I B. PROBLEM DEFINITION Many concerns are apparent with the junior high alternative program now in place. Building administrators and teachers are identifying more students with special needs that cannot be addressed in the regular classroom setting. The current program cannot honor all of the recommendations made by the schools. In most cases, students have to be placed on a waiting list while problems tend to escalate. The alternative program also needs to be refined to become more responsive to the needs of its students. or school. ---------------- Students are not motivated, nor do some show an interest in attending class On average, forty percent of the students are absent daily. Students appear to have a difficult time in their transition back into the regular school setting. The students who want to receive a quality education are affected by those students who are constantly being disruptive. At times teachers are not provided the courtesy and respect to present uninterrupted lessons. This problem is widespread in many District junior high schools. Numerous incidents which occur in our schools gives some sense of the magnitude of problems faced daily in both the school and community. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. 2. Double the enrollment at the ALC to increase the number of students served. Expand the maximum number of students served by providing services at more than one site in the Little Rock School District. 3 . 4 . Do nothing. Maintain the status Quo. Explore the implementing a pilot alternative classroom in targeted junior high schools. feasibility of Alternative one would require that the current instructional staff at the ALC be doubled. This expansion would be financially prohibited at this time due to the precarious financial condition of the district. The District has several surplused buildings which could be used to expand services. However, this option would greatly increase the operational costs that would be incurred by opening an additional building with attendant administrative costs. feasible at this time. Financially, this option is not The third alternative is unacceptable as we would lose the faith and confidence of parents and staff for failing to respond to the needs of our at-risk students. Alternative programs, by their nature, are designed to provide the academic and social support for students - 5 -D. whose developmental needs are not being met through the traditional educational delivery system. Our continuing goal is to ensure that all students receive a guality educational experience that is appropriate to the needs of each youngster. The waiting list for students in need of alternative educational services continues to grow and feed the disillusioned ranks of students dropouts, whose pushouts learning and styles other and personal/social needs are not met within the traditional educational setting. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the need for increased capacity for alternative educational services in the District and the limitations in funding an expanded program, the following recommendations are proposed to increase capacity by reducing the number of schools who refer through establishing pilot, school-based alternative classrooms. This proposal would increase the number of students served through alternative educational options while providing opportunity to test the efficacy of a school-based alternative an I classroom model. 1. Pilot a school-based alternative class in two junior high schools where the building administrator has agreed to be a pilot site. \"Base\" or coordinating teacher would remain with a maximum of twelve to One fifteen seventh and eighth grade students during the school day. The Base teacher will provide programmatic instruction in social skills, school survival s............................. provide maintain skills, behavior management and would also assistance with homework student records and serve assignments, between the home and school. as a liaison Instruction in the English, math. core curricula science and social content areas of studies would be provided by regular teachers from the core disciplines who would be assigned or would volunteer to teach one This period during the day in the alternative classroom. approach allows the students to remain in the regular school setting and maintain academic progress without losing touch with the regular curriculum or the regular teachers. By removing these thirty students from the pool of referrals to the Alternative Learning Center, more space would be freed up at the ALC for the more difficult students. Nominations to the Alternative Classroom would be made by classroom teachers and/or parents to the school's Pupil Services Team where all decisions on placement would be made. Students would be assigned to the program for a minimum of nine weeks and a maximum of one semester in a - 6 -2. eligible for re-entry into the regular school structure. However, re-entry would be contingent upon the recommendations of the Base Teacher to the Pupil Services Team. The existing ALC program design be revised and refined to strengthen the academic offerings and to make the environment more responsive to the special needs of the students. These modifications would include: A. Staffing Modifications 1. 2. 3. Vacate current staff and recruit new staff who demonstrate commitment to the ALC concept and possess skills required to support the needs of the student population. Add a full time resource officer Replace the school counselor position with a psychiatric social worker position. B. Dress Code Institute a dress code that would require uniformity in dress. some C. Parental Involvement 1. Mandate parent/student contract that specifies required parental involvement in the school's program and attendance at required teacher/parent conferences. a 2. Parents would be expected to volunteer at least one day each nine weeks at the school. D. Transitioning Component Develop specific procedures that prepare the student and the \"home school\" for the students re-entry. Monitoring and follow-up o'f the student's progress for a minimum of six months after exiting the ALC would be conducted by the ALC social worker and the home:-school counselor. E. Pre-service and Inservice Training Component Plan a schedule students five day pre-service training workshop for are the first week school staff. assigned to of the school before ALC, for all Content would include, but not be limited to, classroom management, contingency contracting. Service Learning, development and cooperative learning. adolescent In-service workshops would be conducted throughout the school 7 -F. year based on needs identified by building staff. Curriculum Enhancements 1. Implement curriculum based Service Learning into the curriculum. E. 2. Providea daily class in behavior management and social skills content to be delivered by the school social worker. OBJECTIVES 1. To increase the number of junior high school students served through alternative educational options. 2. To provide an appropriate classroom environment for those school-based alternative success . -------- students not having in the regular classroom setting. The school-based alternative classroom recommendation Little Rock School District goals, follows: 1 and 5 which supports are as Goal One:  Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skill and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal Five: Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Evaluation Criteria Criteria for evaluation of the alternative classroom will include: proposed school-based 1. An increase in the number of junior high school students being served. 2. A reduction in the number of student absences measured by attendance reports. as 3. Increased student motivation as measured by improved attendance, academic achievement, improved behavior, and a reduction in long term suspension and expulsion disciplinary sanctions. suspension Expected Benefits expected The benefits of the school-based classrooms for the seventh and eighth grade students include: services to more students than are currently being served' less difficulty in their transition back into the ' alternative regular - 8 -classroom\nand a reduction in daily absenteeism and recidivism rates. These benefits should be realized during the first two years of operation. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Positive Impact 1. 2. 3. Better support for more students with specialized needs. Less transition difficulty for students returning to the regular classroom. A reduction in daily absenteeism. Negative Impact 1. 2. Possible increases in program costs. Administrators and teachers who feel disobedient students should be removed from classroom setting, district. as well that the as from the school The proposed school-based alternative classrooms will complement both the Little Rock School District desegregation plan and court orders by providing additional specialized alternative learning opportunities for high risk students that are cost effective and educationally sound. Political Factors Because the implementation of this recommendation will result increased spending over the 1994-95 budget for the ALC, some may object to additional expenditures while other programmatic and staff cuts are being made. in while Timing Because of the general concerns regarding school and classroom * -   the achievement disparity between at- risk and other students, the refinement of the ALC program will be viewed as a welcomed relief by building administrators teachers. discipline, and The parties in the desegregation case should also see this move as a positive effort toward recognizing and responding to the needs of this population of students in spite of our diminishing financial resources. RISKS The risk of implementing this program is that it has the possibility of increasing the cost of alternative educational programs for students in this district. ------- The risk of not implementing change is that fewer students would be served and the schools will continue to have students on lonq waitino lists. - 9 -G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS 1. Personnel analysis School based alternative classrooms would be piloted at Southwest and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. Each classroom would be staffed by a full time coordinator who would have the responsibility for delivering academic instruction, developing and delivering behavior modification instruction, maintaining student records, contacting parents with status reports, and advising the administration on program progress. In addition to a coordinator at  each site, four core curriculum instructors would be required for one hour daily at each site to deliver instruction in English, science, and social studies. mathematics, It is proposed that Alternative Classroom personnel be identified from the current teaching faculty in the pilot schools and released from their current responsibilities to participate in this program for the 1995-96 school year. This would require the elimination of 1 FTE at each site from the current programming to serve as program coordinator. would also require the identification of four core This area teachers (English, science, social studies, mathematics) who could be assigned to the alternative classroom for one hour daily to deliver instruction as part of their teaching load. The total personnel requirement for program operation for 1995-96 would be 1.8 FTE (1+.2X4=1.8) existing personnel from the current sites in each site. released from current responsibilities to could assume not If be these positions, then an additional new personnel requirement of 3.6 FTE would be required to operate the two pilot projects. If new personnel are required, candidates may emerge from current staffing that are surplused in other area junior high schools due to enrollment changes in some schools. Otherwise, candidates would be selected from the current applications of new employees. Training of all program personnel would be necessary. Administrators in the pilot schools would need training in program operations, behavior modification, record keeping, linkages with service providers district. and curriculum outside and inside the for the program. Program coordinators would need training in all of the above areas and also parental contact administration. requirements. and program The core teachers would need training in curriculum development (combining curricular objectives and delivery techniques for grades 7 and 8 into one course in each core area). training and requirements. They would also need behavior modification would need to know the parental contact 10 -Training for the teachers and coordinator would be held prior to the assignment of students to the program in the time period after 9 1/4 contract personnel report to work in the fall of 1995. July, 1995. Training for the administrators should occur in Course development would begin in the Spring 95 by curriculum supervisors and core teachers at the school pilot sites. 2. Financial analysis The following costs would be incurred in 1995-96 for each of the two pilot programs. Program Coordinator 1.0 FTE .2 FTE core area teacher = 6,000 X 4 = Curriculum development Training $33,495 X 2 = 24,000 X 2 = Materials, Supplies, Textbooks Equipment School Resource Officer 8,075 X 2 7,300 X 2 $66,990 48,000 4,265 1,000 16,000 14,600 16,500 The above itemized costs for personnel are based on an average teacher salary of $30,000 plus $1,200 benefits and $2,295 FICA for a total cost per coordinator of $33,495. These costs would already be borne by the personnel budget of the two individual schools if individuals can be surplused from current assigned duties to serve as program coordinators. Similarly, the 48,000 for .2 FTE for eight core instructors would not be new or additional costs either, if these persons can be identified from existing staffs and assigned one hour of their day to teach in the program. An added cost for personnel would be for the proposed school resource officer for the Alternative Learning Center, cost would be $16,500. That The materials and supplies costs for desk supplies, paper for copying, VCR tapes, and textbooks would not be new costs. These monies would already be in the operations budget in the two pilot schools, but would be diverted to this program. costs for supplementary instructional materials The and supplementary textbooks, and software would be new costs ($3,500 total) X 2 = $7,000. Equipment costs for an overhead projector, TV and VCR would normally be expected to be included in the operations budgets of the two schools. available at no new cost. These are usual items, probably already that could be dedicated to this program. The expenses for an FM radio, computers, repairs, and a copier allocation would be new costs, ($3,100 total) X 2 = $6,200. Training costs ($1,000) and curriculum development costs ($4,265) would also be new costs, not included in the current operations budgets of the involved schools. 11The total new costs for the two pilot programs which would not be absorbed by having to provide services to the students in the two pilot schools, is $18,465. An additional new cost for the Alternative Learning Center Program on Apperson is $16,500 for the school resource officer. The total new costs for this proposal are $34,965.00. Costs for personnel would be expected to increase annually over district. 5 years at the same cost of other personnel in the That expected rate is 3%. Books, supplies, and materials costs should remain fairly consistent over the period of five years except for anticipated inflation rate of 3-5% per year. an Training would be ongoing and periodic as changes in the program dictate. It is expected that training cost would increase by 5% per year. Equipment costs should be constant year to year except for an inflation rate of 3-5%. Funding sources for the operation of this program would be the local school operations budget. Because these students are to be housed at the regular school program, the costs for serving them would be covered in the building budget. However, due to the relatively small class size of this program (12-15), the per pupil cost ratio would be higher for these students than for others. Additional supplementary funding for the program might be available from grants or the local business community from matching grants such as the Entergy Stay In School program. Cost savings by using the pilot approach will result from a decreased need to duplicate these services at another site or to expand the size, of the current Alternative Learning Center on Apperson. Although these pilot programs will increase costs, the overhead will be less due to the requirement to educate these students in the home school that is already built into the operational budget of the school. This model eliminates transportation costs to the alternative learning center and will use existing faculty and classroom space. It will not require additional utility costs or furniture costs. 12 -BUDGET MATERIALS/SUPPLIES desk supplies (stapler, paper clips, tape, markers, etc.) Paper for copying Software VCR tapes Supplementary instructional materials Textbooks 4-6 per student @ approximately $45.00 each Supplementary textbooks $ 250.00 250.00 2,000.00 25.00 500.00 Total $ 4,050.00 1,000.00 8,075.00 X 2 $16,150.00 EQUIPMENT Overhead projector Television VCR Radio(FM for communications) Computers Repairs Copier or copier allocation Total $ $ 140.00 350.00 250.00 350.00 2,000.00 500.00 250.00 3,840.00 X 2 $ 7,680.00 TRAINING COSTS Consultants Materials $ 750.00 250.00 Total $ 1,000.00 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT COSTS Stipends Materials $ 4,015.00 250.00 Total $ 4,265.00 PERSONNEL School Resource Officer $114,990.00 16,500.00 $131,490.00 PROJECT TOTAL $160,585.00 TOTAL NEW COSTS $ 34,965.00 13 -H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Classroom Teachers should support the concept of the school within a school. The process would allow those students who waiting list to be removed from the classroom. are on a Parents of those students would appreciate the opportunity for their children to attend school instead of staying home where sometimes they tend to get into more trouble. Troubled students would probably feel more comfortable in a regular school setting where they may still have the opportunity to be mainstreamed back into the classroom. Little Rock Community. Little Rock The School District Board of Directors. law enforcement and truancy authorities would feel more comfortable with ALL students in school on a daily basis. Concern over disruptive students is presently very high among school district personnel, parents, and the Little Rock community at large. Efforts to improve the Little Rock School District's programs for such students would be expected to receive support from all of these factions. However, detractors may emerge among individuals or groups who feel these efforts are of insufficient magnitude, or who oppose any efforts which do not result in immediate removal of disruptive students from their home school campus. Primary detractors may be some administrators and teachers who feel that  disobedient students should be removed from the classroom setting as well as from the school environment. The success of the pilot programs would convince detractors that the possibilities of a school within a school may resolve many of our problems which include attendance, the lack of an experienced staff, list and disruptive students in the classrooms. a waiting I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The milestones for plan implementation include the following: approval of the (a) business case, developed at the building level. (b) program guidelines (c) budget development and (d) curriculum development completed, approval (local and ADE), approval, (e) curriculum training scheduled, (f) training design developed and (g) program staff selected, (h) site for determined, (i) furniture, equipment administrator training completed, (k) textbooks, (1) training of coordinator and program furniture. supplies provided. provided, (j) materials. (m) teachers, initial selection and placement participants, (n) delivery of program curriculum. core area of program aelivery curriculum, (o) monitoring and evaluation of program operations, (^\n_i_ii_ program monitoring and evaluation (q) modification of operations as necessary, (r) end of year evaluation design developed and submitted. (p) periodic reporting of program Timelines, tasking, and reporting forms are included in the attached tables. 14 -MILESTONES a. aproval of the business case b. program guidelines developed at the building level c. budget development and approval d. curriculum development completed (behavior modification program, combining 7 8 course objectives to one course with suggested instructional procedures) e. curriculum approval (local administration and Board) f. training design developed and training scheduled g. program staff selected h. site for program determined i. furniture, equipment provided j. adn'inistraior training completed K. Textbook, materials, and supplies provided I. training completed for coordiantor and core area teachers m. initial selection and placement of program participants n. delivery of program curriculum o. monitonng and evaluation of program operation p. periodic reporting of program monitoring and evaluation q. modification of program operation as necessary r. end of year evaluation developed and submitted TIMELINES a. Januar\\-Februar\u0026gt;. W95 b. March 1-31. 1995 c. March - April, 1995 d. March - May, 1995 e. June 1-30, 1995 f. March - June, 1995 g. June-July, 1995 h. June-July, 1995 i. July-August, 1995 July 1-31, 1995 k. August 1-31, 1995 1, August-September 10, 1995 m. August-September 10, 1995 n. August-June, 1996 o. August-June, 1996 p. October, January, April, June q. October, January. April, June r. June 1-Junc 30, 1996 a. TASKING Cabinet b. Pnncipals. Cloverdale. Southwest c. Principals and Mark Milhollen d. Principals, curriculum supervisors, core teachers, staff development e. curriculum supervisors f. principals, curriculum supervisors, staff development g. principals h. principals i. principals, purchasing dept. j. staff development k. principals, purchasing dept. 1. principals, curriculum supervisor, staff development m. principals, assistant principals, pupil services Team. Larry Robertson n. coordinators, core teachers 0. principals, coordinators p. principals, coordinators q. principals, coordinators r. principal, coordinators 15 - a. reporting approval nwnw b. Program description completed c. budget approval memo d. curriculum developed e. approval memos f. training design completed and scheduled g. master schedule developed h. memo to Deputy Superintendent i. memo to Deputy Supt. (status report) j. memo (status report to [\u0026gt;epuiy Superintendent) k. status report to Deputy Superintendent 1. status report to Deputy Superintendent m. quarterly reports n. quarterly reports o. quarterly status reports p. quarterly status repons q. quarterly status repons r. Annual ReportBUSINESS CASE The Arkansas Crusades 01 I' iun iviCitK.i-V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State of Arkansas received a $10 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to initiate systemic change in mathematics and science. The Statewide Systemic Initiative started in 1991 with the Math Crusade, followed by the K-4 Crusade in 1994 and the Science Crusade in the Spring of 1995. Crusades are now known as the Arkansas Crusades. These three Crusade training has been highly touted by Little Rock School District teachers. Participants in the Arkansas Crusades rank the training course as one of the very best in which they have ever participated. (See Appendix A) They feel that the training has helped improve the math and science instruction they provide to their students. For teachers to participate in Crusade training, their district must purchase classroom sets of math and science equipment that is reimbursed on a 50-50 basis with NSF funds. The Little Rock School District used desegregation funds for these purchases during the 1994-95 school year. Separate business cases were.accepted that provided $18,000 for K-4 Crusade equipment and $25,000 for Science Crusade hands-on equipment. The Math Department used $9,000 in a desegregation control account to purchase Math Crusade equipment. Assistance for the three Crusades is requested in the amount of $30,000 to use for purchase of math and science equipment on a 50- 50 matching basis with NSF grant funds. will be able to participate in one of the Crusade training courses Approximately 30 teachers during 1995-96. With the NSF match the $30,000 will purchase $60,000 of math and science equipment for our schools. A State bid further increases the amount of equipment that can be purchased with the requested funds by about 40-50%. The bottom line is that $30,000 will purchase about $90,000 of vital hands-on science and math equipment that trained teachers will use to instruction in math and science for all students, K-12. improve A. BACKGROUND The Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) Program began in 1991 with the Math Crusade, a three hour graduate course taught by teams consisting of a university professor and a public school teacher. More than 1200 math teachers statewide and over eighty (80) teachers in the Little Rock School District have been retrained through the Math Crusade. These teachers' classrooms have been equipped with the latest mathematics tools and calculators. Much of the training focuses on the use of manipulatives to teach mathematics concepts. The new phase of the Statewide Systemic Initiative that includesthe K-4. and Science Crusades is supported by a National Science Foundation grant of $10 million and covers five years. Crusade began in the Spring of 1994 and is delivered through a six hour graduate course that integrates reading, mathematics, The K-4 and science. science specialists that include university professors ___ elementary teachers. The Science Crusade is a three hour graduate course that began in January, 1995. Like the other Crusade K-4 Crusade courses are team taught by reading, math, and and courses, the Science Crusade is team taught by university professors and public school teachers. The K-4 and Science Crusades place the latest science and math equipment in participating teachers' classrooms. Thirty-eight (38) LRSD teachers have participated in the K-4 Crusade to date and fifteen (15) LRSD teachers made application for the Science Crusade, which is just underway. During the 1994-95 school year, $42,000 was used to support the P^^ticipstion of Little Rock School District teachers in one of the Arkansas Crusades. Continued support of the Arkansas Crusades for 1995-96 is warranted. Although Stanford-8 achievement results by teacher are not kept at the secondary level, students at the elementary level scored highest in mathematics in five of the six elementary grade levels. studies in grade 3.) (Math was slightly lower that social K-4 and Science Crusade training has not been place long enough to determine its effect on student achievement. We are awaiting the 1995 Stanford-8 results to track in individual teacher-participants in the Arkansas determine Crusade training leads to increased achievement in reading, science, and mathematics. if Crusades to student B- PROBLEM DEFINITION To register for one of the Arkansas Crusades, teachers must have the financial support of the sending district. The superintendent of each district must sign an agreement to purchase classroom equipment and supplies for each participating teacher. Fifty percent (50%) of the equipment cost is reimbursed the district through NSF matching funds. The per teacher cost for the district's part of the classroom equipment and supplies is $250 for grades K-2 in the K-4 Crusade, $400 for grades 3-4 in the K-4 Crusade, $400 for grades 5-7 Math Crusade, $1200 for grades 8-12 Math Crusade, $900 for grades 5-8 Science Crusade, and $1,500 for grades 8-12 Science Crusade. Individual schools in the Little Rock School District have limited funds for materials and supplies\nthey consequently, have a difficult time supporting participation of teachers in the Arkansas Crusades. the To ensure continued participation of teachers in the Arkansas Crusades, the Little Rock School District must dedicate funds for that purpose over the four remaining years of the SSI project. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Possible alternatives for funding teachers to participate in one of the Arkansas Crusades fall into two major categories: site basedfunding and district funding. funding from grants, PTA, and partners solicited. within both categories, outside in education can be Non-participation in the Crusades is another option. These alternatives, which are described below, were generated by a brainstorming session with Little Rock School District trainers for the Arkansas Crusades. 1. Non-participation in the Crusades - Because of our budget crisis, the Little Rock School District could elect to not support teachers in taking Crusade courses. The problem with this approach is that LRSD Goals require that we try to increase disparity among students. achievement and decrease 2. 3. component in reaching our goals. Staff development is a vital development programs should be supported. Successful staff Our teachers, patrons, community and students would frown upon a nonparticipation attitude by the District. Site based funding - Local schools could support their own teachers to participate in one of the Crusades. Schools could allocate a portion of their supply budget for this purpose. In addition schools could ask their PTA or partner in education to help fund a teacher to take a Crusade course. Schools could also work with the grant writer to identify possible grant sources to help teachers participate in the Crusades. Local school support of teachers in the Crusade courses has the drawback that support will be low and uneven among the schools due to local constraints. in the Crusades. schools, and school budgetary Many teachers will be unable to participate In the past, magnet schools, incentive schools with strong PTA support have provided limited support for the Math Crusade and Crusade. Other schools have provided no support. K-4 Grant opportunities are likely to be successful at only one or a few sites, so grants aren't an answer to the problem. District funding - The District could dedicate funds to support Crusade training. District funds could ensure that participation occurs and that it is equitable among schools. In other words, teacher A at school Y would have as good a chance of participating as teacher B at school Z. The District could pursue outside monies supplement local funding. For example. to help the District received $5,000 of Act 453 funds in 1994 to help 5 teachers attend Science Crusade training. Outside funding, however, is uncertain and unlikely to meet the District's needs to support the Arkansas Crusades. Since the Arkansas Crusades are statewide, they don't meet the criteria of uniqueness funding agencies require. and replicability that mostD. By providing District funds for teachers to participate in the Arkansas Crusades, the objective of increasing math and science achievement through an emphasis on the \"hands-on\" would be supported. The Desegregation Plan (April 29, 1992), in strategy 1.2 on page 77, requires that the District \"purchase science supplies for teachers to facilitate the hands-on approach approach.\" The Arkansas Crusades' training would help meet this requirement in the Desegregation Plan. ___ total cost to the District for this alternative would be $30,000. The cost is small compared to the benefits: quality training for about 30 teachers in the latest The teaching strategies in math, science, and reading and the infusion of approximately $90,000 worth of math and science equipment and supplies into our schools. RECOMMENDATION $30,000 in Desegregation money should be dedicated to purchase the math, and/or reading equipment and supplies that are required for teachers to participate in one of the three Arkansas Crusades: K-4 Crusade, Science Crusade. This was selected because it promotes equity among the schools and helps to fulfill our District goals and requirements of the The recommendation is affordable in the sense that a relatively small amount of money is leveraged by a SOSO NSF match and a state bid to allow the purchase of approximately $90,000 worth of equipment and supplies, not to mention the quality training that about 30 teachers will receive. science, Math Crusade, was Desegregation Plan. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the recommendation is to train and equip 30 teachers of mathematics and science. The training in the use of the hands-on approach to teaching math and science, plus the equipment and supplies, will improve instruction for students, resulting in improved student learning. The recommendation supports the goals of the Little Rock School District. Crusade training will help teachers in our District implement educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically (goal #1) The hands-on approach has proven successful across the nation in helping students learn math and science concepts. The hands-on approach works especially well with low academic achievers since it provides the experiential base that many of these students are missing. The Crusades will also provide teachers with an opportunity to become better trained (goal #2) in the areas of mathematics, science and reading. The National Science Foundation is providing funds for the eauinment and supplies. equipment The NSF funds help leverage local funds to secure financial resources to help to support our schools (goals #4). E_, providing District funds, inequities in opportunities for teachers to participate in Crusade training as a result of where they teach will be reduced (goal #6). ByThe recommendation also supports the hands-on approach to science and math that is described strategies 1.2 and 1.3). in the Desegregation Plan (page 77, Evaluation criteria for the objective are both qualitative and quantitative\n1. Teachers who receive Crusade training will be asked to complete a survey about the quality of the training and the impact it has had on their teaching. 2 . A comparison of students' SAT-8 scores in science and/or math will be made for elementary teachers who complete Crusade training. Determining students' SAT-8 results by teacher are not feasible at the secondary level. The expected benefits are better equipped math and science classrooms and teachers who are trained to use the equipment to teach a hands-on approach to science and math. the benefits are the students of the teachers The recipients of F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1) Program The Arkansas Crusades will provide teachers in the Little Rock School District an opportunity to become more knowledgeable about the national standards in I mathematics, science, and reading and also become more comfortable in teaching math with manipulatives, using more hands-on science activities, and integrating science and math with reading. This knowledge and experience will transfer to the science and mathematics program in our District. Our students will become the benefactors of this new methodology and content information. 2) Desegregation The Arkansas Crusades will enhance the goals for science. math, Strategies and reading that are in the Desegregation Plan. 1-2, 1.3 and 1.4 on page 77 of the Desegregation Plan states that- the District will purchase science supplies to facilitate the hands-on science approach, math manipulatives to facilitate hands-on math instruction, and sets of trade books to facilitate the emphasis on literature. The Arkansas Crusades support the purchase of equipment for math, science, and reading and the hands-on approach to teaching. 3) Court Order The Arkansas Crusades support the recommendations made by ODM in the Incentive School Monitoring Report (12/09/93, page 49) concerning science labs in the Incentive Schools and in-service regarding the use of the labs. Incentive4) 5) 6) G. school teachers who participate in Crusade training would receive equipment and supplies and training about how to use them This equipment and training will enhance the science labs in the Incentive Schools. Political Factors The Arkansas Crusades an effort to bring about systemic change in the area of mathematics and science. are The Crusades are a joint effort of the General Education Division of the Arkansas Department of Education and the Arkansas Department of Higher Education. Cooperating with these agencies would be a positive action for our District. Principals, teachers, and patrons feel that the District should support teachers in participating in Crusade training. Risks The risk of doing this program consists of a $30,000 hit on an already undernourished budget. doing this program are considerable. Inequity in teacher pai^ticipation in the Arkansas Crusades among schools. The risks of not missing a tremendous opportunity to improve math and science education, and the political fall-out from not providing teachers the tools they need to improve math and science instruction are the primary risks. Little Rock School District does not participate and loses ground in student test scores to districts that do If the participate, the satisfaction level with the LRSD will diminish among patrons, business groups. teachers, and community and Timing 1995-96 will be the second of five years that Statewide Systemic Initiative will be funded. the The Little Rock School District needs to be active in the Crusades for each of the five years. A modest amount of funding is requested in this proposal with the assumption that the support by the District will continue throughout the five years of the Arkansas Crusades. RESOURCE ANALYSIS The Arkansas Crusades proposal provides funds for the required purchase of classroom equipment and supplies for teachers who complete one of the Crusade training programs, does not ask for nor does it impact personnel. The proposal Cost of materials and supplies for about 30 participants in the Arkansas Crusades - $30,000 (50-50 matching funds from NSF and a State bid increases the purchasing power of the $30,000 to about $90,000 for 1995-96. )A similar amount will be requested over the next three years. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Supporters of this program will include teachers who either have participated in Crusade training or desire to do so in the future. principals of teachers who have or intend to see complete the training, and students and parents of students who are the beneficiaries of the training. Supporters will also include business and community leaders who want to graduates who are better prepared to assume jobs in the 21st century. A step toward this goal will be to make state-of- the-art math and science equipment available to every student beginning in kindergarten. makes on the Detractors, if any, would be those who view this proposal only in terms of the small splash of red ink it budget. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Activity Completion Date Responsible/ Participating Person(s) I. Tachers make applicaion far Arkamas Cnuadei. M4JJ-9S Ftdl 12-01.95 Sprmg Teachers. Phnapals 2. Sdence!Mah Oflee processes the applictaions and secures the Superotsoidenr's signanoe 00-15-95 Ftdl 12-15-95 Sprotg Trish FSIeigstvordi Fate Carson 3. Approved afpiieaioni are sera ro requested 08-15-95 Fdl 12-1595 Sproig Demis Giasga\u0026gt;rf 4. Teaekerj partapate in Cntjaie 090195 ihreugh 12-15-95 F(dt OI-OS-96 rfrough 05-15-96 Sprotg Teachers 5. Teachers select equipnenr a/td supplies from appraifai State Bid list. 10-15-95 Fan 02-15-96 Sprotg Teachers. Phnapals 6. Equifmtemlsuppiia ordered by Sdeneeiideeh ogiee. 11-01-95 F^ 03-01-96 Sproig Trish FBI'otgseterdi Fene' Caan 7. Afareceftofequipmeraisupplia. copies of tnooiees sem to Arhansas Crusades o fox fa 507i rdmbursetmnt. 12-15-95 Ftdl 0S4)J-96 Sprott Demis Clastoof 5. Teachers surveyed about value of tntruni upon complaion of course. 12-15-95 Fidl 05-01-96 Sprmg Dennis Glasgotv 9. Pre-post SAT-B scores of paradparetf teachers are compared. (-l5-9d Dennis Glatgow, Dr. Fobert CbversAPPENDIX A Summary of K-4 Crusade Survey Eleven(ll) participants in the K-4 Crusade returned survey forms. The collective responses of these participants are included below each letter. As a participant in the K-4 Crusade IRC. AS Crusade, please respond to the following items and return the survey to Dennis Glasgow, Results of the survey will be used as a measure of success of the ^4 Crusade and to build a case for additional District support for teachers to participate in the K-4 Crusade. Please circle the letter that reflects your opinion of the K-4 Crusade for each item. EFFECT ON KNOWLEDGE The K-4 Crusade: Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1. increased my knowledge of science and mathematics content. a (9) b (1) c (1) d (0) e (0) 2. increased my knowledge of strategies for integrating reading, science, and math. a (8) b (3) c (0) d (0) e (Oj 3. increased my knowledge of hands- on activities in science. a (9) b (1) c (1) d (0) e (0) 4. increased my knowledge of math activities that use manipulatives. (g) c (0) d (0) e (0) 5. increased my knowledge aJaout how to use science materials and equipment. a (9) b (1) c (1) d (0) e (0) a b {2} EFFECT ON TEACHING As a result of taking the K-4 Crusade: Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 6. I have increased the time I spend teaching science in my classroom. a (6) b (4) c (0) d (1) e (0) 7. I have improved the quality of science instruction provided to my students. a (7) b (3) c (0) d (1) e (0) 8. I have improved the quality of math instruction provided to my students. a (9) b (2) c (0) d (0) e (0) 9. I teach more lessons that integrate reading, science, and math. a (9) b (1) c (1) d (0) e (0)As a result of taking the K-4 Crusade: Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 10. I have more materials and supplies to teach science, mathematics, and reading. (10) (1) c (0) d (0) e (0) a b OVERALL RATING 11. How would you rate the K-4 Crusade compared to other training courses you have taken? 12. Among the very best a bed (10) (0) (0) (1) .... Please make comments about your participation in the K-4 Among the very worst e Crusade. (0) b c I enjoyed the course more than can be described. It truely helped my science instructic  I feel the crusade has given me the training, strategies and materials to give my children a more than ample science and math background for their grade level. Good class. Excellent instructors. I truely appreciate having such wonderful and dedicated instructors. They have been a true catalyst for the crusade.  It is a great course. I think it should be required for every teacher. The materials and ideas of whole language was very good. I think with new attitudes and time frame, I would eagerly recommend this class to other teachers. This was an extremely worthwhile class. All teachers should have it!BUSINESS CASE BEACONS SCHOOL Ft kJ .1,: J 5 1905 J')?.\nExecutive Summary The Beacons School, based on a model initiated in New York City, is a comprehensive, year-round school based program located in public school buildings and operated by community-based organizations. During the academic year. Beacons programs operate after school, evenings, and weekends. During summer vacation and other holidays. Beacons programming includes daytime, evening, and weekend hours. The Beacons School is between an example of a program that develops a connection existing resources and community-based organizations to develop viable neighborhood-oriented programming. Community residents will be actively involved in the planning and implementation of range of services that accentuate youth development and strengthen school, family, and community linkage. a After an examination of New York's Beacons Program, the city of Little Rock, the Little Rock School District, New futures for Little Rock Youth, the Department of Health, and Lhc Division Children and Family Services have taken the lead and formed the of Steering Committee to explore the feasibility of operating similar program in Little Rock. a a Junior High School. The City Board of Directors and the School Board both approved resolutions supporting a Beacons School Program at Cloverdale T respective board approvals were Dec. 20, 1994 and Dec. 15, 1994. A. BACKGROUND New York City established the Beacons Program in 1991 to create safe havens for children. youth, and families within the communities considered the poorest and most affected by substance abuse, AIDS and crime. The New York Beacons Programs have been very successful.page 2 The need for a Beacons Program in Little Rock was expressed by the city, school district, state agencies, and New Futures. ' ~ A Beacons Steering Committee was established to study the feasibility of initiating and implementing such program. The committee developed a comprehensive list of criteria to be used by the school , . .. criteria included the district is recommending a school site. following: adequate recreation facilities, sufficient health facilities, ample educational facilities, adequate office space, principal/staff support, and a history of collaborative efforts with youth programs. _ Cloverdale Junior High School successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria. a This collaborative effort now includes the following parties: the city of Little Rock, New Futures for Little Rock Youth, United Way, Department of Human Services, Department of Health, Junior League of Little Rock, county-based organizations and area businesses. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION Over the last decade, a depressed economy and a focus by the Federal government on other national priorities has left little money for the funding of youth programs. Families must work harder simply to make ends meet, and therefore the role of adults in guiding youth is reduced and community and neighborhood life strained. Therefore, many young people today are left with \"nowhere to go and nothing to do\" for nearly 30% of their time. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives were considered: (1) do nothing and continue with current after school programming, (2) discontinue after school programming and refer youth to agencies outside the neighborhood, (3) develop a Beacons Program which would meet the needs articulated by the community. as The best alternative is to establish a Beacons Program. D. RECOMMENDATION In response to the intent demonstrated by both the city of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District, we would recommend the development of a Beacons Program as suggested by the community.E. OBJECTIVES page 3 The objective of establishing a Beacons Program is to address critical issues around youth development, family involvement, neighborhood and community life, and multi-level partnerships in order to achieve improved outcomes for at-risk youth. F. BUDGET The budget is currently being developed by the participating agencies. Each agency is contributing services, relocating services, seeking grant funding for program initiation, and making in-kind contributions.  space, and utilities. The LRSD is contributing office and program The school district has estimated annual custodial costs of $12,000 and strategies regarding this issue are currently being discussed. G. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Below is a projected timeline that will be modified as community input and the implementation process is further defined. DATE ACTIVITY Feb. 95 March 95 Initiating informational meetings in the target community Developing a comprehensive budget Developing the RFP process Securing program agreement April 95 May 95 Disseminating RFP's Conducting a proposers conference Conducting CBO assessments Developing Cloverdale/Beacons agreement Securing programming facilities and office space June 95 Developing job descriptions (director and staff) Hiring of director and staff Program implementationI. I99S ADDITIONAL CLERICAL POSITION Ollinc C!  I executive summary The district is committed to safe, secure school environments, accurate attendance -Arinw J 2- vilvuVlUUCUlb financial accounting and to the educational, social Ar Of nr .  ' of all itc etL . Vai^ounnng ana to the educational, social and emotional growth of all ,.s sludents. Wc a. Mam, arc involved daily will, our expected rcaponsibil^ and dicerJ rr community. Our goal continues to focus on and to carr^' out district mandates effectively and efficiently. obligation to our school We eagerly accept our charge, remaining one of the district's successful schools. Due to the complex nature of being a magnet, this business case proposes Clenca nncit nn mni,\n__,*_____ clerical position, making it possible for an additional us to continue our goals at an optimal level. A. Background Mann Magnet serves a ,. ,  consistent enrollment of 850 students from all three school districts: Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski need to establish and maintain a County. There is an urgent sense of community for our diverse population. /-s ---------------- uul uivcrbc poDUiaiion ^'6^ expectations because, for the most pa.., wc 0  attractive curriculum in a public most part, we B. school setting. Our students are transported to us on different buses, and since fk.... . -----' uiiititiii uubcs, ana since ^ey must perform, attend mandated field trips, participate in activities relating to science and the artsour two soecialtv arras w mnet ^0 specialty areas, we must provide nurturing, after school duty and support for them.  Through the years, there has also been increased demands to take care of extra clerical needs, related on administrative staff to attendance, possible litigating concerns and other reporting. These demands lessen the effectiveness . Assistant Principals, taking away from their expected job responsibilities. of the three secretaries in our office-principal's secretary, registrar and bookkeeper/attendance secretary, a slot of which either bookkeepingconstitutes a full-time job. areaattendance or Problem Given the recent increase of paperwork and all requirements connected with it r __?___ - .  * * ---------- a V Will assistant principals are devoting an inordinate amount of time i Normally, these certified personnel staff members should to clerical minutiae. 1 be assisting withBusiness Case No. 3 Page 2 plenenting d.scipHnan- interventions for our There are a number of factors contributing to this problem:  population from the three schools districts, making at\" -y -de ve^uf that which is typically found in an area nei^borhood school.  There are increased demands accounting accuracy. on administrators due to attendance  Existing clerical personnel are overextended with a myriad of daily responsibilities connected with the effective, efficient high school. running of a junior C. Analysis of Alternatives The administrative team and clerical staff generated and analyzed alternatives: 1. Train and assistance. maintain a strong volunteer pool of parents to give clerical a. Breaching of confidentiality is possible. b. Consistent pattern of service and times needed is lacking. 2. Seek clerical assistance from the district's pool of secretaries, a. Not available at this point. 3. Seek additional who has a night/evening job. monetary resources for existing clerical staff, that is for one regular job hours\nthis is more economical for the district. away A disadvantage is possible bum out plus the possibility misunderstnnd ac ___ misunderstood as preferential treatment for staff member involved. of being 4. \"Do Nothing.\"Business Case No. 3 Page 3 The bookkecpcr/attendance slot is unattractive to employees, causine ____If 1___ r\u0026gt;   dissatisfaction with oneself because of daily overload. Assistant principals will not receive relief from menial tasks at hand. 5. Hire an additional clerical person, who would serve as attendance secretary and as an aide for the assistant principals. This will best accomplish Mann's needs. 6. Half-time Person. While this may look attractive and cost effective, the job is not such that it can be accomplished effectively in one half day. The job's responsibility continues throughout the school day hours. D. Recommendation It IS recommended that a clerical position be added to Mann's clerical staff, giving relief to the bookkeepcr/attendance slot and to the assistant principal's paperwork burden. This addition would give the assistant principals more time to share their expertise in professional ways, such as disciplinary intervening and instructional improvement. E. Objectives The objective of this recommendation is to preserve and maintain an effective school which keeps a positive image for our district. F. Impact Analysis The addition of a clerical position will allow assistant principals to give attention to their expected job responsibility, rather than to clerical duties. Furthermore, the position of bookkecpcr/attendance secretary will be divided into a more workable and manageable job responsibility, making for sound financial accounting and accurate attendance reporting. This addition of a clerical staff member will have a positive impact on the Desegregation Plan because of the added effectiveness and efficiency that arc certain to occur. Assistant nrincioals will he able tn Jjccict mnrn principals be to assist more with the academic, and social environment of Mann, helping to maintain a sense of community for the parents, students and staff.Business Case No. 3 Page 4 G. H. Resource Analysis It is estimated that $3,000 minimal training would be\nForce Field Analysis ' would be required. more than enough for this position and I. General Implementation Plan The pnmipal, working with the Human P i,v 0, is-'thraiired beginning time. Resources Director, will have theEXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUSINESS CASE NEWCOMER CENTERS rc3 i 5 1995 Office of Di Over the past several years, the number of students attending the Little Rock Public Schools who are limited English proficient (LEP) has grown steadily.  This trend has been confirmed by two recent surveys conducted by the district at the request of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). The most recent survey reveals that there are currently five hundred one (501) students representing forty-nine (49) different language groups in the district for whom English is not the native language. It is the responsibility of the district to provide the educational services necessary to enable LEP students to function successfully in a mainstreamed English language educational setting. Federal and state laws do not consider lack of English language skills because of nationality to be a handicapping condition. Instead, such lack of English language skills is viewed as a barrier to access of equitable educational opportunity. It becomes the responsibility of the local school district to provide out of its local funds whatever services are needed to help students overcome the language barrier. Currently, the district is operating an English as language (ESL) tutorial program for LEP students. students are identified by their individual schools. a second As these they are referred to the district's curriculum and instruction division for tutorial services. Tutors are assigned to the students for minimum of one hour of pull-out language instruction each week. a To date, one hundred seventeen (117) students, representing twenty-two (22) language groups, have been referred for tutorial assistance this school year. Because the tutorial program is not equipped to meet the needs of the growing population of LEP students, the district must design and implement a more comprehensive program to meet all state and federal requirements regarding the education of language minority students. After extensive research, it appears that the Newcomer Center concept would serve as the most logical approach for the district to take in order to ensure full legal compliance. Implementation of the Newcomer Center approach will require the district to identify four to six (4-6) elementary schools, two (2) junior high schools, and one (1) senior high school to serve as Newcomer Centers for LEP students and their families. These schools will be equipped to provide the services necessary to assess language and academic skills, to provide intensive English language instruction, to provide appropriate grade level placement and educational orientation services, and to provide parents/family members with the necessary support that they need to be appropriately equipped to assist their children in gaining full access to the educational process.The overall goal of the proposed Newcomer Center program is to provide identified LEP students with opportunities to acquire the English language skills necessary to function successfully within a mainstreamed educational setting. In order to accomplish this, the district must achieve the following program objectives: In order to accomplish this, To develop and implement a - staff development program for principals, counselors, classroom teachers, and English language tutors at each Newcomer Center To develop and implement an ESL language arts curriculum designed to meet the English language learning needs students of LEP To coordinate classroom instructional activities with the ESL English language arts program to ensure that LEP students are being supported within the mainstreamed setting and to ensure a smooth transition for the LEP students and their families into and out of the Newcomer Centers To develop and implement an organized LEP Family Education which will help parents/f amilies members to work effectively with their children in Model succeed at school an effort to help them The Newcomer Center program will be implemented c.. The director of communications, English, ESj languages, and reading will serve as the program leader, of the deputy superintendent and the superintendent for desegregation. Tl__ ......ii\n^ development for all school staff at\" each site* planned and delivered by the program leader, along with trainers from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), and a support trainer from Arkansas Tech University (ATU). The staff development component is the cornerstone of the proposed program and will serve to help the district realize the program goal. period. direction A. BACKGROUND over a three-year ESL, foreign and under the associate The program will emphasize staff which will be were Such Prior to 1991, the LRSD relied on its Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) Office to offer tutorial assistance to LEP students who having difficulty learning in mainstreamed classrooms, assistance was generally sporadic due to lack of determining need, as well as a lack of volunteers. a process for For the most part, the unique learning needs of LEP students were ignored, and the district was out of compliance with federal laws and state regulations. Currently, the district is operating an ESL Program which aims to provide tutorial services for identified LEP students. The ESL Program was established in the spring of 1991 in recognition of a need for the district to achieve compliance with federal laws and 2I state regulations. primary goal of the existing program remains to assist LEP students in acguiring the level of English language skills necessary for parity of participation in the standard instructional program. The of participation in The LEP students identified by the local schools through referral process comprised of multiple records, student self-identification, teacher recommendations. district's are a criteria, including student counselor assessment, and director of The ESL program is managed by the communications, ESL, foreign The program budget for the 1994-95 school English, languages, and reading. ____________ year is $75,000, which covers financial compensation for six part- time tutors at a rate of $15 ner hour fnr ovorw hour n-F a a 1 . 3 rate of $15 per hour for every hour of actual interaction time with LEP students. The tutors are assigned to the a minimum of one hour of pull-out English language instruction each week. referred students for The tutors travel, at their own students' schools where they assist the principals, teachers, and counselors in devising and implementing a support plan for each student assigned to them. expense. ^2 April, 1993, the district conducted a Home Language Survey i request of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). All 50 of the district's (regular) schools were asked to administer the survey to all students in all classrooms at all grade levels, K-12. '^2 survey results revealed that 400 students were potentially eligible for ESL services because a language other than English was Identified as the primary language used in their homes, students represented 66 distinct language English. groups. These 400 other than In early November, 1994, the district again conducted a Home Language Survey at the direction of the ADE. All 4 district's (regular) schools were asked to administer the ap students in all classrooms at all grade levels, K-12. This tiroe the survey results revealed that 501 students were potentially eligible for ESL services because a language other than English was identified as the primary language used in their homes. These 501 students represent 49 distinct language groups, other than English. Of the 501 identified students, the district is currently serving a total of 117 students at 36 different school sites. All 48 of the K-12. survey to These 501 The results of the 1993 and 1994 Home Language Surveys confirm sizeable and growing ESL eligible population in the district. Federal laws, which have been enacted to support and protect civil rights, reguire the district to provide an array of special services to ensure that LEP identified students can succeed in mainstreamed classrooms. Because the laws do not recognize a language barrier a handicapping condition or as a skills succeed a deficit. as the district cannot provide such services for these students through existing Special Education, Compensatory Education programs. Chapter One, or 3B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The district s existing ESL program lacks the financial and human resources needed to implement the comprehensive array of services required by law. As well, the program design lacks the components necessary to comply with all facets of the applicable laws. Federal civil rights laws and recent state legislation through ___ all school districts identify national origin minority students and then assess them in order to accurately Identify a LEP student population. 236 require that Act luenuiry A program which diagnoses and provides for special instructional needs must be developed to serve The program must help the LEP students develop positive self-concepts and identify with their cultural heritages, while equipping them for equitable access to all other district programs and services. As well, the program must also provide for parental/family involvement. this population. while The district's existing ESL program lacks the financial and human required by law. This resources needed to implement the comprehensive array of services required by law. As well, the program design lacks the components necessary to comply with all facets of the applicable laws. This situation is complicated by the fact that the current LEP student population is comprised of 49 known language groups, which makes utilization of traditional ESL program designs impossible. LEP students. District classroom teachers have not been trained to provide for the diverse needs of the LEP students in mainstreamed classrooms. Counselors have not been trained to accurately identify and place LEP students. The district does not have any kind of testing program to identify and assess the learning needs of LEP students. The LEP students are not provided with planned opportunities to connect with their native cultures, and LEP parents are not provided the comprehensive assistance they need to support their children, who must function in learning environments where their language is not spoken or read. Because the LEP population is continuing to grow, scheduling the six tutors into the district's schools has become a logistical nightmare. It is no longer possible to confine tutors to specific geographic regions is limited and service is consistent. so that travel Instead, LEP students must be assigned a tutor on a \"first first served\" basis, as already existing tutor schedules will allow. As a result, the tutors must criss-cross the district at their own expense, while their part-time schedules become more and more crowded to the point that they are now working full-time hours at a part-time hourly wage with no benefits. come, Extensive travel time and crowded schedules have left the tutors with little time to interact with teachers, counselors, and principals. counselors. This lack of interaction is leading to a lack of 4continuity in effort to meet the diverse learning needs of the LEP ---------------- As well, the limited interaction time between tutors and students. students (one hour per student per week) is not sufficient to help the LEP students acquire the English language skills needed to function successfully in the mainstreamed classroom setting. is compounded by the pull-out nature of the program, disconnects the LEP student from the mainstreamed classroom, This which ---- ---------------------------------------------and, in many instances, leads the classroom teacher to conclude that the LEP student is not her responsibility. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES In 1990 the Desegregation district requested the Chicago, Illinois. Assistance services of the Federal Centers in San Antonio, Texas, and These agencies were recommended to district administrators by the ADE's Equity Assistance Center. Both agencies sent representatives to the district to analyze the needs and to make recommendations on how to meet the identified needs. size The and diversity of the district's LEP population was determined to be too extensive to allow for a traditional approach to meeting the needs. A number of additional factors contributed to the complexity of the problem, including a lack of Arkansas certification for ESL teachers, a lack of special financial assistance to serve the LEP population, a lack of any other Arkansas school district programs targeting similar populations, and the LRSD's commitment to a desegregation plan that had inadvertently excluded the LEP A review of these factors, along with the knowledge about population size and diversity, led to the recommendation that the district develop a tutorial program to serve only as an interim measure during the time it would take the district to secure population. resources and develop a more comprehensive program that would meet needs and satisfy laws. Since 1990, district officials have possibilities for providing appropriate considered services a 1 to number \u0026gt; the of LEP population. Initially, an attempt was made to supplement a minimal tutorial program with volunteer assistance, but issues regarding training, liability, and reliability made this an impractical solution. well, the district extended invitations to known liability. As well. local organizations that represent interests of foreign language groups, but found that, for the most part, agendas were too different and lacked common goals. the And, while some of these entities shared good intentions, informal infrastructures limited actual follow through. The district has attempted to utilize translators to assist with testing, placement, and family communication, but because of the number of language groups (currently 49) represented in the LEP population the district has found this to be of little assistance. The lack of translators and trained teachers, whose native 5languages match those of the LEP population, have made implementing a traditional, transitional program of study offered in the native languages of the LEP population an impossibility. Besides, the laws favor a mainstreamed approach, and current research indicates growing trend toward utilization of immersion approaches in which .students learn in a setting where the target language - English is used exclusively, but with appropriate strategies activities designed to support the non-English speaker. Besides, the D, RECOMMENDATION and Because the tutorial program is not equipped to meet the needs of the growing population of diverse LEP students and because there are no other acceptable known alternatives, it is recommended that the district designate four to six elementary schools, two junior high schools, and one senior high school to serve as Newcomer Centers for LEP students and their parents. It remains the responsibility of the district to provide the educational services necessary to enable LEP students to function successfully in mainstreamed English language educational Federal and state laws do not consider lack of English skills because of nationality to be a handicapping condition. Instead, such lack of English language skills is viewed as a barrier to access of equitable educational opportunity. __ ________ the responsibility of the local school district to provide out of its local funds (pending forthcoming changes in Chapter One/Compensatory Education guidelines) whatever services are needed to help students overcome the language barrier. setting. Instead, It becomes in Currently, the district is operating a tutorial program for LEP students. ' . - schools, As these students are identified by their individual they are referred to the director of communications, English, ESL, foreign languages, and reading for tutorial services. Tutors, from a staff of six, are assigned to the students for a minimum of one hour of pull-out language instruction each week. date, To 117 students, representing 22 language groups, have been referred for tutorial assistance this school year. a Because the tutorial program is not equipped to meet the needs of the growing population of diverse LEP students and because there are no other acceptable known alternatives, it is recommended that the district designate four to six elementary schools, two junior high schools, and one senior high school to serve as Newcomer Centers for LEP students and their parents. These schools will be equipped to provide the services necessary to assess language and learning skills, to provide intensive English language instruction, to provide appropriate grade level placement and educational orientation services, and to provide parents with the necessary support that they need to be appropriately equipped to assist their children in gaining full access to the educational process. 6The Newcomer Centers will be selected by considering the proximity of existing LEP populations to school sites and by carefully examining existing transportation routes.   provide comprehensive staff development for these schools, including training for all classroom teachers on how to work with such students in mainstreamed classrooms and training for school counselors on how to place such students and on how to provide appropriate counseling services for them. Additionally, these schools will be equipped to appropriately test the students to determine educational needs, and each school will be staffed with trained language tutor, who will provide additional language acquisition assistance to LEP students who attend the school. for The district will Additionally Program components of the Newcomer Center concept will operate under the supervision of the director of communications, English, ESL, foreign languages, and reading, who will provide technical assistance and support to the school sites as appropriate, director of student assignment will facilitate placement of students at the district level, using a process involving multiple The Newcomer Centers will provide all short-term services necessary to acclimate the LEP students to the English language educational setting. The aim will be to fully mainstream these students into the area, incentive, or magnet schools to which they would otherwise be assigned. The E. The OBJECTIVES a The over all goal of implementing the Newcomer Center concept is to provide identified LEP students with opportunities to acquire the English language skills necessary to function successfully within a mainstreamed educational setting.  ILL L ______^_L____ achieving the following program objectives as measured by the accompanying evaluation criteria: This will be accomplished by To develop and implement a staff development program for principals, counselors, classroom teachers, and English language tutors at each Newcomer Center as evidenced by sign- in sheets and evaluation forms. The mean value of the training will be greater than 3.0 on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0. To develop and implement an ESL language arts curriculum designed to meet the English language learning needs of LEP as students evidenced by a curriculum implementation objectives checklist in which all indicators are in place. To coordinate classroom instructional activities with the ESL English language program to ensure that LEP students are being supported within the mainstreamed setting and to ensure a smooth transition for the LEP students and their families into and out of the Newcomer Centers as documented by lesson plans, individual student learning plans, and student portfolios. 7To develop and implement an organized LEP Family Education Model which will help parents to work effectively with their children in an effort to help them succeed at school as documented by sign-in sheets, testimony, questionnaires, and evaluation forms.  ' - . . . The mean value of the training will be greater than 3.0 on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0. GOAL SUPPORT These objectives directly support district goals 1, 5, and 6. objectives are included to ensure that all LEP students The are provided with equitable educational opportunities that will enable them to grow academically, socially, and emotionally while reducing disparity in achievement. The objectives also provide LEP students with the opportunity to learn in a risk-free environment and one that is safe and orderly. that equity The program will be monitored to ensure in all phases of school activities and operations, including provision of program and technical support. occurs F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The development of the Newcomer Center concept will have a positive impact on the district's learning achievement, district personnel, parents/families, patrons, and all students at each school site. Building principals, counselors, and teachers are becoming increasingly frustrated with the present difficulties in serving LEP students in ill-equipped schools void of a comprehensive action plan. Implementation of this program will alleviate this frustration. As well, the Newcomer Center Concept will strengthen each school in which it is implemented because it is designed to benefit all students who attend those schools. DESEGREGATION PLAN The Newcomer Center Concept students through an \"inclusion\" approach. is designed to benefit all Its implementation will underscore a recognition of the value of diversity within the public school setting in ways that directly achieve the aims of the district's desegregation plan. - - Most notably, the Newcomer Center Concept will focus on the development of classroom settings and support activities that will lead to increased student achievement, reduced academic disparity, and parody of educational opportunity for all students. COURT ORDER Implementation of the Newcomer Center Concept will not result in any negative impact. POLITICAL FACTORS/RISKS Standard One of the revised Arkansas Public School Standards 8G. For Accreditation requires the district to provide for the learning needs of all language minority students in equitable way in accordance with federal and state an laws. Currently, the district is not in full compliance of this standard or with all applicable federal and state laws that protect the rights of LEP students. Failure to implement a comprehensive plan of action for meeting the learning needs of these students will result in significant risk to the including the prospect of loss of accreditation, loss of state aid, and probable lawsuits. TIMING Immediate implementation of the Newcomer Center Concept is critical ensure that the district is in full legal compliance. ' ''   to As well, the district must demonstrate effort to serve all LEP students to the fullest extent of all laws in order to be eligible for possible funding sources in the including chapter One, Compensatory Education, and Title VII, as well as private and state grant opportunities. future, RESOURCE ANALYSIS PERSONNEL The Newcomer Center concept will utilize existing personnel at the selected school sites. As well, current ESL tutors will be assigned to the sites at the ratio of one tutor to each site. The tutors will continue to work part-time at the rate stated below: 8 tutors (maximum) X $2,250 per wk X 36 wks ($18 per hr X 125 hrs per wk) $ 81,000 8 tutors X $3 6 per month X 9 months ($18 per hr X 2 hrs per month for prep) 2,592 FINANCIAL In addition assigned to TOTAL SALARY COST $ 83,592 to continuing- the salary cost for ESL tutors each site, the Newcomer Center program will require on-going staff development and additional materials and supplies in order to achieve full implementation over a three-year period of time. The cost breakdown is as follows: 9Year One f1995-96): Staff Development $6,000 for stipends for UALR trainers\n$4,000 for stipends for ATU trainers $ 10,000 $51 stipend per teacher X 275 teachers for inservice pay 14,025 $2,000 per school for materials and supplies X 8 (maximum) schools 16,000 8 teachers X 3 days X $100/day (to write, edit, and word process) 2,400 2 writers X 3 days X $100/day (to write, edit, and word process) 600 Printing for ESL Language Arts Curriculum guides 500 TOTAL STIPEND/MATERIALS/SUPPLIES COST $ 43,525 GRAND TOTAL (including tutor salaries) Year Two (1996-97)\nCurrently budgeted $127,117 75,000 Total requested $ 52,117 Staff Development $4,000 for stipends for UALR trainers $2,000 for stipends for ATU trainers $ 6,000 $51 stipend per teacher X 275 teachers for inservice pay 14,025 $1,500 per school for materials and supplies X 8 (maximum) schools 12,000 TOTAL STIPEND/MATERIALS/SUPPLIES COST $ 32,025 GRAND TOTAL (including tutor salaries) $115,617 Year Three fl997-98): Total requested $ 40,617 Staff Development $3,000 for trainer stipends $ $51 stipend per teacher X 275 teachers for inservice pay 3,000 14,025 10$1,000 per school for materials and supplies X 8 (maximum) schools 8,000 TOTAL STIPEND/MATERIALS/SUPPLIES COST $ 25,025 GRAND TOTAL (including tutor salaries) $108,617 Total requested $ 33,617 The financial analysis outlines a budget that represents the minimum funding required to implement the Newcomer Center program over a three year period, if only district (local) funds are available. However, it is anticipated that additional funding will become available to ensure a quality implementation effort. district has just completed a proposal for a Goals 2000 State Grant The that would provide up to $50,000, which would fund the year one activities.   If awarded the grant, the district will be able to reapply for funds to continue the program components addressed within the grant application. As well. Chapter One/Compensatory Education guidelines are being changed. It is anticipated that the changes will allow the district to apply for these funds in order to pay for much of the program. Finally, the district will again apply for a Title VII grant when the new program is announced by the federal government sometime this spring. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of the Newcomer Center concept are the ESL tutors, classroom teachers. guidance counselors. district and school administrators, parents, students, patrons, and government. Because components of program implementation are required by law, there are no known detractors. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The current Director of communications. English, ESL, foreign languages, and reading will serve as the program leader and will assume the primary responsibility for organizing and implementing the Newcomer Center concept. The program leader will serve under the immediate direction of the district's deputy superintendent and the district's associate superintendent for desegregation, program leader will follow the time line below: The 11DATE ACTIVITY Feb. 1995 Feb. 1995 Feb. 1995 Feb. 1995 Mar. 1995- May 1996 July 1995 TIME LINE YEAR ONE (1995-96) Identify school sites/transportation routes Hire Newcomer Center Trainers (UALR/ATU) Plan first year staff development Schedule first year staff development Implement first year staff development Purchase materials and supplies PERSON RESPONSIBLE English/Reading Director, Student Assignment Office English/Reading Director English/Reading Director, UALR, UTA trainers English/Reading Director, Building Principals English/Reading Director, UALR, UTA trainers English/Reading Director, Building Principals * * * A June-Aug. 1995 Write LEP language arts curriculum English/Reading Director/ Teacher Committee/UTA trainer Feb.-May 1995 Pre-register LEP students Student Assignment Office March 1995 Provide School Site Staff Orientation English/Reading Director, UALR trainers Aug. 1995 May 1996 Register LEP students * Student Assignment Office/ Building Principals Sept. 1995- May 1996 Host LEP School Site Open Houses/Family Orientation/Follow-up meetings A Building Principals/Building Staffs/English/Reading Director 12Sept. 1995- May 1996 Assess LEP students * Counselors, School team Sept. 1995- May 1996 Schedule LEP students Counselors, School team Aug. 1995 Assign ESL tutors * English/Reading Director Sept. 1995- May 1996 Schedule ESL tutors * English/Reading Director Sept. 1995 Implement Portfolio Assessment * English/Reading Director Aug. 1995- May 1996 Monitor English/Reading Director/Building Principals Jan. 1996- May 1996 Develop Time Lines for Years Two and Three English/Reading Director/Building Principals NOTE: Activities followed by an asterisk will be continued during the second and third of implementation. year 13i I f .J FEB i iOO' BUSINESS CASE READING RECOVERY/EARLY LITERACY PILOT PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the Little Rock School District provides additional learning support to students in the areas of reading and These support efforts are determined by the options mathematics. available to each school through the district's Academic Support Program. * -------------- the elementary level, all schools provide accelerated reading experiences for students who have been identified as having a need for additional support based on an analysis of specified multiple criteria. The reading program at the elementary level is funded through Chapter One/Federal Programs and ' ~ ------ ' ' ' ' either direct or indirect services. IS characterized by offering - ------------- These services are delivered in theform of in-class assistance or limited pull-out by reading Each school is responsible for identifying students to receive the assistance, using the multiple criteria process outlined by the district's Academic Support Program. The schools then coordinate delivery of services through the district's reading/language arts department. certified teachers. The The existing program focuses on sustained remediation efforts from elementary school through high school. The program lacks a concentrated component at the initial stages of the elementary school experience that focuses on intervention. As a result, few first grade children are served because need for remediation must be determined before service can be rendered, intervention exists, first graders move The program lacks As a result, few ---------------- Because no early into the current remediation program in reading at subsequent grade levels when it has been determined that they have fallen behind. Early intervention would prevent this continuing cycle of need for later remediation. behind. The district must begin to emphasize early intervention rather than sustained remediation. Otherwise, as more students enter school without previous experiences that serve as a foundation for reading experience, more and more students will exhibit need for remediation later on. The current remediation program is not equipped for such growth in need, nor is it designed to adequately serve the array of needs. A review of test scores and other criteria used to identify students for this service indicates that lack of early intervention is perpetuating at an alarming rate the need for continuing remediation for the same students through high school. The district must begin to follow the direction now being set by the State by focusing on early intervention. This proposal outlines a pilot approach to an early intervention focus in the district in the area of reading. The Reading Recovery Program is 1Reading Recovery offers a the choice for this pilot effort, specialized approach for intervening problems, while simultaneously accelerating young students' learning processes to enable them to catch up to the average of their classroom peers. in young students' literacy accelerating model in This proposal recommends piloting the Reading Recovery lx. three elementary schools during the 1995-96 school year. The pilot approach will rec^ire three reading specialists, trained in Reading Recovepr/Early Literacy. These specialists will target first grade students, while the traditional program is continued at the other grade levels. As the Reading Recovery model begins to succeed, the current traditional approach will be modified and eventually eliminated. ' A. BACKGROUND I t Although the district revised its support programs in reading and the elementary schools continue to provide ------------ the area of reading in much the way that they have historically provided such services. mathematics in 1992, support services to students f same uuae uney nave nisporically This effort de-emphasizes support at the primary level in favor of a remediation approach for students with critical reading needs at the intermediate levels and beyond. The current elementary school reading program is characterized by making available either direct level, 2 through 6. or indirect services at each grade Limited\" assistance is provided at grade 1. services are delivered in the form of in-class assistance limited pull-out by reading certified teachers. or puii-ouL py reading certified teachers. Each school is responsible for identifying students to receive the assistance using the multiple criteria process outlined in the district's Academic Support Program, r* ' 1 _______________ services through the district's reading/language arts department. The schools then coordinate delivery of For provision of indirect services, reading specialists are paired with classroom\" teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences. An instructional program and schedulp nf schedule of services are designed for each student served in order to address individualized needs. For provision of direct services, pull-out reading classes -----.S ~ ~ Vildes, puxx-ouc reaaing classes are available to students identified as having severe reading problems The focus of these classes is to provide students with help in mastery of basic reading skills, while stimulating their interest in reading. Because the focus of the district's Academic Support Program is remediation after need has been established and tracked, very little emphasis is currently placed on intervention for \"cur,- At first grade, learning is primarily developmental and students learn at different speeds.  ' students. young Remediation need does not 2! I J surface until second grade or later, when students are suddenly expef^ed -ho al- =. At this point, some students are behind because of the slower learning pace at which they learned during first grade. They become candidates for the current expected to learn at a single pace. reading program. They become candidates for the current Although the efforts to meet reading needs at first grade have been minimal, beyond the classroom----------------- made. These include: experience, some attempts have been - indirect se^ices through Chapter I teachers - direct services for limited number of first grade students - additional resources were provided to seventeen (17) schools (Literacy 2000 - 14 schools\nDISTAR [direct instruction program] - 1 school) - learning styles model - 2 schools B. PROBLEM DEFINITION students intervention. The existing reading component of the district's Academic Support Program focuses on sustained remediation efforts rather than early This focus perpetuates a need for remediation seCTice for the same students from elementary school through high school because once they fall behind, they stay behind as learners. The current program lacks a concentrated component at the initial stages of the elementary school experience that focuses on intervention. experience Because of the remediation focus of the Academic Support Program, few first grade students receive services. Many first graders in need of support move on to second grade before support is rendered because they have fallen behind. At this point, they enter the remediation program, where they continue to functi\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_265","title":"Business cases","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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/265"],"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\nOffice 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: February 10, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Ann Brown Subject: Business Cases In your February 1, 1995 reply to my second request for business cases, you stated that you would furnish them when they were completed and ready for submission to the Board. At last night's meeting of the Board of Directors, one Director stated that the board had received the business cases yesterday. 1 trust that the business cases are now on their way to my office. I look forward to looking through them so 1 can better understand what changes you are contemplating in order to reach your desegregation goals and deal with your financial limitations. Thank you for your assistance. cc: Judge Susan Webber WrighthuUiUc. tlzU6(- c  f I Hi BUSINESS CASES FOR FY 1995-96 Business Case None Academic Progress Incentive Grant BUSINESS CASES RESULTING IN SAVINGS Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Cost Savings Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Comnunity Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Mursing Services) Improving Student Transportation Mew Futures Parkview Conmercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education APIG and Focused Activities deletions School Closing School Closing Eliminate program except at the Incentive ______ Schools Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive ______ Schools Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program_ Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors \u0026amp; science teachers Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas Public School Accreditation Standards Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services Outsourcing Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6-period day Implement Commercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards Place a cap on professional leave Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology Education programs at two Junior High Schools\neliminate low demand courses Delete Delete Delete Modi fy Modi fy Modify Oelete Modi fy Modify Modify Modify Modify Modi fy Add Add Modi fy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mo No No No No No No No No $ 445,000.00 523,000.00 637,000.00 1,321,520.00 185,828.18 607,250.00 170,000.00 161,000.00 77,000.00 125,268.00 560,000.00 100,000.00 669,900.00 0.00 50,000.00 182,783.90 BUSINESS CASES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES Business Case Name Description Delete, Add, or Mc^ify Plan Modification Additional Costs t rarn Alternative Education Pilot Program - Alternative classroom at SWJH and CJHS Modi fy No 34,965.00 Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues Social Studies Curricultn Revision FES I 19^5 Offics oi CdSOyroijeiif Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades Implement Beacon School Concept at CJHS Provide assistance to Ixtokkeeper and assistant principal Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later ______remed i a t i on Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculun to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculLin guides Total Savings Total Expenditures Net Savings Modify Add Add Modify Add Modi fy Modify $ 5,815,550.08 $ 211,782.00 $ 5,603,768.08 No No No No No No No 30,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 52,117.00 30,000.00 36,500.00 13,200.00 Business Cases Received but not Recommended as \"DO PASS\" to Superintendent: Cloverdale Junior High School Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative SchoolBusiness Cases not Recommended as \"Do Pass\" Cloverdale Junior High Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Hu Utt Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative Schooltl U w rcr 1 3 1995 co (/) c Oifica ct Cesegi 5 = 8 \"S  o 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1994-95 1BUSINESS CASES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES Business Case Name Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Additional Costs Alternative Education Pilot Program - Alternative classroom at SUJH and CJHS Modify No 34,965.00 Arkansas Crusades Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, k-4, and Science Crusades Modify No 30,000.00 Beacon School Implement Beacon School Concept at CJHS Add No 12,000.00 Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal Add No 3,000.00 Neu Comers Center Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students Modify No 52,117.00 Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation Add No 30,000.00 Security Officers to Uork on Safety and Security Issues Tuo additional security officers to deal with security related problems/i ssues Modify No 36,500.00 Social Studies Curriculum Revision Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculim to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides Modify No 13,200.00 R7 F r 1 C ICQ! Total Savings $ 5,815,550.08 Total Expenditures Net Savings S 211,782.00 1 5,603,768.08 L Lil r?\" FEB 1 S 1 Ofiice ci Di Office Ct li Business Cases Received but not Recommended as \"DO PASS\" to Superintendent: Cloverdale Junior High School Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative SchoolBUSINESS CASES FOR FY 1995-96 BUSINESS CASES RESULTING IN SAVINGS Business Case Nane Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Cost Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Comnunity Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education APIG and Focused Activities deletions School Closing School Closing Eliminate program except at the Incentive _________Sch 001s Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive ________Schools Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering _____the program_____ Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors \u0026amp; science teachers Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas Public School Accreditation Standards Reduction in nursing positions uhile maintaining services Outsourcing Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6-period day Implement Conmercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards Place a cap on professional leave Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology Education programs at two Junior High Schools\neliminate low demand courses Delete Delete Delete Modify Modify Modi fy Delete Modi fy Modify Modi fy Modify Modi fy Modify Add Add Modify Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No $ 445,000.00 523,000.00 637,000.00 1,321,520.00 185,828.18 607,250.00 170,000.00 161,000.00 77,000.00 125,268.00 560,000.00 100,000.00 669,900.00 0.00 50,000.00 182,783.90Business Cases Resulting in Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational EducationLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 January 13, 1995 memorandum TO: Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent FROM: Mitchell. Margaret chell, Actii^A \\y ^Assistant Superintendent isistant Superintendent SUBJECT: Business Case - Academic Progress Incentive GrantBUSINESS CASE / 5 (995 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS of January 13, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons, equity issues regarding area The adequate resources and an overwhelming percentage of our students attend area schools, the Little Rock School District proposed in the Tri-District Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. The District, in its May 11, 1992, request to modify the settlement plan, proposed to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The proposal did not clearly explain the Districts intent. The Court approved the continuing of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to schools for application the last five years. It is now time to evaluate and assess the program for continuation. B. BACKGROUND 1990 - 1991 The The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. The process to be followed was for each school principal to write a proposal attached to a budget sheet identifying times and cost as related to the proposal being submitted. The District established two goals that were to be the outcomes of this initiative: (1) to improve the education of all students and (2) to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. The grant proposals were then to be forwarded to the Academic Progress Grant Committee for review and approval. Upon approval, the budget sheet was forwarded to the Financial Services Department, and budget codes were set up for the individual schools to use in purchasing the items requested. The respective assistant superintendent over the area schools who monitored the schools annual plan would review incoming requisitions to see if the purchases requested related to the districts Desegregation Plan.Several schools were successful in receiving early approval in the first semester for the full amount. The majority of schools, however, did not receive grant approval until late January and early February of 1991 and not for the full amount. Even though the money was received on a late timeline, it did enable the schools to purchase needed equipment, materials, supplementary reading materials, enrichment trips, etc. for all students as well as providing funds for some mtoring assistance to their at-risk groups before the MPT (Minimum Performance Test) and MAT-6 (Metropolitan Achievement Test Edition 6) test dates. Considering the timeline with a week out for Spring Break and two to three weeks scheduled for MPT and MAT-6 testing, the principals were asked only to write a narrative for the grant evaluations that would be no longer than three typed pages describing the status of their grant. The report was to include: 1. 2. 3. Identification of local school grant goals. A description of the results. Identification of any proposed change for the 1991-92 school year, if possible. These narratives were attached to the schools annual report and forwarded to their assistant superintendents. 1991  1992 In the second year of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant, the funds were frozen the first semester of the school year. Once the funds were released, the procedures set forward for application were the same as outlined in the 1990-91 school year. Principals, teachers, and parents worked together to develop tutoring schedules for their at-risk students. During this year a new standardized test, Stanford 8, was given in the place of the MAT-6 test. Principals were asked to use the same reporting format in describing the status of their grant. The narrative was to be attached to their annual school report and forwarded to their assistant superintendent. 1992  1993 In the third year of the APIG, the funds were reduced to $10,000 for which the area schools could apply. Again, many of these grants were not funded until November due to changes in the districts central office staff and a new superintendent. The principals were to use the same format for applying and reporting as was used in the 1991-92 school year. -2-c. PROBLEM DEFINITION Current implementation has not resulted in either expected improved achievement or a reduction in the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, or gender groups. The District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school district, including safety and security, urban flight, racial issues, aging buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have caused the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Opportunities for academic achievement are enhanced by commitment, high expectations, a strong belief that all children can and will learn, and broad-based community support. When these ideals are coupled with availability of financial resources and adequate quality instructional time, educational excellence prevails. The District must now redefine the required levels of focus, clarity, and connectivity of our programs if we are to optimize student performance. This plan must allow the District to operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of the revenues it receives on an aimual basis. In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the District has determined, based on the results of Fast Track Evaluations, informal and formal observations, that it is appropriate to seek Court permission to discontinue the implementation of APIG. APIG is a complementary addition to the Plan. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of district schools. Achievement disparity still exists. However, data show that some schools utilize the current curriculum (revised July, 1994) with emphasis on the acquisition of basic skills. Thematic and interdisciplinary approaches have been used by the teachers to successfully integrate and ensure designated themes to support the curriculum. Students in these schools tend to perform at or above grade level. 1. 2. 3. 4. Change nothing. Continuing to offer the APIG and Focused Activity Grants to the Area Schools will not aide in the reduction of the budget. The Chapter I Extended Day Program has been considered in order for all schools to continue the quality after school programs. This program is federally funded and is consequently no expense to the district. Grant solicitations from focused activities, private resources and support from some local PTAs where possible could be considered. K-4 Special Summer School programs are funded by the state. -3-E. RECO MMEND ATION Evidence from the principals narrative reports and surveys indicate that funds received from the APIG proposal over the three-year period were used to support the school plan as it related to the goals of the district.\" The programs and projects were numerous and were targeted to assist groups of students as well as the total school population. The selection of targeted groups are as follows: Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program were identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students were those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, were used to select targeted students form the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals would then submit in the narrative the names of the projects that were implemented, the list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. All of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. It is also noted that school climate surveys were used to target areas needing improvement. As a result of this data, principals, staff, and parents tried hard to provide a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. implemented to encourage good behavior. An incentive program was T^ere were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants ot the overall positive results that they could identify as happening for the benefit of the students. However, with all of the favorable behavior changes that were confirmed, achievement data did not reflect that the grants led to the disparity reduction that had been desired. Extended Day was a widely - used activity that was funded by APIG. This activity was in some instances a duplication of efforts already funded through Academic Support Program. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District concentrate on the implementation of its new curriculum that is aligned with the Arkansas Department of Education frameworks and standards. It is also recommended that any extra remediation be supported by the Academic Support Program and the Special Summer School for K-4. -4-Objective To discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant. Evaluation Criteria The K-4 Summer School Extended Year Program and Academic Support evaluation will be utilized for documenution. A pre and post test will be used in the K-4 program to determine the progress of students. There will be a shift from sole emphasis on the products or outcomes of student learning to a concern for the learning process. Evaluation will include assisting products such as: 1. projects with rating criteria 2. student portfolios with rating criteria 3. student demonstrations/investigations 4. objective tests, where appropriate, perhaps with a section for explaining the answer chosen. Evaluation should reflect the following process-oriented factors: 1. collaboration among students 2. student self-evaluation 3. 4. higher level thinking and problem solving \"learning to learn\" skills Expected Benefits The District will be able to continue to make efforts to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of a community of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support program. The focus of Extended Day can be more structured. The K-4 Summer School Program and Regular Summer School will be offered. -5-The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in ueie ion or tne AKIU will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and ^e dSSa concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue to make efforts to meet its commitment of . - ---------------------------- .V. vxiui to UV increasing achievement for all students, which will result in 5 auucvcment tor ail students, which wfll result in a reduction of disparity socioeconomic, and gender groups. The area schools will be 'e_ 25 communities of learning,\" will continue to provide enrichment oPPOffuiMes and will ensure equitable opportunities for participation in area spools. The District will implement programs that are comprehensive, effective, and efficient. viewed as participation in area Activities appear to Quality equitable desegregated education wUl be provided in an environment that is attractive and conducive to learning. The District will channel its resources into area schools in a manner that eliminates duplication of efforts. Activities appear to provide a broader range of opportunities in a more comprehensive and focused manner. G. This is the fifth year for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants to be offered to area schools. (90-91 - 94-95) The timeline for implementation of three years _..l support the Desegregation Plan and address will The timeline for implementation of three court orders favorably. J C7 -C------------ - WUl t UlUClb ia unds were available for building administrators to submit applications Suin'e applications were turned in late which caused a delay in program implementation. Some RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial students, and the resources can be used in a more meaningful way. Staff, community can benefit greatly from a more focused and connected program. The District should continue its efforts to adequately provide needed rACAiircac ______1_ resources for our area schools. Schools should be encouraged to implement innovative practices that build upon effective schooling principles by underwriting demonstration projects through business cases. Students could be introduced to curriculum materials, in exciting and innovative ways that they might otherwise find difficult. Extensive tutoring could be provided through academic support programs to targeted students. -6-Financial Analysis The District will save a total of 5445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) APIG 510,000 Focused 5,000 Elementary Area Schools (25) 5250,000 125,000 Junior High Area Schools (4) 540,000 Senior High Schools (3) 530,000 Total Schools 5320,000 125,000 TOTAL 5375,000 540,000 530,000 5445,000 Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administrators who indirectly involved in the decision making process for the 1995-96 budget are cuts. The primary detractors will be principals and patrons of the area schools who feel that there are already many inequities between them and the magnet schools. General Implementation Plan The grant proposals will not be submitted in the 1995-96 school year budget. The Board will have to agree on this recommendation and the ultimate decision may be made by the federal courts. If this recommendation is approved, the following timeline will be implemented and monitored. January - April, 1995 Continue to read and approve grants as they are submitted from schools June, 1995 Evaluations submitted from principals regarding programs implemented through APIG proposals End of Academic Progress Incentive Grant and Focused Activity submissions Conclusion of programs implementation with APIG and Focused Activity funds K-4 Summer School will start -7-July, 1995 November - December, 1995 Business Case process reviewed with principals in Principals Instimte K-4 Summer School Ends K-4 Summer School Evaluations submitted Information shared with principals regarding Extended Day for the 95-96 school year Compile information from schools in order to organize and implement Extended Day for the 95-96 school year January, 1996 Extended Day will start -8-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1994-95B Business Cases Resulting in Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education I I-a L ri Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 1 3 '995 Offics of Osssgi MEMORANDUM TO: From: Subject\nDate: in Brown, Omce of Desegreg^ion M inr/ Ann Office Monitoring Hei Schools Business Cases January 14, 1995 Please find enclosed copies of business cases that have been submitted by program managers for review in the budgeting process for the 1995-96 school year. I have also enclosed a business case from Information Services as a separate enclosure because of its unique circumstances. Enclosures be odm.docInformation Services (IS) Directors, students. Superintendent, Little Rock School Diotriet Information Services Business Cass EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEB I 5 J995 OffiC0_of_De223j\n1 SITUATION does not meet the basic needs faculty, admini s t rat i ve of LRSD Board of Additionally IS does not adequately requirement to local. staff, employees, or support LRSD basic reporting state and federal agencies as required. Analysis of the situation identifies three crucial issues. First, LRSD's most critical short term computing need is valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board and Court. Second LRSD must develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community. Third, resolution of both issues must be accomplished with minimal resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution. Second crucial issues. First, timely. throw away solution. * Alternative One. Do nothing. ALTERNATIVES  Alternative Two. Upgrade by building additional AS400 processors, disk storage, upgrade networks. processors, on current systems. Procure and install application source code. and  Alternative Three. Transition from the current \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. En^hasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, making. correction and decision IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE THREE  Alternative One is not viable. No cirucial issue is resolved. $2,800,000 over five years. LRSD will spend  Alternative Two builds on current architecture. Problems with valid, timely reporting are only partially resolved. There is limited ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is not cost effective in either financial or human resources. LRSD will spend $3,590,500 over five years. Alternative Three, begin transition from the current environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. \"closed\" AS400 is the preferred Valid, timely reporting issues are more easily corrected with new architecture. solution. There is significant ability to integrate new technology a Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is most cost effective in both financial and human spend $2,697,000 over five years. resources. LRSD will 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case COSTS Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTE9RAT1VE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Ye\u0026amp;r 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS40O Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2, 697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Seirvices BusixiesB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data PKIHTCR o SCHOOL LAN A FAX Q server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical. b PUNTU PC tools\nprovide local RUtOTC STATT LUI administrative staff access to all LRSD data. A$\u0026lt;n VO TECH  PtlKTOt 9 FAX AMD APMIWUTAATIVE ASCO ADMIMISTKATIVE DATA POODSEKVtCE I I SttVEK LAM SUVCK O LAM SEXVU 0 USD ACUINUTRATIVt BUILDING b PUHTU LAM SBvn b purrn PAX q PUNT EK 9 Install both a school and a remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, students may access centralized educators and student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications, - multimedia, Internet etc. . Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate prototypes. A i A A A a A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" new architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for to the technology. EncumlDer or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical \u0026lt; supplies etc. . All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/9Stittle Rock School District Inforaation Services Bueineas Ca Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Specialist I Applications \u0026amp; Dat^ase Manaper I Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer ----1 Operator Operator Director Technical Planner Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC with each employee. Develop position descriptions, responsibilities etc. a comprehensive IS staff model with relevant Eliminate positions and create positions as required to support this model. The goal is improved support without additional funds. Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology greints. Insure a Technical Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical Planner, in coordination with the Grant Writer, grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1Little Rock School Disttict Information Services Businese Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business^ administrative, and instructional for new architecture. applications FWNTER o a a FAX Q a a a a b mum a a \u0026amp; FtUNTtt o a a FAX Q a a a FVMTU o a AS400 VO TECH  i LUI SOtVEK a a AS400 FOOD SERVICE  J_ 6 AS400 ADMINISTRATTVE E DATA DATA SERVER i -o- UM xw  O-L- a 6 FUN TUI a a a a FAX Q a a LUI uavu a 6 fWKTOt a a a a a b FMNIOt DOLl. a. a FAX Q a F Q a a a a 9 a a a \"q a a b a a a a a fix Q a a \"q\" HHH a 6 a a a 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Businese Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. *MD Kce: AEkMSTMTTVI  DISTWCT SERVER FUNTU o a a FAX Q a a a LAN sexvu 1 SEX VI -HU-F UN A c a a i a a b FVNTU a A a i a a A a FUNTU o a nciXL* a FAX Q a a. a rui q a \"q a A 6 FUNTU A A A FUNTEK o a A FAX Q a A LAN SEXVU a a b nnnu a a a i i A a 6 HUNTtF a a a a A FAX Q a a MFRU 9 A a a A a 211133Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND Information Services (IS) does CURRENT SITUATION Directors, students. not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. or State as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed reports. The demand on DP was minimal. LRSD information was generated by administrative staff usinq a combination of dp rpnnrrc anrA -St, Data (not information) using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC), forever changed administrative dependence Individual schools. on a central DP facility. and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure PCs. use LRSD DP User demand for PC support grew. software were virtually nonexistent. was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and In 1992, purchased an IBM AS400 midrange administrative software and peripherals. LRSD IBM computer, associated closed environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a \"The AS400 was not designed to take full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, difficult to install, configure and maintain. PC computing labs increased etc. rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now competing for limited financial and administrative computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to make major technical decisions in a rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of continual change in administration. In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. a monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of Information Services. November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. to In 2/7/95Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND CURRENT SITUATION does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. State as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed reports. The demand on DP was LRSD information was generated by administrative staff Data (not information) minimal. using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC), forever changed administrative deoendence on a cantral dp fariiitv dependence central DP facility. Individual schools, and administrative staff could and did ourchase and use and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure PCs. LRSD DP User demand for PC support grew. software were virtually nonexistent. was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and In 1992, LRSD purchased an IBM administrative software and peripherals. AS400 midrange computer, associated closed\" environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a \"The AS400 was not designed to talce full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive, difficult to install, configure and maintain. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, PC computing labs increased etc. rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now con^eting for limited financial and computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to malce major teclinical decisions in rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of a continual change in administration. a In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. Information Services. to In 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Little Rock School Diatrict Information Services Business Case PROBLEM DEFINITION PROBLEM STATEMENT does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, LRSD faculty, administrative staff, employees. students. or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other Federal Court, ODM, local, state and federal agencies as required. The conditions that create this problem include a lack of procurement policy. no infrastructure and corporate data model, incorrect staff alignment. background and training, redundancy of effort, system saturation, the inability to effectively report and the inability to effectively integrate redundancy of effort. new technology. PROCUREMENT Currently individual schools and staff agencies budget for and purchase PCs, servers, networks, printers, modems, software, consulting services, etc. These procurements range from a $200 word processor, to a $75,000 computer lab to a $100,000 consulting and software development project. The, results from decentralized budgeting and procurement are wasted human resources, wasted money and no infrastructure. The, results resources, i For example. assume purchased. 50 LRSD purchases 200 PCs are individually purchased. PCs per year. 150 PCs are bulk An individual PC purchase requires 1 day visiting a computer store, talking to a friend or a vendor and completing the procurement request. LRSD Purchasing Department then spends 1/2 day requesting bids and finalizing purchase. In total, 75 days of LRSD human resources are expended. Additionally a \"custom\" than a standard bulk procurement PC. PC costs considerably more PCs for $3000-$5000. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of $2000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500- The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. INFRASTRUCTURE AND CORPORATE DATA MODEL LRSD has agencies no viable each IS procure infrastructure. Individuals, schools. and staff PCs, servers, printers. modems, networks, word processors, spreadsheet, etc. The result of nonstandard procurement is a lack of connectivity, inter-operability and no corporate data model. Data resides in \"islands of automation\" in various schools and staff physical or logical connectivity exists. agencies. Little severely restricts LRSD ability to effectively report. The lack of corporate data model To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. The probable result 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Business Case would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers. none no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary, and staff new. Currently, each school agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No Personal computers, printers, etc., comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization. and installed. maintenance, etc., has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. LRSD There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. information will probably survive without one agencies and activities. infrastructure connects/encompasses elementary school, however. an all LRSD schools. staff Effective technology maintenance is not possible, breaks down. When a PC, printer, etc. the user calls IS staff\nunfortunately IS staff was not involved in the purchase, has no idea who, where to call for maintenance and has had no training on this unique hardware and software. pushed into a i itself over and impacted. comer, I over. another PC or printer ordered. The broken PC or printer may be The user. the process repeats IS staff, and LRSD budget are negatively The current de-centralized IS procurement policy with resulting maintenance problems is roughly analogous to each school buying its own bus. breaks down, the school calls Transportation for maintenance. When the bus ----- Transportation would not have the spare parts and no mechanics trained on that specific bus system. LRSD's ability to transport students would deteriorate rapidly. A perception that \"I'm only buying one PC, that can't possibly compare to a bus\" is not valid. Various agencies within LRSD are spending from $20,000 to $100,000 on automation with the expectation that IS will hook it up and keep it repaired. Not possible. motivation IS STAFF ALIGNMENT, BACKGROUND \u0026amp; TRAINING The and dedication of LRSD IS staff is not in question, unfortunately IS staff alignment, background and training are not adequate to of LRSD Staff is in meet the demands of a volatile, diverse, technical environment. IS staff is currently aligned to meet the needs of a centralized, mainframe DP environment. The majority of LRSD computing growth over the past several years has been PCs and networks. Approximately 500 administrative terminals and PCs exist\nunfortunately no IS staff position has been added, or existing position converted, to either PC or network responsibility. IS staff technical background is insufficient\nonly the Director and programmer have degrees in CS/IS. one public school with one This is roughly equivalent to running a certified principal and one certified classroom 2/7/95teacher. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case All other classes are taught by teachers aides. It is doubtful either LRSD or the public would tolerate a school staffed without certified teachers. While a school staffed without certified teachers would certainly have problems, there would be little impact on the other 51 schools in LRSD. Unfortunately IS cannot be isolated. IS staff is responsible for a multimillion infrastructure which impacts every employee and student in LRSD. IS staff is not trained. on In 1992 LRSD spent approximately 2 million dollars new computer systems. Unfortunately IS staff received negligible training to effectively implement this multi-million dollar or no procurement. The alignment, background and training of computing staff may be worse than for IS staff. LRSD academic/instructional PC technicians are scattered throughout LRSD, managed by principals, secretaries, librarians etc. The CS/IS education, background and training these PC technicians and their managers have is minimal yet, they are planning, procuring and managing a sizable percentage of LRSD's background and training these PC technicians and they are planning, procuring and managing a multi-million dollar IS infrastructure. REDUNDANCY OF EFFORT Considerable redundancy of effort and resources exist. IS staff. Instructional Resource Center (IRC) staff and various administrative staff agencies within LRSD each expend considerable human resolve computing needs. resource effort defining and attempting to systems are the result with associated Redundant human effort and redundant information redundant costs. SYSTEM SATURATION LRSD Administrative AS400 computer and its associate networks have reached capacity utilization. exceeds 90% Central Processing Unit (CPU) utilization frequently (computers exceeding 90% capacity are susceptible to 90% are \"crashing\").Communication networks are primarily 9.6 kbps. susceptible . . roughly half the necessary capacity. As an example, in the January 1995 report card/grade processing cycle, the Administrative AS400 CPU and network saturation forced school administrative staffs to download student grade data from school PCs to disks which were then driven in private automobiles to district headquarters for uploading into the Administrative AS400. INABILITY TO REPORT In addition to reporting problems caused by insufficient infrastructure \"islands of information\". and desegregation and or LRSD's unique reporting requirements created by court requirements have not been addressed. Administrative AS400 applications were purchased as a \"canned\" package. These applications have a series of data entry screens and reports designed to meet the needs of a generic or \"average\" school district. LRSD faces daily requests for information from Federal Court, ODM, etc. which standard applications cannot address. The legal rights etc. and necessary software to modify these standard applications have not been purchased. 2/7/95[ Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case INABILITY TO IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGY primary computing LRSD's prxmary facilities are an IBM AS400 and its associated network. Both are \"closed\" or \"proprietary\" systems, which do not effectively integrate PCs, printers, scanners, fax modems, LANs etc. viewed as a cabinet stereo\nand two speakers. IBM AS400 The IBM AS400 may be a beautiful piece of furniture with a turntable It has limited effectively upgrade to and connect significant cost and effort. in an AS400 environment a expansion capability, i.e. you cannot cassette deck and CD player without Attempts to implement new PC and LAN technology are roughly equivalent to integrating a cassette and CD with a cabinet stereo\ncost and effort. it can be accomplished, but only with significant ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ] ALTERNATIVE ONE Change nothing. Current IS systems, infrastructure, procurement policy and staff remain. IS problems will continue to have LRSD. serious negative impact on\nNo\nNo i Develops adequate procurement \"policy .' i No i correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure\"\nNo i No : Addresses staff ali^ment, background and training i Eliminates redundancy \"of\"effort\" .. : Eliminates system saturation. i No i No i Provides effective \"reportingT\nAllows effective integration of new \"technology No Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, \"facuityT No administrative staff, employees, and students. Adequately supports \"lrsD'\"basic repbrti'ng' r'e^'iremen't ODM, State Department of Education or other local. to Federal Court, iagencies as required. state and federal ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade LRSD IS by building on the current infrastructure. install additional IBM AS400 code\nupgrade networks. processors, disk storage and application Procure and administrative computing. Realign IS staff to meet the needs of source LRSD Clearly define and separate administrative and academic IS systems, responsibilities and staff. Develop a comprehensive Information Services Plan which includes technical standards and responsibilities and staff. policy procurement 2/7/95\nYes No Partial Partial : Yes i Partial\nNo Partial Partial Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case\nDevelops adequate procurement policy .\nDevelops correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure. i Addresses staff ali^ment, background and training. Eliminates redund^cy^of \"effort\"\nEliminates system saturation. i Provides effective reporting\". ........ i Allows effective integrati'on\"of'\"new\"tecta Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, faculty, administrative staff, employees, and students. Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement ODM, State Department of Education or other local, to Federal Court,\nagencies as required. state and federal ALTERNATIVE THREE Transition LRSD IS from the current \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. Emphasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, correction and decision making. Implementation is phased based on user needs and available resources. PC architecture. constant correction for all decision __________ Study the consolidation of administrative and academic computing to include systems. responsibilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-server, PC environment. user community in a networked, Plan which includes a district Develop a comprehensive Information Services wide procurement policy and training architecture. technical standards. : Yes i Yes rYes\" : Develops adequate procurement\"po'iicyT Yes Develops correct architecture and build's a'dequate infrastructure. Addresses staff alignment, background and training. Eliminates redundancy of\"effort7 Yes\nYes\nYes Yes Yes Eliminates system saturation. Provides effective reporting\".' Al 1 ows effective integra\"t\"ion\"\"of \"new\"\"tec^ i Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. Superintendent Adequately supports LRSD\"\"basic\"\"reporting\"\"\"re^Tre^^^ ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court iagencies as required. state and federal 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case I RECOMMENDATION I Transition LRSD IS from the current client-server solutions PC architecture. with constant ACTION \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked. evaluation, Emphasize prototyping correction and Implementation is phased based on user needs and avat 1 ahi a for all decision technical making. --------- resources. Study the consolidation of administrative and academic computing to include systems. responsibilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-seirver, PC environment. user community in a networked, Plan which includes district Develop a comprehensive Information Services wide procurement policy and training. architecture. technical standards. RATIONALE  Enhances LRSD ability to report. Improves connectivity, reduces information\" develops a corporate data model. \"islands of LAN servers access with low cost. migrates data to low cost easy to use PC tools. a  Provides a comprehensive infrastructure which enhances connectivity, reduces islands of information\" and develops a corporate data model.  Migrates to and provides technology. the architecture for implementation of new  Provides the infrastructure and architecture to \"plug in\" instructional technology consequently, the ability to aggressively pursue technology grants. to  Procurement is standardized to reduce costs, streamline maintenance, build infrastructure, eliminate redundancy.  Eliminates redundant systems, effort and costs.  Reduces saturation of existing AS400 systems by downloading processing to lower priced LAN based servers.  Initiates configuration of technical technical needs. staff to meet current and future 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case [ OBJECTIVE ]  Resolve LRSD's most critical short term computing need, valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board, Court and other agencies as required.  Develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community.  Maximizes resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution.  Implementation allows constant evaluation, correction and decision making by educators, administrators and technical staff. Implementation is incremental based on user needs and available resources. c IMPACT ANALYSIS  DESEGREGATION/COURT Alternative Three meets the IS needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. This solution supports LRSD basic reporting requirements to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies. POLITICAL FACTORS Alternative Three transitions LRSD to the same technical architecture as chosen and implemented by both APSCAN and Pulaski County Special School District. Politically the implementation of Alternative Three makes LRSD \"team player\". a RISKS There is no significant downside risk associated with Alternative Three. This solution emphasizes prototyping and phased implementation with evaluation, correction and decision making at every stage. Risks would be associated with any other solution. From a technical and political perspective LRSD would be a \"Lone Ranger\" implementing a solution other than Alternative Three. TIMING Phased implementation is an Alternative Three strength. Each phase allows for evaluation, correction and decision making. Implementation speed may be adjusted based on user needs and available resources. 2/7/95Little Rook School Dietrlct Information Services Business Case RESOURCE ANALYSIS A brief analysis indicates LRSD PERSONNEL have 45 to 50 personnel who plan, implement and operate LRSD information systems\nbe $800,000 to $1,000,000 costs for these personnel may per year. Currently 12 work for the Director IS, trained and managed by a wide variety of administrators, educators, librarians etc. all others are hired, The effective, efficient employment of technical personnel in this scenario must be questioned. example, the IRC supports 52 ABACUS PCs with For a ratio of 1 technician per 20 IS currently maintains approximately 500 terminals of one 1 technician per 250 PCs. PCs. and PCs with a ratio To plan, implement and operate 3- comprehensive information system, with Iapidly expanding demand for technical services LRSD must either hire more IS staff or realign and reorganize to effectively support growing IS demands within existing budget constraints. IS organizational structure should include several key technical positions, director, applications and database manager, network and PC manager, and technical planner. Each must have the education. perform his/her responsibilities. training and experience to current technical skills are a Technology is a volatile environment. demand commodity. LRSD must pay current market rates for its key technical positions else current technology cannot be implemented.  Director. Responsible to the Superintendent, and operations. LRSD, for IS policy, planning Applications and Database Manager. Responsible for central applications databases and computer operations.  Technology Planner. Responsible for the planning and acquisition of new technology. Additionally works with LRSD Grant Writer grants. to obtain technology  Network and PC Manager. Responsible for all networks, L? printers, scanners etc. in a designated area. For example LANs, servers, PCs,  ------o-----. * v'B. , one Network and PC Manager may be responsible for all LRSD secondary schools. It is important to note that, while the majority of technology growth has been , there is currently no corresponding position in LRSD. in this area. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Director \u0026gt;4 r L Secretary Technical Planner ] Telephone Specialist I 1 Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager^ Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer -----1 Operator Operator Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Manager | -T'  -1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I I I 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 5 YEAR TOTAL COSTS Initiate New Architecture 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications $317,500 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $1,017,500.00 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM SAVINGS AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 , $560,000 $1,120,000.00  LRSD will receive IS funding REVENUE based on a recent court decision reference the creation and fimding of APSCAN. Amount unknown.  A procurement plan that requires technical standards and bulk, discount purchase will yield significant savings. A \"custom\" PC costs considerably more than a standard bulk procurement PC. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of PCs for $3000-$5000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500-$2000. The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. Amount unknown.  LRSD Grant Writer has briefed the availability of several large technology grants. A LAN environment in every school provides a basis for implementation of technology such as Internet, multimedia, interactive learning applications, etc. at the individual school, consequently the possibility of aggressive pursuit of grants. Amount unknown. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case c FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS 1 FORCES FOR A phased implementation which emphasizes prototyping will include representatives of the entire LRSD user community. Administrators and educators will be in a position to evaluate and provide feedback at each phase of implementation. In a sense the user community will progressively \"buy in\" to the solution, consequently the entire LRSD user community will have a vested interest in IS success. FORCES AGAINST LRSD administrators and educators have enjoyed considerable autonomy budgeting and purchasing IS\nthere will be initial reluctance to give this autonomy up. Both administrative staff and instructional staff will express concern regarding any staff realignment or reorganization. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Seirvicos Business Case IMPLEMENTATION  Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the YEAR 1 AMD VOTICM AMO KHOlUVCI AfiMtNSnATIVI data server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical, PC tools\nprovide local administrative staff to all LRSD data. access Install both a school and a ruma o tone*. LAN 4 4 FAX Q 4 4 4 b HNTU 4 4 MMOn (TAFT LAM S_J3 4 4 rurm o a FAX LAN nivu 4 4 I DAT* raavu a LMD ADMoramATTva buudm 4 -o 4 4 4 b wnu LAM navu JL 4 4 4 4 b Funn LAM \u0026lt;nvix 4 4 FAX Q 4 4 4 4 4 runu 9 4 remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, educators and students may access centralized student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications, multimedia, I..'____ _ Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate Internet etc. . prototypes. Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the nc'.\n^ architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for new technology. Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/95Rock School District Information SorvicoB BuslneBs Case Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Specialist Director Technical Planner X I Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager | f Network \u0026amp; PC Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator I I Manager j F 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager with each employee. Develop Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I ] Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC . , -  comprehensive IS staff model with relevant position descriptions, responsibilities etc. positions as required to support this model, without additional funds. Eliminate positions and create The goal is improved support Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical in coordination with the Grant Writer, Planner, IS Insure a Technical grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95Little Rook School Dietriot Information Services Buaineas Caaa IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional for new architecture. applications A a WWTU o a nUHTU o a a a a FAX Q a a b KMTU a a a Q a b a a a FAX 0 a AS4W VO TECH  I LAN tuw AS40U FOOD SEX VICE  J_ AMW ADMINISTRATIVE I DATA DATA 5EXVEA LAN Bn* A a a a a o  lAV suvu a a b FMROI atoai* a Q a a q a a a a. a a \"o a MO 9 a a b a MMT* a 9 a a a a a 9 a a a a a a a a a b b MMTtlt4 appl 2/7/9S Little Rock School District Information Services Bualness Case c ATTACHMENT 1 COSTS All costs listed are estimates and will vary based on bids, bulk purchase etc. Costs could also change based on an assessment of equipment in each school. Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTERNATIVE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS40O Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case ALTERNATIVE TWO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Application source code and RPG compiler Application software license for new processor Upgrade AS400 processor and disk storage IBM software Query and reporting software (50) Printers (5) Scanners (3) Communication controllers (3) 5 year maintenance AS400 and controllers 3 year IBM telephone support PC (25) Network Installation at $300 Upgrade network Tape BU Staff training Total per $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $25,000 $20,000 $10,000 $9,000 $18,000 $70,000 $15,000 $60,000 $7,500 $100,000 $6,000 $25,000 $790,500.00 ALTERNATIVE THREE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Central Server w/OS, RDBMS, Apps, Gateway LAN Server w/OS \u0026amp; tape BU 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications Scanners (3) (2) PC (25) Network Installation at $300 per Staff training Total Cost $150,000 $30,000 $20,000 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $9,000 $50,000 $7,500 $14,000 $980,500.00 2/7/95[ ATTACHMENT 2 Little Rock School District Xnforznatlozi Services Business Case CURRENT ARCHITECTURE AS400 FOOD SERVICE AS400 ADMINISTRATIVE AS400 VO TECH 2/7/95 Little Rock School Diatrict Information Services Buainesa Case [ ATTACHMENT 3 TARGET ARCHITECTURE I DISTRICT SERVER nUNTEX PUNTU 2/7/95 7 Little Rock School Dietrlct Information Services Businea* Ca FEB J 5 1005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Offics of Ses?' Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Superintendent, SITUATION does not meet the basic needs requirement to local. Additionally IS does faculty, administrative of LRSD Board of staff, employees. or not adequately support LRSD basic reporting state and federal agencies as required. Analysis of the situation identifies critical short term three crucial issues. First, LRSD's most computing need is valid, timely, information to the uperintendent, Board and Court. Second LRSD must develop an architecture w ich allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community. Third, resolution of both issues must be accomplished with minimal resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution. Second timely. throw away solution.  Alternative One. Do nothing. ALTERNATIVES  Alternative Two. Upgrade by building additional AS400 upgrade networks. processors, disk storage. on current systems. Procure and install application source code. and  Alternative Three. Transition from the current . , \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. Emphasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, making. correction and decision IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE THREE  Alternative One is not viable. No crucial issue is resolved. $2,800,000 over five years. LRSD will spend  Alternative Two builds on current architecture. Problems with valid, timely reporting are only partially resolved. There is limited ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is not cost effective in either finariri al resources. LRSD will spend $3,590,500 over five years. or human Alternative Three, begin transition from the current environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. closed\" AS400 is the preferred Valid, timely reporting issues are more easily corrected with _ new architecture. There is significant ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is most cost effective in both financial and human solution. spend $2,697,000 over five years. resources. LRSD will a 2/7/95Little Rock School District Inforaation Services Business Case COSTS Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTE9NAT-L-VE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Littl RoqX SohooX Information Servlcea BuoinooB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 Procure and install data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data WMTB o SCHOOL LAM A TAX Q server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical. b FUHTU PC tools\nprovide local UHOTt JTAZT UAX administrative staff access to all LRSD data. AS\u0026lt;D WTtCH  __L_ TAX AMS raoosotvKC  LAM JUVU  b nuHTn AMS APMtXISTKATTVt DATA LAM SUVU  MTA SUVU  Id- USD AounnsruTTvi builoemc b MUKTEI LAM snvn  -io TAX Q raXHTtt 9 Install both a school and a remote administrative staff LAN linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, prototype which is students may access centralized educators and student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications. ------, multimedia, Internet etc. . Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate prototypes. a A 1 I A A A A A a o A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A \u0026amp; A A Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the new architecture. technology. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Spedaiist [Applicatona \u0026amp; Database Manap^ p Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator Director technical Planner Networlt i PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC with each employee. Develop a comprehensive IS staff model with relevant position descriptions, responsibilities etc. Eliminate positions and create positions as required to support this model. The goal is improved support without additional funds. Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Insure a Technical Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical Planner, in coordination with the Grant Writer, will identify and pursue grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. 2/7/95 }-[ I 1 I I 1 H I 1 I 1Rook School District Information Services BuslnesB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional applications for new architecture. NUKTU o wxm o FAX Q b NUMTU FAX Q 6 HUMm rxx Q b wMm AS4a\u0026gt; VO TECH  SBVCK e- LM LAN KA VIA AS400 FOODSERVICE AS40O AOMMSTRATTVE DATA SEX VIA DATA o- r* FAX Q FAX Q rut Q \"o 2/7/95  i 4 a a a a a \u0026amp; A a n SBvi A a k A a a a A A a a A a 9 A A a o ? a A a A a A a a a a  a a a a a A i a tTT7 b A 6 a A A a a A a 9 a a a a a a a 6 a a a aLittle Rook School District Information Servlcea Business Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. uo Pi*nTAATn  DISTRICT SERVEK FMHTU. o a n FAX Q a a a LAN suvu a Q a a p e' i a b rUNTU a a \u0026amp; i a a i. a nUNTU o a BRBLM a FAX Q a a a. a Q a a \"q a a b nitau a a a FUNTCR o a a Fax Q a a UH suvu a a b nUNTCt a a a  i HHH a a a _b_ a a a a a Q a a Q a a a a 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND CURRENT SITUATION does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. or other local, State and as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed The demand on DP was minimal. years IS operated Data (not information) reports. mainframe based LRSD information was generated by using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. administrative staff In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC) , ------ --- ..... forever changed administrative dependence on a central DP facility. , and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure Indivi dua1 schools, PCs. User demand for PC support grew. on use LRSD DP was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and software were virtually nonexistent. In 1992, purchased an IBM AS400 midrange administrative software and peripherals. LRSD an IBM computer. associated \"closed\" environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a The AS400 was not designed to take full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive, difficult to install. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, configure and maintain. PC computing labs etc. increased rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now competing for limited financial and AS400 computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to make major technical decisions in a rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of continual change in administration. In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. a monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of Information Services. November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. to In 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case PROBLEM DEFINITION 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT does not meet the basic needs of Directors, Superintendent, LRSD faculty, administrative staff, students. - - -  LRSD Board of employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies as required. Federal Court, ODM, The conditions that create this problem include a lack of procurement policy, no infrastructure and corporate data model, incorrect staff alignment, background and training, redundancy of effort, system saturation, the and corporate data model, redundancy of effort. system saturation -*  ------------a 2 6^ OCl U ULX Cl U X f UllC inability to effectively report and the inability to effectively integrate new technology. PROCUREMENT Currently individual schools and staff agencies budget for and purchase PCs, servers, networks, printers, modems, software, consulting services. etc. These procurements range from a $200 word processor, to a $75,000 con^uter lab to a $100,000 consulting and software development project. The results from decentralized budgeting and procurement are wasted human resources, wasted money and no infrastructure. For example. assume LRSD purchases 200 PCs per year, The resources, 150 bulk PCs are purchased, 50 PCs are inaiviaually purchased. An individual PC purchase requires 1 day visiting a computer store, talking to a friend or a vendor and individually purchased. An individual completing the procurement request. LRSD Purchasing Department then spends 1/2 day requesting bids and finalizing purchase. In total, 75 days of LRSD human resources are expended. Additionally a \"custom\" PC costs considerably than a standard bulk procurement PC. are more PCs for $3000-$5000. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of $2000. The excess costs of 50 A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500- \"custom PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. LRSD has agencies no viable each INFRASTRUCTURE AND CORPORATE DATA MODEL IS infrastructure. Individuals, procure PCs, servers. printers. schools. and modems, networks, staff word processors, spreadsheet, etc. The result of nonstandard procurement is a lack of connectivity, inter-operability and no corporate data model. in \"islands of automation\" physical or logical connectivity exists. in various schools and staff Data resides agencies. Little severely restricts LRSD ability to effectively report. The lack of corporate data model To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired,* instead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. and The probable result 2/7/95Little Rock School District Xnforsiation Seirvices Business Case would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers. none no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No new. Currently, each school Personal computers, printers, etc., and installed. comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc., has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. maintenance, formats. LRSD information will probably survive without one infrastructure connects/encompasses agencies and activities. elementary school. however. an all LRSD schools. staff Effective technology maintenance is not possible, breaks down. When a PC, printer. etc. the user calls IS staff\nunfortunately IS staff was not involved in the purchase, has no idea who, where to call for maintenance and has had no training on this unique hardware and software. The broken PC or printer may be pushed into a comer, another PC or printer ordered, the process repeats Itself over and over. The user, IS staff, and LRSD budget are negatively impacted. I The user. The current de-centralized IS procurement policy with resulting maintenance problems is roughly analogous to each school buying its own bus. breaks down, the school calls Transportation for maintenance. When the bus would not have the Transportation spare parts and no mechanics trained on that specific bus LRSD's ability to transport students would deteriorate rapidly, perception that  ' system. I'm only buying one PC, that can't possibly compare to a bus A \u0026gt;// is not valid. Various agencies within LRSD are spending from $20,000 $100,000 on automation with the expectation that IS will hook it up and keep it repaired. Not possible. to IS STAFF ALIGNMENT, BACKGROUND \u0026amp; TRAINING The motivation and dedication of LRSD IS staff is not in question, unfortunately IS staff alignment, background and training are not adequate to meet the demands of a volatile, diverse, technical environment. IS staff is currently aligned to meet the needs of a centralized, mainframe DP environment. The majority of LRSD con^iuting growth over the past several years has been PCs and networks. Approximately 500 administrative terminals and PCs exist\nunfortunately no IS staff position has been added, or existing position converted, to either PC or network responsibility. IS staff technical background is insufficient\nonly the Director and one programmer have degrees in CS/IS. This is roughly equivalent to running public school with one certified principal and one certified classroom a 2/7/95teacher. Little Rock School District Information Services Businese Case All other classes are taught by teachers aides. It is doubtful either LRSD or the public would tolerate a school staffed without certified teachers. While a school staffed without certified teachers would have problems, there would be little impact on the other 51 schools Unfortunately IS cannot be isolated. certainly in LRSD. IS staff is responsible for a multimillion infrastructure which impacts every employee and student in LRSD. IS staff is not trained. on In 1992 LRSD spent approximately 2 million dollars new computer systems. Unfortunately IS staff received negligible training to effectively implement this multi-million dollar procurement. or no The alignment, background and training of computing staff may be worse than for IS staff. LRSD academic/instructional PC technicians are scattered throughout LRSD, managed by principals, secretaries, librarians etc. The CS/IS education, background and training these PC technicians and their managers have is minimal yet. percentage of LRSD's they are planning, procuring and managing a sizable multi-million dollar IS infrastructure. REDUNDANCY OF EFFORT Considerable redundancy of effort and resources exist. IS staff. Instructional Resource Center (IRC) staff and various administrative staff LRSD each expend considerable human agencies within resolve confuting needs. resource effort defining and attempting to systems are the result with associated Redundant human effort and redundant information redundant costs. SYSTEM SATURATION LRSD Administrative AS400 computer and its associate networks have reached capacity utilization.. Central Processing Unit exceeds 90% (computers exceeding \"crashing\").Communication networks 90% (CPU) utilization frequently capacity are susceptible to are primarily 9.6 kbps, roughly half the necessary capacity. As an example, in the January 1995 report card/grade processing cycle, the Administrative AS400 CPU and network example. saturation forced school administrative staffs to download student grade data from school PCs to disks which were then driven in private automobiles to district headquarters for uploading into the Administrative AS400. INABILITY TO REPORT In addition to reporting problems caused by insufficient infrastructure and \"islands of information\", LRSD's unique reporting requirements created by desegregation and or court requirements have not been addressed. Administrative AS400 applications were purchased as a \"canned\" package. These applications have a series of data entry screens and reports designed to meet the needs of a generic or \"average\" school district. LRSD faces daily requests for information from Federal Court, ODM, etc. which standard applications cannot address. and necessary software to modify these standard applications have not been purchased. etc. The legal rights 2/7/95LRSD's network. Little Rock School Dietrlct Information Services Bueineee Caee INABILITY TO IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGY primary computing facilities Both are \"closed\" or are an IBM AS400 and its associated integrate PCs, printers. \"proprietary\" systems, which do not effectively scanners, fax modems, LANs etc. viewed as a cabinet stereo\nThe IBM AS400 may be and two speakers. a beautiful piece of furniture with a turntable effectively upgrade to and significant cost and effort. It has limited connect a expansion capability. I.e. you cannot cassette deck and CD player without in an AS400 environment Attempts to implement new PC and LAN technology are roughly equivalent to integrating a cassette and CD with a cabinet stereo\ncost and effort. it can be accomplished, but only with significant [ ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES j ALTERNATIVE ONE Change nothing. Current IS systems, infrastructure, procurement policy and staff remain. LRSD. IS problems will continue to have serious negative impact on i No i No\nDevelops a^q^te procurement EToli'cy i No builds adequate infrastructure i No : No aiisnment, background and training. : Eliminates redtmdancy\"oT\"S'fort'. i No r'No\nEliminates system saturation?\nProvides effective reporting.  iAllows effective integration\"? new\"technologyT i No No Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, eirployees, and students. faculty Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement to ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court : agencies as required. state eind federal ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade LRSD IS by building on the current infrastructure. install additional IBM AS400 code\nupgrade networks. processors, disk storage and application Procure and administrative computing. Realign IS staff to meet the needs of source LRSD Clearly define and separate administrative and academic IS systems, responsibilities and staff. Develop a comprehensive Information Services Plan which includes technical standards and responsibilities and staff. policy procurement 2/7/95\nYes Partial Partial i Yes\nPartial Mo Partial Partial Little Rock School Dietrict Information SarviooB BuBinesB Case iDevelops adequate procurement policy. correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure. : Addresses staff alignment, background and training i Eliminates redundancy 'of effort?\nEliminates system saturation.'\nProvides effective reporting.' ^Allows effective integration oFne'wtechnoio^. Meets basic needsof\" LRSd\" Board\"'df'\"\"Directors7 administrative staff, employees, and students Superintendent, faculty Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting re^irSnent to ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court\nagencies as required. state and federal Transition LRSD IS from the current ALTERNATIVE THREE client-server PC architecture. closed\" AS400 environment to a networked. solutions with constant evaluation. Emphasize prototyping for all correction and Implementation is phased based on user needs and avai1abi decision technical making. the consolidation of administrative and academic resources. Study responsibilities and staff. computing to include systems. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-server. Plan which PC environment. user community in a networked. includes a district Develop a comprehensive Information Services procurement policy and training wide architecture. technical standards, Yes Yes' Yes Yes Yes\nDevelops adequate procurement policy. ~ ~\nAddresses staff alignment, background\"and\"training Eliminates redundancy of effort. Eliminates system saturation. Yes Yes\nProvides effective reporting. Allows effective integration of new technology Yes\nMeets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Yes sdi^nistrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement\" Superintendent ODM, State Department of Education or other local. to Federal Court i agencies as required. state and federal 2/7/95Little Rock School District X\u0026amp;foraation Services Business Case RECOMMENDATION ACTION current \"closed\" AS400 c^Sni ieXer J T \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, soluSonrwith Whasize prototyping for all technical constant evaluation, correction and decision making. Impiementation is phased based  with PC architecture. constant correction for all , - - on user needs and available the consolidation of administrative decision resources. Study - - and academic computing to include systems, P ilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of meet the needs of a diverse LRSD Develop a comprehensive Information Services piSuremen? oo, a architecture, technic! standards, procurement policy and training. staff to staff. technical PC environment. a  Enhances LRSD ability to information\" develops LAN servers user community in a networked, technical RATIONALE report. Improves connectivity, reduces a corporate data model, migrates data access with low cost, easy to use PC tools. \"islands of to low cost  Provides a comprehensive infrastructure . -----------which enhances connectivity, reduces islands of information\" and develops a corporate data model.  Migrates to and technology. provides the architecture for implementation of new  Provides the infrastructure and architecture to \"plug in' technology consequently, the ability to aggressively grants. instructional pursue technology * Procurement is standardized to reduce infrastructure, eliminate redundancy. costs, streamline maintenance, build  Eliminates redundant systems, effort and costs.  Reduces saturation of lower priced LAN based existing AS400 systems by downloading processing to servers.  Initiates configuration of technical technical needs. staff to meet current and future 2/7/95Little Rock School Dletrlet Information Services Business Case [ OBJECTIVE as 1  Resolve LRSD's most critical short term coirputing need, valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board, Court and other agencies required.  Develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community.  Maximizes resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution.  Implementation allows constant evaluation, correction and decision making by educators, administrators and technical staff. Implementation is incremental based on user needs snri avA 11 ahi a resources. c IMPACT ANALYSIS DESEGREGATION/COTOT Alternative Three meets the IS needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students, solution supports LRSD basic reporting requirements This to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies. POLITICAL FACTORS Alternative Three transitions LRSD to the same technical architecture as chosen and implemented by both APSCAN and Pulaski County Special School District. Politically the implementation of Alternative Three makes LRSD a \"team player\". RISKS There is no significant downside risk associated with Alternative Three. This solution emphasizes prototyping and phased implementation with evaluation, correction and decision making at every stage. Risks would be associated with any other solution. From a technical and political perspective LRSD would be a \"Lone Ranger* implementing a solution other than Alternative Three. TIMING Phased implementation is an Alternative Three strength. Each phase allows for evaluation. correction and decision making. Implementation speed may be adjusted based on user needs and available resources. 2/7/95Little Rock School District lafonaatioxx Services Business Case RESOURCE ANALYSIS A brief analysis indicates LRSD PERSONNEL niay have 45 to 50 personnel who plan, implement and operate LRSD information be $800,000 to $1,000,000 systems\ncosts for these personnel may all others are hired. per year. Currently 12 work for the Director IS, trained and managed by a wide variety of administrators, educators, librarians etc. The effective, efficient employment of technical personnel in this scenario must be questioned. example, the IRC supports 52 ABACUS PCs with For a ratio of 1 technician per 20 IS currently maintains approximately 500 terminals of one 1 technician per 250 PCs. PCs. and PCs with a ratio To plan, implement and operate a comprehensive information system, with 2^a.pidly expanding demand for technical services LRSD must either hire more IS .\\. realign and reorganize to effectively support growing IS demands within existing budget constraints. IS organizational structure should include director, applications and database several key technical positions. technical planner. Each must have the education, perform his/her responsibilities. manager, network and PC manager, and training and experience to current technical skills are a Technology is a volatile environment. demand commodity. LRSD must pay current market rates for its key technical positions else current technology cannot be implemented.  Director. Responsible to the Superintendent, and operations. LRSD, for IS policy, planning  Applications and Database Manager. Responsible for central applications. databases and computer operations.  Technology Planner. Responsible for the planning and acquisition of new technology. Additionally works with LRSD Grant Writer grants. to obtain technology  Network and PC Manager. Responsible for all networks, LANs, printers, scanners etc. in a designated area. For example, servers, PCs, one Network and PC Manager may be responsible for all LRSD secondary schools. It is important to note that, while the majority of technology growth has been in this area. there is currently no corresponding position in LRSD. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Director ] Secretary Technical Planner Telephone Specialist I 1 Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager | Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Manager | I I I I 1 I Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer I Operator Operator Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Networks PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 5 YEAR TOTAL COSTS Initiate New Architecture 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications $317,500 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $1,017,500. 00 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM SAVINGS AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 , $560,000 $1,120,000.00  LRSD will receive IS fimding REVENUE based on a recent court decision reference the creation and fimding of APSCAN. Amount unknown.  A procurement plan that requires technical standards and bulk, discount purchase will yield significant savings. A \"custom\" PC costs considerably more than a standard bulk procurement PC. 1994 LRSD records reflect The excess costs n procurement of PCs for $3000-$5000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500-$2000. The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. Amount unknown.  LRSD Grant Writer has briefed the availability of several large technology grants. A LAN environment in every school provides a basis for implementation of technology such as Internet, multimedia, interactive learning applications, etc. at the individual school, consequently the possibility of aggressive pursuit of grants. Amount unknown. 2/7/95Little Rock School District laforaation Services Business Case [ FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS I FORCES FOR A phased implementation which emphasizes prototyping will include representatives of the entire LRSD user community. Administrators and educators will be in a position to evaluate and provide feedback at each phase of implementation. In a sense the user community will progressively \"buy in\" to the solution, consequently the entire LRSD user community will have a vested interest in IS success. FORCES AGAINST LRSD administrators and educators have enjoyed considerable autonomy budgeting and purchasing IS\nthere will be initial reluctance to give this autonomy up. Both administrative staff and instructional staff will express concern regarding any staff realignment or reorganization. 2/7/95[ Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data seirver to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical, PC tools\nprovide local administrative staff to all LRSD data. access Install both a school and a Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Business Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 AA400 VOTSCM *400 mootuvn S_J2 AnAgManxAWi urm o KNOOLLAM 4 4 AX Q 4 LAM UVUl o- I DAT* mvu a LAID ADMSamuTTVI IVLOtM 4 4 4 b ruTO 4 4 4 uno b a 4 MHOn rrAFT LAM a TAX 4 4 b WTO LAM MXVU  9 4 b WTO a 4 UM mm O 4 4 AX Q 4 a WTO o 4 4 4 4 remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, educators and students centralized student services, administrative services, library\" services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office student services, may access applications, instructional applications, multimedia, !______ Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate Internet etc. . prototypes. Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the new architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures technology. Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology for expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/9SLittle Rock School Dietrlct Information Servlcee Bueineee Caee Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated I [ Director Secretary Technical Planner Telephone Specialist I Applications 4 Database Manager j F f '---------1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator I I ][ 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager with each employee. Develop Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC  comprehensive IS staff model with rel Avant- position descriptions, responsibilities etc. positions as required to support this model. without additional funds. Eliminate positions and create The goal is improved support Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical in coordination with the Grant Writer, Planner, IS Insure a Technical grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95Littl* Rook School District Information Services Buaineaa Caao IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional applications for new architecture. AMOO VO TECH AS400 FOOD SEX VICE A9it0 ADMDflSTXATtVE DATA SEX VEX DATA MIMTU o a. FAX Q kAW tuvi* MW b rMtnt b MB fWNTU o rtx q Fax o o b rutira FAX Q LAN ntwu rm b runu :/7/95   a a a A a a o a 4 1 A a a a i Q a \u0026amp; a a Q a a a a a a A a A A A a a A A A i A A a A a a a A a a o a A a b a b A a a A A A 9 a A A A ALittl* Rook School Diotrict Information Services Buainaaa Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. \"o d nuNTu o A NUMTU o d rux a q a a. a uut StXVlK o a A d a b a d A A ro Q d A otmuT SFdVER  i a A Q A a HHH d -St a a b wmu d A A a rut q A a (AM suvu d b MUKTU d A a  \"o a tu q a A i A A Q A a d a a A .d a A Q A \"o b iwm d d d d 2/7/9S [ Little Rock School District Information Services Business Casa ATTACHMENT 1 COSTS All costs listed are estimates and will vary based on bids, bulk purchase etc. Costs could also change based on an assessment of equipment in each school. Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTERNATIVE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800, 000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS40O \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Con5)uter AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrlct Xnforaatlon Services Business Case ALTERNATIVE TWO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Application source code and RPG compiler Application software license for new processor Upgrade AS400 processor and disk storage IBM software Query and reporting software (50) Printers (5) Scanners (3) Communication controllers (3) 5 year maintenance AS400 and controllers 3 year IBM telephone support PC (25) Network Installation at $300 Upgrade network Tape BU Staff training Total per $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $25,000 $20,000 $10,000 $9,000 $18,000 $70,000 $15,000 $60,000 $7,500 $100,000 $6,000 $25,000 $790,500.00 Central Server w/OS, Gateway LAN Server w/OS \u0026amp; tape BU 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications Scanners (3) ALTERNATIVE THREE EQUIP RDBMS, Apps, AND SERVICES (2) PC (25) Network Installation at $300 per Staff training Total Cost $150,000 $30,000 $20,000 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $9,000 $50,000 $7,500 $14,000 $980,500.00 2/7/95[ ATTACHMENT 2 AS400 ADMINISTRATIVE Little Rock School District Xnfocnation Services Business Case CX7RRENT ARCHITECTURE 1 AS400 FOOD SERVICE AS400 VO TECH 2/7/95 Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Bualneee Case [ ATTACHMENT 3 TARGET ARCHITECTURE 1 DISTRICT SERVER PWKTHl 2/7/95 / 5 of .. '^3 Little Rock School District Badgett School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 Addition Modification Z Deletion $523,000 savings 1/9/95Badgett School Relocation Business Gise 2 Executive Summary For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. i------ While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, ^rious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to savmg money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, snerifir rpQparrh rrit-oria uTom __i.\n__.v. an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was fUled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\n4. The school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257) students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. recruiting has not been achieved for this school. Successful experience in 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\nThe additional 7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand. 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Sutwuiitdhy Di Hnr\u0026gt; P Ol/W/W he BADCTPOrBadgett School Relocation Business Case 3 By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Plan. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nNew patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\nLeaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\nImmediate cost savings is realized\nand, The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some their friends\ndisappointment in being separated from 2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nOI/Ow/wS Bf HADCTDT*-Badgett School Relocation Business Case 4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. zones in that Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\n5. 6. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nand. The Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96, If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.________________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo 4 SutHnilwd K Ih Hir\\ T Mdlunu Svpmnimdfni oi/(w/*5K BAncr rxxBadgett School Relocation Business Case 5 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) Milestone community information meeting to send to: d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information------------------------ a) parents \u0026amp; students\nmeeting to: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings by 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett School 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment. 14. Inventory building '  15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment______ 17. Remove materials and equipment from school ' 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure building 20. Reassign staff 21. Send final assignment notices Date 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Person Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo I Background For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district s total building capacity and total enrollment shows vacant seats. _ . , - - many While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used, Badgett Elementary School is a school that must be considered for closing. It is located in the extreme eastern tip of the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion are explained in this business case. I Problem Definition Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. Hmrv P WiUmom SxwrwMMMimi n RAfKTTrXXBadgett School Relocation Business Case 6 The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\nThe school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of effor1:s to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257), students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. recruiting has not been achieved for this school. Successful experience in 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\n7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. The additional population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand, 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Figure 1 illustrates some of these trends. b*' Dt. Henn- P WillMmt OI/W/B RC BADCT.nOrBadgett School Relocation Business Case 7 Figure 1 Badgett Elementary Enrollment History Criteria Enrollment % Black % Out of Balance Capacity_______ Attnd. Zone Ttlt 1989-90 237 76.00 16.00 92.22 1990-91 797 74.77 14.77 86.38 1991-92 220 73.18 13.18 85.60 1992-93 202 76.24 16.24 78.60 1993-94 1994-^ AZ % Black 189 69.84 9.84 73.54 135 65.93 177 75.14 15.14 68.87 160 61.25 One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Badgett's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. To the south of the attendance zone is the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help because that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the zone is bound by the river and North Little Rock School District, which does not participate in M to M transfers now. To the west, the school is buffered from the rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes. See Attachment A. I Ana/ysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed. After considerable discussion, it was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. Addressing only one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency for tax-payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all areas of concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below\n1. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\nEnrollments are for October of each year. - Attendance zone data is available for two years only. K Ih Hmn f William, lufa laiiinili iii RArvrrnivBadgett School Relocation Business Case 2. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Badgett School. This reduces the per-pupU costs at Badgett but wfll increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Badgett's. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 3. Relocate students from Badgett to solve the problem. This alternative addresses areas of the problem. all three a) A plan to relocate students will be devised. One possible Attachment C\nscenario appears in b) An immediate savings of approximately $523,000 will be realized by ehmmating the need for management staff, food service, buUding maintenance and utilities to name a few\nc) d) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. The curriculum offered at Badgett wfll be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. Intensify recruitment efforts in LRSD and PCSSD. Badgett's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. Recruitment has been tried in LRSD. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Badgett were increased by this effort\nit would have a negative impact .... on attendance zone is neighboring attendance zones. To the south of the the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help because that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the zone is bound by the river and North Little Rock School District, which does not participate in M to M transfers now. To the west, the school is buffered from the rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes Attachment A. See 8 [ Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Badgett to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. I Objective By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate''reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Suhmmod H Di P WiUmru SoprtmflMimi Ol 'CN/fS BI MADCT.rXXBadgett School Relocation Business Case 9 Plan. Fulfilhng this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. 1. 2. 3. 4. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware\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_279","title":"Business cases","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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/279"],"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\nRECEfVFo OCT 2 4 1995 Office of ^^^^d^egation ^omioring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE CUSTODIAL/GROUNDS \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE SERVICE c August 24, 1995LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE CUSTODIAUGROUNDS \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE SER VICE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aging facilities, limited resources and the need to prioritize assets are all conunon problems faced by school districts. Our specific challenge is how to keep our need in balance and provide adequate, safe and suitable facilities to meet our educational needs and do it a reasonable cost. The situation that the Little Rock School District faces, with regard to its facilities and custodial program, is not unlike that of most other school districts in the United States. Support Services functions have often had their budgets reduced to support academic programs. The emergence on the market of firms who specialize in school district support management have certainly added a boost to the overall appearance and professionalism of the way school districts conduct their support programs. Many of these firms offer programs that allow school districts to leverage limited resources in ways not available to districts to improve the overall quality of service in custodial and maintenance functions. The history particular to the Little Rock School District shows a school system which has expanded over the last twelve (12) years, but not kept up with the finances necessary to support this expansion. The backlog of maintenance and repair in the Little Rock School District are projects beyond the capability of the in-house work force or a small management company to complete. Committing the district at this time to reorganizing our assets commensurate with our financial and physical abilities is a prudent management step. It is necessary to reassess our programs and assets on a continual basis to ensure that they are meeting the districts educational goals. Outside influences regarding the way that the Little Rock School District does business, such as the Desegregation Plan, expanding State and Federal laws, monitoring groups and parent committees all play a role in analyzing this problem.The administration recommends forming a partnership with a firm which will provide the expertise to allow the district to better utilize its assets and will add the additional resources necessary to meet the objective of cleaner, safer schools utilizing existing available funds. Forming a partnership with a management firm would give this district a boost in resources and capital investment and would jump start the custodial and maintenance program. PROBLEM DEFINITION The Little Rock School District has a need to improve the appearance and overall visual condition and cleanliness of its facilities so as to enhance its recruitment and educational programs and to minimize long term damage due to neglect or non repair. BACKGROUND The Custodial and Grounds aspects of the Maintenance Program of the Little Rock School District are duties which are assigned the custodial staff of the various facilities. The custodians receive technical assistance in broad terms from the Plant Services Department but work directly for the individual principals. There is a long history of actions that have been taken regarding custodial service in this District which must be closely examined. Another major aspect of the Plant Services Department is the Maintenance and Repair Program. The Maintenance and Repair Program also has undergone significant changes in the last several years which are additionally provided as general background information. Each of these two (2) subjects will be addressed individually. Custodial and Grounds In 1986, the Little Rock School District had approximately 216 full time equivalent positions to maintain its custodial mission. This was an average of one (1) FTE per each 11,672 square feet. During that year, the Administration proposed to the Board a Plan to use an outside contractor to perform the cleaning duties of the Little Rock School District. It was estimated that the District could save over $250,000 annually by using a contract cleaning service. The proposal was not approved\nhowever, the Board instead charged the Plant Services Department with making cuts in custodial staffing, supplies and training to save $250,000 annually. The custodial staff reduction was achieved and a partial formula for staffing was adopted as a guideline for future staff planning. The full time equivalents rose to one (1) custodian for each 17,700 square feet or approximately 200 custodians. A plan known as the Omaha Formula was considered the most plausible and was applied generally throughout the District\nhowever, certain exceptions were made in Magnet and Incentive 2Schools. The plan also called for the custodial staff of each facility to report directly to an on-site supervisor, normally the principal. It was this on-site supervisor that made the final selection for hiring replacements and handled disciplinary action and recommended termination. In order to provide assistance to the on-site supervisors in managing custodial activities, the Plant Services Department employed four (4) custodial supervisors and recommended a custodial manager. Except dtiring summer months when the on-site supervisor was absent from the building, the custodial supervisors were not responsible for direct supervision of the custodial staff, but rather provided technical assistance, training, inspections, job site assistance, recommendations to the on-site supervisor and general persormel management functions. This program was recommended in the draft Desegregation Plan\nhowever, budget cuts in 1989 precluded this entire process from being implemented. Custodial supervisors were hired but the custodial manager to oversee the program and provide general technical expertise in custodial matters was never funded. To supplement absences in custodial staffing during the normal school year, a substitute program was implemented whereby the District would hire individuals\npay them at minimum wage and with minimum training would be assigned to the schools to assist the custodial staff. This proved to be very costly, both in dollars and in resources and was modified in December of 1991 when the Plant Services Department instituted a custodial position request procedure and a substitute custodial program. The substitute custodial program deleted another $250,000 from the custodial training program so that these funds could be used for higher district priorities. It established a priority system whereby substitutes would be pulled from a minimum pool of 25 custodians and sent to schools on a priority basis. Additionally it provided the six (6) temporary personnel to augment the ground capabilities of the Plant Services Department to compensate for the lack of training, expertise and abilities of the substitute custodians to do grounds work. The procedure was put in place in 1992. In August of 1992, during the beginning of the budget cycle for the following year, $220,000 was cut from the Plant Services Departftients custodial budget. It should be mentioned that a complete analysis was done at that time of the entire custodial program by the department. It was determined that over staffing against the Omaha Formula and leveling the staff to meet the needs of that formula would save approximately $150,000. This redistribution of custodial assets had previously been recommended by the Little Rock School District Curriculum Review (1990) which recommended equitable staffing among all schools. However, to meet the remaining goal of $220,000, additional cuts came by not filling custodial supervisory vacancies. As a result, the four (4) custodial supervisors were reduced to three (3). The remaining savings came from custodial supplies. In October of 1992, custodial supervisory responsibilities were realigned so as to ensure all schools and administrative buildings were covered to a minimum degree. In August of 1993, after testimony was given in court to these procedures, an evaluation was done of the custodial reductions of 1992 and recommendations were made to the superintendent to make adjustments. A Business Case was written and submitted and certain adjustments were made to the Omaha Formula throughout the district. The evaluation was provided to the Federal 3Court in January of 1993, along with a history of staff changes from 1991 through 1993. In 1993 and 1994, due to further staff reductions, two (2) of the three (3) remaining custodial supervisors were deleted. This left a staff of one (1) custodial supervisor, whose primary concern was to manage the Substitute Custodial Program with very limited training and custodial advising. New requirements, such as HAZMAT training and asbestos training has been picked up by the Plant Services Department and have fallen under the job description of the Environmental Coordinator. General overall training of the custodial staff has fallen tremendously due to the result of budget cuts in the supervisory functions to administer this program. The present situation is that custodians work for the principals, as has been the case since 1986. The Plant Services Department provides only minimal training and assistance due to the lack of management personnel. From the program initiated in 1991, where the Plant Services Department had full responsibility for training, scheduling and technical assistance, we have a program now where this is only provided on a minimal basis. Grounds allocations have been made, such that immediate responsibility close into the building is the responsibility of the custodial staff and the mowing of major areas and open fields, to include athletic fields, is the responsibility of Plant Services. Maintenance and Repair Throughout this budget cutting scenario from 1986 to the present time, the maintenance side of the program has had to adjust constantly to decreasing resources. Prior to 1986 and the transfer of the southwest Little Rock schools from PCSSD, the ratio of maintenance workers to square foot responsibility was 1:48,000. When the schools were transferred to LRSD control the ratio changed to 1:72,500 sf. At the time the transfer occurred, no additional manpower was given to the maintenance department to compensate for this additional workload. The installation of an Energy Management Program in 1988 to monitor facilities energy consumption, the installation of an automated maintenance management program in 1991 to keep track of costs, scheduled work and assisting in the prioritization of work has helped the maintenance program make some improvements. The establishment of priorities for all work assigned to the Plant Services Department which was put in place in early 1992, has aided in ensuring that the work necessary for the health safety and operational support of ongoing programs is accomplished and that work necessary to support new programs is prioritized against the needs of the new program and long range and deferred work is treated appropriately as funds become available. Budget cuts in the maintenance program over the last: five (5) years have amoimted to over $750,000. Part of this has been offset by a better utilization of the energy monitoring system, which has allowed the district to save over $450,000 in the last five (5) years. This money was not directed back into the maintenance program to offset the loss of normal budget cuts, but rather into the general pool and used by the administration against all of the Little Rock school District priorities. 4Supplementing the custodial effort at the schools, there are twelve (12) building engineers at: the larger secondary schools and administration buildings to assist in doing minor maintenance. The building engineers work for the principals arid receive supplies and technical support from the Plant Services Department. The overall condition of our schools indicates an array of buildings that generally meet minimal needs of our academic program. However, there is need for improvement. Conelating this background to our problem definition gives rise to the questions on how to enhance our facilities and to sustain our maintenance and custodial operations with diminishing resources. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Leading up to this business case, the administration made contact with several providers of management firms to learn of the benefits of their programs. Information was secured from firms which provide management services in custodial and maintenance areas by issuing a request for information in early 1995. This request for information was responded to by three (3) companies. A committee reviewed the three (3) proposals and agreed that discussions would be held with ServiceMaster to determine whether or not management plan could be put together in such a way that management services could be secured and funded from increased productivity. The end result would be a more organized and systematic support system of custodial and maintenance services to our schools. Information regarding comments and analysis dealing with management services were derived over a three (3) month period with ServiceMaster during May through July. Four (4) different alternatives have been considered. Alternative Number One - Do Nothing. Doing nothing must be considered an alternative. It implies that the cunent situation would remain as is and that forces impacting this alternative, such as reductions or enhancements in FTEs, supplies, equipment would be subject to the normal budget process of the District. The Custodial \u0026amp; Maintenance Program would fall in line with all other District priorities, and funds would be appropriated based on budget needs. The budget would not allow for enhancements in the Custodial or Maintenance Programs, but sustain them at the current level. Alternative Number Two - Add Resources/Reorganization. Additional resources are assuredly needed by the custodial and maintenance staff to enhance our facilities. But simply adding resources will not suffice, A cursory review of our program indicates that most of these resources are needed not in additional personnel, but in equipment, training and programs that could raise the stature and expertise of our custodial staff. Additional resources would most assuredly have to be made in the area of custodial supervisors and a custodial manager. The implications of cleanliness goes well beyond maintaining clean floors and clean bathrooms. Our need to maintain facilities that are safe from airborne diseases, rodents, insects, and to support indoor air quality programs coupled with laws requiring training and protection in hazardous material handling, asbestos and chemicals, 5and the need to understand new cleaning methods and materials on the market make additional resources mandatory regardless of which alternative is chosen. Reorganization would consist of realigning the custodial staff, the infusion of trained managers to run this program, the realignment of building engineer assets to make the grounds and preventive maintenance programs more effective, and a plan to coordinate all the different functions. This can be done initially out of personnel assets presently assigned to the district, but would require the addition of a number of managers at an approximate cost of $160,000 and at least $300,000 in capital equipment. However, a considerable amount of time would have to be given to the Plant Services Department to put together a viable reorganization plan to ensure that all facets of the custodial and maintenance program could be supported. It is estimated that this would take approximately two months to study and analyze, and another 12 -24 months to implement. The biggest disadvantage to this option in addition to the need for more resources and time for implementation is that there are no guarantees of success. Alternative Number Three - Contract Out. Contracting out normally refers to the situation where a company, expert in a specific area, comes into an organization and takes over all aspects of that function to include personnel. It would mean that a company would provide all levels of management of not only the subject area, such as custodial and maintenance, but areas such as engineering, financial supplies, etc. Employees would be members of that firm and not of the school district, and the school district would pay a set amount each year for this contract. Contract management can bring to a district a large and fast infusion of equipment and expert training, which is needed to jump start a program. However, the pay back is usually costly and over a long period of time, such that the management firm can amortize their costs. Many times when a district buys a \"Management Package\" it is forced to buy the entire package to include elements of the program that they may already be providing to be able to get the portions of the programs that they actually want. Alternative Number Four- Professional Management Services. In this concept our school district would enter into a partnership with a firm that would agree to provide the resources and expertise that is unavailable to the district due to budget constraints. By combining the skills and abilities of district staff with the technology and resources of an experienced provider of professional management services, we would be able to improve the delivery of custodial and maintenance services without having to spend any additional dollars. The aforementioned three month study and discussion with ServiceMaster has led to a specific management plan which has been custom designed to achieve district objectives of better maintained schools, employment procedures and practices continued (Employees will continue to work for LRSD with existing wages and benefits), and no increase in current fiscal year budget. An appendix of additional information has been provided as an attachment to this business case. 6Advantages  Cleaner and better maintained schools  Faster implementation of resources  Better coordination of custodial and maintenance services  Provides for additional capital investment  Provides for training of LRSD personnel Disadvantages  Perception that LRSD management cannot provide cleaner schools without outside assistance  Possibility of conflict over ServiceMaster recommendations RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of administration to choose alternative four (4) which is to form a partnership with ServiceMaster which will allow Plant Services to reorganize and regroup its assets and add the additional resources necessary to meet the objectives of cleaner and safer schools. This envisioned five-year contract (which will contain a 90-day cancellation clause) program will help the district to compensate for decreases in resources over the years, and provide a tailored program to meet LRSD needs. The most significant difference from previous attempts at improvements is that the cost and length of time factors that limited our success in the past will be removed as obstacles through the partnership with ServiceMaster. This course of action can be implemented much more quickly, with greater impact and less cost than the other alternatives. OBJECTIVE OF RECOMMENDATION The overriding objective of this recommendation is to improve the overall appearance of school site environment by maintaining cleaner and safer school buildings without increasing current budgetary resources. It is believed that the implementation of the above recommendation will provide the LRSD the most cost effective method of achieving the stated objective. IMPACT ANALYSIS The facility services program of custodial and maintenance can have both a positive and negative impact on this districts image and ability to perform its primary mission. A 7well executed custodial and maintenance program that results in better looking facilities with groomed and manicured grounds and better maintained buildings could foster new enrollment and the expansion of the Little Rock School District. Needless to say, the further detriment of the maintenance program could have the exact opposite effect. RESOURCE ANALYSIS In summary, the district will pay approximately $700,000 for management fees and $300,000 for equipment and supplies to ServiceMaster annually. The fees will be funded through productivity improvement savings and reductions in positions by attrition over time. No employees will be laid off. If Savings do not occur, ServiceMaster fees will be deferred until savings are produced. The attached financial summary provides additional information relating to fees. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Attractive, well maintained facilities would obviously be accepted by all of the Little Rock School District students and staff and the general public. We must strive to make our schools acceptable to the people that we serve and it must be done, in part, by making them visually appealing, safe and as well maintained as our resources will allow. There is no known contingent that would object to the betterment of our schools. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Should this recommendation be approved, it is expected that implementation would take place on or about October 1, 1995. 8APPENDIX Appendix A ServiceMaster Proposal Appendix B Program Overview Appendix C Financial Analysis Appendix D ServiceMaster OverviewAppendix A ServiceMaster ProposalService Master Proposal To Little Rock School DistrictServices Provided To LRSD EHRBRE i bi * iin 111 r r 1111 rii rii v bcm* b  ri!ri!RiriBiRaBiBMBaBaiBaiKBHasB\u0026gt;naaMRaBaiMM  Management Services  Systems approach to maintaining buildings  Technical expertise  Administrative Services  Training of LRSD personnel  Capital investment  Cleaner \u0026amp; better maintained schoolsAnnualized Cost To District m unmminiiiiiHiiiiiHiiiHiiUHiuiBiniiiPUMniniiMflu  $700,000 management fees  $300,000 Materials \u0026amp; SuppliesCost Will Be Paid BY  Productivity improvement savings  Position reductions over time through attrition  21 FTE Custodians  14 FTE Building Engineers/others  Substitutes  If savings do not occur, ServiceMaster fees will be deferred until savings are produced  Potential for savings in excess of SM feesContract Requirements nonBBnraaBBBHHBBNnnHBinflHaMM imnunoiKimnBmaHmiMHiwamsBvmanmwviiBaevflmiMM  Will include maximum LRSD expenditures  LRSD will not pay fees to SM that will cause the district to exceed current budget  Expenditure amounts will be defined in terms of function \u0026amp; object codes  Service Standards  Provision for 90-day termination of contract if standards are not met  No payment of deferred feesBsesme tiiannMwiiiiTmismiiiiuruHriiiiiitiiaiMiiiijnBiiHiiiniwiatMa Board Action Requested Authorize the district administration to enter into contract Negotiation with ServiceMaster. Once mutual agreement has been reached regarding terms, the Board will be asked to authorize the execution of the contract.Appendix B Program OverviewPROGRAM OVERVIEW GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM A. Professional Management Services for Little Rock School District By Whom ServiceMaster is the leading provider of Professional Management Service to the education industry, serving in over 520 school and universities worldwide. ServiceMaster has reached this position through personal individualized service to education executives. Program Concept Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster have an opportunity to work together in a new and unique way. The education industry is facing new and most challenging times. We are both being asked to provide a higher standard of quality, with greater customer focus, and to do so at a lower cost. To accomplish these objectives, we are proposing a new, more effective organizational structure and a unique combination of the School District and ServiceMaster resources. The success of this program depends on Little Rock School District and ServiceMasters people working closely together. This proposal describes a new relationship between us in which we will work together to increase the effectiveness of all services, merging them into a single, responsive service organization. ServiceMasters resources are very significant, and our commitment to the success of this program at Little Rock School District is complete. By combining ServiceMasters systems, technical resources, and resident department management leadership with the skills and abilities of Little Rock School District people, we will: * significantly improve and maintain quality levels as measured by formal quality assessment procedures.\u0026lt; provide the Little Rock School District a return on investment projected to be in excess of $2 million dollars over the life our Agreement. be responsive and accountable to your administration, to your teachers, and to your students. Together, we will apply good sound common sense and business judgment to all decisions affecting our entire responsibility. Your decision to join with us in this venture is one which reflects your agreement that together we can accomplish more and accomplish it faster. We look forward to working with you to begin this exciting new program. B. Program Benefits Our objective is to work in the shadow of your School District supporting Administration in every way possible to achieve its goals and objectives. The Administrative team will benefit from: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) A quality level of service much higher than previously experienced, achieved through the latest developments in process engineering, productivity improvements, and Human Resource Development techniques. The addition of a professional supporting management team headed by high caliber, highly motivated managers, able leaders of personnel. They will also have a true understanding of the education community, facilities management, and modem engineering practices. Additional levels of supporting management through an operational backup team consisting of a Director of Operations, Customer Support Representative and Vice President for Operations, as well as a Technical Support Team consisting of Technical Specialists, Process Engineers and others. Greater management control over the Maintenance Department while reducing your time involved in the day-to-day operation of the department. Establishment of a climate of meaningful motivation to the employees that will challenge them in their job for achievement, responsibility, growth, earned recognition and the work itself through initial and continuous training and development programs.6) Improved employee morale through enlightened management and supervisory practices, assistance to administration in reflecting the basic safety and social needs to these employees, for identifying with the School District, for belonging. They, in turn, will be recognized as being part of the education team. 7) Positive feedback from customers (students, teachers, community and staff) generated from the impact of the ServiceMaster Professional Management Program. 8) Flexibility to meet the changing needs of your School District. 9) Protection of your investment in the buildings accomplished through the technical back-up and research, laboratory, and manufacturing facilities of the ServiceMaster organization together with the consulting support of ServiceMaster Professional Engineers, Chemists, Bacteriologists and Training Specialists whenever needed (see organization chart). 10) Thoughtful and careful coordination of Environmental Service duties and personnel with other District personnel and departments improving both communications and harmony of operation throughout the District. 11) Reduced equipment maintenance and replacement costs accomplished through the implementation of the systematic \"Computenance Plus\" Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Program. 12) Minimized risks to students, employees and staff throughout the District accomplished through the implementation of a Casualty Prevention and Control Program. 13) A performance oriented program. 14) Protection of m^jor pieces of capital equipment is realized through ServiceMasters Guaranteed Equipment Life Program. 15) Minimized Liability, Improved Service, and Reduced Costs - Is realized through the establishment of ServiceMasters in-house Maintenance Management System. 16) Provision of a program which fully complies with. Federal, State and Local Regulatory Agencies.ServiceMasters record of service in and long-standing relationship with the education marketplace makes us uniquely qualified to assess the management of support services at Little Rock School District and to propose solutions. A team of ServiceMaster professionals spent firam 2-4 weeks surveying the District. During the on-site survey process our engineering teams assessed your needs by reviewing the cost of payrolls, purchased services, supplies, utilities and capital expenditures. We toured every building inspecting cleaning surfaces, mechanical equipment, ventilation systems, roofing systems and grounds conditions. Interviews were held with administrators, principals, staff, and those involved with related functions. Safety, training, quality control, and operational methods were thoroughly reviewed. With great care and detail an implementation plan has been specifically and uniquely prepared for the Little Rock School District. Features of the program can be classified into six (6) major categories. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Leadership and Organization Education and Development Technology and Systems Corporate Resources Total Quality Management Financial Performance Following is a brief outline of these sections and features provided as a ready reference overview. 1) Leadership and Organization Integral to the success of ServiceMaster programs is the full-time involvement of professional ServiceMaster managers in the organization. Our managers are trained extensively in processes and procedures, labor relations, management skills, financial skills, and human relations. ServiceMaster Will Provide\nA. B. A full-time, on-site, resident ServiceMaster management team which will be integrated carefully with the current management team to maximize existing skills. A proposed organization that would include the appropriate number of full-time equivalent custodial/grounds personnel, and full-time equivalent maintenance personnel, and clerical personnel, all of whom will remain employees of Little Rock School District.2) c. Continuous Management Development Programs held on-site, regionally, and nationally. Education and Development Much of the success of ServiceMaster programs is due to our ongoing commitment to provide the very best training, education, and development programs for the employees we are privileged to lead. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. One-on-one training programs to be accomplished with all department staff and documented as such every six (6) months. B. Alternating with the above training, audiovisual reinforcement training accomplished semi-annually. C. Monthly group meetings with all staff containing discussion on informational/motivational topics. These would include special guest speakers and would be designed to encourage the staff as an important part of the school family. D. Special annual programs such as \"Pride Day,\" \"Open House,\" and \"Award of Excellence\" held to help build pride and professionalism among the staff. E. Special career development opportunities to include development in maintenance skills and technology, G.E.D. certification, and similar programs to help staff members enrich their lives and further their careers. F. Certification seminars held regionally on such topics as carpet care, gym floor care, athletic turf, track maintenance, and playground equipment. G. Leadership development programs for those expressing the interest and talent to advance to leadership roles. H. Job descriptions, standards of performance, and performance evaluation tools implemented and utilized as a regular part of operations. 1. Risk management and safety programs for all personnel. These would include required training courses for \"Right to Know\" and Asbestos Safety. J. Specific Recruitment Strategies for reducing turnover and absenteeism and improving performance.3) Technology and Systems Effective management of the custodial, maintenance, and grounds functions of a district requires an ongoing program of research and development. New technology, innovative techniques, and effective procedures and methods are constantly being developed by ServiceMaster to meet the challenges presented by todays education environment. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. Maintenance 1. A fully computerized state-of-the-art maintenance program. 2. Preventive maintenance for all electrical and mechanical systems. 3. Casualty prevention and control programs for all equipment and buildings. 4. Life expectancy reports for all electrical and mechanical equipment. 5. Formalized maintenance summaries to include schedules, actions completed, cost analysis, and productivity reports. 6. Establishment of a complete cost accounting system for maintenance activities including parts, labor, and services. 7. Monitoring of all correctivd maintenance activities structuring and planning tasks. 8. Provision of a complete technical reference library concerning methods and skills. 9. Computerization of work order processes and systems. 10. Tracking of all minor construction activities to include parts, services, and labor costs. 11. Provision of employee education and training as required under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. 12. A program designed to alert the school to any potential problems related to lead in drinking water and possible solutions.13. A program designed to expose any potential hazards related to underground storage tanks and recommendations regarding actions required to meet EPA standards. 14. Education for the maintenance staff on the potential dangers of Radon Gas, and recommendations regarding necessary actions to reduce any potential health risks. B. Custodial 1. New special and patented custodial chemicals for all building locations and processes. 2. New state-of-the-art ServiceMaster patented custodial equipment providing greater efficiency and productivity. 3. A complete technical library of custodial processes and procedures on-site for department use. 4. Documented standardized cleaning schedules developed and utilized for each building and situation. 5. Proven ServiceMaster processes for all job tasks put into place and documented as such. 6. New ServiceMaster developments in cleaning technology to each school as appropriate. C. Grounds Provisions 1. Implementation of standardized grounds care procedures for all grounds functions. 2. Structure and planning for all grounds-care tasks to include pruning, fertilization, pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide application. 3. Planned balanced mowing routines. 4. Regular inspections of playground equipment. 5. A complete library of grounds care procedures and reference materials. 6. Inclusion of specified new grounds equipment.D. Energy Management 1. Implementation of a comprehensive operational energy management program. 2. Produce monthly analysis, by school, of energy cost and consumption. 3. Assist Administration in the analysis of existing energy management system to enhance energy control. 4. More efficient plant system that reduces energy consumption. 5. Through our energy shared-savings program we have over $100 million to invest in state-of-the-art energy efficient units to replace your outdated and inefficient systems. 4) Corporate Resources Perhaps the greatest benefits provided by ServiceMaster is the addition of resources and support far greater than anything otherwise available to the District. Nowhere else can the District find the extensive experience, proven record of performance, and vast corporate resources provided by ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. An implementation team during the initial phases of the program accomplishing indexing of equipment, initial training, schedules, gener^ program installation, and other tasks related to the start of services. B. Additional management support by Director of Operations and Customer Support Representative visits, monthly or more frequently, if necessary. These visits insure program completeness and effectiveness. C. Engineering teams and individual engineers providing ongoing consulting support in the area of Plant Operations and Maintenance. D. ServiceMaster Systems Managers providing ongoing consulting support in the area of custodial services. E. Grounds specialists with expertise in turf management providing grounds consulting and on-site support.F. The corporate resources of ServiceMaster made available to the school to include Research and Development laboratories. G. National discount programs on a wide range of maintenance, custodial and grounds products and services. H. Immediate information resources through 1-800-SM-KNOWS. 5) Total Quality Management ServiceMaster Quality Assurance/Quality Management Programs are of importance to the District in that they provide assurance that the quality standards promised are the quality standards delivered. Scheduled inspections are designed to guarantee that acceptable levels of department quality are reached and maintained. These inspections provide for positive learning experiences and recognition for work done well, resulting in heightened morale. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. Daily supervisor inspections made on-site by the supervisor at the facility. B. Maintenance daily rounds logs and routines established and documented. C. Weekly inspections of quality taken by the resident manager in the company of a school designee. D. Monthly meetings with school Administration to insure proper program direction. E. Quarterly inspections taken by the ServiceMaster Customer Support Representative with findings reported to Administration. F. Teacher interviews conducted with approximately 10% of the teachers each month to assess program effectiveness. G. Annually a formal report to the Little Rock School District detailing accomplishments for the past year. H. Long-term benefits in extended building and equipment life.6) Financial Comparison ServiceMasters contract amount will guarantee to the District the cost of management, school labor, custodial equipment, custodial supplies, training and materials, etc., whUe providing assurance of quality performance throughout the operation. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. An investment in new labor efficient custodial equipment. B. An investment annually in custodial supplies and materials. C. An investment in grounds equipment. D. Potential replacement of some electromechanical equipment and grounds equipment. E. Long-term benefits in extended building and equipment life. F. A program to guarantee the life of major capital equipment by agreement to pay the financial penalty for premature failure. G. Total Maintenance and Custodial Program projected to be budget-neutral in the first full year of implementation. Long-term savings or the return on investment over the life of the agreement is projected to be greater than $2 million. A complete financial analysis is attached.ServiceMaster Management Team for Little Rock School District Corporate Support Bacteriologist Education and Training Regulatory Compliance 1-800-SM-KNOWS Little Rock School District Administration Operational Support Vice President Director of Operations Coordinating  Manager Customer Support Representative zXssistant Director Custodial Director * Systems Manager Assistant Director Principals * Responsible for coordination of training, computer systems, preventive maintenance, regulatory compliance, operational energy management, level I maintenance, grounds, and customer support. Appendix C Financial AnalysisFINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF SERVICEMASTER PROGRAM AMOUNT Management Team Custodial System Grounds Equipment Computerization Salaries and Benefits Capital Equipment is Annualized ($106,389) Annualized Amount Includes Hardware, Software, Customer Programming, and Support $332,188 265,584 22,600 11,163 Vehicles (4) Direct Investment 30,000 Indirect Invesment Profit and Taxes TOTAL Special Project Personnel Specialty Training Seminars Relocation Expense for Managers Start-up and Implementation Personnel Travel and Staff Expenses Safety Programs In-service Programs Motivational Programs Recruitment Strategies Program Customer Service Hot-line (1-800-SMKNOWS) Divisional Education Support Division Manager Area Operations Manager Vice President of Operations Audit and Control Direct Expense Total Labor Relations Education and Training Program Support Insurance Process Engineering Equipment Research and Development Chemical Research and Development Systems Research and Development Quality Control Finance Control Program Improvement Clerical Support Legal Support Service Administration Plant and Facilities Overhead Indirect Expense Total 259,417 122,945 140.011 Sl,183,908FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - FOOTNOTES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (1) Non-budgeted but utilized amount for substitutes. (2) Amount spent on custodial supplies developed from information provided by Plant Services and Procurement. (3) Line item #. (4) Line item #. (5) Salary for custodial supervisor. (6) Amount estimated that is spent on disposable supplies such as tissue and trash can liners not provided as part of custodial system. (7) Analysis of ServiceMaster program amount provided separately.Appendix D ServiceMaster OverviewServiceMaster Overview  Number of K-12 School Districts Currently Served  Number of Employees ... 370 Over 30,000ServiceMaster The Company Pursuing quality and exceIlencc...Treating people with dignity and pridc...Being driven by service to our customers...Growing profitably...these are all part of the goals and objectives of ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster continues to expand our technical resources and customer base in an atmosphere that fosters innovation, creativity and development. Long before the concept of \"total quality management\" was fervently discussed among businesses and learning institutions, ServiceMaster had committed itself to the objective of \"Pursuing Excellence.\" In the early 197O's, Kenneth T. Wessner, then Chairman of the Board of Directors, wrote: \" Our company accqjts the responsibility to continually seek better methods to render current and new services to its' customers at a better value. Our trademarks and service marks stand for excellence...The pursuit of excellence is a never-ending process, the continuing search for a better way. It requires a strong commitment and an understanding that a job, a career  life itself is never completed, but is in a continual stage of change and growth.\" It is this philosophy that has continued to guide management and support employees. By listening to customers' needs and remaining focused on the business of providing quality services, ServiceMaster has grown from a small mothproofing business in the early 194O's to a $3.0 billion international company that provides a network of services to consumers, businesses, health care systems and education customers. In 1962, at the request of hospital administrators, the first Housekeeping Management Support Program was introduced. Based on findings from the American Hospital Association, health care professionals and additional research, ServiceMaster designed a program to improve overall cleanliness while reducing costs and management burdens. I In 1971, through a series of discussions with school administrators, the company learned of the unique demands and challenges encoimtered in maintaining school buildings and groimds. As a result, a separate division of the company was started in order to better focus on the specific concerns of educators. Now, over 20 years later, ServiceMaster education resources include four specific divisions nationwide, staffed with operations, sales and support professionals dedicated to handle all aspects of school and college facilities management. In addition, corporate resources are committed to technical research and development, management and support employee training, motivational program development, and hiring professionals with expertise in the education market. ServiceMaster The Company (continued): Today, as the world's leading provider of support management services to education customers, ServiceMaster continues to serve our first education customer as well as 500 additional colleges, universities and school districts. ServiceMaster is the only company in the world that can provide maintenance, custodial, groimds, energy management, food service, pest control, capital retrofit and asbestos programs all through a single source provider.ServiceMaster Sponsored Programs ServiceMaster continues to demonstrate our education commitment by providing corporate sponsorship and leadership support to a number of different education organizations and programs including:  The AASA National Superintendent of the Year Program  ServiceMaster is proud to have initiated, fimded and developed, along with the American Association of School Administrators, this prestigious program. The National Superintendent of the Year recognizes and honors the important contribution that superintendents of America's public schools make to our youth and the preservation of our society.  Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI)  ERDI is a unique organization whose goal is to bring together iimovative leadership in education and business from around the country. Initiated, funded and developed by ServiceMaster, ERDI provides a \"think tank\" atmosphere for Fortune 500 companies.... a forum for progressive educators to share and exchange ideas, and funding for education research and development.  Flag of Learning and Liberty -The Flag of Learning and Liberty, developed in 1985 by the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA), symbolizes the link between education and the American democratic way of life. ServiceMaster continues to provide funding and support to promote this important education symbol.  ASBO International Eagle Service Award Program - The Eagle Service Award was developed by ServiceMaster and the Association of School Business Officials International to recognize business officials who demonstrate outstanding service to their school, community and the profession. In addition, ServiceMaster was named as one of President Bush's 1,000 Points of Light for providing the opportunity and funding for over 200 ServiceMaster employees to mentor elementary students. ServiceMaster also provides funding and support for the Council of Great City Schools and sponsors over 100 student scholarships nationwide. / REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Richardson Independent School District Location: Richardson, Texas Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, Technology Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: October 1990 Total Square Feet/Sites: 5,008,318 sq. ft./63 Buildings Students: 33,000 Contact Personfsl/Phone: Mr. Vernon Johnson, Superintendent Mr. Jack Huffman*, Director of Physical Plant Services 214/301-3333 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Polk County Schools Location: Bartow, Florida Services Provided: Custodial Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: November 1986 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,828,000 sq. ft./109 Buildings Students: 68,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. John A. Stewart, Superintendent Mr. Denny Dunn*, Deputy Superintendent 813/534-0500 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER / REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Memphis City Schools Location: Memphis, Tennessee Services Provided: Custodial, Maintenance, Grounds Management, Energy Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: June 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites: 16,000,000 sq. ft? 1,884 Acres Students: 106,000 Contact PersonfsJ/Phone: Dr. Gerry House, Superintendent 901/325-5444 ServiceMASTER. REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Kansas City Missouri School District Location: Kansas City, Missouri Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: August 1991 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,629,101 sq. ft./102 Buildings Students: 35,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. Walter Marks, Superintendent Mr. William M. Threatt*, Associate Superintendent 816/871-7814 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER I REFERENCE School District Name of Client\nDistrict of Columbia Public Schools Location\nWashington, D.C. Services Provided\nCustodial, Preventive Maintenance Management Employees on payroll of\nDistrict Contract Start Date\nJanuary 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites\n14,000,000 sq. ft? 198 Buildings Students\n81,000 Contact PersonfsJ/Phone\nDr. Franklin Smith, Superintendent Mr. William McAfee*, Director of Facilities Management Division 202/724-4222 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER. B4112802 08/09/1400 LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY FY 95-96 This document is an ODM staff working paper which contains the following material: 1. Chart of Business Cases. This is a listing of all business cases known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those business cases. 2. Chart of Shortfall Strategies. This is a listing of all shortfall strategies known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those strategies. If a shortfall strategy had a business case prepared, then the strategy was moved into the Chart of Business Cases. 3. Chart of Budget Issues. This is a listing of budget related issues that should be addressed somewhere in the LRSD budget. 4. Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. NOTE: Please help keep this paper updated by letting Mooney know of budget actions or suggested changes. 1LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Academic Progress Incentive Grant. *  * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 14, Academic Incentive. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #14 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Gremillion and Mitchell. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Academic Incentive, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. APIG and Focused Activities deletions. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $445,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why the district can cut this program in light of the Court Order. Williams says a plan modification will be required. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $445,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $445,000. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced the savings from $455,00 down to $290,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of revised business case. No action taken.  * * 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved continuing APIGS/FA and funded it at $20 per student for each area elementary school. The approved cost is now approximately $171,000, making the savings approximately $274,000. LRSD estimates savings as $261,000 on the summary table from the Board meeting. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the program 25 * modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $261,100. Academic Support Program. 2. 3. 4. 5. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 03, Academic Support. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 03 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Glasgow, Parker, and Adams. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 03, Academic Support, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. Data Processing. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23 and 24, Data Processing. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates he wants to give Beason some time on the job before considering Outsourcing data processing services. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 24 and 230, will be prepared by Beason. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 33. District Wide Facilities Study (School Closings). * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 33, Facilities. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows District wide Facilities Study (program sequence # in error) will have a business case. It will be prepared by Mayo. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett of discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 22 and # 23. Pupil Transportation Services. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 223, Pupil Transport. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 3* * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 25. 6. Family Life Education/New Futures. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 231 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young and Carson. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to * nurses, counselors and science teachers, modification. Savings of $77,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would not require a Deseg Plan * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * list, and savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $77,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $77,000. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the * * superintendent. Savings at $77,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a savings of $77,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $77,000. 7. New Futures. * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 13, New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 13 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 13 New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6 period day. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $669,900. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board deleted the Learning Foundations course in the New Futures Junior Highs. This seems to lay the foundation for elimination of the 7 period day. Savings of $669,900. 4* * * * * * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted amount of savings dropped to $626,848. Difference is that this amount is based on actual salaries vice averages. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $626,848. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $626,848. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Young concerning the business case. Mainly centered on cutting the 7th period. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to accept the business case as submitted by the superintendent failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. In response to the failed business case. New Futures funding of $626,848 added back into the Tentative Budget Document. No savings now reflected. 8. Four-Year-Old-Program. * * * * * * *   * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 02 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Price. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old, for modification or deletion. 2/1/95 flyer to parents. The pre-registration material sent to parents around the first week of February contained a flyer on the 4-year-old program. The flyer said that due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in many of the schools. The final decision will be made by the Board in the near future. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate program except at the Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $ 1,321,520. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness states that the Board does not want to cut the 4 year old program, and the administration should look elsewhere. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as defened and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $1,321,520. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $1,321,520. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving the program in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. 5 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services, * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 213, Guidance Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #213 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Elston. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 213, Guidance Services, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas * Public School Accreditation Standards, modification. Savings of $125,268. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would not require a Deseg Plan * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $125,268. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$125,268. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and the savings of $125,268. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $125,268. 10. Health Services. * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 215, Health Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #215 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Efird. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 215, Health Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services. Cut 19 nurses from area schools. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $560,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/24/95 Mooney meets with Riggs to discuss alternatives in health services. 2/24/95 Brown/Morgan/Mooney meet with Magness/Mayo to discuss alternatives in health services. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item has been dropped from 6* * * * consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $560,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $560,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving health services in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. Williams indicates the district is now working with the Dept of Health on some new ideas for health services. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 11. HIPPY.  *  * * * *  * * *  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 01, HIPPY. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #01 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Shead. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 01, HIPPY, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $185,828.18. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested some service numbers, asked about duplication of services, and possibilities of combining with other programs. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness, Mitchell, and Pondexter voiced concerns about cutting this item. If cut, savings have been increased to $223,769. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $223,769. Also included an action deadline of 5/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $223,769. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says they are recommending the cut in the HIPPY program because of the deficit. The proposed cut is not final at this time, since the Board has not voted. Other programs can deliver this service. Matthis says HIPPY will remain in the incentive schools and schools in southwest Little Rock. Cuts will remove about 50% of the kids served. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. A number of Board motions failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the HIPPY 7expenditures added back at $223, 769, and now shows no savings. Removed from the actual list. 12. McClellan Community School. * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 15, McClellan Community School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 15 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Carter. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 15, McClellan Community School, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $170,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about advisory board involvement. Williams directed Carter to go back to the advisory board for more input. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion concerning involvement of the Advisory Council. Board wants more input from Advisory Council and additional information from the staff. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. * * * * * * * * 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $130,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $130,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. Administration considering counter-proposal (business case) by the McClellan Advisory Board. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. The Community School will be funded at $40,000 (plus earnings of about $50,000), for a total savings of $130,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on the business case developed by the Advisory Committee\nthe committee did what they were supposed to do. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still at $130,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $130,000. 13. Staff Development. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 8* * * 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODPvI/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 21 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Woods. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 21, Staff Development, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 14. Substitute Teachers. * * *  * * * * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Gadberry and Hurley. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Substitute Teachers, for modification or deletion. This item did not appear on the 1/5/95 Extended Evaluation List, but was on the 1/17/95 tentative business case list. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Place a cap on professional leave. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $50,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $50,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $50,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $50,000 savings. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $50,000. IS. Vocational Education. *  * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 08 and 204, Vocational Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 08 and 204 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Green. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 08/204, Vocational Education, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology education programs at two junior high schools\neliminate low demand courses. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $182,783.90. 9* * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings had been reduced to $98,462. Smith says this is the result of fine tuning. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $98,462. Also included an action deadline of ASAP. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $98,462. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut * and savings. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $98,462. 16. Safety and Security, * *  * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 25 and 225, Safety and Security Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 25 and 225 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Jones. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 25/225, Safety and Security, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes a feeder for # 31. 17. Discipline Management. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Mitchell, Robertson, Marshaleck. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 18. Alternative Education.  * * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Elston, Anderson, and Glenn. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pilot program of alternative classrooms at Southwest Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $34,965. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $34,965. 10* 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was added to the budget for an additional * * cost of $34,965. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $34,965. * 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $34,965. 19. Incentive School Program Modification. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 217. Develop business case for incentive schools program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $607,250. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested more numbers and better justification. More general discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings amount had been reduced to $608,250. The difference is cutting 38 vice 45 positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $608,250. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $608,250. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced savings from $608,250 down to $211,250. Personnel cuts not as severe\nfrom 45 FTE down to 10.5 FTE. 4/7/95 Court Submission. LRSD submits corrections to the revised business case. No change to the bottom line savings of $211,250. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Ingram on the business case. Detailed testimony by Brooks, Donovan, and Buchanan. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $211,250. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still set * at $211,250. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $211,250. 20. Middle School Concept. * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 218. Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. However, the 1/30/95 Project Management 11Tool indicates the district is 100% complete on exploring, gathering, and assessing data relative to such a transition. 21. Beacon School Concept. * * * * * * 11/11/94 letter from Williams to Brown. Letter indicates that planning has been completed and the district is moving ahead without the benefit of a business case. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Beacon School concept at Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $12,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. The $12,000 is for custodial costs. Program would run year round. Gee suggests looking for a grant. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Budget cost still shows $37,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $37,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $37,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion on proposal. No action taken. * * * * * 4/10/95. LRSD Budget Hearing. Brief discussion about the Beacon School concept in relation to the McClellan Community School business case and recommended cuts. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says the amount can be lowered to $18,500 additional. The board tabled the addition. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Since only about $20,000, Riggs suggests waiting on this issue until later in the year when the programs are about ready to start up\naround 12/95. No action taken by the Board. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $18,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $18,500. 22. Badgett School Relocation. * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Badgett School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $523,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about keeping all the students together in any move. Riggs supported the idea. 12* * * * * * * * * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $523,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $523,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Badgett failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school still open, with no savings in the budget. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 7/3/95 LRSD Court Submission. Filed a revised business case and a motion to modify the desegregation plan in relation to closing the school. 7/7/95 Special Summit Meeting of the Parties. In striking this special deal among the parties, the Board (without formal vote) agreed to leave Badgett and Fair Park open for the next year. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. * * * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Fair Park School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $637,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested the amount of money to repair Fair Park if it were kept open. Figures were not available. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $637,000. Included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * cost of $637,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Fair Park failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 13* * * * * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school remaining open, with no budget savings. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 7/3/95 LRSD Court Submission. Filed a revised business case and a motion to modify the desegregation plan in relation to closing the school. 7/7/95 Special Summit Meeting of the Parties. In striking this special deal among the parties, the Board (without formal vote) agreed to leave Badgett and Fair Park open for the next year. 24. Elementary Music Teacher StafTing. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $161,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $161,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$161,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and savings of $161,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $161,000. 25. Improving Student Transportation.   * * * * * See feeder item #5. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the LRSD is coming back with a recommendation to outsource transportation. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 223 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Cheatham. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Pupil Transportation, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Outsourcing transportation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $100,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Some opposition, but not as much as last time. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested material from last year. Numerous 14 questions on the mechanics of outsourcing, but staff did not answer. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * * *  list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $100,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $100,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Williams says RFP ready to go. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. RFP issued on 4/7/95. The Board tabled the item. On hold. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion with numerous questions. Issue still tabled. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the item remaining deleted from the budget for a savings of $100,000. 6/15/95 Newspaper article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on outsourcing contract would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. After a presentation by Laidlaw, the Board approved a * three year, $19,500,000 contract. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $100,000, and the line item transfers for the outsourcing contract. 26. Parkview Commercial Art Class. * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Commercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $0.00. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board approved this item. Unknown building renovations may be expensive. 27. Arkansas Crusades. * * * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $30,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Will support about 30 teachers. Mostly for equipment at 50% match for implementation of programs. Have done this in the past. No evidence that it is successful at this point. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item is still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $30,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $30,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the addition as submitted by the 15* * superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $30,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $30,000. 28. Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $3,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item was dropped from the proposal. It was solved with staff realignment. It will be dropped from the proposed budget. 29. New Comers Center. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $52,117. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would have 4 centers at elementary schools, 2 centers at junior high schools, and 1 center at a senior high school. The funding is mainly for staff development for teachers. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. The budget considerations list shows that the additional cost has been revised down to $12,117. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. * 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the * proposal for an additional cost of $12,117. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $12,117. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. * * * 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. The board approved the recommendation. Will add the $12,117. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $12,117. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $12,117. 30. Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program. *  * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $30,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would pilot reading recovery in grade 1. Funding is for training, materials, and supplies. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Gee asked questions about the number of students served. 16Magness clarified that the actual amount of new money required is really only $10,614, and not the full $30,000 cost. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. This item is on the Budget * * * * * * Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $10,614. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $10,614. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved the recommendation. Will add the $10,614. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $10,614. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program additions of$10,614. 31. Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues. * * * *  * * *  * * See feeder item #16. Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $36,500. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Officers would be used mainly in the bus areas. Outsourcing transportation would not impact this request. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Mitchell asked questions about the two officers that would be hired. Williams says they would be police officers that could fill in for the Resource Officers. Magness questions whether they are security officers or resource officers. Matthis says security officers. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $36,500. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $36,500. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved the recommendation. Will add the $36,500. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $36,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program additions of $36,500. 32. Social Studies Curriculum Revision. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculum to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides. Would 17* not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $13,200. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness had questions. Williams dropped this item from the proposal. It will come out of Matthis budget. This item has been dropped from the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 33. Information Services. * * * * See feeder item #3. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 24 and 230 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Beason. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 24/230, Data Processing, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Convert district to a PC-based architecture with LANs. Multi-year project will lower costs in out-years. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $317,500. * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Beason makes presentation. Cites significant technological problems. General discussion on costs. OMalley brings up outsourcing, but Williams says this year is not the time. Williams talks about the need for fiber optics.  3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $317,500. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * * * * cost of $317,500. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Williams pushes for the addition of funds based on being able to access archived documents from 7 years ago. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case and addition as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $317,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $317,500. 34. Cloverdale Junior High School. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Name change to academy, and other program changes. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why this was turned down. No one could remember. Magness wants more information. 35. Incentive School Principals, * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pay increase and back pay for Incentive 18* School Principals. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness initiates a general discussion. 36. Rockefeller Incentive School  Alternative Room Specialist. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Add a teacher to be the alternative room * specialist. 1 FTE. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness initiates a general discussion. 37. Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative School. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Add two 7th grade classes. 4 FTEs and equipment. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 38. Reduction in Administrators. * * * * * * Moved from strategy listing. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item was added to the budget considerations handout. It calls for a $300,000 reduction in administrative positions. Although not specific, Williams says he has identified some positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $300,000. Positions still identified. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $300,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says he will propose cutting 10 or 12 positions in the central office, not at the building level. The Board tabled the issue awaiting additional information. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Proposed savings increased from $300,000 to $400,000. Actual cut list has not been published at this time. Numerous rumors\nno facts. Board passes the $400,000 cut without the specific cuts. * 4/29/95 Democrat Gazette article. Listed the cuts. Staff attorney plus secretary, $88,520. Deputy Superintendent, $93,969. Associate to the Deputy, $72,439. G/T Coordinator, $52,671. HIPPY Coordinators (2), $48,118. Plant Services * * * (EPA/const mgr), $49,127. Instructional Technology, $42,056. Math Supervisor, $55,942. Displaced principals, $125,288. Total cut package of $628,130. The $228,130 difference between the total and the approved cut amount of $400,000 would be additional new positions yet to be identified or approved. 5/17/95 Special Board Meeting. Meeting held to listen to patron pleas to retain (not cut) the G/T Coordinator position. No other administrative reductions were discussed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Cuts still at $400,000, but no description of the $228,130 for new positions. Business case included in the Tentative Budget Document. Business case undated. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. A newly modified business case was submitted with the 19Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a gross savings of $566,312\nless a contingency add-back of $150,000, for a net savings of $416,312. 20LRSD CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Outsourcing other services. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates the LRSD is not looking at any other Outsourcing opportunities at this time. 2/9/95 Board agenda/special meeting. ServiceMaster makes a presentation on managing custodian, maintenance, and landscaping services. Representative says they can do it within the current budget, but no details given on how the dollars will be handled. Board does not take any action. ServiceMaster will provide more information. See item #13. 2. Clerical Support. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 3. IRC - Staffing/Use. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4. Federal Programs. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 07, Federal Programs. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 07, Federal Programs, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 5. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. * * * * * * * * * * * 6. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 7. Facilities Usage. 21* * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Mayo says the LRSD has completed a preliminary status report on the facilities study for input into the needs assessment. All area elementary schools were rated for possible closing. The top four are Badgett, Fair Park, Baseline, and Woodruff. A business case will be done on the closing recommendations. 8. Student Assessment. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Student Assessment, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 9. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 10. 11. 12. 13. Contract Lengths.  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter initiates request for more information. Item becomes active after five months. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. Millage Election. * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter urges the Board to consider going for a 5 mil tax increase. 4/13/95 Board agenda meeting. Board voted to put the subject of a millage election on the agenda for the next meeting. 5/11/95 Board Agenda Meeting. Board held general discussion on a possible millage election. Williams says they will need between 8 and 12 mils. 7/8/95 Newspaper Article. Board decided not to go for a millage increase this year. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. Spending Freeze. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a purchasing freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. Custodian services\nconsulting by ServiceMaster. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the district is coming forth with a recommendation on ServiceMaster serving as a consultant on custodian services. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session. ServiceMaster offices make 22presentation. Williams says district would have to bid the work, but could save about $600,000 per year going with ServiceMaster. * 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. 14. Communications Services. * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 227, Communications Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 227, Communications Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 15. Computerized Transportation. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23, Computerized Transportation. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 23, Computerized Transportation, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 16. Contingencies. * * * * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 233, Contingencies. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 233, Contingencies, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Eliminating contingencies introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $1,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the contingency amounts will be deleted from the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal for a savings of $1,000,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,000,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Superintendent reminded the Board that they still must take action on this item. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. The Tentative Budget Document does not reflect any contingency funds, thus saving the originally budgeted $1,000,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. The Final Budget Document does not reflect any contingency funds, thus saving the originally budgeted $1,000,000. 17. Gifted and Talented. * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 207, Gifted and Talented. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 23* * 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 207, Gifted and Talented, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 18. Human Resource Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 228, Human Resource Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 228, Human Resource Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 19. Planning and Evaluation. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 226, Planning and Evaluation. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 226, Planning and Evaluation, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 20. Plant Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 222, Plant Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 222, Plant Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 21. Purchasing Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 224, Purchasing Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 224, Purchasing Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 22. Rockefeller Early Childhood. * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 79, Rockefeller Early Childhood. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 79, Rockefeller Early Childhood, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the 24business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 23. Romine Interdistrict School. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 78, Romine Interdistrict School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 78, Romine Interdistrict School, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Special Education. 24. 25. 26. n. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 203, Special Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 203, Special Education, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Special Education/Learning. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 05, Special Education/Learning. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 05, Special Education/Learning, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Freeze on Hiring. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a hiring freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. Freeze on Wage Increases. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a wage increase freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. 28. Freeze on Travel. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a travel freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. 29. Eliminate Purchase of Buses. * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $1,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration 25 * * *  * list, and the additional costs will not be included in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal for a savings of $1,000,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,000,000, 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Superintendent reminded the Board that they still must take action on this item. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Item still eliminated from the Tentative Budget Document for a svaings of $1,000,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. This may get confusing. The district was budgeted to spend $1,000,000 on buses during 94-95. The buses were not purchased, only ordered, in 94-95, so the money was not spent and was reflected in the year end carryover. The bus purchase will actually occurred in 95-96 so most of the money, about $991,000, is now added into this budget to pay for those previously orderd buses. Therefore, no savings are reflected. 30. Eliminate Increment for Employees. * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $2,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter opposed to cutting or freezing pay. Savings reduced to $1,500,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal. Unable to determine the estimated savings since this item is lumped in with other items totaling $3,500,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,500,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects this as an item still under consideration at $1,500,000, but does not reflect any savings at this time. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. An article in the Democrat Gazette stated that eliminating the increment was still being negotiated in the contract talks. 31. Shorten School Year by Two Days.  * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $750,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Savings reduced to $702,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $702,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Two days were deleted from the budget for a savings of $702,000. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says that cutting two days pay is for all 26 * * * * * employees, not just teachers. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Gadberry says the cut would be from all employees of the district. The Board decided to wait to consider this item until after contract negotiations. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Williams says the rules have changed on this proposal. Bus drivers, custodians, and security not affected. Administrators would take a 3 day cut, teachers would take a 2 day cut. Savings amount changed to $699,546. 5/17/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on proposal. Board awaiting Attorney Generals opinion on the number of hearings required. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a successful negotiation outcome with the savings of $699,546. 6/15/95 Newspaper article. An article in the Democrat Gazette stated that eliminating the increment was still being negotiated in the contract talks. 32. Move IRC to Fair Park. * * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $161,800, but would also have a first year expense of $50,000 for utilities and $270,000 for renovations. This would result in a net first year cost of $158,200. Depends upon the closing of Fair Park School. No discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked what options were available for moving the IRC if Fair Park was left open. Williams says they need to look at the whole picture of school closings and usage. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. The preliminaiy decision to not close Fair Park precludes this move. This item has been dropped from the Budget Consideration list, and the savings and additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still shown as deferred and on hold. Shows a net savings of $111,800. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. $161,800 in savings was not shown in the budget since the decision has been defened on closing the school. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Cant move the IRC if not closing down Fair Park. Pondexter wants information on moving the IRC to Oakhurst. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no move and no savings. 33. Reduction in Debt Service if Stephens is not Rebuilt. *  * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $300,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. OMalley says building has not been dropped, only being delayed. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $300,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 27* 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * * * of $300,000. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says the rebuilding of Stephens has been delayed. No date has been set for when it will be rebuilt. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved delaying the rebuilding of Stephens for the 95-96 school year. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the delay and the savings of $300,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the delay and the svaings of $300,000. 34. Combine administration of the 4 Year Old Program and the HIPPY Program. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Suggested by Pondexter as an alternative cost savings measure. No commitment by the administration. 35. Green Factors. * * *  2/9/95 agenda/special Board meeting. The superintendent proposed spending about $105,000 (7 committees at $12,000-$ 15,000 each) for Green factors study committees. The money would come from the legal object code. Since the projected report delivery deadline is well within this fiscal year, all of the cost should accrue to the current year reducing the year end carry-over. No business case was prepared, thus no options were identified or analyzed. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board will not authorize the Green factor committees or the money to fund them until they have an on-the-record conference with Judge Wright. Deleting this action would avert spending about $105,000 in the current fiscal year for incentive payments proposed by the superintendent. 3/9/95 Court Conference. Judge says Green factors will not get you home in this case. The Plan is the law. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says he recommended paying $100,000 to look at the factors. Would have paid out of the legal fees line item. Board did not approve the proposal. 36. Reduction in Administrators. * Moved to business case list. 37. Closing High School Kindergartens.  * 4/19/95 Democrat Gazette article. At a Town Hall feedback meeting on 4/18/95, Williams said the district was now considering the closing of the high school based kindergarten programs. No business case has been prepared. No short fall strategy proposal. No discussion before the Board. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. 2838. Utilities for IRC at Fair Park. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a cost of $50,000, but shows no savings since this has not been approved by the Board. 29LRSD CHART OF BUDGET ISSUES BUDGET FY 95-96 1. Buses for transportation. According to the October, 1994, business case, the district will be 95 buses short on current year and will need 29 more to make their replacement schedule. Therefore, some buses should be added into the 95-96 budget as an expense item. The decision to outsource transportation makes this issue moot. 2. Appeal of M-to-M pooling. If the appeal is not heard by budget time, the pooling money must be added into the LRSD budget. Order was reversed. LRSD does not have any additional pooling money in the budget. The other pooling funds were never paid to PCSSD, but rather put in an escrow account for the winner of the case. 3. Workers Compensation. Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. Additional money should be included in the budget. Based on ADE calculations of 4/14/95, the amount will be $167,111. 4. Loss Funding. Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. Additional money should be included in the budget. Based on ADE calculations of 4/14/95, the amount will be $238,824 for FY93-94, and $472,718 for FY94-95\nfor a total payment of $711,542. 5, Arkansas Public School Computer Network Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. According to the revised ADE calculations of 5/4/95, the money available to LRSD for computer related expenses would be $176,483. 6. Rebuilding Stephens School. Money to rebuild Stephens School should be included in the capital budget if plans are to move forward. Board made the decision to delay the rebuilding of Stephens. 7. Rebuilding Chicot School. Revenue and expense should be included in the budget to show any rebuilding, insurance revenue, and total building expense. At the agenda/special Board meeting of 2/9, the Board approved rebuilding Chicot with walls for an additional cost of $150,000 over the insurance. The money is in the bond fund. No business case was prepared. 8. Loan payback LRSD/ADE negotiations regarding achievement disparity and the loan payback. What is the status of the negotiations, and what contingency is being planned for the payback of the 30loan. 9. Facilities Study. The cost of the facilities study needs to be included in the budget. Some will be current year, but the final payoff will probably be in the next fiscal year. As of the joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting on 2/21/95, the facilities study is now in three phases: the first is due soon and will cover everything needed by the Judge\nthe second will be delivered on 8/15/95 and will cover what is needed by the District\nthe third will be due sometime after 8/15/95 and will be even more comprehensive than the second phase. 10. Magnet School budget. The calculations for the Magnet School budget need to be changed to reflect the changes pointed out by Bob. 11. Middle Schools. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for middle schools. 12. ServiceMaster. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, ServiceMaster made a presentation to take over the management of the districts custodian, maintenance, and landscaping services. It was projected that no additional costs would be required, however, nothing was mentioned on how the dollars would be handled. No business case was prepared. 13. Green factors. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, the superintendent proposed spending about $105,000 (7 committees at $12k-$15k each) for Green factors study committees. The money would come from the legal object code. Since the projected report delivery deadline is well within this fiscal year, all of the cost should accrue to the current year reducing the year end carry-over. No business case was prepared. Locate and annotate expenditures for the Green Factor committees. Verify Board approval. No business case was prepared. Board action made this a dead issue. 14. Superintendent incentives. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, Riggs proposed an incentive package for the superintendent. The cost of the package was not given. No business case was prepared. How the money will be handled was not discussed, but there were indications that the district wanted to pay it from the remainder of the deseg loan. Locate and annotate projected budget expenditures for incentive payments. The Board put this on hold for the year. 15. Beacon Schools. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for beacon schools. A business case has been submitted for the additional funds, and the funds have been added to the Final Budget Document. 16. Great Expectations. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for Great Expectations. 31No money was identified in either the Tentative or Final Budget Documents. 17. Outsourcing Transportation. If the district fails in the outsourcing attempt, what is the contingency plan and what will it cost? This is a done deal. 18. New Futures. Locate and annotate expenditures for the New Futures funded Board retreat and Strategic Planning effort. Identify the fiscal year. Identify follow-on expenses. New Futures cuts were added back into the budget. 19. Administrative Positions. The Board approved a $400,000 cut in administrators. The cuts recommended by Williams total $628,130. A difTerence of $228,130 has not been approved. Williams said that will be taken by the addition of new positions. No new positions have yet been identified. Those positions should have business cases, should be approved by the Board, and should be included in the tentative budget. The Final Budget Document had a revised business case with the following numbers\na gross savings of $566,312, with an add-back contingency of $150,000 and a net savings of $416,312. 32MOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cosuTienefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * * * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. Negotiate with the union. Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes Purge all vacant positions from the budget * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary 331 * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * * *  Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoffrRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. Bus driver recommendation to combine certain routes. * Lease purchase refinancing. Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Implement the Finance Analysis Model immediately, and try to retro-fit for the last two years for possible cut analysis * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for th\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_33088863","title":"Civil rights issues facing Asian Americans in metropolitan Chicago","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Midwestern Regional Office"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"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.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Asian Americans--Civil rights--Illinois--Chicago Region","Chicago Region (Ill.)--Race relations","Chicago Region (Ill.)--Social conditions"],"dcterms_title":["Civil rights issues facing Asian Americans in metropolitan Chicago"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12as46z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_33088863"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["231 p. ; 23 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"usm_hmp_mus-m357-0115","title":"Complimentary ticket to Freedom Riders; January 1995","collection_id":"usm_hmp","collection_title":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Youth Performance Company (Minneapolis, Minn.)"],"dc_date":["1995-01-01"],"dcterms_description":["From the Dahl (Kathleen) Freedom Summer Collection. Complimentary ticket for performance of a play, Freedom Riders, written by Jacie Knight and Lester Purry, to be performed by Youth Performance Company at Howard Conn Fine Arts Center, Minneapolis, in January 1995.","Electronic version made available through a National Leadership Grant for Libraries from the Institute of Museum and Library Services.","This item is part of the Civil Rights in Mississippi Digital Archive."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["M357 Dahl (Kathleen) Freedom Summer Collection","Box 3, Folder 5"],"dcterms_subject":["Plays"],"dcterms_title":["Complimentary ticket to Freedom Riders; January 1995"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://usm.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_287b19fd-af27-41e3-9598-eadd2ff9f49f"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_362","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/362"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: May 2, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor I I From: Re: ODM Correspondence In response to your memorandum of April 24, I would like to provide the following comment. No one is asking you to do any \"funnelling.\" Ail I asked was for a courtesy copy of correspondence (such as you have forwarded to select board members) that is forwarded to my staff. What is wrong with that? My communications problem is not with my staff, but rather with those who seek to manage and not monitor. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent1 IS I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT J \n-^v i, May 4, 1995 ^JAY3 1995 On'iSS Gf D: 1 'V!Ci':iiiv Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 501 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The following letter has been sent to members of the boards of directors of the three Pulaski County school districts. This invitation, of course, is also extended to you. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District I would like to invite you to attend a joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School Districts. This meeting has been scheduled for Monday, May 22, 1995, 5:00 p.m., in the Governors Conference Room of the Arkansas State Capitol. We do not expect this meeting to last more than an hour or so, but we are hopeful that the initial meeting will lead to progressively productive dialogue in the future. Of course, school consolidation is a topic which not only our school districts, but all districts in Arkansas have an interest. If your board has items that you would like to include on the agenda for this meeting, please feel free to contact Mrs. Griffin at 324-2012. I look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 / Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 May 9, 1995 Mrs. Rene Carson LRSD Instructional Resource Center 600 South Ringo Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Rene: 1 was so pleased to read about the 1995 Catalyst Award you've received from the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Congratulations! You richly deserve the recognition. I've always known you were catalytic, and so does everyone else who is fortunate enough to work with you. You never fail to be inspiring and energizing, not only to young students, but to us older folks too. As a monitor and a Mom, many thanks for all you continue to do for children and their teachers. You're such a treasure, and we're all very proud to claim you as a colleague. Sincerely yours. inn S. Brown I Sl'j iVtsi Mftrkhatn Streel Lntle Rock. .Vkansas 74801 (.501 )rta4 4000May 11, 1995 Little Rock School District MAY 1 2 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Public School Supporter, We've been asked by members of the business community to set up an exploratory meeting with a national nonprofit, \"Parents for Public S\" ch ools.\" A national representative will be in Little Rock on Thursday, May 18. You are invited to attend an informational meeting. We're asking you to come because we value your opinion. We'd like to have your input and feedback on this group and what, if anything, they can offer public education in our county. We are hosting three meetings: 9:00 a.n., 12:00 noon and 5:30 p.m. Meetings are expected to last about one hour. Choose the time that is most convenient for you. All meetings will be held in the Little Rock School District board room at 810 West Markham Street. Please RSVP to 324-2290 by May 16 so that we'll have a count for refreshments. others to attend. These are open meetings\nyou are welcome to invite We have enclosed a copy of the group's brochure for your perusal. We hope to see you on the 18th. Sincerely, Debbie Milam VIPS Coordinator Becky Parent Recruiter Coordinator 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 PARENTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS What exactly is Parents for Public Schools ? Parents for Public Schools is a non-profit, grass-roots volunteer organization comprised primarily of parents who telieve their children receive the best available education in public schools, and who actively\" recruit other parents to enroll their children into public schools. Parents for Public Schools seeks through its media campaigns to inform prospective school parents about the benefits of the diverse, high quality education available in e public schools. Parents for Public Schools has no official connection with any public school system. Do you have to be a parent to be a member of Parents for Public Schools ? Absolutely not. Membersliip is open to any person who supports our goals. While it is our experience that contact and testimony from a public school parent is the most powerful lobbying tool in convincing other parents to place their children in the public schools, all of our members mission is to encourage broad-based enrollment and support. How is Parents for Public Schools different from the PTA. or PTSA? Parents for Public Schools serves a very different purpose from the PTA. L'Itimately. the two oiganizations complement each other in significant ways. The primaiy function of Parents for Public .Schools is to recruit public .school students. Once those parents and students are in the public schixils. Parents for Public ScIkxiIs encour.iges atlivc participation in the PT/\\ or IWSA. .A great . number of Parents for Public Schools parents are leaders in their children's school's PTA chapters. PTA is a child adx'ocac)' association in the local school dial is also affiliated on the state and national level. PTA seeks to influence legislation, school policies and parental involvement. If your school does not have a PTA or PTSA, we want to encourage you to start one. Why form a chapter of Parents for Public Schools Chapters have been founded in different communities for different reasons. In our founding city of Jackson, Mississippi, Parents for Public Schools was formed to help reverse 20 years of white flight from the public schools and to demonstrate and publicize the economic, social and business development benefits that came to cities with strong public schools. In other cities. Parents for Public Schools was organized to counter social or economic .stigmas placed upon families whose children attend public schools. While there are important advantages to public school education which are common to all public schools, every community has its own reasons to support its public school system. No matter what those reasons may be in your community, our staff can help get your chapter started and organized to reach your specific goals.What are the benefits to my community of forming a Parents for Public Schools chapter? It is hard indeed to summarize all the benefiLs that flow from increa.sed community commitment to public education. Quality public schools ensure economic growth by attracting industry and businesses to our cities. Another benefit which results from broad-based enrollment is an ethnic, social and economic cohesivenes,s in our communities, and a better place for all of us to live and work. Increased broad-based public school enrollment results in greater public involvement in school programs, increased corporate funding for schools, and increased voter support for school bond issues. What benefits does a Parents for Public Schools Chapter receive from the National office? First, affiliation with the national organization saves your chapter the considerable time, expense, and worry of applying for tax-exempt status. This makes raising money for your Parents for Public Schools programs much easier. We will provide you with the Parents for Public Schools Chapter Manual which contains all the information and documents you will need to create and sustain your own chapter. We will provide continuing support with ideas for fundraising, successful organizational events, advertising, and a world of other ways to get your group going and growing. What does it take to organize a Parents for Public Schools chapter? It takes a group of people with a commitment ' and a desire to work toward a common goal. It takes a willingness to talk to your friends and neighlxirs, and the ability- to get them to talk to their friends and neightors. It takes a willingness to go to business and community leaders to get their support and funding for Parents for Public Schools public awareness and media programs. In 1989 in Jackson, Mississippi, Parents for Public Schools was started with 26 parents. Two years later, we passed 700. It takes personal time and patience to build your chapter in your community, but the return to public schools is an idea whose time lias come. How is a Parents for Public Schools chapter structured? A chapter is formed by the incorporation of a non-profit corporation, election of directors and officers, adoption of bylaws and affiliation with Parents for Public Schools National. The national office will provide you with the necessary forms for your use, as well as bylaws for your adoption. Once a chapter is officially formed, there are plenty of tasks and committee assignments for eveiyone who wants to lend a hand. Among these are:  School Networks  Business Network  Meetings/Progranis  Data Bank  Realtor Relations  Fundraising/Grant.s  Research  Special Events  .Media  Publicity  Newsletter  .Membership l.'kimatcly, a succe.ssful Parents for Public .Sch(X)l.s chapter is organized to maximize the talents of each of its volunteer memlx'rs. Once you decide to organize a chapter, we'll provide all the infoniiation, documents, and technical advice you will need. Our chapters do everything ey possibly can to spread the good word about the excellent education.s their children are receiving in public schools. How do we get started? Simple. Talk to parents and other interested people in your community who share your commitment to public education, and ask them to join you in forming a Parents for Public Schools chapter. Then just fill out the attached form and drop it in the mail. We'll be back in touch with you soon with precise information on how to get your group organized into a Parents for Public Schools chapter. Thank you for learning more about Parents for Public Schools, and for your interest in public education. NATIONAL OFFICE P.O. Box 1280' lackson. MS W236-2807 (6011 982-1222 F.AX (601) 982-0002 Thomas S. Howorth President Jo.shua J. Wiener Vice President Renee S. Jone- Secrelaiy Macy B. Han Treasurer SanJrj K. .Murley Execniire Director Ashley Watters Assisltiiil III Ihe DirectorOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 May 17, 1995 Mr. Duane Barbour Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 North Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Mr. Barbour: Congratulations to you and the members of the Pulaski Heights Junior High Beginning Band, Advanced Band, and Saxophone Quartet for the splendid concert last Monday night! 1 dont think Ive ever heard a finer performance by such young musicians. The entire program was presented with poise and professionalism, and with careful attention to intonation, phrasing, ensemble, and over all musicality that resulted in a beautiful performance. 1 am so impressed with the tremendous progress these groups have in the short time youve been their director. Their growth attests to your superior skill both in instruction and in motivating your students to work hard and reach for their best. Im also impressed with the well-rounded and sophisticated musical education youre offering your students, as demonstrated by the carefully selected concert program, which featured a well-chosen balance of classical, traditional, and contemporary pieces. My opinion is also the result of being a parent of one of your students. From listening to my sons comments and practice at home. Im very much aware that youre providing a high quality musical education for your classes. Tlie only negative note last Monday evening for both the performers and the audience was the lack of air conditioning. As a fellow musician, 1 know how profoundly temperature and humidity affect both instruments and players. Nonetheless, you kept your professional cool, and sweated through tlie program with no less grace, composure, and good humor. My sincere thanks and commendations to both you and your students for your remarkable achievements and a most enjoyable musical evening. 1 hope you will convey my congratulations and appreciation to your classes. Sincerely yours, .. Ann S. Brown CC: Mona Briggs1^* 0 6 / 2 0 / 1 5 15:29 FROM JOHN Id.WALKER P.A.  3U-^ -urr iwC TO 3710100 P. 02. KOBng Lettle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 18, 1995 Mr. Jerry Malone, Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. P,A. First Commercial Bank Building. 20th Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jerry: pe date(s) you have asked me to block off on mv calendar fnr hearing have been blocked for a previously schedui\u0026lt;.d   , . . ' a court a previously scheduled comminnent. I have ^=rl, aLd conference for Urban Superintendents. This event has been planned * fit an event over The dates scheduled for the hearing fall at the start of r^uir. that I toto da of a flX an organized forum to discuss issues and problems that compound the role of superintendents and make schools unbearable to serve. the urban many of the children we I would not want to miss out on this opportunity. Therefore, I ask that sk to schedule dto hearing  h. the hearing be held to in your letter of May 16, at a later date. Sincerely, Henry P. Iliams Superintendent of Schools06x20/1995 15:29 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P . fl. TO 0 1 0 0 P. 01 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 1 JOHN W. walker RALRH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE,^ AUSTIN PORTER, JR. TO\nFROM: DATE: RE: MESSAGE\nTHIS FAX CONSISTS OF PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER P-A-G-E-. OUR FAX NUMBER IS: (501) 374-4187. OPERATOR\ny - '1.. DujP MX J * LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 31, 1995 b 7^  d Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201   iVtCi\" Dear Ms. Brown: In response to a letter we received from Charity Smith please find enclosed for your review the Spring 1994 School Climate/Human Relations Survey results for schools which are using the perceptual data to develop school improvement plans (from all cycle five schools), along with blank photo copies of the parent, student and teacher survey forms. The cycle five schools are listed below\nHall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Enclosure cc: Charity Smith, Education Lead Planner Desegregation Monitoring Frank Anthony, Administrative/Resource Team ^7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I'\nLi MEMORANDUM !i 5 ?995 TO: Charity Smith, Lead Education Planner, Desegregation Monitoring OihCS vf Ds\n:3' r/sCjiuCl Jiiy FROM: RE: T. Robert Glowers, Director Request for School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results DATE: June 2, 1995 The School Climate/Human Relations survey results that you requested to be sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in your letter of May 16, 1995 to Dr. Henry Williams were forwarded by my office to Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. It was brought to my attention this morning that those survey results were intended to go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring unit at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). I apologize for the misinterpretation on my part and for any inconvenience this may have caused. The requested information is being redirected to ADE per this memorandum. Please find enclosed the School Climate/Human Relations survey results from spring 1994 for the following cycle five schools listed below: HaUHigh Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Also enclosed are photocopies of the teacher, student, and parent survey instruments Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Frank Anthony, ADE, Administrative/Resource Team ade odnidocOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 June 2, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank\nToday I received a package which contained a number of 1994 LRSD School Climate/Human Relations Surveys. Your cover letter, which was copied to Charity Smith and Frank Anthony, indicated that these forms had been requested by Ms. Smith. However, Ms. Smith is not an employee of ODM. Rather, she works for the Arkansas Department of Education, where she monitors desegregation for the State. Therefore, 1 am returning tliese forms so you may forward them to Ms. Smith. Sincerely yours. in S. Brown Enc. cc: Charity Smith Frank AnthonyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 June 2, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Today 1 received a package which contained a number of 1994 LRSD School Climate/Human Relations Surveys. Your cover letter, which was copied to Charity Smith and Frank Anthony, indicated that these forms had been requested by Ms. Smith. However, Ms. Smith is not an employee of ODM. Rather, she works for the Arkansas Department of Education, where she monitors desegregation for the State. Therefore, 1 am returning these forms so you may forward them to Ms. Smith. Sincerely yours. n S. Brown Enc. cc: Charity Smith Frank Anthony'S3 '* I b 1 it LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 31, 1995 G ' 3 Ms. Ann Brown OflBce of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3/ 'G-j,CEv\n''cniiofjng Dear Ms. Brown: In response to a letter we received from Chanty Smith please find enclosed for your review the Spring 1994 School Climate/Human Relations Survey results for schools which are using the perceptual data to develop school improvement plans (from all cycle five schools), along with blank photo copies of the parent, student and teacher survey forms. The cycle five schools are listed below\nHall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Enclosure cc\nCharity Smith, Education Lead Planner Desegregation Monitoring Frank Anthony, Administrative/Resource Team 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)334-2000 fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 D' MEMORANDUM Ju'j 2 !995 TO: Charity Smith, Lead Education Planner, Desegregation Monitoring OfiiCS Qf DsSv0i wiCiiikviiiiy FROM: RE: 'r. Robert Glowers, Director Request for School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results DATE: June 2, 1995 The School Climate/Human Relations survey results that you requested to be sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in your letter of May 16, 1995 to Dr. Henry Williams were forwarded by my office to Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. It was brought to my attention this morning that those survey results were intended to go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring unit at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). I apologize for the misinterpretation on my part and for any inconvenience this may have caused. The requested information is being redirected to ADE per this memorandum. Please find enclosed the School Climate/Human Relations survey results from spring 1994 for the following cycle five schools listed below: Hall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementory Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Also enclosed are photocopies of the teacher, student, and parent survey instruments Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Frank Anthony, ADE, Administrative/Resource Team ade odmdocex,: RECEIVED June 29, 1995 JUL 5 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring REFERENCE: SELECTION OF PRINCIPAL CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Dear Dr. Williams: As PTA Co-Presidents of Carver Magnet Elementary School for the 1995-1996 School Year, Dewey Fitzhugh and myself, on behalf of the Carver Magnet Elementary PTA, would like to thank you for your support and selection of Mrs. Diane Barksdale as the permanent principal at Carver Magnet Elementary School. We believe that, with Mrs. Barksdale's proven record of success and the energized momentum, the upcoming school year at Carver will be great! We are looking ahead to another exciting and fun filled year of working together with the teachers and students, as well as with the Little Rock School District to achieve the objectives and goals that we have set for the 1995-1996 year. Again, thank you for believing in Mrs. Barksdale, the Carver Magnet Teachers and Staff, PTA, Students and Supporters. Sincerely, W^i Caradine, Co-President r^pwpv PitTbiiffb r'r_PrAC'ir1\u0026lt;\u0026gt;nt Dewey Fitzhugh, Co-President cc: Magnet Review Committee Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGA'TION MONITORING Margaret Gremillion ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT - ELEMENTARY Sadie Mitchell ASSISTANT SUPERIN'TENDENT - ELEMENTARY Dick Hurley LRSD HUMAN RESOURCES LRSD Board MembersLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVKO July 5, 1995 TO: All Principals and Supervisors FROM: Ntorgaret Grenuliii THROUGH: SUBJECT: JUL 1 0 1995 Offiw of Dssegrsgaiiof) isistant Superintendent - ^T^Sadie Mitchell, Assistmt Superintendent e: fWiUi T^perintendent Principals Institute: \"Pathway to ExceUence - 1995-96\" All Principals^' Pl^: Date: Little Rock Hilton, 925 University Avenue Monday, July 17 ~ 8:30-4:30 Tuesday, July 18 -- 8:30-4:30 -Lunch win be provided- Eleineniary Principals Only Place: Date: IRC Friday, July 21 - 9:00-2:00  Lunch win be provided All Principals Place: Date: Parkview High School Monday, July 31 (1:00-4:30) Thursday, August 3 (8:00-3:30) - Lunch on your own. Friday, August 4 (8:00-12:00) Monitoring We want to welcome you back and express our sincere pleasure in having the opportunity to work together in getting a new school year started. A listing of the dates and places for the Principals Institute has been provided for you in order to have your calendar cleared for the Institute. The programs will be ready for you at registration on July 17. Dr. Williams has requested that principals contact their assistant principal(s) and invite them to attend the Institute and luncheon on both days. AU supervisors and department heads are also requested to attend both sessions and the luncheons. AU of the instructional and support personnel along with some of our principals have worked hard to make this Institute both motivational and informative to everyone. We are looking forward to seeing all of you at the EUlton.(J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)324-2012 Date\nJuly II, 1995 To: Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Jerry Malone Mrs. Ann Brown A**\" ' i \\  From: LiniwTondexter Re: Initial Meeting As agreed in our meetings last week, I am attempting to schedule a mutuafly convenient date ^d fime for the first joint meeting of the parties to the desegregation lawsuit At the initial meeting we will select a time for all future regularly scheduled meetings. Please check your calendar to fovorable Call Beverly Griffin a X*^ch of the following dates would be most 24-2012 to advise ofyounpreference. Wednesday, July 12 Thursday, July 13 Friday, July 14 / 9:00 ajn. 2:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. 1 feel strongly that we should meet thia week. \\ suggest an alternative date foi attention to this request. that is not possible for you, please week. Thank you for your prompt leetingr I I I f I I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECBVEd Jill I 7 W5 July 12, 1995 Office of Desegregaiion Monitoring Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Mon. 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend an exciting community briefing on Wednesday, July 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District at 810 West Markham. The focus of this briefing is to provide a special report to community leaders regarding the progress of the strategic planning process and the current status of the desegregation plan. Following the special report to the community, a question and answer session will be held. This briefing session will be broadcast five on Channel 4 Cable TV. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Looking forward to seeing you on July 19th. Sincerely, (? Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 RECE^iD Jill I 7 1995 LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT J 1 J ORice of Desegregation Moniioring July 12, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin, Assoc. Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guildin: I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend an exciting community briefing on Wednesday, July 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District at 810 West Markham. The focus of this briefing is to provide a special report to community leaders regarding the progress of the strategic planning process and the current status of the desegregation plan. Following the special report to the community, a question and answer session will be held. This briefing session will be broadcast live on Channel 4 Cable TV. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Looking forward to seeing you on July 19th. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 73201  (501) 324-2000 F. Y. I. Date: Ann I'-JI [J* Bill Bob 3 ^^^Gene 8 Horace I Margie Melissa Polly Return to: Linda t I I e ..W K7 i\u0026lt;c'^ '^e\u0026gt;/y) /L of' A ''zi J jt. Jk I \\ A r^Sr\u0026lt;. r ^,4-4^.2x 'h c 7l O'July 24, 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown, Chairman 201 East Markham Street, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 2 6 1995 Dear Ms. Brown: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Please accept my apology for not signing this letter. I am a teacher in the Little Rock School District who happens to be an African American, and I have two children in district schools. one of them at Hall High and another one bound for Hall. Neither my children nor I are trusting enough at this point for our names to be given and possibly passed around. We will come forth if we need to, however, as will others I have recently spoken with. My concern is this. Last year the only African American counselor at Hall resigned in the middle of the year and was replaced with a white counselor. We understood the need for filling the position for the rest of the year, so we did not voice our concern that this made Hall the only secondary school in Little Rock with no African American counselor. We assumed it was temporary. Now we learn that no change was made over the summer and that as it stands now. Hall will open the year STILL being the only secondary school with an all-white counseling staff. Ms. Brown, this is not acceptable, is totally unfair to the African American students at Hall, and shows an insensitivity on Dr. Anderson's part. Now that he has left Hall, rumors are that he will be replaced with another white person since replacing him with an African American would make all Little Rock District principals black. Frankly we would be much better served by having both an African American principal (Hall has never had one, you know) and at least one African American counselor, but the latter is a must. As I said before, it is hard to understand why it was even considered as an option beyond the temporary until the end of the year situation. Can you imagine this being allowed to occur at ANY other Little Rock School District high school? any everybody knows it. It wouldn't have, not for one minute. Please intervene while there is still time to make a change. We are not asking for much and are not asking for ANYTHING all other secondary schools already have, which is to give us at least one African American counselor. If we have to petition Judge Wright, we will. though, we dread doing this. Thank you for your time. As I said. We would rather it be handled professionally. cc: Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, counseling supervisor Mr. John Walker3^ \u0026lt;k) --A  Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL- LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director. General Education Division July 28, 1995 TO\nGene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry williams. Superintendent Little Rock School District FROM: Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 13, 1994, and concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. Members of the committee include Robert Glowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Gray, Bob Kerr, and Gayle Potter from the Arkansas Department of Education. The committee was joined at times by others: Russ Mayo of the Little Rock School District and Gene Jones of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Variables Committee provides within this document a description of the problem around which it was convened. a definition of important intervening variables which affect student achievement, a brief discussion of the assessment or testing instrument, and attachments with expert opinion. Problem Statement: There is a perception of a student achievement gap that is racially based, as evidenced by results on large-scale assessments. Considerations for Problem.- Large scale assessment data analysis has been limited to Data should be reviewed in the context of race and gender alone. the following four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement .- socio-economic status, family structure, parent education level, and early childhood education.12:19 07/28/95' SU INTEC' SF-121(J PfiGE-ac Definitions of Variables: Socio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SSS data from free and reduced lunch information\nalso make use of the family link identifier Family Structure: Household where student lives most of the time (both parents, father only, mother only, father and stepmother*, mother and stepfather. foster parents, legal guardian, other) Collect family structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education comoleted by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate. college, college graduate, school, other) some trade Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Information Form Early Childhood Education: Any of a variety of organized pre-kindergarten experiences, such as Headstart, hippy, 4-year old programs, other pre-school Collect this data from the Pupil Information Form ASSESSMENT OR TESTING INSTRUMENT: The language of the settlement requires the composite scores of Little Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the\"\" composite scores of Little Rock School District white students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock School District, This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-i\n2007. Sz  05 SU INTEC SF-1210 PhGE 03 Committee discussions around \"standardized testing\" included criterion-referenced tests, performance assessments, portfolios, and norm-referenced tests. The Minimum Performance Test has been abandoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide criterion-referenced testing instrument is currently available. The Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment is not comprehensive enough for the settlement purposes. Mathematic English Language Arts and Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers before reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District is the state-adopted norm referenced test. However, based on our research and the expert opinions from psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a norm-referenced testing instrument has a different purpose than the ettlement purpose and uses metrics which are not well suited to the requirements of the settlement agreement. A norm-refarenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement of students within the District to the achievement : student within the standardization group. Therefore, it would be appropriate to compare the achievement of black students Little Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of whit in students in Little Rock to the achievement of white students in the standardization group. standard outlined in the settlement. But that comparison is not the Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the achievement levels of black students white students in the Little Rock School District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics to use. according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) However, we have been informed that \"outside of the settlement mandate, such calculations would have little relevance.\" (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used. the committee consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing should be the focus of the application of the 90% rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive vice President and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation and an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. lawyer and faculty member of Michigan State University. Also I have included a folder of working papers from the committee for your perusal. Please contact me if you would like to meet with the Variable Committee for discussion. a time convenient to both your schedules. We shall be happy to do so at -3-12:21- 0' 8/  95' SU INTEC SF-1210 PAGE 04 Pr5m r' 5.E. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7874 Jul.23 1395 1:34Ri PHILLIPS, OONSOLTANT 9991 I r I A k \u0026lt; A  R * 1 t 0OVI OfHQJ OX M I r 1 ft  r Ntohlft I t    9\u0026gt;iT*rBltT pHeaft ( O  I .  I  . \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;-\u0026gt;(\u0026gt;\u0026lt; N r 4 ft  1 4 0 k ft  0  , \u0026lt;  1 T I \u0026gt; X r I  t. \u0026lt; 11 ( \u0026lt; TOf MSNORANDaX Onyic* Pottor^ XK Dapt  of Bdufl. moMt Ruonn Phill \u0026lt;-p DATS I July 21, 1995 RXl Raaponoa to Raoommandat ton trom JOAfin* I hftva ravlawod tho you forwardod to wo. momo and auppoirbtng daauiflantatlon from Joanna Lanka that Dr. Lanka Ruwfflarlzed the losuea involved in choosing hae provided uaaful data and nuoetnctly\na metric for the mandats of ths Little asttlement. Before commenting specifically on the 90% reguirament and teat acoro alternatives, I offer a few general comments regarding my interpretation of the language of the settlement. Rook test acorn I specifIcRlly Offer on The Litt la Rock Sett lament Aggewimant y phraeee in the portion of the Little Rook settlement shared with me which must bo defined in order to Implamont its tarmfl. the portion The following are aoma thoughta about theae definitiona. tiino\" indicotea that the event need happen -- ---------any time period during the echool and can be measured at only ones year. ~ the scanrord is a nationally normed, standardized achievement toot of high payohometric quality, If Liluin instrument, it would bo a logical choice \"atandardlted teat\" the scajiford ia a If Little for the settlement mandate. 3. H oompoaite acorea\"  intent that the uas of mm termuioiogy auggsata an the maaauremant be a total Bcote or one that aggregatea academic subject areas. With reapect to the uas be a thin terminology auggeata performance across acaaemio aubject areas. With respect atnnfard, this suggests that either the Basic Battery or Coojplato be used. The choice may bo affected by wording in of sattloment.  ' Battery sooren other parts that the For example, if inequity in baoic ^ho basic battery score may bo most appropriate. Alternatively, if sweeping statemonte have been made about equalizing the totality of education, score may be more appropriate. nkilla ie alluded to, if Btatemonta the broader complete battery-----------1: 1' 07. 2S/?' ' SWINTEC SF-i210 PAGE 05 Little Rock Settlement . . , p. 2 4 . aduoafcion otudnntn\" thin probably ofcudonta in tho I-Ittlo Rook eohooln who have *n ISP refers at the to all time of hnnh1 ng, plaead Praaumablyr studenta in aduoation opoolsl ahudanta aduoation would referrod for evaluation but not yat ba taatad. SCO olaarly Although apaoial exempted by the language ot the eattlomant, what about othor groups such as vocational students, abaantaas, or atudenta with qualifying dtsabilitloo under flootion 6047 oe aa What aooomfflodatiouB will ba available for nonqualifying atudenta with dioabilitioe (e.g,, a non-npacial education atudant with dyoloxia viaually impairod atudont in tho regular ith limited Kngliah profioionoy be teated? olaaaroora^ 7 or a Will atudantn 5. \"White students\" only those of Buropeen ancestry? does this include all Which gradaa are to What non-blftck students or about hiapanic Americans? ba Included, must all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are 6. \"90% or greater\"  the asttlament language aeams to indicate an intent for the mean score of blacks to he at Imm- p'- mean score for whites. be least nine tenths of ths tims frame and This may be obstacles to an unrealistic expectation given be overcome. Little Rock has approximately five years to overcome learning deficits and the affects of povorty which have developed over students' ItfetimsB. City, which has desegregation spent orders. has millionB I bean Achievement test scores. on unable the public Sven Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination tho foderal does not refer government has supported an in the employment arena, applicants hired. to heat Thus, scores but to 80% rule. under thia the Howovor, the 80% percent of available applicants are hired, at least 58% must also be hired to avoid Moreover, if an employer fails this a rule, if 70* of qualified white of qualified minority applicants presumption of discrimination. opportunity to demonstrate actions. a test, the employer still has an compelling interest to Justify its In cases such as between minority Dobra P-, at issue. and majority large differentials tn passing rates adminlBtrators to In such cases, the insure that earn a high school diploma. atudenta on graduation tests have been courts have imposed duties on tost minority students had a fair chance to minority scores to ba a certain However, these courts have not required req\\irement seems to suggest an percentage of majority scores. entitlement to Such n rather than an equal opportunity to achieve. a specified outcome ChPQBinq a Type of Score I agreo with Dr, Lanka that none of the major types of standardised teat  ooteo are well ouited to the requlremonta the Little Rock settlomont. Beoauoo no longitudinal oomparlsons none of a simple interpratstion of raw score are required, tho language lends itself to diffarencas. One might, for example,Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: August 9, 1995 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: School Principals, Assistant Principals, and Selection Process The new school year is just around the corner. 1 understand that the district conducted pre-school registration this week on August 7 and 8, school staff will be reporting for duty next Monday, August 14, and the children will begin classes a week later on August 21. 1 need a current listing of principals and assistant principals. 1 also want some information pursuant to ODMs 1994 monitoring report on involvement in the principal selection process. Please send me the following information: 1. A current listing by school of each principal and assistant principal. Include each individuals name, race, gender, and number of years in the position at the school to which he or she is currently assigned. If the individual has been assigned to the position this year for the first time, indicate the number of years as \"new.\" 1 need this list no later than 4:00 p.m. by the end of the day tomorrow. August 10. 2. Describe the process the district followed in interviewing and selecting each principal. By school, indicate when interview teams were used, and list the composition of the committee by name, race, gender, and affiliation (e.g. parent, Joshua representative,, teacher, etc.). Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later than August 15, 1995. 3. Describe the participation of the Incentive School Staffing Committees and representatives from the Magnet Review Committee, naming the individuals who took part in the interviews by name, race, gender, and affiliation. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. 4. Indicate the date(s) each interview committee met, and whether or not the candidates recommended by the committee were actually selected for the principalship for which the candidate interviewed. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. Thank you very much. CC: Chris Heller jerry MaloneOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: August 9, 1995 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: School Principals, Assistant Principals, and Selection Process The new school year is just around the comer. 1 understand that the district conducted pre-school registration this week on August 7 and 8, school staff will be reporting for duty next Monday, August 14, and the children will begin classes a week later on August 21. I need a current listing of principals and assistant principals. I also want some information pursuant to ODMs 1994 monitoring report on involvement in the principal selection process. Please send me the following information: 1. A current listing by school of each principal and assistant principal. Include each individuals name, race, gender, and number of years in the position at the school to which he or she is currently assigned. If the individual has been assigned to the position this year for the first time, indicate the number of years as \"new.\" 1 need this list no later than 4:00 p.m. by the end of the day tomorrow, August 10. 2. Describe the process the district followed in interviewing and selecting each principal. By school, indicate when interview teams were used, and list the composition of the committee by name, race, gender, and affiliation (e.g. parent, Joshua representative,, teacher, etc.). Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later than August 15, 1995. 3. Describe the participation of the Incentive School Staffing Committees and representatives from the Magnet Review Committee, naming the individuals who took part in the interviews by name, race, gender, and affiliation. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. 4. Indicate the date(s) each interview committee met, and whether or not the candidates recommended by the committee were actually selected for the principalship for which the candidate interviewed. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. Thank you very much. CC: Chris Heller jerry Malone \u0026gt;\u0026lt; 4 ^7 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (SOI) 371 \u0026lt;1100 Date: August 9, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Brown Subject: McClellan Community School As Im sure you know, the McClellan Community School program was incorporated into the current LRSD desegregation plan at the behest of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, with the concurrence of the parties and the approval of the Court. As such, it is an important aspect of desegregation in the district. 111 appreciate the following current information about McClellan: 1. Please explain the statement, which appears in your July 13, 1994 memorandum to Dr. Williams, that \"McClellan was a reduction which does not require a plan change.\" 1 am puzzled by this assertion, because the desegregation plan clearly establishes McClellan as a community school, and court orders (for example, those of August 4, 1992 and December 30, 1992) have reemphasized the importance of the community school, the Advisoiy Council, and an adequate budget for the program. 2. Page 94 of the LRSD desegregation plan promises that ODM and other groups will regularly receive reports on the progress of the community school and any recommendations for changes. Please forward to me the school districts report on the status and progress of the McClellan Community School for the 1994-95 school year. 3. 1 note that the McClellan Community School is among those desegregation obligations that does not appear in your listing of \"Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case\" dated August 1995. Because the community school has been prominently featured in both the desegregation plan and court orders, please explain why it was omitted from your listing. Tlianks for your assistance. S-U.' ? J J WSSSJSJS^ Little Rock School District - OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RPp^^ August 10, 1995 4UG / ] Office Of Oesesregafo iVfcniioMnj Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markliam, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: We received your fax yesterday in the District office after District hours. The information you have requested is not available at this time and will not be available until sometime Monday. Given the fact that we are currently involved with preparing for the Board meeting tonight, a court appearance tomorow, and opening of school in one week, your request seems to me unreasonable and comes at a time when district staff are extremely pressed for time. For me to pull someone off their assigned task to fill your request would delay the District in our preparations for the opening of school. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM AUG 1 5^ 1995 To: From: Date: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent jijtL August 15, 1995 Office of Dose:  if'-. Subject: Response to memorandum of August 9, 1995 The following is a response to your memorandum of August 9, 1995. My response to each of the three items is as follows: 1. We did not feel it necessary to do a plan modification for the McClellan Community School because all components of the program are being offered. We could find no reference to a minimum amount of money that must be budgeted for the program. Some money will come from other sources for this next school year. That which appears in our plan is more an historical account than specific action to be taken. The only exception is on page 94 as you have noted\n2. We have reviewed page 94 of the desegregation plan relating to the McClellan Community School. The appropriate items from that page have been added to our list of obligations. I have requested a report of the status and progress of the McClellan Community School. When I receive it, I will forward it to you\nand, 3. As noted in item 1 above, obligations relating to McClellan Community School have been added to the list. It now appears as a listing. If you have other questions, please let me know. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney M.UCCU1.00C3 c 'r. Little Rock School District Q August 16, 1995 AUG 2 j J995 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent OffiCQ of DeSS'^fg\nJaiion /'vicniicrspy FROM: Dr. Rid iirector-Human Resources SUBJECT: Ms. Ann Browns Request for Information (dated 8-9-95) I have, at your request, put together the information as requested, by item number. Item #1: Current Listing of Principals/Assist Principals by name, race, gender, and length of time in current position. Response - Provided as Attachment I Item #2: Interview and Selection Process Response - Provided as Attachment II Item #3: Involvement of Staffing Committees and Magnet Review Committee. Response - The Incentive School Staffing Committees were not utilized, per se. There may/may not have been members of the Committee on the team as appointed per Item #2. The Magnet Review Committee was involved to the extend that the Executive Director was apprised of each interview schedule and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, who participated on several of the teams, is a member of the Committee. Item #4: Days committee met, recommendations, and person selected. Response - Provided as Attachment III If you require additional information, please dont hesitate to let me know. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 ADMIN3.EXC SCHOOL CENTRAL HALL HIGH METROPOLITAN JAFAIR PARKVIEW McClellan ALT. LEARN CTR HENDERSON CLOVERDALE JR mabelvale JR. DUNBAR MAGNET MANN MAGNET FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS TITLE PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST, PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC DIRECTOR VOV. TECH VOC. ADMIN. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. NAME R. HOWARD B. JAMES VACANT N. ROUSSEAU W. MORRIS G. BRADFORD M. BREWSTER J. POWELL L. WATSON C. GREEN C. SPRINGER M. PETERSON W. BROADNAX A. FINCH B. BURR V. SMITH, JR. J. BABBS D. BOOTH A. HANSEN M. WOODS J. CARTER B. GRAHAM E. HAWKS C. WALKER W.MARSHALAK J. WASHINGTON J. MOSBY V. LINDBERG G. PITTS C. MASON D. DUERR D. PATTERSON J. FULLERTON M. GREEN R. WILLIAMS L.BROWN E. HUDSON D. JAMES M. LACEY VACANT J. MATTHIS W. WOODS D. BENAGE P. MCMURRAY D. WHITEHORN M. BRIGGS R. KNIGHTEN D. BERRY RACE BL BL CAU BL CAU CAU BL BL BL BL BL BL CAU CAU BL BL BL CAU BL BL BL CA CA CA CA BL CA CA BL CA BL CA BL CA CA BL BL BL BL BL CA BL CA CA BL CA GENDER M F F M F F M F F M M M F F M M M F F M F M F M M M F F F F M M F M F F M F M M M F M F M F Page 1 YRS IN POSITION TWO TWO FOUR NEW NEW SEVEN FIVE NEW TWO TWO NEW ONE ONE NEW THREE TEN THREE SIX THIRTEEN FIVE ONE THREE FIVE ONE NEW NEW ONE SIX ONE FOUR EIGHT ACTING EIGHT EIGHT NEW FOUR THREE SEVEN FIFTEEN EIGHT ONE THREE SEVEN ONE NEW NEWSOUTHWEST BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE EL. DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET JEFFERSON M.L. KING MABELVALE ELEM MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK P. HEIGHTS EL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL J. NEELEY A. MUNNS D. SMITH M. GOLSTON B. ANDERSON E.COX C. SIMMONS D. HALL A. KEOWN M.BARKSDALE Y. SCOTT O. PRESLAR E. CLEVELAND F. FIELDS F. DONOVAN S. BRANCH V. ASHLEY E. DUNBAR VACANT M. HUFFMAN B. JONES L. WARD J. DAVENPORT B. RAPER F. HOBBS F. CAWTHON H. HARRIS J. HARKEY VACANT N. WILLIAMS M. OLIVER f\u0026lt;. SMITH J. WORM M.BASSA C. TEETER L. CARTER S. BROOKS A. MANGAN B. BANKS S. DAVIS K. GREENLEE G. ZEIGLER T. PHILLIPS L. WILSON K. BUCHANAN S. BEARD T. COURTNEY ASST. PRINC. V. ROBINSON ADM1N3.EXC CA BL BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL BL BL CA BL BL CA CA BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA CA BL M F M F F F F F F F F M F M F M F F M F M F F F F F M F F M F M F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Page 2 ONE ONE NEW EIGHT ONE NEW FOUR NEW NEW NEW ONE EIGHT TWO TWO NEW TWO EIGHT NEW THIRTEEN SEVEN NEW NEW NEW NEW SIX ONE NEW ONE NEW SEVEN ONE EIGHT NEW FIVE TWO ONE EIGHT ONE ONE ONE NEW NEW NEW NEW ONE TWO ONEADMIN3.EXC WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL S. MORGAN M. MENKING D. MITCHELL F. DAVIS_________ P. HIGGINBOTHAM CA CA BL BL CA M F F M F FIVE ONE EIGHT ONE SEVEN Page 3ec. iNbtKrtu XN AGENDA FOR AUGUST 25, 1994 Atac/miekjt Ti LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nGCDA - Regulation SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. employed with Uttl Rock ^cJmI DisSfSt , District.) 2. ?o?'\"Sc:StSu!t??^ SU *.? \"PPllcents and references. 3. Superintendent and/or the A^\u0026lt;s^e^-a+. Superintendent (s) will nreoare a Hc-h  Assistant 4. The Human Resources Director will TZZd issues (ie\nE.E.O., Affirmative Action, ^ericans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be follows: selected/appointed, as Three Two Three (3) Parents/patrons (2) - Teachers (3) Adainistratioa Representatives Mote:i Hote:2 Mote:3 1. 2. 3. representatives will be selected by of^SS president of the or tne affected school. ^e toacher(s) representatives shall be from the ThZschool and appointed by the Administration. The Deputy Superintendent f --------- appropriate staff - Assistant Supervisors, and Principals) t, Administration representatives. NOTE: (in consultation with Superintendents, may designate the The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender. ppppr-./rn SEP IS 1334 4...( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nGCDA Regulation 6. The interview committee shall recommend candidates, be provided folders 1) 2) 3) 4) meet to interview and The interview committee will containing the following\nAn interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview complete the ratings sheet, r  recommendation of the top three 3) candidates to the Superintendent. ^ated, the ratings are basis^ffr fiJ,IV 7 consensus and need not be thl sole nasis for selecting the recommended candidates.) the applicants and The committee, through consensus. 8. Interview Committee and select the for Board approval.  racomendatlons oi r. .J , applicant to be submitted JSeS 2ch oVSi* his/her option, three (3) applicants and committee reconvene to determine require that the new reconunendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected he/she will submit that individual^ Directors for approval. an acceptable applicant, s name to the Board of If the applicant is currently serving superintendent niay reassi^ Sxe ^riSSal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. ^^incipal 10. candidate shall receive a contract which ?=ation? pertinent his salary, grade, and othern A'nACHMPWT U? P LE. LeTTf^?. May 18, 1995 Little Rock School District To\nCarver Magnet Interview team members (listed below) From: Dr. Director - Human Resources Subject: Interview process First, I wish to express my sincere personal thanks to you for agreeing to participate as a member of the interview team for Principalship of Carver Magnet elementary school. As you might imagine, this team is charged with the extremely important responsibility of interviewing the applicants and, as a team, to recommend three top candidates to the Superintendent, who will then make a recommendation to the School Board. To assist you in the interview process, you will be provided the following items: 1. An interview schedule 2. A list of interview questions 3. A candidate rating form 4. The applicant's application materials (ie: application, letter, etc.) These items will be provided to you on the day of the interviews. I will attempt to schedule the interviews on a one-hour-per-applicant schedule. This will allow for the interview time as well as follow-up discussion among the team to reach consensus about the candidate. If you have any questions about this very important process, please don't hesitate to contact me at 324-2088. I will advise you as quickly as possible the date and times of the interviews. cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Donna Creer, Executive Director - Magnet Review Committee Team Members: Vai Henry, Parent/Patron representative Dewey Fitzhugh, Parent/Patron representative Roz Newton, Parent/Patron representative Joy Thomas, Teacher representative Kim Washington, Teacher representative Patty Kohler, Administration representative Leon Modeste, Administration representative Dick Hurley, Administration representative 810 West .Markham Street  Little Roek, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Sheetl At/K^Haj\u0026amp;kzt TTT DATE OF INTERVIEW MAY/22/1995 MAY/25/1995 MAY/26/1995 JUNE/29/1995 JUNE/30/1995 JULY/19/1995 JULY/25/1995 AUGUST/3/1995 AUGUST/4/1995 AUGUST/7/1995 SCHOOL CARVER HENDERSON JR. M. L. KING GIBBS MAGNET TERRY ELEMENTARY GEYER SPRINGS BRADY ELEMENTARY HALL HIGH SCHOOL FRANKLIN INCENTIVE DUNBAR JR. MAGNET RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES DIANE BARKSDALE JERRY WORM GWEN ZEIGLER JAMES WASHINGTON JAMES FULLERTON RON AUSTIN________ TYRONE HARRIS GWEN ZEIGLER ETHEL DUNBAR KAREN GREENLEE ADA KEOWN BETTY RAPER______ ETHEL DUNBAR DEBORAH MITCHELL GWEN ZEIGLER JULIE DAVENPORT ADA KEOWN ETHEL DUNBAR DEBORAH MITCHELL J.J.LACEY KAREN GREENLEE BEVERLY JONES ADA KEOWN GAYLE BRADFORD LINDA BROWN JIM MOSBY KAREN GREENLEE ETHEL DUNBAR JEFF CARR_________ LINDA BROWN DANIEL WHITEHORN PATRICIA McMurray Page 1 CANDIDATE SELECTED DIANE BARKSDALE JAMES WASHINGTON TYRONE HARRIS BETTY RAPER GWEN ZEIGLER JULIE DAVENPORT ADA KEOWN GAYLE BRADFORD ETHEL DUNBAR LINDA BROWNOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: From: Subject: Date: Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources, Little Rock School District Horace R. Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Request for Staffing Data August 17, 1995 As you are aware, ODM is in the process of publishing a series of reports focusing on staffing in all three of the Pulaski County school districts. We really appreciate the cooperation we received from your office during the process of gathering data for our initial report on the elementary school teaching force. In order to complete subsequent reports, we need the data listed below by Friday, September 1, 1995. If you have questions or concerns regarding this request, please call us at 376-6200. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Data Requested:  All secondary school teachers by school, race, sex, and primary subject area for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  All central office administrators by race, sex, department, and position for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  Building administrators (principals and assistant principals) by school, race, and sex for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  Non-certified personnel by location (school building, central office, etc.), position, race, and sex for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95Cf CF- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date\nSeptember 8, 1995 To: Principals SEP 1 I 1995 From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director JbMi' Planning, Research and Evaluation Office of Desegregatiwi Momionna RE: Local School Biracial Committee According to the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation plan (pages 224, 225), biracial committees of parents will be formed at each school to assist in monitoring educational equity. Site visits will be conducted by the Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) staff with the assistance of local biracial committees consisting of parents/patrons. Attached is a list by school with the PRE Specialists name who drew the school for monitoring. If you have not already been contacted by the PRE Specialist for a monitoring date, you will soon be receiving a phone call for a discussion about a convenient date for program monitoring. All parent/patron committee members will be expected: 1. To complete inservice education related to program monitoring techniques and the desegregation plan. This inservice will be conducted by the PRE Staff prior to the first school monitoring visit. We expect to complete the inservice for the parents by October 5. The monitoring process will essentially be the same as that of the last two school years. Parents/patrons who have previously received training regarding the monitoring process will not be required to attend another inservice. However, they are welcome to attend, if they wish. Principals may wish to select some of the same parents/patrons who have previously served as monitors, since they would already be familiar with the process. 2. To complete one monitoring visit each semester. Parents/patrons should be advised that monitoring is a major function for the current school year and that the monitoring process could take a full school day to complete. During the monitoring visits, checklists will be used to record and gather data regarding the conditions and events at the school. Monitors will record and report findings only. Mediation of conditions and events are inappropriate during the site visit. The committee should be composed of six persons, comprised of two teachers and four parents/patrons, balanced by race (two black and two white parents). Like last school year the teachers on your committee will not monitor the programs for equity. However, if you add others to the committee, you may do so without a ratio being required. When you call the committee together to review the monitoring summary report2 and to give suggestions for program improvement, this is the time to involve the teachers and others on the committee. Efforts should be made to extend the selection process beyond a traditional parent structure to ensure broad representation. Please refrain from using parents/patrons who are Little Rock School District employees as program monitors. Please forward the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the four parents/patrons who will serve on your local school biracial committee to the PRE Department NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. Inservice for biracial committee monitoring will be held at the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. Principals are requested to notify biracial committee parents of the inservice as soon as possible. Inservices are scheduled as follows: Elementary Area and Magnet Schools: October 3, 1995 Meet in the LRSD Board Room, 810 W. Markham, 6:30 pm Secondary and Incentive Schools: October 5, 1995 Meet in the LRSD Board Room, 810 W. Markham, 6:30 pm Site visits for the first semester are tentatively scheduled to be conducted between October 23 and December 15, 1995. Principals will be contacted to establish monitoring dates. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith in the PRE office at 324-2120. Your prompt attention and cooperation in this effort is greatly appreciated. cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams Mrs. Anne E. Brown, Director Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Ms. Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Dr. Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary EnclosureLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PRE SPECIALIST ASSIGNMENT BY SCHOOL 1995-96 School PRE Specialist School PRE Specialist Central Fair Hall Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Kathy Penn-Norman McClellan Parkview Metropolitan J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby K Penn-Norman Cloverdale JHS Dunbar JHS Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale JHS Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights JHS Southwest ALC K. Penn-Norman K. Penn-Norman J.J. Lacey J. J. Lacey Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Elem. Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Magnet Kathy Penn-Norman Kathy Penn-Norman J. J. Lacey Kathy Penn-Norman Kathy Penn-Norman Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Kathy Penn-Norman Selma Hobby Kathy Penn-Norman Mabelvale Elem. McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Interdistrict Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby J.J. Lacey K. Penn-Norman Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey K. Penn-Norman Selma Hobby K. Penn-Norman Selma HobbyOffice 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: September 12, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject: Brown New administrative position In reviewing the latest LRSD organizational structure chart for 1995-96, which is dated August 22, 1995, 1 notice a new position for Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Support. Please send me a copy of the business case which sets forth the decision-making rationale for this new position. 1 also want to know the job description, the proposed associated costs, the date of Board approval (or anticipate approval), and the target date for filling this position. Tliank you very much for your assistance.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 13 U 0)  o Q 3  \"5 n ATTACHMENT 1 Organizational Chart O O g* ca  T a\u0026gt; c o\u0026gt;  Cf) O 2 33 - o co o .i C C OT =? 3 c cn O T O g Q 4\u0026gt; s O *0 o 0 \u0026lt; C s = H X 3 o tM hl \"'5 ii d e \u0026lt;3 5 1 ? 3 s* IL - sH I3 -I 1 I I I I I I I s 1 i I  2 Ij iJi I Id Ji J 0 IJ ,1 fa JI Si kaU 'J 11 |d h \"d nl ai u  2 ?  r J 1 s 1 Jl 2L- I d si 3 c 4 U J? Hi w IL 2^^ $ c H 3 3 ad Ii J a Id . s i J 1 b. 4 = J H -2 H \u0026lt;5 -S ^3 o I J S \u0026lt;3? I = d p ir -5 3 \u0026lt; 11 t = 1 jil\nri s? ii .TTiHf p ill W __ I_ . . _ JRECEIVE^ SEP 1 5 1995 VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Office of Desegregation Monitonn^ MEMORANDUM September 13, 1995 TO: Administrative Departments FROM: Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator SUBJECT: Empty Copy Paper Boxes and Broken Appliances and Machinery A volunteer at the Alternative Learning Center needs copy paper boxes for a project he is working on with the students. We can be a part of this hands-on art project by collecting boxes and lids. He also needs broken appliances and machinery, i.e., fans, toasters, lawn mowers, coffee makers, clocks, condensers, etc. to use in helping the students leam to use tools. Please call Bill AUsop at 666-6367 (or 666-2030 answering machine) when you have two or more empty boxes or appliances and hell come by to get them. Thanks for your help.Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SEP 2 0 1995 MEMORANDUM Office of Dssegrsgation Mcrawnng DATE: September 19, 1995 TO: Districtwide Biracial Committee Members Committee Members of Incentive School Monitoring Instrument Review Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Richard Rochelle, Knight Intervenors Attorney John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director RE: Incentive School Monitoring Instrument for 1995-96 Please find enclosed the Incentive School Monitoring Instrument to be used by the Districtwide Biracial Committee during the 1995-96 school year. Also enclosed are the 1994-95 Districtwide Biracial Committee Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools and the Spring 1995 Incentivi School Survey Report. If you have questions, please call me at 324-2120. Enclosures cc: LRSD Board of Directors Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of SchoolsOffice 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 \u0026gt;371-0100 September 26, 1995 Mrs. Sue Strickland 19 Peartree Place Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Sue: Congratulations on your election to the Uttle Rock School District Board of Directors. Your experiences with teachers, administrators, parents, and children give you insights that will be invaluable as the district makes decisions that affect the lives of so many. Im looking forward to getting to know you, and hope well find a time to begin that process soon. Please give me a call at your convenience and lets arrange a time to get together. 1 hope you will also feel free to drop by ODM at any time to meet my colleagues and tour our offices. Under separate cover to your LRSD mail box, Im sending you some of our recent monitoring reports. I know that as a new board member youll be inundated with all sorts of paper, and I dont want to add too much to the pile. Well routinely send you and other members of the board our new reports as we issue them. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep an open door and a pot of coffee on at all times, and well always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. I know youre going to do a fine job. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: September 29, 1995 To: Board Members From: Re: Desegregation Representation For the past two years Ive watched with interest and concern the court proceedings related to our 12 year old desegregation case. As I have watched and been involved in what goes on in court, and observed the relationship between the attorneys, as well as the judge in this case, I have- become increasingly concerned and frustrated. The concern is essentially with the informality, the comfort, and the accommodating behavior exhibited by all the attorneys in the case. So much so, I believe, that very little is being accomplished in the way of moving the District away from federal monitoring, from settling any major issues, and not at all moving this District or any of the other Districts away from court supervision. Based on what has happened or not happened over the past two years, my thinking is that what is needed is a more aggressive approach by attorneys who represent the District who can and will focus on the major issues contained in the Plan by assuming a more aggressive professional posture and looking at the real issues in the settlement and not the \"nitpicking\" surface issues that prevent movement in the case. I believe that we can move forward. But we cannot as long as we are held to historic and undocumented elements of the Plan by Mr. Walker. Pieces of the Plan that at one time were important, but are no longer as significant as they__ once were, because of changing conditions and circumstances in the Little Rock Community. In order to move forward and become further enured in the rhetoric of the case, a determination and decision has to be made and agreed upon that we either follow the settlement agreement or modify what exists. I4 Page 2 Mr. Walker has cleverly, through legal maneuvering, delayed decisions, stalled proceedings, and in general slowed the process by using the threats of contempt of court against the District because he feels we want to change too quickly and without regard to black children. This is absolutely not true. The time has long passed for these kinds of delays, and the need to settle certain aspects of the case is of paramount importance because of changing conditions and circumstances. Little Rock is not the same city that it was in 1958, nor is it the same city that it was in 1993. It is now a city with greater potential for economic growth and development. Development and growth, however, that will not be realized until the LRSD has cleaned up its image, changed the Plan, and is free from federal supervision. I The LRSD cannot afford the current plan and if it has been followed according to the letter of the law, it carries with it serious financial implications and consequences. LR must do like-so many other cities and school districts across the country. Kansas City, Dallas, and Denver have recognized that changing social and economic issues have put a serious strain on their ability to operate without additional revenues, and they have moved aggressively to gain relief from federal court. We in LR must do the same thing and we must do it with legal representation that is both well-schooled in desegregation law and who share the same sense of urgency that we do to be released from federal supervision. With that in mind, 1 am suggesting that we look at other law firms in Little Rock, such as the Mitchell firm, the Kaplan firm, or the Hogan and Hartsen firm out of Washington. D.C. to assist the District with our desegregation case. I recognize that the Friday. Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm has  represented the LRSD for many years and has provided the major portion, if not all, of the legal battles and done a capable job. However, with the change of conditions in LR and what is happening with school districts across the country it is time for a change.4 I Page 3 I do not advocate that we discontinue our association with the Friday firm on other legal matters, only that we consider moving the desegregation portion to another firm. Until such time that we are represented by counsel who are willing to enforce the conditions and agreements of the settlement we will continue to \"spin our wheels\" in an attempt to reach a solid footing that will allow us to move forward or in the direction of getting out of court. 1 would respectfully request that the Board consider the need for representation from another firm with regard to the desegregation case. Consideration of this matter would be appreciated at the October 12, Board Agenda session. It is clear to me and to others who have followed this case that we are no further along the road to reduced court supervision than we were four years ago. We are bogged down by the notion that the intent of the Plan is more significant than the actual component parts of the Plan. The Board will recall that last year I proposed that we put into place an inhouse staff attorney. One that would deal very specifically with  desegregation issues and keep the Friday firm focused. This position was not funded. However, by restructuring the work of the Friday firm to deal with problems other than desegregation, it is quite possible that we will salvage enough resources to support this proposal. I would like your support in this area and I am prepared to discuss the issue with you at your convenience. IOffice 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 (SOI) 3710100 Date: October 3, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: , ^V/\\nn Brown Districtwide Recruitment Plan 1 was pleased to receive a copy of the districts newsletter News \u0026amp; Views, the first such publication in a long time. It was a newsy and interesting edition, and 1 look forward to reading the coming issues. The \"Desegregation Update\" section on the first page of e newsletter states that a districtwide recruitment plan has been written, and that the individual schools have put together strategies for action at the school level. The section goes on to say that the district and parent recruiters will work toward improving the image of the public schools to encourage voluntary student transfers. 1 was also glad to read that ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report has provided further direction for recruitment efforts. Because recruitment and public relations are areas critical to desegregation, 1 salute you for having completed the plans that will support implementation of the activities referenced in the Update. Its a credit to you and your colleagues that the district has started the school year well prepared with road maps. Please help us get a head start on monitoring this years recruitment activities by sending me a copy of the revised districtwide recruitment plan that will be guiding you. In conjunction with that plan, 1 would also appreciate the information listed below. Brief answers, summaries, or copies of materials will do fine at this point. 1. Point out how this years districtwide recruitment plan differs from that of the previous year. 2. State the districtwide goal of the recruitment plan in quantitative terms by race, i.e., the percentage increase in enrollment and the total number of students that percentage represents. 3. State the school-based recruitment goal in quantitative terms by race for each school, i.e., the percentage increase by school and the target number of students you hope to recruit to each school according to the racial balance needs of each.October 3, 1994 Page Two 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Forward the results of the evaluation (fast-track or otherwise) you did on the previous recruitment plan that enabled you to determine what changes needed to be made in the current plan based on the successes or failures of last years plan. The Court long ago required the LRSD to establish a tracldng system that would enable the district to determine which recruitment efforts are successful and which are not. Indicate the status of the tracking system, when it was established, who is responsible for it, and how it works. Summarize what youve learned from the system, and also how youve used that Icnowledge to modify the elements of your new recruitment plan. Summarize the recruitment strategies that each school has put together for this year. Or, if it will be easier, just include copies of the school-based plans. The desegregation plans state that parents and Parent Recruiters, along with such groups as the PTA, recruitment teams. Incentive School Parent Recruitment Committees, speakers bureaus, and the Biracial Committee, will assist with recruitment. Indicate the role envisioned for such individuals and groups in the current districtwide and school-based recruitment plans. Include the timeline of the current districtwide recruitment plan. Indicate who is responsible for the major events on that timeline. Describe the plans of the district and parent recruiters for improving the image of the schools, the timeline of the plans, and the responsible personnel. Indicate how you factored in the elements of the Public Relations sections of the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Describe or list those elements of ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report that the district will be using in recruitment. Or, in other words, how has the district modified its current recruitment plan to incorporate elements of the incentive school report?JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 onr Office of Desegregaacfi 'nr- 5 1^95 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 4, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I would be remiss if I did not request that you require the administrative staff under the aegis of Dr. Russ Mayo to be fully desegregated and integrated. I am also requesting that Dr. Mayo be reprimanded for his actions. I remain, Sincerely yours, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann BrownS! 4 11 Little Rock School District October 5, 1995 To: Area School Advisory Linittee Representatives From: Leon Modeste, U Special Assistant tothe Superintendent Subject: Reminder of next meeting of the Area School Advisory Committee Please mark your calendars for Monday, October 9, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. for the meeting of the Area School Advisory Committee. The meeting will be held in the LRSD Board Room, with Fred Smith, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District giving the latest report on the Districts Facilities Study. We look forward to seeing you there. LEM/dge 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)321-2000SHULTS, BAY \u0026amp; KUBKUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 boatmens bank BUILDING SOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE BITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72SO1-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KUBRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TEI^EPHONE \u0026lt;CO1) 375-S3O1 FACSIMILE (501) 3Z5-6861 October 6, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 OCT 1 0 1995 Office oi Desegregauon Monnoiiug Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann, John and Hank: Based on present enrollment and demographic trends, we are failing in our efforts to promote quality desegregated education in Little Rock. I know that Little Rock School District students generally achieve at higher levels on standardized tests than students in surrounding geographic areas, and we have some other bright spots. Nevertheless, it is clear that the District is continuing to lose far too many students to private schools. The ramifications of these losses can no longer be ignored. As \"advantaged\" students leave the District, the District becomes more segregated, and the remaining students have more intense needs. Community sunnort wanes. We are at a critical time when the District must reverse the support wnen tne uibiricb mu\u0026amp;b levciac current enrollment trend, or we will become an all black \"have not\" district. We must not allow this to happen because it will ultimately result in a resegregated district incapable of educating its students. In order to see this point, you need only review the enrollment statistics for our elementary schools. These schools indicate future enrollment trends and demographic patterns for junior and senior highs, as well as demonstrate the immediate problems associated with elementary schools. This year it appears that Little Rock will have 14 elementary schools which are over 75% black and which have declining white enrollments. In essence, these schools will be one race schoolsSHTJBTS, SAY \u0026amp; KUREUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 2 with one race attendance zones. Other elementary schools are also experiencing severe declines in white enrollment. As late as 1992, white enrollment was on the increase, especially in the area elementary schools. In 1995, for the first time in several years, we see that several of the desegregated area schools are having declining white enrollments, even though the demographic patterns in their attendance zones have not substantially changed. These declining white enrollments will translate into substantial decreases in white enrollment in the junior and senior high schools. Unless we are willing to have a one race district which will have a much harder time maintaining community support, we must take dramatic action. If enrollment trends are not reversed for next year, the District will become a typical urban district with limited community support and with no real prospect of success for its students. This is not fair and this is not what I would like, but I can now clearly see that this is what will occur unless major steps are taken to change the trends. Continuation of the current plan will result tn resegregation. This was not the purpose of the plan, this is not what a lot of us want, and I want to work aggressively to see that it does not occur. I believe that continued acrimonious litigation will actually accelerate the resegregation of the Little Rock School District. I think it is up to the parties to the settlement to change it to achieve the goals and objectives which the parties share. In order to cooperate to make the changes necessary for success, the parties themselves will have to change the way they interact publicly and privately. Public interaction will have to be positive, cooperative, and cordial. Otherwise, the perception is that the District is unstable, mismanaged, and beseiged. The following actions need to be taken in order for the Little Rock School District to survive: 1. 1. The concept of incentive schools (characterized by better than 80% black enrollment) needs to be reconsidered because a great many more schools will have these same enrollment characteristics in the next several years. Rather than II \"incentivise\" all of these schools with programs which are designed to attract whites, we should recognize that these schools will not be desegregated withSHUKTS, RAY \u0026amp; KURRUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 3 enhanced programs. We should concentrate on providing smaller classes, incentive compensation to teachers and administrators in these schools, and enhanced special opportunities (Reading Recovery, Junior Great Books) designed to improve the skills of the students in these schools. It is not possible to desegregate these schools under current conditions, and the best approach is to simplify the program so that the schools work for the students who are there. 2. We need to consolidate some of the small schools in the central core of the city. At the same time, we need to build at least two new schools - one to serve the students in the central city and a new school to meet the growth in west Little Rock. Even though the west Little Rock school would be essentially all white, if we do not provide a school for the students in these areas, they will continue to go into the private system and will not be available to assist in desegregating area junior highs and high schools. The Little Rock School District should not abandon its obligation to serve all of the youth in the District just because of changing demographic patterns. This is illustrated by the demographic changes in southwest Little Rock. Even though the schools there are basically area schools, if the students tn those schools have exceptional needs, the District should plan on meeting those needs. By the same token, if demographic changes result tn the need for a new school in a new area, the school should be built and should have an attendance zone which insures that the students in that area will attend that school. Little Rock actually needs a new school on its far northwest border to serve the satellite zone for Forest Park and part of the Fulbright zone, as well as a school in the Wilson satellite zone to serve the major new subdivisions of Sandpiper West, Sandpiper Creek, Cherry Creek, Parkway Place, St. Thomas, St. Michael, and St. Charles. At the present time, these students, who are mostly white, are generally attending private schools. It is noteworthy and distressing that there are now more white students m Pulaski Academy than there are in Fulbright, Terry, McDermott, Forest Heights, and Hall, combined. Under the present desegregation plan, the Little Rock School District will not survive as a multi-racial district. In order to survive, the District must grow and must be operated in a way that instills public confidence. Up to this point, the three of you have not accomplished that goal. There is no room for blame and no time for mistrust. I believe that there is still a chance that we can marshall the community support necessary to construct two new schools and adequately fund theSHXTLTS, HAY \u0026amp; KUBHUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 4 special needs we now have, but only if we work cooperatively in the next three months to agree upon the major building blocks. If the three of you will graciously, publicly, earnestly, and optimistically cooperate, there is reason to believe the District can survive. Each of you will be required to compromise. We do not know that success can be attained, but we can clearly see that our current efforts are insufficient and are leading to results which are unacceptable for our students and our community. I am willing to try to help each of you. Despite what you may hear, there is a great deal of community support for an integrated public school system which delivers quality education to its students. I would propose that the District draft a short ten-point revision to the existing desegregation plan, based upon input from each of you. You should get together and compromise the differences which may exist, and then propose the plan by joint motion to the court. In this way, you will not only enhance the educational opportunities of the students who are involved, you would also demonstrate to the community a real commitment to cooperation and success. This alone will greatly enhance the possibility of a successful future for the District. We should then draw plans for the new schools, organize a millage campaign for next September, and then pull together and pass it. Sincerely, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb cc: Mr. Jim Hathaway Dr. Russ Mayo Mr. R. B. McDonough, Jr. Mr. H. Maurice Mitchell Mr. Gerald Osterman Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John Riggs Mr. Winthrop P. Rockefeller Mr. John SteuriLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM 11 To\n?1 Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ocr / .J 1995 From: V, Russ Mayo,*Associate Superintendent 0lfiC3 of ^oni iCf Date: October 13,1995 / '9 Subject\nMeasurement of Achievement Disparity The Office of Desegregation Monitoring released, June 21, 1995, a status report on achievement disparity. The report concluded that ODM does not assert that only one method of comparison is possible or that one is innately better than another. We appreciate recognition of this by ODM. To keep you informed, we are working with the Arkansas Department of Education in determining an acceptable method of comparing test data. Any information that you feel would be beneficial in our study will be appreciated. RM:dk C: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Ed Jackson, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation tMVAUXK\nW'' |^ f? i- z I\n'.' P R f n A Y , F. T. n R C ! TV\n. {, I A. ft' A I^AFfTrtftFgri\n?* cr '. 4- X '\nu- At? s' 'ii! 3 ? t C . hu-- Iff . \" \u0026lt;K JAW\n!t  ( i-'t''.*'-'  -1. *f 01- k. r.i. ! c \u0026gt; ('1i'Pt .'icf\n.) ytT. OsC t.h K 0  i', A i\u0026lt; tc is, 5:  L A S ^., ThCMo LUd? f r : . * A J\u0026amp;H*. L'tWtV W(. :\u0026lt;-.*(. r.\n.. n I./-\n^ - \ni  1 F*u* -J 5 * Cf' * A * ?- . 5 0 1 : /  2  * S-- i-C t * \u0026lt;.T- Iv. StAs  . c ' IK IH A I k \\ A rtc^cr- t m a /. hJf. '..ffrt r 'I T r-\" '. 7-2 viK e i A  i 3X*3 1-N ^Al\n7 1.'' A L  ' U * (* .? ,*. J ftTrtEJf i.i ' ,1. pic\n,!.-\n' ,1 * .V\nV y */ I: ii V J  Ji. .('\\ftfi tE T* Vi f.. ?l' A .'\u0026lt; a/I .^ . y . :\u0026gt; tA ' s '  ' ,  f. Oct oer i.-A*O A 0  '*11.* 71\n vrur .1. ms*-\n '\u0026gt; v- f\u0026gt;.'.i.. /'.V  0.XI rf- r \u0026gt;( L T Vfe A iSaAi'V \u0026gt;. -i: I : 'll sk'1C ? r*s '\u0026lt;\u0026lt; 'I* . A. '.A. 'J 11 ii, f d J t 'f J \ndO\nj c A J \u0026gt;{.'. 1'^ Ct. f f. 't 0. \u0026gt;1?,. R.  'i'iOMV . t S '* 'j si N ',o.'0''Cif urn  iihi.,.\n,' ,7.':*. h 1 4i^,\n*OMV 'iV ''k.6i3 X r.-As V , ,'(' 'i: Ki'. Mi7A)Z**a ui rciVi - K ^  V 4 sf. i.75 w SMcf i  1- U 'i i\u0026gt; W . I' i '  N c {  's\n, AOMii .\u0026gt; A /i I r\nA, .) fiiJ.''- \u0026lt; # . frC f H^nry p. is Reck Wil li-.Siins School Distr.ict t nt.'irkhara Aft 7 2201 :j'e.^r.incf - S3.tvrday, Hercher i you last\nwesx o i. JiOj ou+:  ther the hear i.ng achem Id ie'j notify you as scon O,\" ' : cihs purpesa - J- .r 'is': GOS - ci corLt\n. John .'he iie.'?rJ. \u0026gt; c^^nt.r'act. wil^ GG the I ,nsve -iLtfit thy i/ u X fs^.sr S Saturday, pooling niGt\ni o.n ?.e\nTned that lier^/ics JiisEter conttart. .ss c?\u0026lt;?tcbisr 3S hearing Qr- tor rstgardlng the. the s'i,tto\n5 iac of (J'S. n ths agreejsciTC and W i th you soon ii brsnrtl* the diifs Jsr.rv Kai.tr\ntisc?.- ! I ISCUSS fo^ .13 He w i i i hiBir inu. Your V  Chri tc^iisr' t id'll i\nSP flT o\u0026lt;S /f rFRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1 994I ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EtSEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OP INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILOING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 October 26, 1995 KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDETAB'TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES QSCHWENO, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. PENDLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY (Hand-Delivered) OCT \u0026gt; if 1995 Oifice Ct Dasegr iiu!) COUHSCL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P.A. WfllTCR'S DINeCT NO. (501) 370-1553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: LRSD/Various Labor Issues Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for our telephone conversation on Thursday, October 26, 1995. We have discussed various labor matters over the past several weeks involving persons represented by your office. This letter is to outline the recommendations I will make to the Little Rock School District on resolving most of these matters. Please understand that it appears that these recommendations will be accepted by the District, but final numbers must be obtained prior to me receiving final authority, where indicated. Ms. Betty Forbes, in return for the execution of a release agreement to be drafted by me, will remain in her current position at the same salary she received in her previous assignment in the superintendent's office. as long as she remains in this position. There would be no reduction in her salary Should she voluntarily change positions, her salary would be computed in accordance with District policies and procedures on such voluntary transfers. Should she be circumstances transferred involuntarily, the nature dictating such involuntary transfer of and District's practices, polices and procedures will apply. the the Ms. diu\\pcud\\waiker.lt6Mr. John W. Walker October 26, 1995 Page 2 Forbes will receive any raises she would have otherwise received in her prior position and her personnel file would not reflect any negative conduct or performance as it relates to the transfer from the prior position to the current position. Mr. Don Phillips and Ms. Debra Hamilton will be compensated the difference in pay (for the 1995-96 school year only) in the compensation they would have received had they remained employees of the LRSD when compared to the compensation received as employees of Laidlaw Transit. Please recall that the calculations on these amounts have not yet become final and the final authority to agree to this resolution can only be granted after those computations have been received and considered. in The District takes the position that Mr. Christopher Watson is different position from Mr. Phillips and Ms. Hamilton. Further, it is our information that Mr. Watson did not suffer any difference in pay from moving from the LRSD to Laidlaw. I have talked to Ms. Joy Springer regarding this matter as well as the others to be discussed herein on several occasions, whether ray information is correct. I will verify Ms. Debbie Jackson was formerly employed in the Information Services Department of the District. She was involuntarily transferred to the Purchasing Department at the same pay and benefits. It is my understanding that she voluntarily accepted another position with lower pay at McClellan High School. Under the circumstances, any loss in compensation is the result of her own actions. However, Joy and I did discuss the possibility of Ms. Jackson going back to Purchasing at the same pay as she had received in Information Services. I will check to determine whether the position is still open and whether she can be given a definite job description and job title. If so, it would be my recommendation to the District that she be allowed to return to that position. Ms. Zola Tyiska was reassigned by Brady Gadberry to her position at Forest Heights Junior High School. However, subsequent to the reassignment, Ms. Tyiska submitted a letter of resignation due to an illness, now become moot. Accordingly, it appears that this matter has Mr. Ernest Mason, a custodian in the District, has requested a head custodian position. that his health has played However, it is my current understanding consistently opening schools a on role time in preventing him as head custodians from are a dttna\\pcud\\wBlker.lt6Mr. John W. Walker October 26, 1995 Page 3 required to do. Accordingly, there are currently no head custodian positions available in the District which would not entail the duty to open schools on a consistent and regular basis. It is also mv understanding that the nature of his illness would likewise prevent him from timely notifying others when he would be the school himself. It is also my - - - - unable to open . , It will be my recommendation to the District that we continue seeking an appropriate position for Mr. should an appropriate position come available, Mr' assigned to it. ' ' - Mason and, come available, Mr. Mason be Notwithstanding this recommendation, I must advise are continued concerns recardina Mr. Mason's you that there are, continued concerns regarding Mr. Mason's Accordingly, my recommendation would not constitute waiver of any steps or actions the District must take, should his absentee circumstances war-rAnt such. absenteeism. a if any, Please consider the recommendations notify me should you have any concerns. I am making herein and _ - - Otherwise, I will attempt to move forward and obtain final authority from the District resolve the matters as I have outlined herein to Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. JLM/dtw cc: Mr. Brady Gadberry diam\\pa*d\\w*lkar. 116 Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD AttorneyOffice 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 October 29, 1995 Ms. Stephanie Johnson 8701 Interstate 30 Apt. 206 Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Stephanie: 1 should have written this letter to you right after the election. Please forgive me for being slow to tell you how much I will miss you as a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Education. Although your tenure on the board was brief, it was nonetheless very significant. You displayed a quick grasp of the issues and a sincere, steadfast concern for the welfare of the children, parents, and employees of the district. You stepped in during a difficult time in the districts history, but you did not flinch when making touch decisions nor did you waver when taking a stand for your convictions. As both the desegregation monitor and a fellow citizen, 1 greatly appreciate the service you gave to our community as a board member. Although this phase of your public service is over for now, 1 know youll continue to serve in other roles because your heart is ftill of love and you will always care for others. Thank you for all youve done to make our town a better place for all of us. Your have my sincere best wishes for every success. Please dont ever hesitate to call on me whenever 1 can be of any help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. ' ! . 'f Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 i October 30, 1995 Dr. Russ Mayo Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Russ: Tliank you for your October 13, 1995 memo regarding measurement of achievement disparity. I appreciate hearing from you, but Im concerned about certain aspects of the memo and want to clear up some apparent misunderstandings. According to your memo, which refers to an ODM report on achievement disparity dated June 21, 1995, \"The report concluded that ODM does not assert that only one method of comparison is possible or that one is innately better than another.\" Although 1 think 1 understand the purpose of your correspondence, 1 must point out that the sentence which we wrote out has been taken out of context and also misapplied in your memo. First, the statement to which you referred is not a report conclusion. The sentence appears not in our Summary and Conclusions section, but rather in an introduction subsection entitled \"Report Purpose and Scope.\" Rather than representing a conclusion, the sentence is merely an expository statement to which the previous sentences in the same paragraph are antecedent. Secondly, we wrote the sentence as part of our explanation of how we presented information in the report. The comment addressed one specific test (the SAT 8), a certain time period, and the particular way in which we chose to present the test data in that report. We were pointing out that the SAT 8 data can be disaggregated and compared in a variety of ways and in various combinations, such as by grade level, subtest category, or complete battery. We were acknowledging that the way in which we presented our SAT 8 analysis was not the only possible way to do so, nor did we assert that our way was superior to other ways in which SAT 8 data might be presented. Also, according to your memo, you were keeping me informed by relating that youre working with ADE to determine an acceptable method of comparing test data. Gene Wilhoit told me many months back that the meetings on the topic of testing were initiated by the LRSD over a year agoPage Two October 30, 1995 and have focused on far more than simply comparative methodology. The discussions obviously have been sparked by the districts concern that it will very soon face the obligation to begin repaying millions of dollars in loan money if it should fail to remediate the achievement disparity between the races, as set forth in the settlement agreement. The parties are certainly free to discuss all aspects of measuring achievement disparity. As a matter of fact, our report points out that standardized testing is only one of several ways by which student achievement can be evaluated. Nevertheless, the settlement agreement is clear as to the method by which the parties agreed to measure student achievement. Until such time as the parties might propose and the Court might approve a change in that provision, the terms of the settlement-and the standard for measuring the disparity gap-are binding. Although 1 have no objection whatsoever to the parties weighing the various means by which to gauge student progress, 1 believe the parties would be wise to heed the closing paragraphs of our recent report on achievement disparity, and to concentrate their efforts and resources accordingly: Regardless of how academic progress is measured, if students are not making the academic headway our community requires of them, and the desegregation plans promised, then the districts are obligated to find out why and to alter their programs and approaches as necessary. .. (Tlhey must pay particular attention to assessing the links between programs, process, and results. To determine whether and how to change strategies for closing the achievement gap, the parties must thoroughly evaluate program and service concepts, the scope, quality, and consistency of implementation in all schools, and the extent to which the results represent steady progress toward the goals. Without such analysis, it will be impossible for the parties to make well-informed decisions that keep the faith and boost all children toward success. Conclusions, page 29.) (ODM Report on Achievement Disparity, Summary and Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Hank Williams Ed Jackson 3CC. Zz/dD-vOffice 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) 3710100 Date: November 8, 1995 To: From: Subject: Bobby Lester, James Smith, Hank Williams I ,1 Brown ODM 1995-96 Monitoring Priorities and Procedures My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1995-96 school year, which are listed on the enclosure. As is our custom, we identified our monitoring emphasis by reviewing the desegregation plans and mandates from both the circuit and district courts. We also noted court orders and directives issued during hearings that require ODM to review certain desegregation activities or to scrutinize specific provisions of the plans or court orders. It is possible that some of the attached topics will change depending upon unforeseen events that may develop, such as new court orders. Some of our monitoring will be in the nature of a foUow-up on previous reports, such as those on the alternative schools, racial balance in school enrollment, and the LRSD incentive schools. A few of the topics we will address appeared on our monitoring list for the last school year, but we are not initiating them until this year, such as the specialty programs in the PCSSD and the secondary LRSD schools with magnet programs. At the conclusion of each monitoring project, we will summarize our findings to the Court in some type of written report. Some of our reports will be brief and limited in scope, such as double fimding of the incentive schools\nothers, such as that on the secondary interdistrict schools, will be more comprehensive and, therefore, lengthier. You can expect our monitoring procedures to remain essentially unchanged front previous years, continuing to include review of records and other written information, interviews with principals and other administrators, and visits to schools. Our observations will be guided by a written monitoring guide, the same type of instrument we've used in the past. As usual, we will review the guide with your staff before beginning formal monitoring so you'll know what we are looking for.November 8, 1995 As our monitoring timetable develops, we will notify you so you can plan accordingly. We are trying to establish a schedule that avoids dates which would conflict with the schedule of other monitoring groups, such as the Biracial Committees. As you're aware, some of our monitoring guides include charts that reflect various data, such as school enrollment and staffing. Because ODM monitors gather this data from the annual school profiles, rather than asking school staff to fill out forms or charts, please send the 1995-96 nmfiles QU all schools to QDM by November 22. 1995 if you have not yet forwarded that information to my office. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. We're looking forward to being in your schools during the year ahead. cc: Bobby Acklin Bill Bowles Russ Mayo Counsel of Record1995-96 ODM Monitoring Priorities  Radal balance in student enrollment within individual schools  Staffing patterns and staff recruitment for racial balance among administrators, non\u0026lt;ertified personnel, and secondary teachers  Academic achievement and closing disparity in achievement between the races  The alternative learning centers in the three districts  Recruitment for the four-year-old program to promote desegregation  Facilities, with emphasis on schools having an enrollment outside the racial balance guidelines  M-to-M transfers of special education students among the three school districts  Finance: assuring that settlement money use is consistent with the desegregation plans and court orders\ndetermining that the districts exercise fiscal responsibility such that they can fulfill their plan obligations\nwhether money is being wasted  Incentive schools, with emphasis on facilities, theme implementation, programs and those aspects of the schools that previously have been dted as needing improvement  Staffing in the incentive schools to determine the extent of racial balance within employee categories  Double funding of e incentive schools  The extended year program for incentive schools during the summer of 1995  Secondary schools with magnet programs: Henderson, Dunbar, Central, and McQellan secondary schools in the LRSD  Specialty programs in the PCSSD at Mills and Sylvan Hills High Schools, Fuller Junior High, and Fuller, Landmark, Bates, and College Station Elementaries and racial integration within those schools  Multicultural education in the PCSSD1995-96 ODM Monitoring Priorities  Racial balance in student enrollment within individual schools  Staffing patterns and staff recruitment for racial balance among administrators, non-certified personnel, and secondary teachers  Academic achievement and dosing disparity in achievement between the races  The alternative learning centers in the three districts  Recruitment for the four-year-old program to promote desegregation  Facilities, with emphasis on schools having an enrollment outside the radal balance guidelines  M-to-M transfers of special education students among the three school districts  Finance: assuring that settlement money use is consistent with the desegregation plans and court orders\ndetermining that the districts exercise fiscal responsibility such that they can fulfill their plan obligations\nwhether money is being wasted  Incentive schools, with emphasis on facilities, theme implementation, programs and those aspects of the schools that previously have been dted as needing improvement  Staffing in the incentive schools to determine the extent of racial balance within employee categories  Double funding of e incentive schools  The extended year program for incentive schools during the summer of 1995  Secondaiy schools with magnet programs: Henderson, Dunbar, Central, and McQellan secondary schools in the LRSD  Specialty programs in e PCSSD at Mills and Sylvan Hills High Schools, Fuller Junior High, and Fuller, Landmark, Bates, and College Station Elementaries and racial integration within those schools  Multicultural education in the PCSSDef i^-. \u0026gt;\u0026gt;: -r--' \n J- 1 fV ' c -''PH BttEf r 'oLn-' ANT , SEfty ICES { 12:05 No.003 P.02 i I TEL : 501- 0-4027 Nov 08,9 Little Rock School District November 8, 1995 Mb. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Ms. Brown: I 72201 The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has requested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Planning Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together Implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education, Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 the office of Student Assignments. a.in., November 9, 1995, in 1 apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as * - - to you. a result of that meeting will be forwarded Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. sincerely yours, I h ug:i^s C. Eaton RECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invito 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 73801  (501 \u0026gt;884-8000 \"f i I \u0026lt; - n '7. I 1I t I ! II I  -J 'i i   4111  ff TTIM r- I-  if I'- I.. I in?.  f[ i. 3 NCV- I- SUSAN W.BRIGHT District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: FAX fiO. 5013246576. Novemter 4,1995 c, . 0 -^:  Oi: '^r Per our phone conversation Friday, October 27,1 appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding how John Walker is handling various issues that involve the Little Rock School Di,strict. As an involved parent of children in the school district, I have ..  grown weary of xMr Walker's arguing for arguments'sake instead of truly protecting the interests of the children and parents whom he claims to be representing. 1 realize that you have a ven- dtflicult job tn overseeing the desegregation proces.s in the LRSD and am grateful that you take into consideration parent opinion when making decisions that affect all of die children in the district. I ioofc forward to corresponding with you about other LRSD matters in the future. Sincerely, Laura Doramus i v 4 I? ' 'f- 't'it .'S 'FAv Q\u0026gt;rc/\\u\u0026gt;^ A S'** 4\n.fi' r  :\nb\nV J  U'lU'^  I X .y * ---------- y '  ' Tor :resT' LETLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation RSQ'Pn h 2 2 1995 ^1 lii(j/lnj MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 1995 To: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Subject: h'krtrj } 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report c ' I iec - Tfsty Please find enclosed your personal copy of the 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report. Also enclosed are copies for distribution to the Board members. If I can be of further assistance, please call me. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Joshua Intervenors John Walker, Attorney /^Office of Desegregation MonitoringA JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHD^TON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 RECEIVED NOV 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Monaoruia November 21, 1995 Delivered Via Facsimile 501-324-2281 Dr. Russell Mayo Student Assignment Center Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Mayo\nWould you please share with me the District's policy which authorizes you to charge $.50 a copy for copies made under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Sincerely, /John W. Walker y JWH: krd cc\nAnn BrownFRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H, FRIDAY (1922-1994) ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 November 21, 1995 RECEIVED KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. CLYDE\"TAB* TURNER, P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H, TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY,JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY NOV 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation wioniioring COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (50n 370-1553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street 72206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL Sc STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol Sc Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the LRSD's 1995-96 First Quarter Status Report which was filed with the Court on Tuesday, November 21, 1995. I'n By agreement, three copies of the above documents are being delivered to Mrs. Brown and two copies are being delivered to Mr. Walker. diaiH\\pcss\u0026lt;I\\filing4.ltrGentlemen and Mrs. Brown November 21, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM/dtw Enclosures cc (w/enc): Dr. Henry P. Williams Dr. Russ Mayo Dr. Ed Jackson diana\\pcssd\\filing-4.)U'FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION district court eastern district ARKANSAS KOV 2 f MS JAMES VJ. McCORMACK, CLERK By\n__________ DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVFO DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV ? 1 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS VS . LRSDs 1995-96 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Status Report for the first quarter of the 1995-96 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Volumes I and II) is a true and accurate copy of the District's First Quarter Status Report of Desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's First Quarter Status Report of Non-desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Desegregation and Non-desegregation Status Reports for the first dianaXpcssdisuius. 1st -1-quarter of the 1995-96 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT erry L. Malorie Bar I. D. No. 85096 diana\\pcs5d\\sanis. 1st -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's First Quarter Status Report for the 1995-96 school year has been hand-delivered on November , 1995, upon the following\nMr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets 2^' diana\\pcssd\\satus. Isi Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street _____ Little Rock, AR 722 ry L. Malone -3- ^6^ A a 6\u0026lt;r f\\loy* Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court \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_355","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/355"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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\nB5030602 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney fiM Oiirr,pl\n4C- ocr/i Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List As you requested, I am sending you a copy of the latest revision to the brainstorming list. The attached copy is up to date as of today, March 6, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of the week. Copy to: Ann Brown//i'll Date: March 6, 1995 To: Judy Magness From: Subject: Court Orders ?Vy.\u0026lt;4nn Brown In Judge Wrights most recent order (regarding the LRSD budget and the March 24,1995 hearing), she referred to two previous orders, one dated December 30,1992 and the other August 26,1993. Since both of those orders pre-date your election to the LRSD Board, I thought you would want to read them for yourself. So here they are. Ive also sent them to Linda Pondexter because, since she hasnt been on the board too long, I wasnt sure whether she was aware of them. Both of these orders are very important documents which LRSD administrators should have taken into account (along with the desegregation plan and other court orders) as they considered proposals for initial budget cuts and business cases. The mandates contained in these orders should have been included in the LRSD audits which the district has filed with the court. (I know that the importance of the McClellan Advisory Committee is in the October 25, 1993 LRSD audit.) These audits, for which Russ Mayo is responsible, are the means by which the district is to stay on top of court orders and other desegregation directives. The audits are to be accurate, accruing catalogues of desegregation obligations culled from the desegregation plans, hearings, ODM reports, and court orders from month to month. It does not take a lawyer to either do or keep up with the audits. (In my office, the assistant office manager keeps our audits current\nI set the expectation and model for these audits being used as part of our daily life at ODM.) A histoiy of good faith on the part of the LRSD is crucial to \"getting out of court.\" When the district gives even the appearance of willfully disregarding Court orders, good faith goes down the drain. Also, ignoring the plan or Court orders invariably results in wasted time and embarrassment for the LRSD. And, because John Walker currently has a motion before the Court to hold the LRSD in contempt for failing to follow the desegregation plans and court orders, sanctions against the district could also result./r/. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 March 9, 1995 Mr. John Riggs, IV J.A. Riggs Tractor Company P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear John: Thank you for your fax, which I received this morning while I was in my office. I appreciate your suggestion for convening a committee to help name experts and issues to address in future hearings on desegregation progress. However, Judge Wright has been very clear that she does not envision anything that approaches a public referendum on the desegregation plans. Since you were in the courtroom this morning, you probably heard the Judge's response to Mrs. Hendrix's inquiry regarding public input. While citizens are free to call me to talk over concerns and suggestions, or to communicate their ideas to counsel, I will follow the procedures for identifying potential witnesses that Judge Wright outlined this morning. Sincerely yours, lA Ann S. Brown i_i\\bD ur I \nUt-r K , j0: H01 riAR 14 \"95 11:24  i!\u0026gt; \u0026gt; 3 Little Rock School District 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 SUPERINTEP4DENTS OFTICE FAX (501) 324-2146 DATE TO FROM SENDERS PHONE # SUBJECT SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: No. of pages (including cover page) Fax Phone No. OlPQ Speed Dial IT School Bale Bradv Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Geyer Springs (Resubmitted) Jefferson Meadowciiff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry Watson Western Hills Woodruff FOCUSED ACTIVITIES 1995-96 Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded November 22 October 6 September 8 (1st) February 1 (2nd) ( December 8 January 17 February 7 February 10 December 6 (1st) January 17 (2nd) October 18 October 3 September 2 (Isi) October 4 (2nd) March 2 February 2 (2nd) December 13 (1st) January 9 (2nd) February 9 December 12 November 28 October 17 February 13 December 12 January 23 February 20 February 13 December 12 February 20 October 31 October 31 October 31 March 6 February 6 January 23 February 20 December 19 510,000 510,000 510,000 I 510,000 $8,700 (partial) 58,886 (partial) I 510,000 57.070 (partial) 52.852 I 510,000 510,000 510,000 57,900 (partial) 510,000_________ 55,102.20 (partial) 52,686 (partial) 510,000 TOTAL: $135,296.20ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT - SECONDARY 1995-96 School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Central Hall Pulasld Hgts. January 25 January 9 March 2 January 30 January 9 March 6 $10,000 $10,000 $1,700 (partial) TOTAL: $21,700 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCEimVE GRAxNT - ELEMENTARY School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Bale Brady Pulaski Hgts. Watson Woodruff February 14 February 14 February 22 February 27 February 14 February 20 February 20 February 27 March 6 February 20 $5,000 $5,000 $600 (partial) $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL: $20,600Little Rock School District RECEIVED To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Ann Brown Russ Mayo March 21,1995 Memorandum of March 10,1995 MAR 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring I have researched questions from your March 10 memorandum. The subject of that memorandum was the Report to Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Districtwide Recruitment Plan, November 11,1994. Unfortunately, the author of that document, Jearmette Wagner, is no longer with us. So my answers are limited. I was told by Dina Teague, Communications Specialist, that Jeannette prepared and sent this document to you as stated in my earlier response. I am uncomfortable to learn that you did not receive it. Considering the date of the document, this was the period of time when Jearmette was about to take another position outside of the school district. Dina was attempting to carry much of the responsibility until a replacement for Jearmette was found. Notice the date of the attached memorandum about Becky Rather assuming districtwide recruitment responsibilities. This was during this same time period. Nothing has changed from this memorandum. Becky is responsible still for districtwide recruitment. While I did not see this document until it was sent to you recently, I am aware that the table, LRSD Recruitment Needed by School, reflects inconsistencies. I am uncertain as to why. I do remember a discussion that concluded with the + sign meaning that additional students could be recruited beyond the number given. As I understood the discussion, the number itself is the minimum necessary to achieve balance. Had I been aware that you did not receive this document in November, I would have requested a revision with updated numbers and accurate listings. I note the two day difference in dates on the survey cards, as you have. I can not be certain about why the difference exists. As you probably know, a date like that on the survey card usually reflects the computer print date and helps us know the latest revision. Occasionally, I type documents, with attachments, dated the day I type them. I ask others to review the document. That can take several days. If 1 revise an attachment, I may not change the date of the document. Thus, the revision date and the date of the document may be different. Attch: (1) C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, SuperintendentLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM T o: Becky Rather, Coordinator of Parent Recruitment From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: November 20,1994 Subject: District-Wide Recruitment Responsibilities Attachment / As you may know by now, Jeanette Wagner has resigned as Director of Communications. Her last day will be November 30. Though the position is advertised, time will be required to interview and acclimate the new person. Currently, we are estimating that the new person will join us no later than January 16. Unfortunately, that person will begin in the middle of the busiest part of our recruitment season. Once in the position, that person will need time to learn policies and procedures of the district. Dina Teague will assume temporarily the responsibilities of the communications department and have no responsibility for recruitment beyond assisting in having materials printed. As a result, 1 am asking you to take full responsibility for implementing the LRSD District-Wide Recruitment Plan beginning immediately until further notice. You have the experience and were involved in writing the plan. Please include in your responsibilities the revising and writing of all printed materials noted in the plan. 1 suggest that you establish a tickler system for reminding you of what must be done when. 1 suggest also that you meet with Jeanette before she leaves to make the transition as smooth as possible. The recruitment plan is specific about when things are to be done. Please let me review anything you write or revise that will be sent to district employees or to our patrons. This includes any memoranda. One responsibility not in the recruitment plan is the bimonthly updating of the Bi-Racial Committee on incentive school recruitment. The next update is due at the January 10 meeting. Meetings are held the first Tuesday of the month, except January. With your experience in communications and in recruitment, 1 am confident that we can continue executing our recruitment plan without missing a step. Let me know if you meet obstacles or need me to speak to the topic in principals meetings, council meetings, etc. Deana Keathley will schedule a meeting soon which will include you and Dina Teague. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss recruitment and communication concerns during the transition period. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Council Dina Teague, Communications Assistant Ann Brown, Monitor Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyCo^T'plc^t A  FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRV. P.A. FREDERICK S. UR8ERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3493 JAMES C. CLARK. iR THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL S. BENHAM IM. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKtIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON 11. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ml. P.A. TELEPHONE 601-376*201 1 FAX NO. 601*376*2147 March 23, 1995 7.1 |995 Office of Desesresaton\nv!cfiorjng KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR.. P CLYDE *TA8* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR.. P HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY O. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY COUNBEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A B.8. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P.A. VRITIR** DIRECT NO. (6011 370-1606 \\ Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL and STREETT 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Counsel: I have enclosed for your consideration some proposed modifications or refinements to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. The LRSD desegregation office has conducted an initial review and analysis of these proposals. Please review these proposals so that we may have the benefit of your responses before the desegregation office makes a final recommendation to the superintendent. I request that each party provide a written or verbal response to these proposals within two weeks. Please let me know if that will not be possible. I will be happy to meet with any of you or ail of you and to provide any additional information that may be helpful to your review of these proposals. You: Christ' er eller CJH/kEnc cc: Ann Brown Dr. Henry P. Williams Dr. Russ Mayo05032302 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Fred Smith From: Bill Mooney AM Subject: Finance Analysis Model We both know that the financial situation of the district makes sound decision-making critical to the future. As resources become increasingly strained, decision-makers operate with less margin for error. The chance of making a good decision is increased by having useful information readily available. The main purpose of the Program Budget Document is to link program accomplishments with program expenditures so we would have better information to guide the district. We must always seek better ways of collecting data and analyzing it into useful information. One of the better ways might be the Finance Analysis Model. I want to share the attached pamphlet with you, and get your thoughts into further investigation of this model. Since the model is PC-based, it could probably run in our existing environment. Such a tool might assist the administration, Board, and community in making better decisions. The model has something of a history around Little Rock. Last year, Ann Brown and I encouraged Gene Wilhoit to look into using the models forerunner, the Micro-Finance Model, statewide. Additionally, one of the authors of the model, Sheree Speakman, was the lead person on the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand study conducted for the district. I would bet she used some of her experience from that project as material for the model. Please read the pamphlet, then let me know what you think. I will be glad to help you in any way I can. Copy to: Ann Brown Hank Williamsc.c: 'ia/ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date\nMarch 27, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject: m Brown Information on Board Retreats I noticed in both the January and Februaiy Project Management Tools that the district had reported the outcomes of the Board retreat held on January 24, 1995. I would appreciate your sending me a copy of that report. Also, I read that you had determined the need for an additional Board retreat, but I havent heard whether any date had been set. Will there be another retreat during this budget cycle? If so, when? Thanks for the information.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: March 30, 1995 To: From: Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services Little Rock School District oily Ramer, Office Manager I- Through: ^V.Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor Subject: ODMs 1994-95 Budget Attached is a copy of ODMs 1994-95 budget and the court orders adopting that budget. You will note on page two of the annotated budget that LRSDs share, after the 1993-94 credit, is $175,061.00. Our records indicate that from July 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995, ODM salaries paid through the district have totaled $304,379.56, resulting in $129,318.56 more than LRSDs portion of our 1994-95 budget. Enclosed you will find a check to reimburse the district for that amount. Hereafter, by the 15th of each month, beginning in April, you wiU receive a check to reimburse ODMs salaries for the previous month. When LRSDs 1994-95 books are closed, please send me a year-to-date print-out of each ODM employees salary, social security taxes, and benefits. For your information, I am including a breakdown of the enclosed check: Salaries FICA Insurance Total Regular Payroll 278,105.50 18,101.54 4,702.89 300,909.93 Supplemental Payroll 3,223.06 246.57 -0- 3,469.63 Total 281,328.56 18,348.11 4,702.89 304,379.56 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you.f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation TO: Ms. Estelle Mattliis, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mr. Dennis Snider, Assistant Superintendent, Secondaiy Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources i/Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney RECEh^SD fromO La^' r. Robert Glowers, Director APR 7 1995 RE: Chapter 1 Information for Secondary Schools from School Profiles Oificu oi Dosenropalion MQinicriiig DATE: April 6, 1995 Enclosed is the Chapter 1 enrollment information for those LRSD secondary schools that have Chapter 1. (Some secondary schools do not have Chapter 1 programs). As you may recall. Chapter 1 information for secondary schools was not available on February 20, 1995, when the school profiles for the second semester were provided to you. This data is current as of the printing date of March 17, 1995. As you know, the enrollment for these programs is constantly changing, and updates are made periodically as the information becomes available from the schools. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith at 324-2120. RLC:pjs Enclosure cc\nDr. Henry P. Williams SchoPr_2.Doc01 LRSD GIFTED , CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL\n007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 38 50 39 77 5 3 212 41.5% Chapter 1 Reading 78 49 6 3 1 0 137 92.7%01 LRSD GIFTED f, CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 34 65 22 15 0 2 138 71.7% Chapter 1 Reading 58 55 2 5 0 0 120 94.2%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 36 51 69 85 3 0 244 35.7% Chapter 1 Reading 72 54 4 0 0 0 130 96.9%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: Oil SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Female Male Total Female Count % Black G1fted/Talented 30 37 4 10 2 0 83 80.7% Chapter 1 Reading 45 55 5 2 3 3 113 88.5%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Diack White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi fted/Talented 62 73 34 31 3 4 207 65.2% Chapter 1 Reading 77 55 3 0 1 0 136 97 . 1%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gif ted/Talented 21 35 9 2 0 0 67 83.6% Chapter 1 Reading 07 60 11 5 0 0 171 90.6%LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE Date: To: From: Re: 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 March 30, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Henry P. J^ni^nl^p^^nifeident Requested Information WKS. /SD APR 3 1995 Office Ct Desssi .ng This is in response to your request for information, dated March 27,1995. The board retreat conducted on January 24,1995, was for the purpose of improving internal board relationships. There were no minutes taken and all board members agreed that the session should be conducted in confidentiality. A reporter from the newspaper attended the meeting for a short time early in the day, but excused herself from the meeting because of the sensitive nature of the planned discussion. There is, therefore, no report. A follow-up to this retreat is tentatively scheduled for April 29, 1995. If the decision is made to hold this session, we will let you know as soon as the plans are final. Im sure the board will also be conducting worksessions as we follow through with this years budgeting process. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.Little Rock School District Board Retreat January 24,1995 Sponsored by New Futures for Little Rock Youth Facilitated by Center for Leadership in School Reform Phillip Schlechty, President Marty Vowels, Vice President Agenda Anticipated Outcomes:  The superintendent and the board will have reviewed present operations and, where appropriate, made changes in those operations.  The superintendent and the board will have increased their understanding of the nature of the issues the board must address in the future.  The superintendent and the board will have developed strategies for dealing with those issues.  The superintendent and the board will establish a framework to assist the board in making the tough decisions it will face. 11:00 a.m.. Welcome and Overview Framing the Roles of School Boards and Superintendents Individual Assessment of Board Operations 12:30 p.m. Lunch Group Analysis of the Assessment Establishing a Framework for Operations and Decision Making ) 6:00 p.m. Next Steps 6:30 p.m. Adjournment Center for Leadership in School Reform 1.19-95 lr-ioOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 12, 1995 To: Sterling Ingram, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 3s. From: Melissa Guldia,' lociate Monitor Subject: Job Descriptions for Instructional Aides On April 10, 1995, you testified in District Court that the LRSD had prepared a job description for the position of instructional aide several years ago. Could you please send me a copy of that job description, as well as those you may have for other types of aides such as: supervision. Writing to Read, computer, and the like? Please forward that information to me by Friday, April 21, 1995. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Fl i jj Ac 1 a 1995 LmuE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OffiCS or DeScCJi'tQSij: April 13, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: In John Walkers parting remarks in court Monday, he suggested that we were moving toward segregated staffs and were out of compliance with the racial balance of two of the districts departments\nthe student assignment office and information services. Since his allegations were not refuted in court, I want to offer the following information as evidence of how carefully we are balancing the administrative services of the district STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION TOTAL V/ TOTAL I tvicriitOMiK^ B W B Student Assignment Coordinator Information Management Coordinator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parent Recruiter 2 2 1 1 2 Student Assignment Assistant 4 1 5 3 2 5 Secretary 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 4 6 10 5 5 10 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (501) 334-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 INFORMATION SERVICES 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION B W TOTAL B W TOTAL Manager - Systems Development Manager - Computer Operations Computer Electronics Technician Computer Operator Programmer Analyst Systems Analyst Training Coordinator Secretary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 6 6 12 7 5 12 If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools \u0026amp; 1 Lrio APR i 8 19'^5 \u0026lt; OUice of iDesogrbgaiicn \u0026lt; - LriTLE Rock School Disraicr OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: J Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to \"intrigue\" the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is \"unwilling or unable\" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc\nChris Heller John Walker1 /'j .7 c-r- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 18, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Brown Subject: Registration Figures According to your March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update to the Board of Directors, all student assignment letters were scheduled for mailing by April 17, 1995. Since that date has now passed, please immediately forward to me the following information, current to date: 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. 4. The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. 6. Tlie extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96.) In addition, Id appreciate your clearing up some confusing information that appears on page two of the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update. Item #1 reads. 'Two years ago by this time, about 1,200 Idndergartners registered. Last year, it was 1,400, and this year it is 1,490. We are doing a better job with advertising pre-registration...\" Yet, the chart immediately following does not reflect the narrative numbers for 1994-95, so the initial impression the table gives is that kindergarten registration is considerably below that of last year. Perhaps the chart mixes the final first-day total kindergarten enrollment for 1994-95 with the preliminary February registration numbers for 1995-96? Please explain.Page Two April 18. 1995 Also on the same page in the Update, the chart depicting four-year-old applications for the 1995- 96 school year does not contain a comparison to 1994-95 numbers from a similar time during last years recruitment period. Therefore, please provide me the total number of black children and white children who had applied for the four-year-old program for the 1994-95 school year at the conclusion of the pre-registration period last year (or at the date which most closely corresponds to the date of the four-year-old information in the Update. Please designate the date of the preliminary 1994-95 numbers as well as those for 1995-96.) Thank you very much.APR 2 0 1995 0ffic3 of Desegreqsiion ivicn'i log LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: April 19, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Offtce of Desegrega^on Monitoring From: He! .ms,^Liperintendent Re: ODM Correspond^ce 3 On a number of occasions you and members of your staff have corresponded directly with employees and staff of the LRSD. While you, as the monitoring arm of the court, have the right to request information from people who work directly for me, I would appreciate the courtesy of receiving copies of all written communications and requests for information directed to my staff unless they are of a personal nature. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 24, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: ODM Correspondence Ive received your memo of April 19, 1995, in which you ask that my staff and 1 send you copies of all written communications sent from ODM to your staff. Perhaps youre unaware that, in a September 8, 1993 Order, the Court addressed the topic of communication between ODM and the LRSD. That Order was prompted by actions of other LRSD superintendents tliat, like your recent request, were intended to control ODMs communication process. The Order observes that \"free, open, and prompt communication and information-sharing is essential to the monitoring process for which this Court is responsible,\" and then emphasizes that the Court will \"not tolerate any funneling of information through a central office, either in receiving requests from ODM or in forwarding responses to ODM.\" 1 consider copies to your central office to be a form of fiinneling. If you're experiencing communication difficulties with your staff, 1 suggest that you find a solution for those problems within your own organization instead of mine. 1 will not place an additional paperwork burden on my staff by asking them to copy you on ODM correspondence. However, you are certainly free to require your-'own staff to send you copies of any correspondence they receive from ODM.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 1995 mi Date: May 2, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor I From: Heni4 C- WillBi\\qs^ \u0026lt;/ u^rintendent Re: ODM Correspondence I In response to your memorandum of April 24, I would like to provide the following comment. No one is asking you to do any \"funnelling.\" All I asked was for a courtesy copy of correspondence (such as you have forwarded to select board members) that is forwarded to my staff. What is wrong with that? My communications problem is not with my staff, but rather with those who seek to manage and not monitor.n APR 2 0 1995 ffica of OesegregoGon ivton-\no\ning LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: April 19, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegrega^on Monitoring From: ffice T P. ms. uperintendent Re: ODM Correspond^ce H On a number of occasions you and members of your staff have corresponded directly with employees and staff of the LRSD. While you, as the monitoring arm of the court, have the right to request information from people who work directly for me, I would appreciate the courtesy of receiving copies of all written communications and requests for information directed to my staff unless they are of a personal nature. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Stales District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 3710100 Date: April 21, 1995 To: Sterling Ingram From: /'^^nn Brown Subject: job Descriptions for Aides Tlirough my associate, Melissa Guldin, 1 have received your response to her request to forward to us the job descriptions for aides, which you recently testified had been prepared several years ago. I see that what you sent us are various job announcements for aide positions, which the district posts as a means of publishing job openings. You noted that the district didnt have any job announcement on file for a Writing to Read aide. However, our request was not for job announcements, but for the job descriptions you testified about in court earlier tliis month. In some of our monitoring reports, we have noted the lack of job descriptions for aides, and recommended that the district develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for all instructional and supervision aides. We have observed that such descriptions would be especially useful at the building level, not only to help delineate job responsibilities during the hiring, orientation, and training process, but also as the basis for performance evaluations and developing professional growth plans. It was this recommendation for developing such job descriptions that Judge Wright was referring to when she asked you .about job descriptions during the hearing. So, please sent us the written job descriptions for aides. Tliank you very much.OF  Gat April 24, 1995 fj 1*1 MAY 1 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rode Public Schools 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 3\u0026amp;3 of DessgregaiiCT Monitoring REF\nMrs. Diane Barksdale Dear Dr. Williams\nThank you for allowing us to address you with our recommendation of Mrs. Diane Barksdale, the interim Principal, at Carver Magnet School. We began tins year with mixed emotions as we had on board all new office staff. We appreciated your letting Mrs. Barksdale have the internship and this year to show all of us and yourselves that her qualifications were not mere words on paper but words in action. We have found her easy to work with, attuned to all situations and always ready with solutions to problems that have worked. She has always made hersdf available to us and is more than willing to meet with different committees during school or afterwards. We have not had any instances that we have called upon her that she matte us fed she didn't have the time to consult with us. We feel our school in its excellence has progressed under her leadership. That we have not only survived the change of leadership we have made excellent progress in the same direction in winch we had previously been led. We, as the Patent Teacher Association Executive Board, give her a standing ovation as wdl as a hardy well done. We further solicit your approval to appoint her our permanent replacement this coming year. Mrs. Barksdale has a heart for Carver and fbr it's students andfiKuIty. We feel that we are the Best in the State and are led by the best...Thank you for approving her as our new Principal, we remain Sincerdy, PTA Executive Board George Washii^on Carver Magnet School CC\nL.R. School Board Magnet Review Assistant Superintendents Office of Desegregation MonitoringOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 24. 1995 To: Hank Williams From: m Brown Subject: ODM Correspondence Ive received your memo of April 19, 1995, in which you ask that my staff and I send you copies of all written communications sent from ODM to your staff. Perhaps youre unaware that, in a September 8, 1993 Order, the Court addressed the topic of communication between ODM and the LRSD. That Order was prompted by actions of other LRSD superintendents that, like your recent request, were intended to control ODMs communication process. The Order observes that \"free, open, and prompt communication and information-sharing is essential to the monitoring process for which this Court is responsible,\" and then emphasizes that the Court will \"not tolerate any funneling of information through a central office, either in receiving requests from ODM or in forwarding responses to ODM.\" 1 consider copies to your central office to be a form of funneling. If youre experiencing communication difficulties with your staff, 1 suggest that you find a solution for those problems within your own organization instead of mine. 1 will not place an additional paperwork burden on my staff by asking them to copy you on ODM correspondence. However, you are certainly free to require your-'own staff to send you copies of any correspondence they receive from ODM. ^cc: (2^1,5Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 28, 1995 To: From: Linda Pondexter and Judy Magness in Brown Subject: Business case guidelines At last nights board meeting, I was puzzled by questions and comments that arose about business cases. If I understood correctly, your discussion was whether or not the board should expect to see business cases in conjunction with certain programmatic and position changes that are proposed during the budgeting process. For quite some time now, the Court has routinely required business cases for all programmatic and position changes. Tliat requirement has been clearly specified in several Court Orders. Long-term board members will recall that the district requested assistance from ODM in developing the business case process as one of five short-term district projects in the spring of 1993. Furthermore, die district has led the Court to believe that business cases are a decision-making tool that have been institutionalized within the LRSD. For example. Im enclosing a handout which was developed by district administrators and distributed to employees during the December 6 and 8, 1994 sessions which the district held to train its budget managers in the program planning and budgeting process. Participants were given guidelines that all employees were to follow in using business cases as an integral part of decision-making and planning. When leaders set the expectation that employees will follow certain procedures, it is incumbent upon those leaders to set an example by following those procedures as well. 1 want to stress that the Court requires business cases not as a written exercise in a fill-in-the- blanks format. Rather, business cases represent discipline, thoroughness, and quality in guiding the decision-making process before decisions are made\nthey are not designed to serve as rationalization or justification after decisions are made. The real issue wrapped within the context of business cases is the execution of decision-making in the Little Rock School District. Its also important to keep in mind the link between decision-making, accountability, and public confidence. Solidly-built business cases can do important work for the district they can help the community understand the problems and constraints you face, and they can also demonstrate the level of care and skill you devote to making the decisions that affect so many. Business cases can be an open, honest, and easy way to let the community know-before decisions are final-what changes you are considering. Such openness can help the district avoid even a hint that publicly- accountable officials are making decisions in a clandestine manner.Page Two April 28, 1995 Sure, developing business cases takes time, but time invested in solid decision-making will not only pay off in planning and management terms, but will yield a bonus in public trust. After all, the desegregation plan promises that the district will refrain from springing surprises and that it will work to build a strong, trusting relationship with both its internal and external publics. 1 know that both of you understand how vital that relationship is. If the board should decide to ask the community to support a millage increase, the success of that campaign will doubtlessly be determined by the extent to which the public believes in the dependability, credibility, and integrity of its leadership. Enc. CC: Hank Williamsn^^C^iS t43K.KSH0f^^ In general, a Business Case should be developed when one or more of the following condition(s) exist: Position Changes or Additions  Addition of a position  Deletion of a position  Modification of a position (i.e., when changes in job function are substantial) Monetary Amounts  Any change for a dollar amount exceeding 525,000 Program Changes  Major program changes in philosophy, direction, etc. Superintendents Directive  Business case(s) as directed by the Superintendent bus^reql.docODM MONITORING REPORTS AND FILINGS 6/5/92 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report 7/31/92 Monitoring Report on the 91-92 LRSD Four-Year-Old Program 10/8/92 Status Report: LRSD's McClellan High School Business/Communications Magnet Program 11/16/92 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees 12/18/92 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 2/26/93 Monitoring Report: NLRHS - West Campus 1992-93 Spirit Teams Recruitment and Selection Process 7/19/93 Monitoring Report: PCSSD School Racial Balance 12/9/93 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report 1/12/94 1993-94 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 9/6/94 Monitoring Report: Involvement in the 1994-95 Principal Selection Process in the LRSD 12/1/94 Letter from Ann Brown to Judge Wright with attached revised business case for the Director of Student Assignment 12/21/94 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report ^12/22/94 Monitoring Report: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants in the LRSD 1/19/95 Letter from Ann Brown to Judge Wright with attached 1994-95 MRC budget \u0026gt;^5/17/95 1994-95 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report ^/26/95 Monitoring Report: 1994-95 Four-Year-Old Program in the LRSD 6121/95 Status Report on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD Z'V15/95 Status Report on Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers in the LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 9/20/95 Replacement of Portable Classroom Buildings in the PCSSD Cf- O - o 1^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT T X   DATE: January 5, 1995 TO: Bill Mooney, Office of Desegregation Monitoring JAN 1 5 1995 FROM: r, Robert Glowers, Director Office of Desegregation .Moniiorinc RE: Desegregation/Non-Desegregation Extended Program Evaluations Below is a listing of the Desegregation/Non-Desegregation programs that were selected for an extended evaluation. They are listed by program sequence number and program names. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. SEQ # Program Name 4-Year-Old SEQ # 15 14 ~3~ 227 2^ 24/23 33 231 07 207 213 215 01 228 Academic Incentive Academic Support Communication Services Computerized Transportation Contingencies Data Processing Facilities Family Life/New Futures Federal Programs Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Health Services HIPPY Human Resource Services 13 226 222 223 224 79 78 25/225 203 05 ~2i 204 08 Program Name McClellan Community School New Futures Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Plant Services Pupil Transport Purchasing Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Romine Interdistrict School Safety and Security Services Special Education Special Education/Learning Staff Development Vocational Education Vocational EducationLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Principals From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent ^4^ Date: January 6,1995 Subject: LRSD 1995-96 Pre-Registration JAN 9 1994 Clbca of Deseci LRSD 1995-96 PRE-REGISTRATION TIMELINE DATE JANUARY 23-31 JANUARY 23 JANUARY 24 JANUARY 25 JANUARY 30 JANUARY 31 FEBRUARY 6-17 EVENT MAISCH 17 MARCH 27 - JUNEl MARCH 27- APRIL 7 APRIL 3 APRIL 17 \"Check Us Out' Week at LRSD Elementary Schools Open House - Incentive/Interdistrict Schools_______________ Open House - Elementary Magnet Schools_________________ Open House - Secondary Magnet Schools__________________ Open House - Elementary Area Schools___________________ Open House - Secondary Area Schools____________________ PRE-REGISTRATION at all schools and LRSD Student Assignment Office____________________________________ Assignment notification letters mailed for students in grades K-12_________________________________________________ Pre-Registration continues at Area Schools TIME 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. JUNE 2- JULY 21 Desegregation Transfer applications (Secondary students) accepted in Student Assignment Office____________________ Assignment notification letters mailed for 4 year old students Assignment notification letters mailed for secondary Desegregation Transfer applicants________________________ Summer registration at LRSD Student Assignment Office 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. FS[JOB r^. * \"Check Us Out \" Week is a time we have set aside encouraging prospective patrons to tour our elementary schools during school hours. C\nSuperintendent s Council Office of Desegregation Monitoring North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors Chris Heller I asatssssss^ .iKafii't!!g^ j^anfAt LrrTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 6, 1995 Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann, JAN 1 1 1995 OHice of Deseg! As a follow up to my letter of November 11, 1994 regarding the Beacons additional inforaation Initiative, for attachments\n1) you I in am the providing following Little Rock City Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative and, 2) Little Rock School District Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative. Both the city board and the school board voted unanimously to support the respective resolutions. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Sincerely, Henirryy PP.. WW\nillies, Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 Art lAtf .-s Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: January 10, 1995 C To: From: Subject: Pat Price, Early Childhood Education Coordinator Little Rock School District Melissa Guldin,\"Associate Monitor Monitoring Visits to Classes for Four-Year-Olds As you know, early childhood education is an area of great emphasis and importance in the LRSD desegregation plan. This school year marks the first time that the district has operated the full complement of early childhood classes. In order to monitor the program for four-year-olds, we will be visiting a number of early childhood classes. These drop-in visits will be informal, lasting no more than thirty minutes or so. During each visit, we will note areas such as curriculum and instruction, staffing, class size, racial balance, materials and equipment, facilities, and outdoor play areas. I am not publishing a schedule of visitations, but schools may expect a drop-in visit anytime after January 16, 1995. Monitors will not require any special documentation or an interview with the principal or teacher(s). As always, monitors will check in with the office staff before going to classrooms. In addition, we will conduct an exit interview, if the principal requests one. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this monitoring, please contact me. Thank you. cc: Dr. Hank Williams Estelle MatthisRE- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PUPIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT JAW 1 6 1995 To: From: January 17, 1995 Safety and Security Task Force Jo Evelyn Elstdn/^irector, Pupil Services Oifice Of Morhjor.iiig Enclosed is a \"clean copy of the Safety and Security Task Force Recommendations Checklist that we reviewed at our January 4, 1995 meeting. refine the draft. Thank you for your comments and suggestions in helping to I will be presenting this information to our Board of Directors at the January 25, 1995 regular board meeting. You are all invited and encouraged to attend. Your support would be appreciated. Thank you again for agreeing to continue to serve on the Task Force. Your commitment to the District and our children sincerely appreciated. is We agreed to meet guarterly. Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 1995, 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom. We hope you can make the January 25th Board meeting. JEE/mab\n:c: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 SAFETY AND SECURITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST January 12, 1995 A. D. IMPLEMENTED B. PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION NOT IMPLEMENTED [ C. DEFERRED DOE TO BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS 1. Implement a standardized Violence Prevention curriculum in all schools. 2 . Establish Peer Mediation Program in all schools. Violence Prevention Curriculun Conflict Mediation C D B D A B C A z Central z Z Fair Z z Hall Z Z McClellan Z z Parkview Z z Cloverdale J.H. Z Z Dunbar Z Z Forest Heights Z z Henderson Z Mabelvale J.H. Z Z Mann Magnet Z z Pulaski Heights z J.H. z Southwest Z Z Badgett Z Z Bale Z z Baseline Z z Booker zA B C D A B C D X Brady X X Carver X X Chicot/Ish X X Cloverdale X X Dodd X X Fair Park X X Forest Park X X Franklin X X Fulbright X X Garland X X Geyer Springs X X Gibbs X X Jefferson X X King X X Mabelvale X X McDernott X X Meadowcliff X X Mitchell X X otter Creek X X Pulaski Heights X X Rightsell X X Rockefeller X X Romine X X Terry X X Wakefield X X Washington X X Watson X X Western Hills X X Williams Magnet X X Wilson X X Woodruff X -2-IT ir A A I 3 J . Provide 1g JG event ion and A I 3 D Confli staff. t Mediation Training to a 11 --r X I --r 3 3 5. C D X X C X j * D 3 C D X 1 Educate and Sensitize all Teachers and Staff to the correlation between students being fully engaged in a positive educational experience and the low incidence of those students becoming involved in violent or disruptive school behavior. Provide Conflict Resolution Training to parents and students involved in violent or disruptive behavior. a. Require students involved in weapons violations and who commit acts of violence resulting in a L.T. suspens ion/expu Is ion to attend conflict resolution training as a condition reinstatement. b. Teach conflict resolution skills t for to all students assigned to in-school suspension because of physica**. verbally aggressive benavior. 6. Expand the District's Alternative School Program to provide a variety of educational options to meet the Educational, Personal/Social and Career needs of At-Risk Students. 7. Locate and utilize additional community resources. Designate one person in the District to be responsible for developing a comprehensive directory of community resources and serve 3s indistrict contact for referral assistance to Little Rock School District staff. -3-5 I:' ii T ! T -cc DI 11 co sccondarv I r 1554-95 II I li li school vear and to all eemen extent ary chools to the 3 D 5 . ir li ir T n I I r I I II i: 1! Il Prov Staf trail ie Violence Prevention Development and to all ittle Rook School District employees. A 8 D ! ! X ! li p I i I II 10. Strenpthen Parental Ivenent in the schools. 8 D n 11. ' X I T A I I Create and maintain an ongoing Safety and Security Task Force. 3 h I.. I X I i + I A 3 h X I I  I D I I |l I D I 1 -4- 12. Enhance school bus safety. Utilize transportation department security personnel to make random scans on school buses. 13. Develop safe school plans distrcctwide.A B X I I I X i) A B C D a. i I i X b. c. X I X d. e. f. X X X . De 1 t f.1 . ~p]eneat or d i n po i Hid n.indatc-\nn 11 1 A. Request Li Department tie Roch Pc lice to enforce loitering law round school canpuses. B. Request Alert Center assigned police officer be allowed to monitor school grounds in areas where Alert Centers and schools are in close proximity. 15. Establish \"Target Hardening Procedures\". a. Selective fencing around school campus area. b. Locked doors. c. Rearrangement of existing facilities for better security. d. Use of cameras \u0026amp; mirrors. e. Safe environment design for new or remodeled facilities. f. Trimming of large shrubbery and trees to limit hiding places. A B C D X 1 16. Enhance Metal Scanning Procedure. B C D X 17. Study the feasibility and advisability of school uniforms. -5-Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 17, 1995 To: Hank Williams n From: /-^J^Ann Brown Subject Information Request Thanks for bringing us up-to-date on some of the districts activities in todays joint staff meeting. We share your concerns about the budgeting process and the tough decisions that will be necessary to align the budget with declining revenues. Weve received copies of the needs assessment which the district recently completed, but we would like the folloAving information so we can keep current: 1. All of the extended evaluations. 2. All of the business cases which have been submitted so far, and others as they are submitted. 3. A copy of the status chart on the facilities study which Russ referred to this morning. Thanks very much for your assistance.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 3710100 c January 18, 1995 Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Russ: When I attended the December meeting of the LRSD Board of Directors, I was pleased that you have revived the practice of a monthly desegregation update. It is important that the board members be well informed regarding desegregation issues. I noticed that your oral report was accompanied by a rather weighty packet of written information. Would you please furnish me a copy of that packet and any other written updates you provide to the Board in the future? By receiving copies of these monthly updates, our office can keep abreast of the districts progress towards meeting its desegregation goals. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor MH Little Rock School District OFFICE OF TKE SUPERINTENDENT 4^ January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Offics of Dsc\nLittle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham. Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street 11 a I I I a Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Page 2 Feel free to invite other members of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to make your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. illicims Superintendent of Schools Leser- fe- -- *,Su Ltitle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT REcsnz.?^ January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring ffics tj! 2C1 Eai Little Rock, AR Markham, Suite 510 72201 4 \u0026lt; Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. Building, 810 West Markham. in the Board Room of the Administration Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000Page 2 Feel free to invite other members of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to meike your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. illiams Superintendent of Schools -i'  Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOD 371-0100 Date: January 25, 1995 C.om 4o To: Rudolph Howard, Principal, Little Rock Central High School schowU I From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Central High School International Studies Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 25,1995 To: Nancy Acre, Principal, Dunbar Magnet Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: January 25,1995 To: Jodie Carter, Principal, McClellan High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the McClellan High School Business/Communications Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 Date: January 25,1995 To: James Washington, Principal, Henderson Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Henderson Junior High School Health Science Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: January 25, 1995 To: Rudolph Howard, Principal, Little Rock Central High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Central High School International Studies Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 25, 1995 To: Nancy Acre, Principal, Dunbar Magnet Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since e programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 25, 1995 To: Jodie Carter, Principal, McClellan High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the McClellan High School Business/ Communications Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 25,1995 To: James Washington, Principal, Henderson Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Henderson Junior High School Health Science Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested  For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification.  For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level.  1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach.  Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings.  Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Cc: i =/ R' JiN 3 0 Ottice ct Desegr it-. I*of: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 Date: January 26, 1995 To: AnfLBrowri\u0026lt;-Federal Monitor From: He Williams, Superintendent Re: Information In response to your request dated January 17, 1995, the business cases you requested are still in draft form. When these have been finalized, we will certainly provide copies for your office. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.JW30'W OHice ol Desegtsi iPauCn w*- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 Date: January 26, 1995 To: Ani\u0026lt;Brown\u0026lt;-Federal Monitor From: He Williams, Superintendent Re: Information In response to your request dated January 17, 1995, the business cases you requested are still in draft form. When these have been finalized, we will certainly provide copies for your office. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.4 A r t J J. Arkansans for Gifted And Talented Education DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL A.G.A.T.E. AFFILIATE 1100 Wright Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Elizabeth Shy Dowell, President January 26, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 a' JAN 3 1 1995 0. 'ij\ne.i M\nDear Dr. Williams\nig In follow-up to the Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. Position Paper of last fall, we reiterate our concerns for the International Studies and Gifted and Talented magnet programs as outlined. While all four points remain very high priorities, at this time we want to recapitulate item 1 .b. of the position paper,(see attached.) Specifically, the ratio cap among attendance zone black students and the recruitment of identified gifted and talented black students from outside the Dunbar attendance zone. When Dunbar Junior High School opened as a magnet programs school, to meet court ordered desegregation guidelines, a 60% ratio cap for black students from the attendance zone was established. The Student Assignment Office initially required a student, who elected not to participate in either program, to return a form to the SAO. At that point, the student would be assigned to another school in the district. If the number of black attendance zone students electing to opt out of Dunbar dropped the ratio below 60%, the school could then recruit G \u0026amp; T identified black students from other attendance zones. Three years ago, without informing either the school administration or the parents of participants, the Student Assignment Office stopped sending out the above mentioned forms. This left prospective students and their parents with the impression they could come to Dunbar and not participate in the either of the magnet programs. As this information circulated and SAO never said anything to the contrary, students who in the past had opted out, returned to Dunbar. Not only did this unpublished SAO policy have a devastating effect on our programs, i.e. the elimination of some courses and the number of sections available in others, but each year we fall further behind in meeting the court ordered desegregation guidelines. Our numbers are approximately 69% black, 31% non-black for the current school year. We believe it is imperative, for the viability of the programs and for student recruitment, the Student Assignment Ofiice for the 1995-96 school year should: A. in order to be in compliance with the courts, reinstate the ratio cap\nB. require students to return a form committing themselves to the Dunbar program(s) or be allowed to opt out of Dunbar.As cautioned in my cover letter of October 11,1994, regarding what might happen when the quality of Fuller Junior High School's G \u0026amp; T program became known, we have lost two Pulaski County Special School District white students to Fuller and a third is actively looking into making the switch. Lest this leave the impression that Gifted and Talented programs are of most import to white parents, I pass along the concerns some black parents have brought to me. More pointedly, the small number of black students in the G \u0026amp; T program at Dunbar. One parent told of how her son felt uncomfortable with so few black males in his G \u0026amp; T classes and the pressure put on him by peers to not participate. Of those who came to me, all said virtually the same thing, their children need others like themselves to withstand the peer pressure. We can only accomplish this through the proper use of the ratio cap. While we understand and sympathize with your daily pressures, we implore that these matters be given an immediate and high priority by you and your staff. Sincerely, Elizabeth Shy Dowell President, Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. Enclosure: 1 cc\nMs. Aim Brown, Desegregation Monitor Dr. C. Russell Mayo, LRSD Student Assignment Office LRSD School Board Members: Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Oma Jacovelli Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John A Riggs, IV Ms. Nancy Acre, Dunbar Principal ESD/esd Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 January 27, 1995 31 1995 s. !: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: 1 am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the districts grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also I who, at the districts request, arranged with Judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on the agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court fbr approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, the amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of ti.ming and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete the grant process and obtain e magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. I am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one thing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you\nwe just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Members, LRSD Board of Education 'i Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 January 27, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: 1 am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the district's grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also 1 who, at the districts request, arranged with judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on the agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court for approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, e amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of timing and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete the grant process and obtain the magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. I am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one ing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you\nwe just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Members, LRSD Board of Education Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 January 27, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Uttle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank\nI am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the districts grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also I who, at the districts request, arranged with Judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on e agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court fbr approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, the amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of timing and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete e grant process and obtain the magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. 1 am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one thing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you\nwe just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Members, LRSD Board of Education I   w-'-*  SENT BY\nJ A Ri, \u0026gt;r Cpaftiany 1-31-95 : 8:12AM\nJA RIGGS LIHLE ROCK-P. O. Box IJW, Little Rock, AK 72203 50137101\u0026amp;(\u0026gt;:i 1/ 6 t J. A. Riges Tractor Company Date\nLLLL-Number of pages including cover sheet: i S II I .n I To: j From: { t 1 if I 'I Phone\nFaxphone: CC: Phone\nFaxphone: (501) 570-3100 (501) 570-3525 i-REMARKS\n Urgent For your review  Reply ASAP Q Please comment i ^1 -1 SENT BY\n1-31-95\n8:14AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 5/ 6 fC'S rfOff.Al -CAP I r fi'x kue LlTTueO 'X AA ^22^3 rpSDT Coordinator County Social Services Section 1 - Patient IdenUflcafion [ |*TlF^tTSkA^^#)MMt7n ORIGINAL epsdt Provi der County Office HAS 12) U\u0026lt; \u0026lt;31 1 fLA$gnf AOS NANfeTf.)' TCr\u0026gt;jAt'^\u0026amp;^ ' fftilLLNCt\nn I iF HAIgNT IS A AtFtHRAL HU ENltANAMEOF OFCapiNU PH*SI31AM pnOk'ipfr OThCfi HEAL*H INSLPANCE COMEHAceTiAJ 'iTnT eh HAMe'Hp Pi jN ANO PatCVNl.'MSEA) I PRiMAR* OACNOcrlG on NATUAC OT INJUO* SECTION II - Social Worker Identification .isi Signature Telephone No. f Section III  Examination Report iWi Type of Tear or Examirtdton ! A,. Resic Scfeerting  I--------- Hn- - T Growth and Nutrition 2. DeyfUQprtcr.i Asse^ssment 1 i IiEA (41 TiKffc tTyaiH foT MO f)Ar YlAft 1 1 ! I I yMEPICAI Afcono HvMeEO (Vl I DiAGnOS.S CO ! \\!2Q.2 1  3 a o 2 t A \u0026gt;'rffeE Ao'dHESS idi On , PATIENT i 15 \u0026gt;, C^TV (N6 T*pncvioen PHONE NVUBER j 324-2161 a w 3 lAiASCOND\u0026lt;TlONALArOTo (IS) A Patients 6mplovwent  *E3 a AN accident  ves  mo  no A.ii^Oi^rt^Lnr OKinui MO TIME. DAY_______YR PAY TO: PBOViOEH NAME ANO ADDRESS tl3| Little Rock School District PAY TO PROVIDER NUMBER 121047761 EPSDT Request Date or Certification Data TTpecrfscResN (isj initial PERIODIC y I I I- .... I 3. unciotnca Physical a. Neurological Exam_________ 0 Cardiac Status_____________ 4. Vision 5. Hearing 6 Teeth (Children under 3 years) 7. Lad Tests (Appropriaie tor aga and population group) a. Hematologic b. Urinalysis C, Other (Specity)______ B. immunization Status C Other (Specity) (B) fC) (D)  1 (E) (f) (G) (H) (I) rSh I PHOM f\u0026gt;ATt OF SERVICE TO 1 T a I I I I (J) (K) fl) (M) (2) 4 I t 1  Date 5S-694 Sent to Provider o Ui LU VJ. 2 I 5 a* c o 3! o I I O LU LU a c c UJ w 9 COMMENTS .711 C KtALT CiESuH\u0026lt;\u0026lt;t: *AtXiuuPE\u0026amp; MEUiual SiWViMi^ on Sv*PLIC^ ' KACe fOfi EACH Pa~ GIVEN OF *:*wc 0 0 O HAOCEOuRe CCbt JOINTIFy  Z1636 ! Z163? I tCtPkAiff WVtVAL 5f*V'CfS on C/ACt/M5 ZANCf SI 'Periodic Vision Screening Periodic Hearing Screeninc Thu IS Id crf^y t^tl lh lOt^tfOih^ inlormat-crA u iruv ACCt'rRta Ann compteto 1 u^dprtlAnd Ihtl payTient tna nt stfct'on ol this ciAim wA Ct Iront Pt3ri inci \u0026amp;iaie funds And th1 any dlAimi. sia(mniA Qf decumantt or coi^CAAirn^nt of a riatria\u0026lt; ftM my c\u0026gt;A p/QiACt^led under appirCAbi* Fcdc'A dr \u0026amp;ia( law* Ma I adatirpnat chargos lor cAu^Dvr'saOci )kA*\u0026gt;'CM w.n be made AtiA'f'A' 4nyn/t paym^t *fi Q4iACAbt^\u0026gt; ai DAyfficnl \" Full, that tre acow \u0026gt;\u0026lt;r\u0026gt;yi-.*B clotmAC fi)/ [-^yrnttrf r\u0026gt;Ay\u0026amp; been botrpieied inn inAi irte aoova aav* rueen furnished n rufl cOr'iCf'I'ice I'Aiiinout dSer rn nti(\u0026gt;ni with'n Ihe cit(ivi\u0026lt;,i(\u0026gt;ns ftl Tiii* Vi of me Frcerai Civil n\u0026gt;Q(it\u0026lt;i Ad ana ^ert'or- 60* Monetji .taiir.n a\ni ai t^yj I ,i I PROVIDER S SIGNATURE. ~^bS4 'Hbv 7 Gt? Billing DATE (?: lAQNO\u0026amp;tS ) cooc E Charges F 0**0 Cft UNITS T G* I FEA6C)6M'f*i\u0026gt;RCv'befi 105 ^12^.2 V20.2 IZJI TOTAL CHARGES' (2X1 COVERED BY INSURANCE .3S\u0026gt; i 16 ii 29 00 66 66 I I 1 1 .. HANV^ ri . __0_ BALANCE due I _________j__2a. 00 J i Uttle Rock 6 School District ILittle Rock 4 .School Dis inc _L FOR OFFICE USE (?*|SENT BY: 1-31-85\n8:12AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 501371 0100:# 2/ 6 To: From: Through: Re: Little Rock School District Health Services January 24, 1995 Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Gwen Efir\u0026lt;r^ Coordinator of Health Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Medicaid Reimbursement for Health Services Currently, the Little Rock School District is being reimbursed by the Medicaid program for selected services provided by our school nurses. Listed below are the amounts we have received since the onset of this program. Year Applications Filed $ Received Medicaid Private Insur. S Received 91-92 Approximately 200 $1,387,26 None None 92-93 Approximately 1000 $11,471.37 Approximately 1500 $59.00 93-94 Approximately 1100 $12,365,44 Approximately 1600 $29.50 We receive a total of $23.73 for the hearing and vision tests, and $50.50 for the EPSDT screening. If the screening is the child's initial screen, which is unusual because roost children have been examined prior to age 4 o 5, the fee goes up to $80.00. Application Process Applications were filed with the Medicaid office requesting the provider numbers that would allow us to bill Medicaid. Separate numbers are required for the hearing and vision screening and the Early Periodic Screening for Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT). Nurse and Health Room Certifications Our nurses have been certified by the Arkansas Department of Health to provide hearing and vision screening\nwhich is a requirement to receive a provider number. Eighteen nurses are now certified to do EPSDT, however only 9 health rooms have received the additional certification from the Health Department required for provision of the EPSDT, The additional equipment to meet the requirements costs approximately $500,00 per health room.SENT BY: 1-31-93\n8:14AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100\n4/ 6 Pulaski County School District has used an electronic system which assists them with the billing and assures them of a more accurate medicaid number. billing. A staff person, who works half days does their It is uncertain how they handle the private insurance billing. The medicaid office has provided some information on the availability of using the electronic billing. However, it is to be recognized that even the electronic billing will take an individual's tine and will only do the medicaid portion, which is the least time consuming. hiring someone individual was $640.00. to work after hours. We have accomplished both parts with The amount paid this As has been noted, some medicaid money comes from providing EPSDT physical examinations. provided than we have been reimbursed for. Many more physical examinations have been This relates to the fact that EPSDT screens are provided according to a periodicity schedule. Several of our younger children have had a physical within the limited time frame and payment for the physical given by the school nurse was rejected. As parents become more aware of this service, they may rely on the schools to provide it. Nurses, particularly in the Incentive Schools have been encouraging non ... , This could participants who are eligible to apply for medicaid. also contribute to a greater amount of revenue. School nurses provided several clinics this past school year to give Kindergarten children their required physical examination. Increasing the number of certified health rooms will assist us in increasing revenue, year. We intend to increase this number by four thisSENT BY: 1-31-85 : 8:13AM .JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 50137101006/ 6 HS 36 9-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dear Parent: Teacher's Name The Little Rock School District can be reimbursed for certain health services provided by our school nurses. hearing/vision screening and a modified health assessment. These include Medicaid is the main source of reimbursement, but other insurance plans are also involved. We are asking every parent to complete the information below and return it to school tomorrow. Thank you, School Nurse Child's Name Birth Date (Be sure that you use the name known by Medicaid or your insurance provider.) Insured Parent's Name Parent's SSN Is your child on Medicaid: Yes No If your child is on Medicaid, please indicate the number or send a copy of your Medicaid card. Do you have other health insurance? Yes No If yes, please provide the following information: Name of Plan Policy Number Name of Insurance company Address of Insurance Company ****************************************************************** (TO BE FILLED IN BY SCHOOL NURSE) School Nurse Hearing screening Date Results Vision Screening EPSDT EvaluationSENT BY: 1-31-95\n8:13AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 501371 0100: s 3' 6 Student Medicaid Numbers Starting in the 1992-93 school year and continuing to  . present we have requested medicaid numbers and private insurance numbers from students who were scheduled for hearing and vision screening. This includes Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, first, third, fifth, seventh and tenth grades. insurance companies if we bill medicaid. We are required to bill private Billing Process When the forms with medicaid numbers are returned to the nurse, she uses the information to complete the HICFA form, (see attachment A.) 4 !. i nd i rt This information is sent to the Health Services office where RS are made and then sent to the Medicaid office. Forms that Sf company. the child is on private insurance are completed with the f the hearing and vision tests placed in the appropriate (see attachment B). The bill is then sent to the insurance concerns one would hope that the Medicaid reimbursement money could provide more financial benefit to the district. that it would fund positions. Initially, we had hoped Because of budget cuts in recent years, the reimbursement money has provided funds to replace the budget reductions. The money has been used to , part of the school physicians salary, purchase health room supi^^ies, provide money to purchase more equipment for the health rooms and the cost of the person who does the billing. It should also be noted that 25% of the money received is to be returned to the state. Because of the time involved in the billing process, especially the private Insurance, we have paid someone to work after hours to do the billing. This year, we hopefully will equip four additional health rooms so they can be certified for EPSDT. For consideration: Although we do not know exactly how many Little Rock School District students are medicaid eligible. it should be more that the 1000 that we are billing. It has been estimated that 10 to 15 % of our children may be medicaid eligible. We screen approximately 12,000 students which would result in 1800 being eligible. If we could get accurate medicaid numbers from more students and in some cases assist children who are eligible to get on reimbursement. the program, we could receive a greater amount of Sending requests home to parents for medicaid numbers has had limited response. Consideration should be given to obtaining this information when the child registers. The parent at that time could fill out the form providing the medicaid and insurance information, or a copy of the medicaid card could be made.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: January 31, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject in Brown Second Information Request Thanks for getting back to me in your Januaiy 26, 1995 memo about the business cases we requested on January 17. Since I havent received the business cases and other information I had asked for, 1 apologize if my original memo was not clear. Ill try to clear up any miscommunication on my part by restating my request below. Realizing the district had a deadline of January 13, 1995 for business cases to be submitted to the Superintendent and Board (Task 215 on the 12-22-94 Project Management Tool), I am requesting all of the business case write-ups being considered by the district as of todays date. At this time. Im interested in seeing the input coming from the field into the decision process, rather than a finalized product after you have made decisions. In other words, what you have received so far to date is what I want to see. In your memo to me, you did not mention the extended evaluations and the status chart on the facilities study which 1 had included in my earlier request. I assume those documents are being assembled and will be forwarded soon. ODM still needs them so we can keep current. Thanks very much for your assistance.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 31, 1995 To: From: Brown Russ Mayo Subject: Riling spaces in the Rockefeller Infants and Two-year-old Program On December 2, 1994, I sent you a memo asking a number of questions about the Rockefeller program for infants and two-year-olds, including the number of openings. Audrey Lee responded on your behalf and indicated that, at the time. Rockefeller had one vacancy for infants and six openings for two-year-olds. 1 had asked to be notified of the date as each of these vacancies was filled. In the same memo, Audrey indicated that the one opening in the infants had been filled along with five of the seats for two-year-olds. Since that time 1 have received no update as to the dispensation of any remaining empty seats. Please let me know immediately the number of any openings in the infant, two- and three-year-old program at Rockefeller. Id also like to know total current enrollment by race in each of these groups. Thank you very much. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 RECEIVSi^ FEB 21995 Date: February 1, 1995 Office of Desegreg3iiCi\u0026gt; i'-! To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: He, Re: ntendent Requested Information I am enclosing the requested facilities study chart and a set of the extended evaluations as requested by your memorandum of January 17, at this time. As I stated in my memorandum of January 26, the business cases are still in draft form and continue to be working documents. They will be submitted for your perusal when they are completed and ready for submission to the Board. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. i) ^'^0(1 uaL'cn s /* 2- hbira^y ) if Fac.'h-hei Pc\u0026lt;c:li4i\u0026gt;i)Little Rock School District ecc^SVSD February 3,1995 TO: From: Thru: Subject: Memorandum Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate superintendent J/\\ Rockefeller Early Childhood Programs FEB 8 1995 ctxe oi Ds32ii.'e3C.u: h'Aj As Of January 19, 1995 the enrollment in the early childhood programs are as follows: infant (Pl) Two-year old(P2) 10 enrolled 15 enrolled Three-year old (P3) 11 enrolled 0 vacancies 2 vacancies 7 vacancies B 5 6 7 NB 5 9 4 students were assigned to the Two and Three-year-old programs from January 9 through January 17,1995. At the present time there are no two-year olds on the waiting list. There are no nonblack students on the Three-year-old waiting list to fill the five available seats. The two black vacancies in the Three-year program have been offered and we are waiting for a response from the parents. 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Office 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: February 9, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: ^^^j^nn Brown LRSD Registration Information Yesterday, I received in my mail at home the new LRSD brochure which contains a variety of information pertaining to pre-school registration. The brochure is certainly attractive and contains handy references to dates for open houses and registration, along with information on enrollment options. Unfortunately, the usefulness of the brochure is limited because it was not mailed in time to give parents adequate notice of many of the dates listed. For example, none of the brochures were distributed until after the open house dates (all in January) were past. When I called to inquire about the dates the brochures were mailed, your associate, Deana, helpfully answered my questions. She said that the brochures targeted at private school patrons were mailed February 1. Those for LRSD patrons were processed by a local advertising agency, and about two- thirds of those brochures were mailed on February 6 and 7\nhowever, because the agency discovered it was short some 5,000 covers, the remainder of the brochures will not be mailed until the week of February 13. In addition to the timing of the brochure, I also have concerns about the costs associated with it and some of the information it contains. I'll appreciate your answers to the following questions: 1. According to the district's monthly management tools, the brochures were 100% complete by November 30, 1994. Why, then, were the brochures distributed so late, after pre-school registration activities had begun? 2. How much did it cost the district to produce this brochure, including preparation and printing? How many hours of LRSD staff time were devoted to all phases of preparing the brochure? How much was (or will be) paid to the local advertising agency which helped process the brochures for mailing? What is the grand total of the costs associated with producing the brochure?Page Two February 9, 1995 3. How many brochures were mailed to private school patrons, how many to LRSD patrons, and how many to any other category? What is the total cost for mailing the brochures? 4. The brochure contains an insert entitled \"Applying for Choices.\" which includes information on M-to-M transfers and directs readers to refer to another insert. \"Choices,\" for schools involved in such transfers. \"Choices\" lists only the three PCSSD interdistrict schools as options for M-to-M transfers for LRSD children, and states that PCSSD students may apply for transfer to two LRSD schools. Why does the brochure not inform parents that most PCSSD schools, not just three, can accept M-to- M transfers from the LRSD? Why does the brochure not inform parents that PCSSD students may apply for transfers to many LRSD schools, not just two (even though the LRSD has three elementary interdistrict schools)? Why is the information not explicit that only black LRSD students and white PCSSD students may apply for M-to-M transfers?k\n! ' 1 i' /ys' '*4 / J - l^ [l h' I i\u0026lt; .k iV L p k. -. t  .u k S53! \u0026gt;ggy ,t. ^U'-'i* B5020801 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS CONCERNING JANUARY LRSD PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL FEBRUARY 9, 1995 Note: All task numbers refer to the January report, dated 01/30/95. Summary task 6. The April 28 scheduled finish date for the summary task is keyed to the scheduled finish of task 154, a Board work session to review the data from the needs assessment. If the Board is not going to review the needs assessment data until April 28, the reason for having the session will have passed. The intent was to use the data to assist them in making wise decisions during the program development phase, a phase which will hopefully be completed by April 28. The Board should use the needs assessment report now, not in April. If the scheduled finish of task 154 is not prior to 3/9/95, the date the proposed budget is prepared, I would recommend deleting task 154 and saving the effort. Summary task 71. The report shows no progress on the facilities study since last month. This is a key part of decision-making for school closings and budget actions. The facilities order came out this morning, and, while I have not yet read it, it may have some impact on your plan. I fear this task is slipping behind and will not make the target of August 15. We should get busy on this one. Task 75. This task shows that data collection will not be completed until the date of the final report. This date should be adjusted to allow for time to analyze the data and write the final report. Also, see note below. Tasks 76-78. These tasks were written when the original plan was to produce a facilities study by 11/23/94. Once the district changed its mind to go for a study running to 8/15/95, the tasking should have been updated to reflect the new strategy. Additional tasking should be inserted at this point to show the districts plan for completion (bidding, award, start, data collection, data analysis, report preparation, report delivery). Summary task 79 and summary task 87. The October 93-94 audit was filed last week. I recommend you consider adding a task into each section for incorporating the results into the PBD. Even though after the fact, it will serve as a reminder next cycle and help us stay on time. Task 157. In my opinion, the needs assessment document is an improvement over what we were able to achieve last cycle. We are still not where we need to be with the assessment. The document contains many recommendations rather than needs. I suggest a training session for council-level folks to make sure they understand what a needs assessment really is. The needs assessment is the variance between our goal and our current position. A need is to close the achievement disparity gap by x points, not to add a new reading program. This is something we should work on for next cycle. Summary task 196. This task shows 100% complete. I assume it is complete because this work session was the Board session with the consultant held on 1/24/95. If this is the case, then we have really screwed up our tasking. Again, summary task 196 was set up to review the needs assessment data and go right into program development, the very next set of taskings. I have been assured that the Board session on 1/24/95 did not deal with decision-making on any substantive program or budget issues. This Board session was for bonding and bringing the Board together. I fear we might be changing our tasking to cover unplanned wants, rather than working our plan with discipline toward defined needs. Task 204. Task 205. Task 210. I would like to get a copy of this report of outcomes. Will an additional Board retreat be needed? What was done here? What trends and what experts? Task 214. What were the results? Tasks 215, 217, 218. These tasks show that the business cases are 100% complete, but the Superintendent has told us twice that they are only in draft form. These appear to be conflicting statements. What is the deal? Task 216. What program modifications were reviewed? Task 229. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Task 232. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Task 233. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Tasks 239 and 240. Good to see you modifying your plan as you go. Task 254. Mark? Task 308. (Was task 253) There were still no changes in the one day duration. Is this fine with Where do we stand on Q2 PBD? Task 349. We were able to get the extended evaluations after twice requesting them from the Superintendent. We are in the processing of reviewing them.Task 383. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 384. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 385. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 386. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Robert, I am getting concerned that we may be falling behind on our process timing. Many things must be done in order for Mark to be able to produce a meaningful proposed budget document on 3/9/95. Our decision-making seems to be following the same pattern as previous years. Past performance tells us that delaying decision-making benefits no one, and places an unnecessarily difficult burden on Mark to produce budgets within deadlines. When I see us start shorting performance on tasks and not tasking out major evolutions, it suggests to me that we may be abandoning our planning process and rushing ahead without the benefit of sound, informed decisions. This would be a return to past practices which got us into this financial mess. If there is anything I can do to get us on task, just let me know and I will do my best.\\u-.Jt^ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: February 9, 1995 To: From: Subject: Incentive School Principals Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Margie Powell, Horace Smith, and Barry Ward Monitoring the Incentive Schools Enclosed you will find a schedule of our upcoming visits and a draft copy of the incentive school monitoring guide. The guide has changed very little since last year. During our visit, we will need to interview you and conduct classroom observations. We will need a workspace and a copy of the following 1994-95 records. Staff development activities held specifically for Instructional and Supervision Aides Teacher inservice sessions regarding the use of instructional aides Theme implementation plan Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion by race and gender Building-level discipline plan Field Trips Pre-professionals Individual student test profiles Building-level counseling plan Parent Center Committee by race, gender, and position (e.g. parent, teacher) Parent Center recommendations and an indication of the suggestions incorporated into the center The name, race, gender, and position of the parent trained to operate the center Monthly communications packets distributed by the Parent Center List of parent meetings including topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets The total number of home visits conducted as of February 1995 A description of the mechanism designed to ensure that parents regularly sign homework List of community meetings and activities by topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets List of three key communicators by race, gender, and position The number of signed contracts and a description of follow-up proceduresSpeakers Bureau roster by name, gender, race, and position, along with a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and participant sign-in sheets Recruitment Team roster by race, gender, and position Recruitment Plan, including a list of all recruitment strategies implemented and planned Extended Day schedule Extended Week schedule If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call our office.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 10, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last night's Board meeting, I heard you tell the group that the district often was not receiving copies of court orders until some time after the date of issue. You expressed frustration at sometimes first learning of an order by reading about it in the newspaper. I certainly understand how you would find such a situation aggravating. I would too. You suggested that this problem would be solved if you had a staff attorney. However, adding another lawyer to your payroll won't eliminate late receipt of orders. That's because the rate of receiving orders isn't a function of having more or less attorneys\nrather, it is related to the mechanism the courts use for distributing orders. When the Federal Courts issue an order, the documents are filed in the Clerk's Office. The Clerk then mails copies of the order to the relevant parties and simultaneously places one in a press box, which newspaper staffers routinely check once or twice a day. That's why the reporters usually get orders the day of issue and you read all about it the next day. I wasn't aware that it was sometimes a matter of days before the district received orders. In the future, since I usually know the same day that Judge Wright issues orders in this case, I will be happy to notify you immediately by phone. Then, you can send a runner to the Clerk's office to retrieve a copy of the order, just as the newspapers do. A simple phone call from my office to your's should prove to be a very economical solution to the problem you've described. 1 know how concerned you are about finding ways to hold down expenditures, so I'm happy to do what I can to contribute to cost-containing measures for the district. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Board members Chris Heller C-C: EEEEHS Little Rock School District d u Ft3 J c 1995 OilicQ ot D February 14,1995 TO: From: Thru: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information f Dr, Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Subject: Filling Early Childhood spaces at Rockefeller Since my last memo i stated that there were seven vacancies in the three-year-old program, as of February 10, there are only two vacancies in the three-year-old program and one vacancy in the two-year-old program. In the past Rockefeller's recruitment team has been responsible for recruitment. However, we have provided assistance in the following ways: 1. Providing pre-school and private school directories, so that these parents could be invited to open house and other events. 2. Assisted in providing information to west Little Rock churches. 3. Provided brochures to parents who called with inquires. 4. Highlight the programs in all recruitment presentations. in an effort to capitalize upon the school's high quality early childhood education as a desegregation tool, we are only filling the seats with students that help to maintain the racial balance. 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20004 J 'J Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor A gV-xA-'' 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: February 14, 1995 To: Estelle Matthis From: Melissa Guldin  fV' Subject: Monthly Meeting Between LRSD and ODM After surveying the staff members in our office, we have five items to be placed on the agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday, February 21,1995. If any additional issues arise, I will contact you. We look forward to meeting with you. Proposed Agenda Items Strategic Planning Effort Legislative Initiatives Budget Status Facilities Study Status Progress Report on School Closings'k' Tv KtCBBBS Little Rock School District R itiSi TO: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MAR 1 1995 Office cf Dessgragcticn wZ:.-, C. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation February 17, 1995 LRSD Registration Information This is a response to the concerns raised in your letter dated February 9, 1995, regarding Little Rock School District registration brochure information. J. According to the district's monthly management tools, the brochures were 100% complete by November 3\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":206,"next_page":207,"prev_page":205,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":2460,"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}}]}}