{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"mus_sovcom_97-45-0","title":"Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June, 1971","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June, 1971, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June, 1971"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1284%7C97%7C45%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_97-50-0","title":"Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1972","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1972, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1972"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1291%7C97%7C50%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_97-52-0","title":"Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1973","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1973, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1973"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1293%7C97%7C52%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_97-51-0","title":"Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1974","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1974, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Budget Request for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1974"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1292%7C97%7C51%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_283","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":["1994/1995"],"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--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/283"],"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\nB4062202 1000/08/11 LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 94-95 1. Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $40,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. 2. Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $25,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 3. Rockefeller Incentive school Alternative Room Specialist. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 4. Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $25,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 5. Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme. * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools* * * Addition, 4- $75,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. 6. Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,500 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 7. Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $75,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. * 8. Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher). * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,5(X) * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 9. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research, * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $12,500 For half-time Spanish Teacher 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. * 10. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II. *4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, 4- $75,000 * 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. * Withdrawn. 11. Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher. *4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,500 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead 12. English As a Second Language (ESL) Program. *4/15 Court Submission * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE * Addition and Modification, + $75,880 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 1595. * Budgeted. 13. Language Arts and Mathematics. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ ADE Modification, + $21,100 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 67, function 1570. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. 14. Applied Biology and Chemistry. * *  * 4/15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE Addition, + $93,000, Carl Perkins Funds 8/9. Federal grant\nin the Federal budget but not in the operational budget. Located at Fund 06, source 81. Budgeted. * * 15. Science Curriculum Revision. * 4/15 Court Submission * * * * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE Modification, + $10,000 8/ 9. Included in the 8/ 8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 2212. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. 16. Foreign Language Program.* 4/15 Court Submission * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE * Modification, -I- $7,500 *8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 2212. Also Deseg * program #12. Budgeted. 17. Science Program. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category 11, Desegregation Plan/ ADE Addition, + $25,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 2212. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. * 18. Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative. *4/15 Court Submission * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, -I- $18,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 1120. * Budgeted. 19. Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 142. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, -I- $15,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 2212. Includes an FTE. Budgeted. 20. Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation - Staff Development. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 143. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, -(- $7,500 8/9. An ADE grant which has yet to be received. Is not included in the 8/8 as either a revenue or expense. Pending ADE funding. * * 21. Social Studies Department Secretarial Position. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 149. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, + $18,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 128, function 2212. Includes an FTE.* Budgeted. 22. Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 155. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, -I- $40,670 * Use existing position within the District. No position identified. * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. No cost transfer of position from King. * Budgeted. 23. Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 159. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, -I- $3,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 1120. * Budgeted. 24. Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 164. Category III, Related Desegregation/ ADE Addition, + $16,000 from 93-94 and -I- $48,750 from 94-95 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 64, function 2324. Also in Deseg Program # 06. Only $16,000 included for 94-95. Other items were purchased out of 93-94 funds. Budgeted. 25. Student Assignment Office Reorganization. * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 173. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, 4- $26,000 from 93-94 and approximately $23,000 from 94-95 8/9. No dollar expenditures are included in the 94-95 budget. This business case linked to # 24. All of the furniture items were purchased from 93-94 funds. Budgeted at no cost for this year. * * 26. Safety and Security Department. * 6/28/93 Court Submission. Original Business Case submitted. * 5/18 Court Submission, page 23. Revises the original for 94-95. * No category. * * Addition, + $128,500 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 87, function 2586, object 310. There is a total of $257,000 which includes carrying forward last year's* program and an increase for this year. Budgeted. n. Teaching Assistants/Substitutes. * * * * * * * 5/18 Court Submission, page 32. No category. This proposal was not in the Business case format, and had no cost/savings information included. Nonetheless, it was listed as a Business Case. Addition, + unknown. 6/14 Board meeting. Proposal put into loose Business Case format\nstill no financial analysis provided. Does not address the problem. 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. 28. Stephens School Relocation. * * * * 5/18 Court Submission, page 33. No category. Deletion, - $1,300,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Stephens school removed for the year to the total of the $1300,000. Budgeted. * 29. Baseline School Relocation. * 6/14 Board meeting. * No category. * Deletion, - $1,000,000 * Draft Business Case only, handed out at Board meeting. * 8/9. Issue dead for this budget cycle. * Dead. 30. Staff Attorney. * * 4c * * * 6/14 board meeting. No category. Addition, + $94^55 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. New business case submitted to the Court. 6/23 Board meeting. Approved by the Board. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11. Discussed but no action taken. Walker wanted to put on hold until he had time to talk to the district. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 75, function 2315, various object codes. Budgeted. * *31. Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. * 6/14 Board meeting. Handed out. * No category. *  * * * * Modification, no cost. 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. New business case submitted to the Court. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 14. Discussed. Will require plan modification. More information in the July hearing. Walker wanted to put on hold until he had time to talk to the district. 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Letter from Mayo to Williams stating the business case must be modified, however, no modified business case is submitted. Modification still needs to be done. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Updated and revised business case included. This involves no new position, but rather a restructuring of Arma Hart's old position. No additional cost involved over last year. Budgeted. 32. Great Expectations Program. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11. Williams says the district is working on a business case for the Board. ODM has not seen one at this point. Should result in $2,000,000 savings. 8/4 meeting. During a meeting with Matthis and Ingram, they provided a copy of a business case dated June 30, 1994, and entitled \"Great Expectations Pilot Program for Selected Incentive Schools\". They indicated the business case would be filed with the Court on Monday, August 8. This program wiU have no additional cost. 8/9. Business case included in the 8/ 8 budget document. No additional cost to the budget. Active. * * * * 33. Incentive School Plan Double Funding. * * * 6/20 Court Submission, page 118. They are working on modifications to the Incentive School programs. Do not have them ready at this point. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11 and A-1. Judge is expecting a business case on these changes. No business case has been prepared at this time. 7/21 Notice of Filing. District submitted the business case for Incentive School Plan Doub le F unding. This was a much improved version * * * of the older business case just referencing plan modification. 7/26 Special Board meeting. Matthis made a short presentation to the Board on this business case. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at various line items. The total reduction stands at $812309.17, and these have been pulled from the 8/8 budget. Revised business case included in the budget document. Budgeted.34. Academic Progress Incentive Grants. * * 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Recommends modifying the desegregation plan. Would modify program structure with no additional cost ($320,000 already budgeted). 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. $320,000 located at function 1580, object 310. Also in Deseg Program #13. Budgeted. 35. Incentive School Plan Modifications - Spanish Program. * 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Additional cost of $149,000 for 4 FTE's, plus other costs. Not sure how this business case relates to Case #2, 4, 6, 11,33. * 8/9. Draft budget document contained a reduction of $149,000 resulting from pulling this business case. The $149,000 was never added into the budget document. Budget document 8/8 does not include in money. This business case pulled by the business case on double funding. * Inactive. 36. Outsourcing Transportation. * * * * 6/30 Board meeting. 'Tosition Paper\" prepared in modified business case format. Not a business case at this point. Milhollen reads the paper to the Board. No action taken. 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Case included in the budget document. Would save $1 million over 3 years. 7/18 Board meeting. Issue dropped due to lack of quorum and the drop-dead date of 7/18. Standby. 37. Transportation. * 8/5 meeting. Morgan/Mooney meet with Milhollen on the budget. $13M is being added to fix the transportation problem. $1M for purchasing buses, and $300K for support personnel. A business case should be prepared for the $13 M and what it will be used for\npossibly a budget cover letter. Mayo informed on 8/5. * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget document. $1.3 M\n$1M for buses, $300K for personnel.B4062202 1000/08/11 LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 94-95 X Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition. + $40,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. X Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $25,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead X Rockefeller Incentive school Alternative Room Specialist. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, -I- $25,000 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead X Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme. * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools* * * Addition, + $75,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. % Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction. *4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,500 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $75,000 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. X- Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher). * * * * 4/ 15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $12,500 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. Dead X- Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. * * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category I, Incentive Schools Addition, + $12,500 For half-time Spanish Teacher 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. Withdrawn. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, 4- $75,000 * 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration* at this time. Withdrawn.  Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher. *4/15 Court Submission * Category I, Incentive Schools * Addition, + $12,500 * 8/9. Not included in the final 8/8 budget. * Dead X- English As a Second Language (ESL) Program. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category 11, Desegregation Plan/ ADE Addition and Modification, + $75,880 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 1595. Budgeted. o * Language Arts and Mathematics. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ ADE Modification, + $21,100 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 67, function 1570. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. iX- Applied Biology and Chemistry. * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE Addition, + $93,000, Carl Perkins Funds 8/9. Federal grant\nin the Federal budget but not in the operational budget. Located at Fund 06, source 81. Budgeted. Science Curriculum Revision. * 4/15 Court Submission * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE * Modification, + $10,000 *8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 2212. Also Deseg program #12. * Budgeted. Foreign Language Program.* 4/15 Court Submission * Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE * Modification, 4- $7,500 *8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 2212, Also Deseg program #12. * Budgeted. Science Program. * * * * * 15 Court Submission Category II, Desegregation Plan/ADE Addition, 4- $25,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 2212. Also Deseg program #12. Budgeted. iX Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative. *4/15 Court Submission * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, 4- $18,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 92, function 1120. * Budgeted. * Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation. * * * * * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 142. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, 4- $15,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 2212. Includes an FTE. Budgeted. Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation - Staff Development. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 143. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, 4- $7,500 8/9. An ADE grant which has yet to be received. Is not included in the 8/8 as either a revenue or expense. Pending ADE funding. Social Studies Department Secretarial Position. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 149. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, 4- $18,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 128, function 2212. Includes an FTE.* Budgeted. X- Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 155. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, 4- $40,670 * Use existing position within the District. No position identified. * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. No cost transfer of position from King. * Budgeted. X Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 159. * Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE * Addition, 4- $3,000 * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 95, function 1120. * Budgeted. Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4/15 Court Submission, page 164. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, + $16,000 from 93-94 and -I- $48,750 from 94-95 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 64, function 2324. Also in Deseg Program # 06. Only $16,000 included for 94-95. Other items were purchased out of 93-94 funds. Budgeted. Student Assignment Office Reorganization. * 4/15 Court Submission, page 173. Category III, Related Desegregation/ADE Addition, -h $26,000 from 93-94 and approximately 4- $23,000 from 94-95 8/9. No dollar expenditures are included in the 94-95 budget. This business case linked to # 24. AU of the furniture items were purchased from 93-94 funds. Budgeted at no cost for this year. Safety and Security Department. 6/28/93 Court Submission. Original Business Case submitted. 5/18 Court Submission, page 23. Revises the original for 94-95. No category. Addition, 4- $128,500 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 87, function 2586, object 310. There is a total of $257,000 which includes carrying forward last year's* program and an increase for this year. Budgeted. Teaching Assistants/Substitutes. *5/18 Court Submission, page 32. * * * * * No category. This proposal was not in the Business case format, and had no cost/savings information included. Nonetheless, it was listed as a Business Case. Addition, + unknown. 6/14 Board meeting. Proposal put into loose Business Case format\nstill no financial analysis provided. Does not address the problem. 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. Business case withdrawn from consideration at this time. * Withdrawn. Stephens ' ' * * ' * * * 1 School Relocation. 5/18 Court Submission, page 33. No category. Deletion, - $1,300,000 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Stephens school removed for the year to the total of the $1300,000. Budgeted. 29 Baseline School Relocation. * 6/14 Board meeting. * No category. * Deletion,-$1,000,000 * Draft Business Case only, handed out at Board meeting. * 8/9. Issue dead for this budget cycle. * Dead. Staff Attorney. - 6/14 board meeting. * * * * * * * No category. Addition, + $94^55 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. New business case submitted to the Court. 6/ 23 Board meeting. Approved by the Board. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11. Discussed but no action taken. Walker wanted to put on hold until he had time to talk to the district. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at Dept 75, function 2315, various object codes. Budgeted.Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. * * * * * * * 6/14 Board meeting. Handed out. No category. Modification, no cost. 6/20 Court Submission, page 28. New business case submitted to the Court. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 14. Discussed. Will require plan modification. More information in the July hearing. Walker wanted to put on hold until he had time to talk to the district. 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Letter from Mayo to Williams stating the business case must be modified, however, no modified business case is submitted. Modification still needs to be done. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Updated and revised business case included. This involves no new position, but rather a restructuring of Arma Hart's old position. No additional cost involved over last year. Budgeted. / Great Expectations Program. * 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11. Williams says the district is working on a * business case for the Board. ODM has not seen one at this point. Should result in $2,000,000 savings. 8/ 4 meeting. During a meeting with Matthis and Ingram, they provided a copy of a business case dated June 30, 1994, and entitled \"Great * * Expectations Pilot Program for Selected Incentive Schools\". They indicated the business case would be filed with the Court on Monday, August 8. This program will have no additional cost. 8/9. Business case included in the 8/8 budget document. No additional cost to the budget. Active. 33 Incentive School Plan Double Funding. * * * 6/20 Court Submission, page 118. They are working on modifications to the Incentive School programs. Do not have them ready at this point. 6/28-29 Court Hearing, page 11 and A-1. Judge is expecting a business case on these changes. No business case has been prepared at this time. 7/21 Notice of Filing. District submitted the business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. This was a much improved version * * * of the older business case just referencing plan modification. 7/26 Special Board meeting. Matthis made a short presentation to the Board on this business case. 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget. Located at various line items. The total reduction stands at $812,309.17, and these have been pulled from the 8/8 budget. Revised business case included in the budget document. Budgeted. - X Academic Progress Incentive Grants. * * * 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Recommends modifying the desegregation plan. Would modify program structure with no additional cost ($320,000 already budgeted). 8/9. Included in the 8/ 8 budget. $320,000 located at function 1580, object 310. Also in Deseg Program # 13. Budgeted. Incentive School Plan Modifications - Spanish Program. * * 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Additional cost of $149,000 for 4 PTE's, plus other costs. Not sure how this business case relates to Case #2,4, 6, 11,33. 8/9. Draft budget document contained a reduction of $149,000 resulting from pulling this business case. The $149,000 was never added * into the budget document. Budget document 8/8 does not include in money. This business case pulled by the business case on double funding. Inactive. 36. Outsourcing Transportation. * * * * 6/30 Board meeting. Tosition Paper\" prepared in modified business case format. Not a business case at this point. Milhollen reads the paper to the Board. No action taken. 7/18 Court Submission, Business Case Section. Case included in the budget document. Would save $1 million over 3 years. 7/18 Board meeting. Issue dropped due to lack of quorum and the drop-dead date of 7/18. Standby. Transportation. * 8/5 meeting. Morgan/Mooney meet with Milhollen on the budget. SUM is being added to fix the transportation problem. $1M for purchasing buses. and $300K for support personnel. A business case should be prepared for the $13 M and what it will be used for\npossibly a budget cover letter. Mayo informed on 8/5. * 8/9. Included in the 8/8 budget document. $13 M\n$1M for buses, $300K for personnel.DRAFT Little Rock School District Baseline School Relocation Business Case I Executive Summary Baseline has become inadequate as a public school because of its declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. It is one of several schools annexed from Pulaski County in 1987. It was built in 1975 and experienced minor renovations in 1991. The building sits on 8 acres and houses 50,455 square feet It is located in the southwest area of the City of Little Rock near the boundary between Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, this location prevents the proper desegregating of this school under our plan. Further, student enrollment has declined and costs increased during the last five years at Baseline. In recent years, enrollment at Baseline School has declined. Since the 1989-90 school year, the number of students attending Baseline School has dropped from 389 students to 344 for 1993-94. The number is expected to be 282 next year while its capacity is 390. Parallel to dechning enrollment is the increasing costs per pupil at Baseline. The cost for 1993-94 is $2,841 per pupil. If the same amotmt is budgeted for 1994-95, the per pupil cost will be $3,455. By closing this school, a savings of almost $1 milhon can be realized. One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Recruitment of white students to this school has not achieved the desired results. Baseline's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. On the south and east side of the attendance zone is the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Baseline are not possible because PCSSD needs the whites in that area of the county for their own desegregation purposes. Surrounding the Baseline attendance zone within the city are neighborhoods and attendance zones that are predominately black. These two circumstances cause Baseline to be \"zone locked\". Additionally, Baseline's attendance zone is 72% black. Though the current enrollment of the school does not come only from the attendance zone, the school is at 77% black. The recommended solution is to: Z Relocate students from Baseline immediately to solve the -problem. addresses all three areas of the problem. This alternative a) b) c) d) A plan to redraw attendance zone lines in this area will be devised\nAn immediate savings of approximately 1 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nStaff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract The curriculum offered at Baseline will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. To implement this solution, the desegregation plan must be modified. The district is aware of the concern that will rise in the Baseline community about the closing of the school. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. This and the fear that city services such as potice and fire will not be as efficient are of paramoimt concern to many in the commuiuty. Some will want to know if a plan 5/4/94Baseline School Relocation Business Case 2 DRAFT 5/4/94 exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. While these understandable, we believe we can offer economical way. concerns are our students equal opportunities in a more 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 3. community as mentioned above\nThe building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency oc the community\n4- Criticism of closing a relatively new facility (1975) may arise\nand. 5. The general southwest community may react to the redrawing of attendance in that general area of the city. zones Positives 1. 2. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\nSpecial activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school 3. to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n4. Patrons will be included tn appropriate school correspondence and activities currently eruolled patrons in that school\nas are 5. Baseline is not located in a residential area emotional reaction\nand therefore its closing may receive less Children who walk will no longer have to cross school\na major thorough fare to get to 6. 7. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Baseline\nImmediate and million\nand. year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $1 8. The ^asAine. School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools. transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment No additional personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. A savings of 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating __3________L T* .1 ..... students, staff, and equipment Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the total budgeted cost of Baseline School for 1994-95 is expected to be saved. This savings is a year-to-year savings. SutauR^ 67 Dr. Hmry P. W.Uunu, Supwutiwtexi n/0/4 BC_B5LNKBaseline School Relocation Business Case 3 DRAFT 5/4/94 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ________________________Milestone______________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval__________________ Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation____ Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately___________ Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________________ File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Baseline School______________ 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.______________________ Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process__________ Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Baseline School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Baseline School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Baseline School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Baseline School but live in the attendance zone._________________ Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: Date 5/12/94 5/13/94 5/13/94 5/13/94 5/18/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/18/94 10. 11. a) b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) door-tOHdoor delivery in the neighborhood Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment. Mail notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) door-to\u0026lt;loor delivery in the neighijorhood 5/20/94 5/20/94 SrZAIQA, Person Williams Ingram Modeste Williams Williams Modeste Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting Conduct community information meeting by____________________________________ Inventory building ______________________________ Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest.________________________ Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment________________ Remove materials and equipment from school_________________________ Reroute transportation of students______________________________ Secure building_________________________________________ Reassign staff ______________________________ Send final assignment notices iubmittad by Dr. Henry P. Willuinfc SuperMit\u0026gt;s\u0026gt;4a\\t 5/24/94 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/1/94 6/15/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Mayo Williams Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Montgomery Eaton Hurley Mayo (H/tA/n BC_BSLNIBaseline School Relocation Business Case 4 DRAFT 5/4/94 I Background   Baseline Elementary School was one of several schools included in the annexation of Pulaski County land by the City of Little Rock in 1987. It was built in 1975 and experienced minor renovations in 1991. The building sits on 8 acres and houses 50,455 square feet It is located in the southwest area of the City of Little Rock near the boundary between Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, this location prevents the proper desegregating of this school under our plan. Further, student enrollment has declined and costs increased during the last five years at Baseline. I Problem Definition  Baseline has become inadequate as a public school because of its declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. In recent years, enrollment at Baseline School has declined. Since the 1989-90 school year, the number of students attending Baseline School has dropped from 389 students to 344 for 1993-94. The number is expected to be 282 next year while its capacity is 390. This decUne is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 Baseline Elementary Enrollment (October of each year) Schoa^ Baseline 1989 389 1990 370 1991 1992 337- 1993 344 Proj, 282 Parallel to declining enrollment is the increasing costs per pupil at Baseline. The cost for 1993-94 is $2,841 per pupil. If the same amount is budgeted for 1994-95, the per pupil cost will be $3,455. By closing this school, a savings of almost $1,000,000 can be realized. One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. T ...... Recruitment of white students to this school has not achieved the desired results. Baseline's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. On the south and east side of the attendance zone is the PCSSD boundary Une. M-M transfers across that line to Baseline are not possible because PCSSD needs to keep whites in that area of the county for their own desegregation purposes. Surrounding the Baseline attendance zone within the city are neighborhoods and attendance that are predominately black. These two circumstances cause Baseline to be zones \"zone locked\". Additionally, Baseline's attendance zone is 72% black. Though the current Subciuntd by Dr. Houy P. Willumi. Swpvuilwolatl BC.^SU\u0026lt;EBaseline School Relocation Business Case 5 DRAFT 5/4/94 enrollment of the school does not come only from the attendance zone, the school 77% black. is at I Amihjsis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, percentage of black students in the school as well as in the attendance zone has been reviewed. Upon careful consideration, three aspects had to be considered in resolving the problem. They were declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. Addressing 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. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. 2. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\nRedraiv the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Baseline School. This reduces the per-pupil costs at Baseline but will increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Baseline'i s. This does not address the imbalanced attendance zones surrounding Baseline created bv its location. schools. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other 3. Relocate students from Baseline immediately to solve the problem. addresses all three areas of the problem. This alternative a) b) c) d) A plan to redraw attendance zone lines in this area will be devised\nAn immediate savings of approximately 1 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nStaff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract The curriculum offered at Baseline will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. Intensify recruitment efforts. Recruitment has been tried. The results have not been significant If the enrollment of Baseline were increased by this effort, the location is still a problem. [Recommendation  Alternative 4 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Baseline immediately to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. Submined by Or. Henry P. Willumi.Supui(ndait 06/O4/X ac.asU'JEBaseline School Relocation Business Case 6 DRAFT 5/4/94 jOb/ertipe____________________________________ By the opening of school for 1994-95, Baseline students loill 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. Using this proposal will require a modification in the LRSD Desegregation Plan. This proposal supports the school district goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to fully support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria are met 1. New attendance zones will reflect a reasonable racial balance for the area\n2. 3. 4. 5. The 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 school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nPatrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities currently enrolled patrons in that school\nas are 6. Key members of the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand. 8. The relocation of students and staff at Baseline will be complete before the openin\nof school for 1994-95. o Most of these benefits will occur when the process begins. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered and parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. I Impact Analysis The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. The district is aware of the concern that will rise in the Baseline community about the closing of the school. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. This and the fear that city services such as police and fire will not be as efficient are of paramount concern to many in the community. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. 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 disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\nS\u0026lt;ibaund bf Or. Hoff P. WtUiim* SupwuUMdait 05/OV 8CJBSUJIBaseline School Relocation Business Case / DRAFT 5/4/94 3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. Criticism of closing a relatively new facility (1975) may arise\nand, 5. The general southwest community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city. Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be plarmed and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n3. Patrons will be included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in that school\n4. Baseline is not located in a residential area and therefore its closing may receive less emotional reaction\n5. Children who walk will no longer have to school\n6. Elementary schools in contiguous population of Baseline\ncross a major thorough fare to get to areas are capable of absorbing the student 7. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $1 million\nand, 8. The Baseline School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs and not realizing the expected goals of desegregation. The risks of implementation of this solution are criticism for abandoning another school building tn the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timehne included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment Suboiittad bf Dr. Hmrf P. WilUami, Suptnntendenl 05/04/M BC_8SLJilBaseline School Relocation Business Case 8 DRAFT 5/4/94 I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to impletnent this proposal. positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Financial Instead, some A savings of approximately 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the budgeted cost of Baseline School is expected to be saved. See attachment. This savings is a year-to-year savings. Revenue Source A source of revenue is uimecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget I Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be those not directly affected by the solution. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunity and cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They will argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities. That schools which are closed are those located in the black community, and that a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community that is already experiencing economic difficulty removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The Joshua Interveners may oppose the relocation of these students. The position of the City of Little Rock is unclear at this time. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. Subauttad by Dr. H*iy P. WiUtanu. Supanntmdani 05/W/M BC.B5LNBBaseline School RelocaKon Business Case 9 DRAFT 5/4/94 I General Inipletnentation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Milestone_________________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_________________ Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation__________ Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately___________ Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________________ File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Baseline School______________ 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._______________________ Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process__________ Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Baseline School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Baseline School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Baseline School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Baseline School but live in the attendance zone._________________ Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to\nDate 5/12/94 5/13/94 5/13/94 5/13/94 5/18/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/18/94 10. 11. 12. 13. 3} b) c) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) d) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood____________________________ Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment. Mail notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the infomnation meeting Conduct community information meeting by 14. Inventory building 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest.________________ Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment Remove materials and equipment from school_____________________ Reroute transportation of students________________________________ Secure building _______________________________, Reassign staff _______________________________ Send final assignment notices juenuned brDr. HmryP. WilIi*mj.Supin(andl 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/24/94 5A27/94 5/30/94 6/1/94 6/15/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Person Williams Ingram Modeste Williams Williams Modeste Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Montgomery Eaton Hurley Mayo 05/04/94 BC JSLNSBaseline School Relocation Business Case 10 DRAFT 5/4/94 Attachment 1 Copy of pages from 1994-95 Tentative Budget relating to the cost of Baseline School SubouUtd Dr. P. WiUUbm, SupwuMtdail IB/04/94 BC.B5LMZDate: 03/23/9*. Time: 13:44 Little Kock XII District KOC\nWJDCM? Department Budget - OOH Finction Department Code - Deicriptlon Object Code - Description Actual 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 Actual 01/31/94 Budget 1994/95 FTE 1994/95 BASELIME ELEMENTARY 0022 Page 59 1105 1120 1124 1195 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 0110 I 0120 I 0210 ! 0240 0380 1 0410 ! 0416 0540 I 0548 I REGULAR CERTIFICATED REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATEO SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE FOOD SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLY CENTER EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER TTISS FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN OTTo TOcy 0410 605\" 1110 . KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY 1120 TOTALS *0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 16?6o $0.00 $41,754.00 $20,822.00 $3J89.0a $3,149.37 $0.00 $3,955.87 $0.00 $7,200.00 *0.00 *80,076.31 ioToo $8,570.80 $655.60 $835.24 $1,548.90 $5,039.19 $370.63 $490.26 $1,836.11 $19,346.73 $62,510.00 $20,822.00 $6,374.90 $5,200.00 $0.00 $689.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $95,595.90 2.00 2.00 4.00 REGULAR CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE SUPPLIES 04(5 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER TOTALS $106,176.00 $8,122.76 ~K7T3or $4504 $0.00 iOJ $120,085.55 $112,575.00 $8,027.78 ---*5738^37 ----iunsT $206.00 -----59Or $126,225.27 $46,906.29 $3,531.36 $1,855.50 $0.00 i110.00 $119.51 152,522.66 $62,570.00 $4,786.61 $2,600.00 $480.00 $0.00 srar $70,436.61 2.00 2.00 --------------ony oi5o' 0210 0240 0326 6331 0347 0360 04j0^ 0416 0418 0473 Oslo' 0548 ELEMENTARY REGULAR CERTIFJCATED REGULAR HON-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT PUPIL TRANSPORTATION POSTAGE _________________ PRINTING S BINDING-INTERN SUPPLIES SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CENTER TOTALS ELEMENTARY MUSIC OHO REGULAR CERTIFICATED erfy 0240 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC ACCELERATED LEARNING 0120 TOTALS REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED $358,855.38 $30,2U.90 $29,766.31 $27,052.57 $295.40 $429.40 $260.18 $76.00 ~5i\n49in^ $2,662.55 $0.00 $0.00 \"TOzJTTT $258.98 $452,916.17' *3il,W5.93 \"$5S\nS57r7 $28,558.61 $24,097.44 $515760 Jaros' $257.So $257.So -^1795175? j2o.oo $1,892.19 ' $257.50 $772.50 $0.00 $433,424.71 *110,532.33 $10,889.46 $9,250.37 $5,970.37 $5Too $65.97 $111.28 ioToo $131.22 $1,933.50 $0.00 $0.00 $1,864.19 $0.00 $140,748.69' $347,000.00 $36,416.70 $29,331.38 $23,400.00 $500.00 $0.00 $200.00 $0.00 $1,689.00 $2,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $441,437.08 13.00 T?00 18.00 $00 IRTW $0.00 $0.00 $10,206.00 $30,512.00 $1,185.00 $34,031.00 $10,411.00 $0.00 '55766 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ISTW $0.00 $0.00 $4,Jjr.9O $0.00 0.60Date: 05/25/94 Time: 13:44 Little Rock School District Depertnent Budget - OOM PROG: JD002 Function Department Code - Description BASELINE ELEMENTARY ( Object I Code - Description 0022 Actual 1992/93 Budget 1995/94 Actual 01/51/94 Budget 1994/95 FIE 1994/95 Page 60 1210 1580 1910 2120 2154 2222 1195 0240 INSURANCE ACCELERATED LEARNING ITINERANT INSTRUCTION 0110 I 0210 ! _______ 0240 1 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCT I OH RESOURCE ROOM 1220 QUO ~ 6210 5215 RESOURCE ROOM TOTALS *1,404.00 Tl2,390,96 *1,292.94 *12,500.58 1551.M *417.94 *5,087,64 ~M,B5 *780.00 *780.00 0.60 REGULAR CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE  TOTALS *28,006.00 ~*2,l42.4y *1,526.28 lynTor *29,649.00 *2,114.28 *1,502.75 155 066.05 *12,555.75 *746.28 *467.16 *15,547.19 *15,224.00 *1,144.79 *650.00 *17,040.79 Bo REGULAR CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1580 B17 0250 WT TOTALS *17,121,12 *1,509.92 *781.99 *19,215.05 sTs\n750 *1,286.20 ~*445.41 119,988.11 T7\nX41.46 *1,528.58 UM.sr 119,298.55 *59,108.00 *4,521.76 *65,579.76 I3o 1750 STIPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY TAX PUPIL TRANSPORTATION ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS TOTALS GIFTED ANO TALENTED *8,167,59 *624,80 *1,720,62 110 512.81 *0.00 *0.00 *0.00 *0.00 729.15 S51.89 : lOo S781.04 *0.00 *0.00 *0.00 *0.00 15^5\" ^210 0240 GIFTED AMO TALENTED GUIDANCE SERVICES 0110 ________________0210 0240 2120 REGULAR CERTIFipiTED SOCIAL security TAX INSURANCE TOTALS Jii,4o?.gr *887.6^ *476.05 1127044.42 Hi,248.M *1,160.08 ssiny Tf77W6.42 J. 'K.ZW.ST ~ *517,86 *180,77 177444,4r 12'0,555.66 tl,555.65 *659 00 i?J7510.iS J. GUIDANCE SERVICES NURSING SERVICES 0120 0240 2154 67 5S REGULAR CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE TOTALS *267429.50 1,5.85 *915.80 122,908. ly *29.500.80 *27165.72 *1,502.09 *52,906,60 *15,692.1'0 *944.76' *474.28 ~*15,111.08 155,664.00 *2,575.50 *1,500.00 *57,559.50 1.00 1.00 nursing services REGULAR NOH-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE  SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 0110 0120 0210 0240 0410 0416 TOTALS *11,514.02 *880.87 *605.85 *15,000.69 111,175.65 {840:i4 *517.01 112,550.84 15,075.55 1548.5(5 *184.77 *5,648.40 *12,502.00 ~'154.46 *520.00 *15,978.40 0.40 0.40 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES REGULAR CERTIFICATED REGULAR NOH-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE  SUPPLIES  SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTEY TOTALS *51,154.21 115,606.00 *5,422.66 *2,940.46 12,965.07 *97.44' *54,165,84 *52,892.84 *9,598.42 *2,420.19 ~ *2,724.45  17^6.85 *257750 *48,070.23 *16,446.42 *0.00 *1,197.54 *605 86 *222.55 *70.55 118,540.28 *55,716.76 *4,855.20 *2,949.22 *1,820.00 *5,000.00 *300.00 1467^1.18 1.00 0.40 1740 9W1 JL.l-TWfiDate: 03/23/94 Time: 13:44 Little Rock School Dlitrlct Department Budget - OOM K. -j: BUD002 Furtctlon Department Code - Description BASELINE ELEMENTARY I Object Code - Description Actual 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 Actual 01/31/94 Budget 1994/95 FTE 1994/95 2410 0022 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 0110 0120 0210 0240 0410 REGULAR CERTIFICATED REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX INSURANCE SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER *57,566.86 *14,929.83 S,S45\nW *3,071.64 ioZoo iOo 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 6125 0210 6235 0240 5321 B4? TOTAL* ial,114:2? *60,344.09 *14,561.65 *5,370.54 *2,559.52 *176.85 *257.50 *83,270.15 *29,325.12 *8,026.62 *2,796.52 *1,135.09 *0.00 *0.00 *41,263,35 *59,816.94 *16,239.25 *5,818.30 *2,600.00 *300.00 *200.00 *84,974.49 1.00 1.00 2.00 REGULAR HON-CERTIFICATED SOCIAL SECURITY TAX PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET IRENE INSURANCE UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL 15352 UTILITY SERVICES-ELtCTRlC ^353 UTILITY SER-UATER/SEUAGE/ UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU on? TOTAL* *31,620.?? *2\n373.14 *i\n624:36' *2:667:25 *7,530.85 *36\n176743 *1,496.63 *82:27772T 3t\nt?? 1T7l5lT?y 2'\n433::5r *9,300.00 i46\nAM:M *1,800.00 *94,837.81 *19,572.44 *1,497.25 *782:85 *945.30 Y31755J3? *991.76 *57,341.75 *36,276.70 *2,775.17  to.60 *3,900.00 *9,300.00 *46,000.60 *1,800.00 *100,051.87 Too 3.00 SUPPLIE* - SUPPLY CENTER \"2596' BASEL Ine kEMENTARY ~ OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU TOTAL* tOTALS : *1,661:3? *i:6?T3? Wli 68739 ------*2,565750 *2:i6o:65 I1\n631,461:B? *1,635.56 -1175353^ *397 ME 19 *2,500.00 *2,500.00 1999^57?755' Page 61Date: April 10, 1994 To: Staff v From: ('/Y^Ann Subject: Upcoming Hearing on LRSD 1994-95 Budget As you Icnow, the April 22 hearing on LRSDs proposed 1994-95 budget is less than two weeks away. Weve received some of the districts business cases for proposed changes that will have an impact on the budget. You may have seen some of them before. Polly is running off the copies youll need. Read and review each of the cases which is in your area of responsibility. Some of you will share certain cases, like Melissa and Horace on curriculum areas, for example. You are, of course, free to ask each other for help, advice, input, etc., on any case. By no later than noon of next Tuesday, April 19, I need your brief write-up on the cases according to the guidelines below. Use the general hearing format that is very familiar to all of us by now, writing the following for each case: (1) the title of the business case\n(2) a very brief summary of what it proposes for which school, department, or program\n(3) proposed implementation date or timeframe (some cases are for \"as soon as possible,\" some for the next fiscal year, etc.)\n(5) and the financial bottom line. Then if the case raises significant issues or is relevant to the budget to the extent that the ludge should bring the case up during the hearing. (5) list the main issues and (6) add any questions you believe are important for the Judge to pose. Keep in mind that the hearing is scheduled for one day only and will deal primarily with the big budget picture and how the district plans to balance its budget. That means there wont be time to go into business cases to any great extent, so any questions on them will have to be brief and to the point. Look for ways to keep things as condensed as possible. For example, several of the cases can probably be combined (e.g. Spanish teachers at the incentive schools). Also, deal only with issues that are the most important at this phase of budget development and review. The district has also finally sent us their Fast Track Evaluations book, which covers certain desegregation areas. Skim through the evaluations to see if they contain anything presently relevant to the business cases or the hearing. Polly has a copy at her desk. Reminder: Get your final interdistrict report changes to me as each school is finished. This report is way behind schedule and so is developing the incentive school guide and school monitoring. 1 must have everything on the interdistrict report no later than the beginning of the workday on Tuesday, April 12, 1994. Be sure to also review and (revise if necessary) your recommendations because the Judge thinks she wants us to put them in the report. Thanks.ASSIGNMENTS FOR BUSINESS CASE REVIEW April 22 Hearing Proposed Funding of Business Cases................................................. Student Assignment Office Reorganization....................................... Theme Specialist, Romine.................................................................... Multimedia Technology, Phase II, Garland....................................... Computer Science Theme Infusion, Rockefeller................................. Executive Assistant for Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Dialogues (District and Community)................................................. English as a Second Language (ESL) Program................................. Language Arts and Mathematics....................................................... Applied Biology and Chemistry.......................................................... Science Program................................................................................. Science Curriculum Revision.............................................................. Bob Melissa and Bob .Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Connie Connie Horace and Melissa Melissa and Horace Horace and Margie Horace and Melissa Horace and Melissa Secretarial Position, Social Studies Department. Foreign Languages K-12 Curriculum Articulation Horace and Melissa Melissa and Horace Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program, 1st Grade Pilot Project . . . . Melissa and Horace Spanish Program, Franklin . Spanish Program, Rightsell Stephens Mitchell Garland Rockefeller Melissa and Horace Melissa and Horace Communications Technology Theme, Franklin . . . Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme, Rightsell Alternative Room Specialist, Rockefeller................ Alternative Room Specialist, Rightsell................... Alternative Room Specialist, Stephens................... Alternative Room Specialist, Franklin...................... Alternative Specialist, Garland................................ Horace Horace Margie Margie Margie Margie Margiet 12. Date: April 10, 1994 To: From: Staff 6^'Ann Subject: Upcoming Hearing on LRSD 1994-95 Budget As you Icnow, the April 22 hearing on LRSDs proposed 1994-95 budget is less than two weeks away. Weve received some of the districts business cases for proposed changes that will have an impact on the budget. You may have seen some of them before. Polly is running off the copies youll need. Read and review each of the cases which is in your area of responsibility. Some of you will share certain cases, like Melissa and Horace on curriculum areas, for example. You are, of course, free to ask each other for help, advice, input, etc., on any case. By no later than noon of next Tuesday, April 19, 1 need your brief write-up on the cases according to the guidelines below. Use the general hearing format that is very familiar to all of us by now, writing the following for each case: (1) the title of the business case\n(2) a very brief summary of what it proposes for which school, department, or program\n(3) proposed implementation date or timeframe (some cases are for \"as soon as possible,\" some for the next fiscal year, etc.)\n(5) and the financial bottom line. Then if the case raises significant issues or is relevant to the budget to the extent that the ludge should bring the case up during the hearing, (5) list the main issues and (6) add any questions you believe are important for the Judge to pose. Keep in mind that the hearing is scheduled for one day only and will deal primarily with the big budget picture and how the district plans to balance its budget. That means there wont be time to go into business cases to any great extent, so any questions on them will have to be brief and to the point. Look for ways to keep things as condensed as possible. For example, several of the cases can probably be combined (e.g. Spanish teachers at the incentive schools). Also, deal only with issues that are the most important at this phase of budget development and review. The district has also finally sent us their Fast Track Evaluations book, which covers certain desegregation areas. Skim through the evaluations to see if they contain anything presently relevant to the business cases or the hearing. Polly has a copy at her desk. Reminder: Get your final interdistrict report changes to me as each school is finished. This report is way behind schedule and so is developing the incentive school guide and school monitoring. 1 must have everything on the interdistrict report no later than the beginning of the workday on Tuesday, April 12, 1994. Be sure to also review and (revise if necessary) your recommendations because the Judge thinks she wants us to put them in the report. Thanks.ASSIGNMENTS FOR BUSINESS CASE REVIEW April 22 Hearing Proposed Funding of Business Cases................................................. Student Assignment Office Reorganization....................................... Theme Specialist, Romine.................................................................... Multimedia Technology, Phase II, Garland....................................... Computer Science Theme Infusion, Rockefeller................................. Executive Assistant for Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Dialogues (District and Community) ................................................. English as a Second Language (ESL) Program................................. Language Ans and Mathematics....................................................... Applied Biology and Chemistry.......................................................... Science Program................................................................................. Science Curriculum Revision.............................................................. Bob Melissa and Bob Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Connie Connie Horace and Melissa Melissa and Horace Horace and Margie Horace and Melissa Horace and Melissa Secretarial Position, Social Studies Department. Foreign Languages K-12 Curriculum Articulation Horace and Melissa Melissa and Horace Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program, 1st Grade Pilot Project .... Melissa and Horace Spanish Program, Franklin . Spanish Program, Rightsell Stephens Mitchell Garland Rockefeller Melissa and Horace . Melissa and Horace Communications Technology Theme, Franklin . . . Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme, Rightsell Alternative Room Specialist, Rockefeller................ Alternative Room Specialist, Rightsell................... Alternative Room Specialist, Stephens................... Alternative Room Specialist, Franklin...................... Alternative Specialist, Garland................................ Horace Horace Margie Margie Margie Margie MargieLittle Rock School District Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation A Business Case Addition  Modification Deletion June, 1994 (Revised August 8, 1994)Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case Executive Summary The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to monitor the district's desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. Recently, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. The kinds of problems produced daily in this department could fill the large part of a day. Even if transportation is out-sourced, some of the routes and personnel will be retained by the district and require supervision. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the progress of the district toward the desegregation plan. The Student Assignment Office is not receiving the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The recommended solution is to modify the position of Desegregation Facilitator by changing the title to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation and increasing the responsibilities to include student assignments. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Implementing this alternative will permit: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nThorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nQuicker response to parent inquires\nand. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant through a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. Though registration and assignments are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues through August when it becomes overwhelming. Time forDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 2 announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once approval is given. This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in positions or costs. Only the title will change and the responsibilities will increase. Funding for this position will come from the currently used line item of the budget. The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Milestone Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Discuss this modification with all parties Present Business Case to attorneys to submit plan modification Submit plan modification to the Court for approval 6. Court approval 7. 8. Advertise the position Interview 9. Report for work Date 6/14/94 6/14/94 6/16/94 6/17/94 8/5/94 8/12/94 8/17/94 9/1/94 9/15/94 Person Mayo Willicims Williams Mayo Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation August, 1994 8/5'94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 3 Background The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to monitor the district's desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. Recently, the responsibilities of Communications cind Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. The kinds of problems produced daily in this department could fill the large part of a day. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the progress of the district toward the desegregation plan. Problem Definition The Student Assignment Office is not receiving the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of pcirents while not increasing personnel costs. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions of when to release certain waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planning for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or construction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with unhappy parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. This sample of student assignment related responsibilities requires day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the responsibility of the student assignment supervisor and other responsibilities including supervision of Transportation, Communications, VIPS, desegregation. Though housed at the SAO, more often than not he is in meetings elsewhere. Approximately 60% of his time is spent in meetings relating to matters other than student assignment. The day-to-day attention to student assignment is not possible. 8/5/94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 4 Analysis of Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered: 1. Add a new position to cover the responsibilities of student assignment and to assist the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This creates an additional 2. 3. position and personnel costs. Allow things to remain as they are. SAO and parents will continue to receive less than adequate attention. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. Realign responsibilities to maintain most of the current duties and include student assignment responsibilities. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure I below. Many of the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator are covered already by current personnel and procedures. The Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel do most Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart Associate Superintendent i3irector of Transportation Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Director of Communications SUff I (2) Recruiters Community Deveiopment Coordinator (VIPS) sun Student Assignment Coordinator SAO Information Coordinator  Programmer (5) Student Assignment Assistants Figure 1 D1RSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 5 of the functions of the Desegregation Facilitator. Additioneil safeguards such as the Program Budget Document and the PERT chart (Tool) were implemented to prevent omissions. Examples of responsibilities of the position are as follows: a) b) c) d) e) 0 S) h) i) j) k) 1) m) Supervises and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office\nKeeps the Associate Superintendent informed and updated on progress made in performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties\nAssists with developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, and equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nAssists with monitoring and evaluating the districts desegregation plan\nAssists in ensuring that desegregation assessments, studies, surveys, and evaluation results are used to improve the operations of the schools\nAssists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process\nProvides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment\nObserves the progress of desegregation implementation by reading and writing performance reports relating to implementation\nStays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings\nProvides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel\nCoordinates the appeals committee and monitoring groups such as the Parent Council, Bi-Racial Committee, and others as assigned\nAssists in monitoring all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not lirnited to, achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement\nand. Performs other duties as assigned. In the LRSD Plan, at the conclusion of the Educational Equity Monitoring section, the Desegregation Facilitator is explained as follows: 8/5/94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 6 Office of Desegregation A desegregation facilitator will be hired to work directly with building principals. The desegregation facilitator will be solely responsible for identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building. The facilitator will also be responsible for providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs, for desegregation related concerns. The use of a desegregation facilitator will allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day to day activities in the schools. The desegregation facilitator will report directly to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. However, the desegregation facilitator will work very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed. The desegregation facilitator will focus on all aspects of desegregation implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement runeline Develop Job Description Aimounce Position Hire Desegregation Facilitator March 1-15 April 1-15 May 30 The tasks as described above will be the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent as follows: 1. Work directly with building principals\n2. 3. 4. 5. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building\nProviding technical assistance to building principals\nWorking very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed\nand, Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation. Recommendation 1 Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation. Realign responsibilities to maintain most of the * All p\u0026gt;aragraphs appearing in bold print in this section represent a revision of this business case as of August 8. They address the question from the Court of who will be responsible for the specific items in the plan. 8/5/94 niRSAODOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 7 current duties and include student assignment responsibilities. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Objective 1 Upon implementation of alternative 3, the Student Assignment Office will receive the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents while not increasing personnel costs. Achieving this objective will permit: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nThorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nQuicker response to parent inquires\nand. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. Impact Analysis Negatives 1. Student Assignment Personnel will have to adjust to a third supervisor within three years. 2. Parties in the case may be concerned that monitoring of the districts desegregation obligations will be compromised. Positives 1. eliminate delays in decision-making and responses to parents in the area of student assignments. 2. permit efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\n8/5/94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 8 3. 4. 5. 6. bring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nprovide more thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nallow quicker response to parent inquires\nand, permit the identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, continuous non-compliance with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor image in the area of student assignments. Timing The sooner we can do this the better. Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant through a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. Though registration and assignment are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues through August when it becomes overwhelming. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once approval is given. Resources Analysis Personnei This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of positions existing. Financial No change will occur in the current level of funding for this position. Only the title will change and the responsibilities will increase. Revenue Source Funding for this position will come from budget. ently used line item of the 8/5/94 DIRSAO.DOCDirector of Student Assignment and Desegregation Business Case 9 Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this modification are council members, SAO staff, Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. Ultimately, this modification will help them meet their obligations under our plan. General Information Plan The following cire milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Milestone Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approveil Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approved Discuss this modification with all parties Present Business Case to attorneys to submit plan modification Submit plan modification to the Court for approved 6. Court approval 7. 8. Advertise the position Interview 9. Report for work Date 6/14/94 6/14/94 6/16/94 6/17/94 8/5/94 8/12/94 8/17/94 9/1/94 9/15/94 Person Mayo Williams Williams Mayo Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee 3'5/94 DIRSAO.DOCreceive JUL 1 4 1994 Little Rock School District Office of Desesrcgatiwi S^so\u0026amp;h^q Outsourcing Student Transportation June, 1994 A Business Case ^^ass, i?_ stop' iSSS! -\u0026gt;^.v.-rz.\u0026gt;^-if.. a rr-r -Tn -ri-iaSSSSSjJ^JMfcgLittle Rock School District Outsourcing of Student Transportation Business Case Executive Stamnary One of the key issues facing the LRSD today is how to best handle the ever increasing demand for educational dollars while at the same time controlling and/or reducing the District's transportation costs and improving transportation operations and safety. It is often difficult to determine precisely the source of most of the problems within the current transportation system, but it suffices that an extraordinary amount of time has been spent by the Administration in recent months to achieve this end. In fact, a study was requested by the Board for the specific purpose of determining the processes whereby work is accomplished, and making any recommendations to the District for handling any shortcomings uncovered by this research. In their assessment. Coopers and Lybrand, the national accounting firm selected for the work, noted that although several areas were looked at in terms of whether or not they contributed to the successful accomplishment of the District's mission, pupil transportation stood out prominently as a Lability. Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance which has occurred because of an aging fleet, increasing accidents, and increasing absenteeism. The crurent fleet of buses numbers 281. The expected useful life of a gas engine bus is 100,000 miles. The fleet has 128 gas engine buses with over 100,000 miles on them. In the last 3 years, no money has been budgeted for replacement of buses. This circumstance alone has increased the cost and time devoted to maintenance. At times, as many as 51 buses have been out of service for repairs. As major repairs become increasingly more frequent, both labor and parts/materials costs are expected to rise proportionately higher in each succeeding year. In 1993, the District spent $480,804, in 1994 it spent $745,245, and in 1995 it is predicted to reach over $1 million. This escalation in vehicle maintenance costs is consistent with the out-of-service rate, and relates back to the level of performance. With the exception of periods immediately succeeding holidays or extended times of non-service, the District averages approximately 40 out-of-service buses per day. This represents 14% of the entire fleet of 281 vehicles. Since the District has a 10% spare bus ratio, the net result is an insufficient number of vehicles available for service. A reasonable expectation is for no more than 5% of the vehicles to be out-of-service for corrective or preventative maintenance during peak operational periods. Another common performance indicator associated with vehicle maintenance is \"wrecker experience\". In 1993, the District spent $14,390 for 160 wrecker calls. By comparison $25,945 has been spent for 291 wrecker calls to date in 1994. It is predicted that $37,800 will be spent for over 400 calls in the coming year. A more acceptable number for a fleet of this size would be an average wrecker experience of about five per month or 60 per year.Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 2 The District has a daily driver absentee rate of 23% . This translates to 48 drivers who are imavailable for service daily. The result of this high level of absenteeism is poor route performance, increased student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. The bottom line is that the current operation is, more often than not, besieged with problems stemming from extreme driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee sick leave provisions. (Note: the PCSSD currently has no employer sponsored sick leave provision for Bus Drivers and subsequently has many fewer problems in this regard) 1. 2. 3. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually\nFollow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately $800,000. This solution does not maintain reasonable costs. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable since a $7 million dollar gap exists in the current budget Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Several strategies have been discussed in recent months, but perhaps none is as practicable an idea as that of outsourcing. It is believed that through outsourcing, the District will realize a considerable cost savings and significantly improve the level of service provided to its students and patrons. Though a primary motivation for considering outsourcing is to capture cost savings, it is worth mentioning that other tangible benefits such as reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lowered driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance, and reduced vehicle accident rate will also be realized. An appreciable improvement in these areas will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish a more stable and reliable transportation system for future LRSD needs. Alternative 3 is recommended. By the opening of school for 1994-95, on-time performance will increase and parent complaints will decrease while reducing the cost of the student transportation system. This transportation proposal supports the school district goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented: 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n07/xv BCjwrOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 3 2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. 4. 5. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\nAccidents decrease\nThe number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed. It is critical that the decision be made before July 15th so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. A savings of 1 million doUars is the estimated benefit over the next three years under this plan. The District will maintain the special education routes and a smaller maintenance facihty already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs. The money currently allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. ______________________Milestone______________________ 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_________________________________________ 2. Notice to employees Date 7/14/94 Person Williams 3. Include this as a budget reduction strategy 4. Recruitment of current employees 5. Recruitment of new employees 6. Inventory property 7. Finalize contract 8. Relocate Safety and Security Department 9, Property transfer and occupancy_______ 10. Complete bus routes_________________ 11  Retrain current employees____________ 12. Train new employees_________________ 13. Notify patrons_______________________ 14. Begin delivery of replacement equipment 15. Complete driver orientation and dry runs 7/15/94 7/15/94 7/18/94 7/18/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/22/94 7/29/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/10/94 8/15/94 Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Williams Neal, Eaton Neal, Milhollen Montgomery Contractor Contractor Wagner Contractor Contractor 07/14/94 00,057\nOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 4 Background One of the key issues facing the LRSD today is how to best handle the ever increasing demand for educational dollars while at the same time controlling and/or reducing the District's transportation costs and improving transportation operations and safety. It is often difficult to determine precisely the source of most of the problems within the current transportation system, but it suffices that an extraordinary amount of time has been spent by the Administration in recent months to achieve this end. In fact, a study was requested by the Board for the specific purpose of determining the processes whereby work is accomplished, and making any recommendations to the District for handling any shortcomings uncovered by this research. In their assessment. Coopers and Lybrand, the national accounting firm selected for the work, noted that although several areas were looked at in terms of whether or not they contributed to the successful accomplishment of the District's mission, pupil transportation stood out prominently as a hability. The District expends an inordinate amount of time and energy focusing on Support Services such as transportation. Educational issues often take a back seat to transportation operations because of the time required to respond to these concerns. Often these issues are the focus of media attention which results in poor public relations. The District's transportation operations have frequently been in the media this year. In fact, it was the lead article on the front page of the November 7, 1993 Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Many of these stories have revolved around labor and safety issues and poor operational performance. The accuracy and voracity of the stories is not as important as the resulting poor public perception of the operations, and the fact that these \"crises\" are draining management's attention away from the primary goal of educating children. Service in the Little Rock School District has been the subject of much debate. According to a recent study only 69% of the buses are \"on-time.\" At present the district is not employing the best \"state-of-the-market techruques\" for managing and providing student transportation services. The Little Rock School District is facing a $7.2 million budget deficit for the 94-95 academic year. Management in the Transportation Department is concerned that the fleet is aging and a large proportion of it must be replaced. For the last several years, the District has been unable to meet its targeted goal of replacing 10% of its buses per year. As a result replacing the aged fleet now represents a prodigious capital expense which the District virtually cannot incur in a single budget year. To return to an acceptable fleet replacement cycle, the District would have to expend approximately $1 million per year over the next six years. \u0026gt;17/14/^ KjmOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 5 Problem Definition Parent complaints with our student transportation system have become voluminous as a result of poor on-time performance which has occurred because of an aging fleet, increasing accidents, and increasing absenteeism. The current fleet of buses numbers 281. The expected useful life of a gas engine bus is 100,000 miles. The fleet has 128 gas engine buses with over 100,000 miles on them. In the last 3 years, no money has been budgeted for replacement of buses. This circumstance alone has increased the cost and time devoted to maintenance. At times, as many as 51 buses have been out of service for repairs. To bring the fleet up-to-date requires a replacement schedule that meets certain criteria. The standards we have used are based on type of engine and miles of use. Those parameters require that buses used to service the District be replaced as follows: Gasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds seven years of age or 100,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 150,000 miles at the beginning of any school year. Using these parameters, along with the fleet's current mileage as of the close of school in June, 1994, a replacement schedule for the District's current vehicles School Year 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2003-2004 Buses 128 29 22 18 10 1 25 was established. Listed here is the number of buses that will need to be replaced prior to the start of each Replacement Schedule of Buses Based on 1994 Fleet \u0026amp; RFP Standard corresponding school year. Fundamental to the success of District 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 128 +$900,000 in 1994-95 to meet standard 94-95 29 22 18 10 95-96 96-97 97-96 96-99 transportation operation is improving the level of service in the area of vehicle 0 25 1 a 99- 2000 0 2000- 2001 0 2001- 2002 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 School Year a fleet of 281 buses with only eight mechanics. maintenance. Because of the age and condition for the existing fleet it has become necessary to add additional maintenance staff and to service the older high mileage buses much more frequently. The District currently services The workload has increased dramatically over previous years because heavy maintenance previously covered under 07/14/M 0C_OUT Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 6 warranty must now be performed in-house. In fact, a recent study of the operation conducted by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. yielded this finding: The high ratio of one maintenance person to 44 vehicles is unsatisfactory. With many of these vehicles having over 100,000 miles on them, the need for quality preventative maintenance is crucial. This is not presently possible and Mr. Viner and his staff are doing an excellent job of keeping the fleet running. Add to this the fact that no new buses are being bought this year, the situation is going to become more difficult to manage. Mr. Viner recently had one mechanic resign citing stress and the heavy maintenance workload as the reason. A replacement has not yet been hired, but even with this individual replaced, the bus vs. mechanic ratio is not consistent with national standards. As major repairs become increasingly more frequent, both labor and parts/ materials costs are expected to rise proportionately higher in each succeeding year. In 1993, the District spent $480,804, in 1994 it spent $745,245, and in 1995 it is predicted to reach over $1 million. This escalation in vehicle maintenance costs is consistent with the out-of-service rate, and relates back to the level of performance. With the exception of periods immediately succeeding holidays or extended times of non-service, the District averages approximately 40 out-of-service buses per day. This represents 14% of the entire fleet of 281 vehicles. Since the District has a 10% spare bus ratio, the net result is an insufficient number of vehicles available for service. A reasonable expectation is for no more than 5% of the vehicles to be out-of-service for corrective or preventative maintenance during peak operational periods. Parts/Materials/Supplies $1.200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Another common performance indicator associated with vehicle maintenance is \"wrecker experience\". In 1993, the District spent $14,390 for 160 wrecker calls. By comparison $25,945 has been spent for 291 wrecker calls to date in 1994. It is predicted that $37,800 will be spent for over 400 calls in the coming year. A more acceptable number for a fleet of this size would be an average wrecker experience of about five per month or 60 per year. 07AV** 8C_OUT Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 7 Wrecker Experienc $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 400 299 fI r 160 60 I i 60 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 LRSD Wrecker Calls  Normal Wrecker Calls Several factors are used in determining performance levels for transportation services. One of the leading indicators of poor performance is driver absenteeism. Because unwarranted absenteeism harms the program for children, wastes the District's scarce resources, and works an undue hardship on employees who maintain good attendance records, it is considered to be a causal factor, and a fairly accurate indicator of the unsatisfactory performance level of the current operation. The District has a daily driver absentee rate of 23% . This translates to 48 drivers who are unavailable for service daily. The result of this high level of absenteeism is poor route performance, increased student discipline concerns, and inordinately high costs for drivers re-routed to pick up missed students. The bottom line is that the current operation is, more often than not, besieged with problems stemming from extreme driver absenteeism and the seemingly liberal use of employee sick leave provisions. (Note: the PCSSD currently has no employer sponsored sick leave provision for Bus Drivers and subsequently has many fewer problems in this regard) Vehicle accident rate is commonly used as the indicator when assessing the level of safe operation of the driver, the conditions in which operations are performed, and r 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Quality of Performance Accidents per Million Miles J the condition of the vehicles operated. Preventable accidents harm students and others, waste financial resources, and lead to unnecessary down-time for equipment In 1993, the District had 68 such accidents while logging over 3.9 million miles\nin 1994, there were 54 preventable accidents with the fleet traveling just over 4.3 million miles. That translates into 17.4 accidents per million miles and 12.5 accidents per million miles respectively. By contrast, the prospective contractor has an record established, documented safety of only 8.8 preventable 07/14/94 BC.OUr Outsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 8 accidents per million miles. Typically/ a high vehicle accident rate manifests in increases for both Workers Compensation and Property and Casualty insurance costs. Analysis of three previous years claims for Workers Compensation indicates an extreme upward trend in the frequency of claims and the cost per claim to the District In 1992 there were 31 Workers Compensation claims processed for the Transportation Department at a cost of $66,439. In 1993 there were 42 claims processed at a cost of $169,587, and by March of 1994, there had been some 45 claims totaling $57,662. Bus driver claims account for 65% of all claims by district employees. The composite data indicates an urgent need for improved driver training and the initiation of a vigorous and sustained safety awareness program. That has not been possible in LRSD because of the eUmination of supervisory/training position by budget cuts. Regarding these same issues, the Gallagher study referred to previously provided the following recommendations: 93-12-22. The Director of Transportation should develop, implement and manage an aggressive Loss Prevention Program. Supervisors and employees must be held accountable for their actions. Fair, Swift and appropriate discipline or corrective measures must be taken to handle unsatisfactory conditions prior to them becoming uncontrollable. 93-12-23. No driver should be allowed to operate a vehicle without first, having been trained in defensive driving. AU drivers should after initial training, attend annual defensive driving training including, hands-on evaluations. While the foregoing factors taken individually do not threaten the collapse of transportation, taken together, these signs reveal a dysfunctional system. Consider the comments of the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand staff in their findings at the transportation terminal: Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand spent two days talking with customers and employees of the Little Rock School District's Transportation Department. While almost all of the people we talked to spoke favorably of the department's operation relative to the constraints placed upon it, all indicated a concern that something needed to be done to ensure that things didn't get worse. All interviewees, customers and employees alike, expressed a concern that the department was beginning to show signs of stress, like cracks in a dam, and many were fearful of the department's future. It is C\u0026amp;L's opinion that these concerns and signs are real. We also feel that these symptoms reflect the fact that the current mode of operation was conceived long ago without any vision of the desegregated , inner city environment in which the department now operates. What is frightening is that the interwoven complexities of this environment combined with the bankrupt methods of the past have created a semi-self defeating situation that cannot be escaped without vigorous redesign of the process. Analysis of Alternatives J Solutions were discussed with a committee representing parents, principals, support staff, and administrators in the LRSD. Upon careful consideration, several 07/14/M BC.OUTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 9 aspects of the problem emerged. These must be addressed to have a viable solution to the problem. They are parent complaints, on-time performance, aging fleet, increasing accidents, increasing absenteeism, and costs. 1. 2. 3. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually\nFollow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This will have a dramatic impact on the current and future budgets. The first year increase to the budget is approximately $800,000. This solution does not maintain reasonable costs. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable since a $7 million dollar gap exists in the current budget Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Several strategies have been discussed in recent months, but perhaps none is as practicable an idea as that of outsourcing. It is believed that through outsourcing, the District will realize a considerable cost savings and significantly improve the level of service provided to its students and patrons. Though a primary motivation for considering outsourcing is to capture cost savings, it is worth mentioning that other tangible benefits such as reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lowered driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance, and reduced vehicle accident rate will also be realized. An appreciable improvement in these areas will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish a more stable and reliable transportation system for future LRSD needs. Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Research requested by the Board of Directors indicates that this alternative addresses all aspects of the problem. It includes a budget savings of approximately $1 million dollars over the next three years. Proposals have been requested from private sector transportation companies on this alternative. Of the responses received, only Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. proposed to contract the LRSD student transportation system as appear tn the proposal submitted by the contractor. specified. Details 07/14/94 0C_OUTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 10 Objective By the opening of school for 1994-95, on-time performance will increase and parent complaints will decrease while reducing the cost of the student transportation system. This transportation proposal supports the school district goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented: 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed. Impact Analysis The district is aware of the concern that exists among the bus drivers. The concern expressed has focused on job security. Those who have appeared in protest are those who will remain with the district anyway. The district will maintain special education routes and therefore about 80 drivers. The proposal for outsourcing requires that those currently employed by the LRSD be employed by the contractor. Negatives 1. The transition to a private contractor will require extra time for district administrators to turn over the operation which will no doubt have unpredictable inconveniences\n2. Bus driver reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the loss of their jobs\nPositives 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n07/14/94 BC_0UTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents will decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of- 11 Quality of Performance Bus Availability, Driver Absenteosm, Not-oo-'nine Buses service decrease\nfor repairs will 6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less that that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed providing students with badly needed new buses. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%  LRS  Contracto 14% 5% Out-of-Service 23% 12% Absenteeism 30% 1% Not-on-TIme Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing costs to the district, increasing complaints by patrons, and a generally poor image of the district's transportation system. The risks of implementation of this solution are the unfounded presiunptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain our current management capabiUty given the delays in implementation of outsourcing when considering increased activities associated with the start up of the school year. Timing It is critical that the decision be made before July 15th so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timehne included must be addressed. Resources Analysis Personnel No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. 07/14/94 BC_OUrOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 12 Financial A savings of 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit over the next three years under this plan. The District wiU maintain the special education routes and a smaller v. Three Year Bottom Line Cost Comparison LRSD V. Contractor a LRSD  Contractor -$1,018,614 savings over 3 years $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,327,775 $7,760,438 $6,562,449 $6,463,981 $6,997,680 !7,170,387 x $1,000,000 $0 94-95 95-96 96-97 School Year maintenance facility already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs (See Attachment 1). Revenue Source The money currently allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution  patrons and administrators within the District The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student service and cost savings. BCJWTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 13 Those most opposed to the solution will be bus drivers who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. The strongest statement in favor of outsourcing is that costs will be reduced while improving service. General Implementation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone Date Person 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 7/14/94 Williams 2. Notice to employees 7/15/94 3, Include this as a budget reduction strategy 4. Recruitment of current employees 5. Recruitment of new employees 6. Inventory property 7. Finalize contract 8. Relocate Safety and Security Department 9. Property transfer and occupancy 10. Complete bus routes 11. Retrain current employees 12. Train new employees 13. Notify patrons 14. Begin delivery of replacement equipment 15. Complete driver orientation and dry runs 7/15/94 7/18/94 7/18/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/21/94 7/22/94 7/29/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/1/94 8/10/94 8/15/94 Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Williams Neal, Eaton Neal, Milhollen Montgomery Contractor Contractor Wagner Contractor Contractor 14/94 BC.OOTOutsourcing Student Transportation Business Case 14 Attachment 1 Comparison of LRSD costs to Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. Costs EXPENSE CATEGORY Salaries Fringe Benefits Purchased Services Materials / Supplies Capital Outlay Other Objects SUBTOTAL Budget Yr 1994-95 3,679,789 800,604 676,500 964,664 11,000 1,000 6,133,557 Budget Yr 1995-96 3,790,183 809,049 686,648 984,041 11,000 1,000 6,281,921 Budget Yr 1996-97 3,985,519 852,142 700,381 1,003,722 11,000 1,000 6,553,764 TOTAL 11,455,491 2,461,795 2,063,529 2,952,427 33,000 3,000 18,969,242 Fleet Insurance Workers Compensation Fleet Disposal Bus Payment SUBTOTAL 512,680 236,473 537,000 522,933 243,565 533,392 251,357 1,286,153 1,155,391 1,921,889 1,317,297 2,102,046 1,569,005 731,395 537,000 2,472,688 5,310,088 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 7,419,710 8,203,810 8,655,810 24,279,330 Mayflower Proposal Special Education TOTAL 6,463,981 857,261 7,321,242 6,997,680 876,035 7,873,715 7,170,387 895,372 8,065,759 20,632,048 2,628,668 23,260,716 SAVINGS Regular/ M-to-M Special Ed TOTAL 98,468 6,562,449 857,261 7,419,710 330,095 7,327,775 876,035 8,203,810 590,051 7,760,438 895,372 8,655,810 1,018,614 21,650,662 2,628,668 24,279,330 .T/IVW BC.OOTRECEIVED ZntA^ JUL 2 5 1994 Office of Desegregation Mannoiing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of its business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 * iyj J By:l Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 F CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 21st day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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 Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING July 18, 1994 BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. This commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comparable to the best in the District and the state. time, At that as well as today, Cairver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Teriry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents, academic Incentive schools were designed to promote and ensure excellence in schools that have difficult been to desegregate. Incentive School Program is not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool The IS for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. classes. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, \"double-funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost a factor which was to be considered at a later point. time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools Since that according to this established criteria. \"Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations\" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. The purpose of each change was to improve the quality of education. However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 2 The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. B. C. Greater emphasis must be placed implementing and evaluating quality integrated education for our community. on The District must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of its' annual recurring revenues. Short-term remedies have only delayed the financial crises that we now face. Problem Definition programming has Current not resulted in either improved achievement or desegregated schools. A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. limited. Instructional time is Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its' financial problems. Over the years, the cost of funding incentive schools has more than tripled and current programming has not resulted in improved achievement or desegregated The District must now decide if it will continue to schools. triple fund Incentive School programs, while reducing the funding for Area Schools. Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and we run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. are fifty schools in There the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase District is now asking the following questions: in enrollment. The  Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the in Incentive Schools' original goals are achieved?  Are there obligations that are educational or some other standpoint? questionable from an  Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with dollars generated through double-funding?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 3  Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money?  Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools? The alternatives at this time are:  Keep doing what we are doing.  Analyze current funding of Incentive Schools and double fund as previously committed.  Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District. ~ . . . . Care must be taken to surgically reduce triple funding of the Incentive Schools, these schools remain an important and relevant component of Court approved desegregation plan. as our Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists\nhowever, African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. that data show that The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time. There are waitina lists for oarents who wish -t-n 1 their There are waiting parents wish to enroll Financial excellence. students where resources alone educational will not excellence ensure prevails, educational There must be ongoing monitoring of programs to ensure double funding is providing for the needs of the children attending these schools. ISIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 4 E. The District recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic further need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers average salary of $35,000 = $280,000). Objectives a X The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the established double funding formula. Evaluation Criteria The incentive evidenced by: school will be successfully operating as Increased student achievement. Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, and teacher-made tests. Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next Quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile. Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools. Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting increase in letter grades of C\" or better in the core areas an for each student. Increased activities. student participation in extended day/week Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction students. of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive school program.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 5 F. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in environment that is attractive and conducive to learning, desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted, recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan as teaching learning will be enhanced. Successful an The This and implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student learning and parent involvement.  The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine months, to provide quality staff development for all of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the district's students attend Area Schools. Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis to \"doing more with less.\" Testimonies have suggested that the \"double funding\" intent has created a financial illusion of a \"cure all\" panacea for these schools. The district's program planning and budgeting document will allow us to monitor the impact of \"double funding\" on Incentive School programs on a regular basis, monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not Such suffer irreparable harm as we\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_278","title":"'Business Cases for Review by Board of Directors (Exhibit 313 on July 6, 1995)","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":["1994/1995"],"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--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["'Business Cases for Review by Board of Directors (Exhibit 313 on July 6, 1995)"],"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/278"],"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\n1 u p h 11 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION tr 1 Q  BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS o i 1994-95LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1994-95 1 a rf n J. I T I c IBUSINESS CASES FOR FY 1995-96 BUSINESS CASES RESULTING IN SAVINGS Business Case Name 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 Conmunity Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation Neu 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 _________Schools Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive _________SchooIs 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 Connercial 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 Modify Modify Delete Modify Modi fy Modify Modify Modi fy Modify Add Add Modify Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No S 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 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 CJKS Add No 12,000.00 Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal Add No 3,000.00 New 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 Work on Safety and Security Issues Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues Modi fy No 36,500.00 Social Studies Curriculum Revision Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculun to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides Modify No 13,200.00 Total Savings S 5,815,550.08 Total Expenditures S 211,782.00 Net Savings $ 5,603,768.08 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 School 1 0 IQ DB I tr X 1 Q H 5 2 o in a (I h 1 c S  2 0 I 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 m i Cl I Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) 2 0 i 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 m X 1 a e  memorandum TO: FROM: Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sadie Mitchell, Actii^Assistant Superintendent Margaret GremilponfD^sistant Superintendent SUBJECT: Business Case - Academic Progress Incentive Grant 2 0 iBUSINESS CASE ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS January 13, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons, equity issues regarding 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 tn CL e 5 2 o i 1990 - 1991 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 tutoring assistance to their at-nsk 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- 1c. 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 annual basis. In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the District has determined, based on the results of Fast Track Evaluations, informal and formal m o. e  1 D. observations, that it is appropriate to seek Court permission to discontinue the implementation of APIG. APIG is a complementary addition to the Plan. 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. I [ 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. RECOMMENDATION 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 There were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants of 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- IObjective To discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant. Evaluation Criteria Summer School Extended Year Program and Academic Support evaluation will be utilized for documentation. 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 f \u0026gt; I c c 8 2 c 1 I 3. 4. higher level thinking and problem solving \"learning to learn\" skills Expected Benefits I 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. -5-1 The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and will enable schools to concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across the district. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 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. The area schools will be viewed communities of learning,\" will continue to provide enrichment opportunities, and will ensure equitable opportunities for participation in area schools. The District will implement programs that are comprehensive, effective, and efficient. Quality equitable desegregated education will 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 will support the Desegregation Plan and address court orders favorably. Funds were available for building administrators to submit applications. Some applications were turned in late which caused a delay in program implementation. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources can be used in a more meaningful way. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and connected program. The District should continue its efforts to adequately provide needed 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 $445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) APIG $10,000 Focused 5,000 TOTAL Elementary Area Schools (25) $250,000 125,000 Junior High Area Schools (4) $40,000 Senior High Schools (3) $30,000 Total Schools $320,000 125,000 $375,000 $40,000 $30,000 $445,000 B II h Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administrators who are indirectly involved in the decision making process for the 1995-96 budget 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 I i 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 June, 1995 Continue to read and approve grants as they are submitted from schools 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-r July, 1995 November - December, 1995 Business Case process reviewed with principals in Principals Institute 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- I 1Little Rock School District B w E X 2. 11 h CL Badgett School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 z o I I Addition Modification Deletion $523,000 savings 1/9/95Badgett School Relocation Business Case 2 \\ I Executive Summary I 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 timp cuts. A vacant seats. comparison of the district s total building capacity and total enrollment shows 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. 1 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 filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\nI I I 2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 495 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. Successful experience in recruiting has not been achieved for this school. 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. 5Mt wJby O HT r Wdla m/9i/n K ntiocrooc IBadgett School Relocation Business Case 3 By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students Tvill 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. CD II h 2\na [ 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. 2. 3. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\nCommunity reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\nThe building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n'\"iilUdb,! 01/W/9S IC.RADCT.DOCBadgett 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. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\n6. The Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. 4 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 *iMfe\u0026gt;nnd by t\u0026gt; P W. \u0026lt;n/9/*5l( ADCTtX\u0026lt; 1Badgett School Relocation Business Case 5 ___________ Milestone______________ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) 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 meeting to: a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) 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 S! 18 I Background azV I a h 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 vacant seats. comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows 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. [Pmb/cw Definition Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining ^^rollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. 01/W/9S ir BADCTOCV r T 1 Badgett School Relocation Business Case 6 The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School closing: is considered for 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 steadUy from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\n4. pie 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 fUl the school. Successful recruiting has not been achieved for this school. experience in 6. The per pupU 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, population to fill the school must come from other attendance negatively impact other schools\nThe additional zones which will 8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school the most expensive to operate annually\nand, one on 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. Sobnuiwd by Dt P WtU. 01/W/ Bc 8ADCTOOC IBadgett School Relocation . Business Case 7 Figure 1 Badgett Elementary Enrollment History Criteria Enrollment % Black % Out of Balance Capacity Attnd. Zone TtU AZ % Black 1989-90 1990-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 237 76.00 16.00 92.22 220 202 189 177 74.77 14.77 86.38 73.18 13.18 85.60 76.24 16.24 78.60 69.84 75.14 9.84 73.54 135 65.931 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 is the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help l^ause that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the south of the attendance zone 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 complexe\nSee Attachment A. !S. ir CL 777 a h 5 [ ^Analysts of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a conunittee 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: 1. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\n1 2 Enrollments are for October of each year. Attendance zone data is available for two years only. 0I/W/X5 dr RApcTixrr Badgett School Relocation Business Case 8 2. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Badgett School. This reduces the per-pupil costs at Badgett but will 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 all three areas of the problem. a) b) c) d) A plan to relocate students will be devised. One possible scenario appears in Attachment C\nAn immediate savings of approximately $523,000 will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nStaff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. The curriculum offered at Badgett will 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, it would have a negative impact . - - on neighboring attendance zones. 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. 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 null be relocated, faculty null 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. SufeMtH D H*nn f Wdlt 01/0/ RC RADCTOOr IBadgett School Relocation Business Case 9 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. 2. 8. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met\nNew 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 unplemented 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. Il' Q. D W E M . h i 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. [iwpact Analysis The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. 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 equal program in a more economical way. Negatives Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\nHtnrt r WJluuM.SupnwMfMtevM DI/(n/9S M BArXTTrXVr Badgett School Relocation Business Case 10 \\ 3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. Positives zones in that 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. 5. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\nImmediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nand. 6. The Badgett School facUity may be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. The risks of unplementation of this solution are several. Some are criticism for abandoning another school building in the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing 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. SvbMMd Or. Hmrv P SupmMxicM 0l/(RZ5 RT BADcrncc 1Badgett School Relocation Business Case 11 I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Attrition will be used to eliminate positions. Financial A savings of approximately $523,000 is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. The savings are year-to-year. S?i, II 0 Revenue Source A source of revenue is urmecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the district's budget. [force Field Analysis [ Primary supporters of this proposal will be those who do not have children attending the school. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunities and for cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They may argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities\nThat a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key conununity people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. 01/0*/S K* BAOCrOOCr Badgett School Relocation Business Case 12 I General Implementation Plan 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 contact^ immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste I 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 2/10/95 Mayo 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._________ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to' a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) 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 meeting to: a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) 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 2/10/95 2/10/95 2I2QIQ5 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 Dr. HawT WiM\u0026gt; Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo BC BADCTIX*' IBadgett School Relocation Business Case 13 Attachment A \n Copy of map of Little Rock, eastern most area, with Badgett Elementary and other schools l**D H.n P WJ], RC BAncTDor Cd s?s.  c. II Q. 5 Ihool ichool' uff SchooI l  -J. ^Student Assignment Office' - -  11 T z:br. kingInteroislnctS^ool fchool iv r High School / 111Tf I [ITL L X L I X I T itSsMagnetS^ool, iRocke ^^IfNorth Little Rock / 7^ I - / i\n^^Ca'rveH^agnet School -fIt /i- jfAMlte'rnaiive Learning Cntr. \\ I eller Incentive School ^htsell In^ntive School t  Booker ftJiagnet School Mitch^Incentive School. lh--rnH 1-^  [X Mann1 MMaaggnneett JH Sc ^^ooW T Wasfcngtoh School. School / / / I ! \\ \\ A / \\ 7 I T 21 \\ / h I I I  I I BADGm SCHOOL CoH^e^St^^i ScEwl (PCS^D) \\ I Little Rock School District- I I I I J I I \\ Badgett School Relocation Business Case 14 Attachment B Copy of pages from 1994-95 Budget relating to the cost of Badgett Elementary School * t\u0026gt; Hwa r W4i\u0026gt; 0l/0*/5 nC BADCTtXr CO ?i. II 11 z o IMl AMI L Unit Func Ob] - Description Little Rock School District Department Budget 0019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY _________1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM________ ________________0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED_______ ________________0120 REGULAR NON CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0380 FOOD SERVICES 0410 SUPPLIES ________________0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY______________________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0117 STIPENDS 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT _______0342 POSTAGE_____________________ 0360 PRINTING  BINDING-INTERN _______0410 SUPPLIES____________I_________ _______0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES 0421 TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Date: 8/ 5/94 Vape-. 6t Prog. BUD002 .a. Actual 92/93 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 FTE 94/95 29,078.00 9,960.00 2,966.54 2,935.05 2,510.10 325.76 0.00 0.00 47,795.45 66,968.40 5,123.11 3,118.29 135.41 0.00 0.00 75,345.21 238,811.46 0.00 31,323.81 20,665.95 15,867.18 25.00 86.31 0.00 43.42 987.23 0.00 0.00 500.01 308,330.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 3.00 11.00 30,753.00 9,643.93 2,935.42 2,512.86 103.00 176.85 139.50 0.00 46,264.56 70,319.00 5,014.49 2,633.57 282.95 461.44 0.00 78,711.45 241,781.40 0.00 29,868.37 20,919.72 14,759.75 515.00 257.50 257.50 979.74 1,030.00 3,581.96 257.50 257.50 314,465.94 15,256.00 1,167.00 592.00 34,367.00 10,411.00 3,176.87 2,137.62 2,431.35 35.00 237.47 0.00 52,798.31 40,670.00 3,049.48 1,127.13 145.86 0.00 71.05 45,063.52 215,094.04 0.00 22,217.80 18,030.14 10,238.22 0.00 102.47 21.00 3,221.22 1,365.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 270,290.56 17,233.50 1,318.32 565.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 7.50 4.00 11.50 0.50 59,359.00 20,318.00 5,757.61 4,420.00 5,400.00 3,078.00 178.00 3,600.00 102,110.61 40,670.00 2,938.90 1,105.00 240.00 0.00 0.00 44,953.90 206,775.00 300.00 22,893.30 18,018.24 11,602.50 500.00 100.00 0.00 200.00 1,892.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 262,281.04 17,635.00 1,274.34 552.50 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 7.50 3.00 10.50 0.50Unit Func Obj - Description 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ 0240 INSURANCE_________________ 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION 1220 RESOURCE ROOM___________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0240 INSURANCE____________ 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME_ _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION _______0380 FOOD SERVICES___________ _______0410 SUPPLIES__________________ _______0416 SUPPUES - SUPPLY CENTER _______0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE______ 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Dale: 8/ 5/94 Prog: BUD002 p I....- Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 0.00 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 17,015.00 Actual 93/94 19,117.78 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budget 94/95 19,461.84 FTE 94/95 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10,411.00 796.44 1,292.94 12,500.38 4,390.97 336.00 425.11 5,152.08 1.00 1.00 4,164.40 300.93 442.00 4,907.33 0.40 0.40 14,782.56 1,130.89 768.03 16,681.48 34,784.58 2,661.27 2,809.43 40,255.28 3,199.49 244.79 575.76 440.15 165.00 0.00 0.00 4,625.19 11,888.24 909.40 636.56 13,434.20 29,058.00 2,223.10 1,532.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 posswj JON 15,627.50 1,11442 654.92 17,396.84 15,627.60 1,195.44 561.04 17,384.08 1.00 1.00 16,029.00 1,158.29 552.50 17,739.79 0.50 0.50 24,892.00 1,775.06 1,776.20 28,443.26 33,886.02 2,385.81 2,662.61 38,934.44 1.00 1.00 13,218.50 955.20 552.50 14,726.20 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.10 172.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,162.72 11.49 0.00 9,174.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,095.50 1,076.46 652.55 16,824.51 15,366.50 1,095.79 653.77 31,413.98 2,381.85 1,218.64 35,014.47 15,366.52 1,154.68 563.86 sainjipmdxg swwisna 2.00 2.00 0.50 32,322.80 2,335.70 1,105.00 35,763.50 15,768.00 1,139.42 552.50 1.00 1.00 0.50Little Rock School District Department Budget Unit Func ObJ - Description______ 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES Actual 92/93 32,813.74 FTE 92/93 0.50 Budget 93/94 17,116.06 Actual 93/84 17,085.06 _____2134 NURSING SERVICES -------------------0130 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0310 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ____________P24O INSURANCE 3134 NURSING SERVICES ------ 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES ~ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ------------ 0130 regular NON-CERTIFICATED _______ 0310 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ _______ 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES  SUPPLY CENTER 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES--------- _________ 3410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL __ 0110 regular CERTIFICATED _______ P^30 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______ 0310 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL------------ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS -------------0130 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED -------------0310 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX -------------0330 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME _______ 0240 INSURANCE ________0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL _______ 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGF/ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU ------------0^16 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU D.-rte\n8/ 5/94 Pave- A'K Prog. BUD002 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budget 94/95 17,459.92 FTE 94/95 0.50 90.62 6.94 0.00 97.56 32,692.33 1,152.12 2,569.07 1,701.25 1,456.63 0.00 39,593.60 54,411.43 24,502.13 6,036.72 4,230.79 0.00 0.00 89,181.07 22,766.15 1,743.24 552.51 2,481.37 6,901.65 18,764.99 2,493.27 55,723.18 893.05 893.05 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,139.00 371.35 221.00 5,731.35 0.20 0.20 34,540.67 0.00 1,770.37 1,420.74 176.65 257.50 38,166.13 34,455.67 0.00 2,614.46 1,166.64 1,553.84 0.00 39,790.61 1.00 1.00 35,364.56 0.00 2,555.51 1,105.00 1,607.00 0.00 40,632.09 1.00 1.00 56,104.28 25,304.67 6,099.61 3,769.99 176.85 257.50 93,712.90 57,067.14 15,229.39 5,478.64 2,220.15 0.00 0.00 79,995.52 1.00 2.00 58,150.38 21,275.48 5,739.47 2,652.00 200.00 1.00 1.40 _____________ 200^00 3.00 88.217.33 2.40 21,511.93 1,656.04 573.66 2,421.06 6,400.00 17,500.00 2,700.00 54,762.71 23,571.00 1,803.16 573.60 1,884.73 7,358.75 19,225.15 1,382.67 55,799.26 2.00 2.00 23,106.65 1,669.74 0.00 2,210.00 8,000.00 18,200.00 2,700.00 55,886.59 2.00 2.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,253.66 1,253.66 2,000.00 2,000.00 Unit Func Obi * Description 0019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY Dale: 8/ 5/94 Pace- 64 Prog: BUD002 Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 FTE 94/95 724,769.38 24.05 737,551.84 686,853.56 27.50 711,871.49 24.50 pesswj JON 99Jnjipo9dx3 :saso BsaatsngBadgett School Relocation Business Case 15 Attachment C A possible scenario for relocating students 3 I \u0026lt;iii\u0026lt;iii| bv O Hmy P WUi I m/W/W C JAOCT.OOC Badgett School Relocation Business Case 16 Possible Scenario for Badgett Relocation 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Two four-year-old classes must be relocated intact or a plan modification must be submitted to eliminate these classes. Work with Dr. Kohler, Special Education Dept., to relocate self-contained class of six resource students (5 black and 5 non-black) to another building. Send the twenty-eight black students currently attending Badgett who are not living in Badgett's attendance zone back to their area school. Encourage the thirty-seven non-black students to apply to either Booker Magnet School or to Booker T. Washington Magnet School. For each white student assigned to Washington Magnet School, a black student who is currently attending Badgett because he/ she could not get into their attendance zone school, Washington, can be assigned to Washington if they are on Washington's waiting list. Badgett will lose twenty-seven sixth graders to jr. high school thereby leaving a total of 104 students to reassign (85 black and 37 non-black) if we are unsuccessful in convincing parents to select Booker or Washington. If successful, we are looking at reassigning only about thirty black students. a) PLAN FOR 85 BLACK STUDENTS i) Offer seats in the Incentive Schools ii) Enlarge Chicot and reconstruct the attendance zone to include the former Badgett attendance zone. n S? 6. X 2. 18' 0 I 5 b) PLAN FOR 30 BLACK STUDENTS i) Offer seats in the Incentive Schools ii) Reassign to Pulaski Heights Elementary School Pulaski Heights currently has 26 vacant seats. iii) Offer Brady as the overflow school 6. Effect of Racial Balance on receiving schools:^ a) b) c) Booker - Will remain the same 53.8% (if 37 non-black students and 37 black students opt to go to Booker). Washington - Will remain the same 57.3% (if 37 non-black students and 37 black students opt to go to Washington). Pulaski Heights' current percentage black is 47.6%, this will increase to 54.8% by including Badgett's thirty black students. 5 Student assignment must assign black students on a matching basis with non-black students to maintain the current racial balance within the affected magnet schools. oi/o'5 K KAncrni*Little Rock School District n STS 18 o. II Fair Park School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 I Addition Modification I I / Deletion $637,000 savings 1/9/95Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 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 budding capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. 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 buddings. 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. Fair Park 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 Fair Park Elementary School is considered for closing: 10 STS 11 II \u0026gt; 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 80.34% of its capacity\nThe capacity of the school itself (351) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the size itself is significantly below the average\nEnrollment since 1989 has declined from 332 to 282 and is expected to continue\nThe school is out of racial balance by 12.34%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this\nThe per pupil cost has increased\nI 5 6. Operational costs for the budding have increased to make this school as one on the most expensive to operate annually\n7. 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 buddings\nBy the opening of school for 1995-96, Fair Park 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. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: 1. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\noi/w/w K- MrwcnrcFair Park School Relocation Business Case 3 2. 3. 4. The 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\nI 5. New pafro^ are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. 8. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 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. Ihese are of paramount concern to many community members. Some wiU want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will u 1 un-'i 1 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 while achieving a better racial balance. Negatives 1. Students and staff will their friends\nexperience some disappointment 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\n4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city. 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 UMUed bt Dr Hnwr P WBi (n// BC.PIPWtDOC 1Pair Park School Relocation Business Case 4 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 Fair Park\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $637,000\nand, 6. The Fair Park 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. a II o. h I I 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 Fair Park School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Fair Park School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone._____ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to\na) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) 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 meeting to: a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)__________________________________________________ 3 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 Fair Park School Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 21201^5 2I22IQ5 2J2ilQ5 3/3/95 3/15/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Di Hmn P Wallim. K* ntPXK.ocx'Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 5 1 Nhlestone 13. Develop letter to parents and students with 14, Inventory building announcement and reassignment 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 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 Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo Background For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strate^es were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total budding capacity and total enrollment shows vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of desegregation, the number of vacant many seats are necessary for seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buUdmgs. 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 savmgs 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, ecause it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used. Fair Park Elementary School is a school that must be con^dered for closing. It is located north of 1-630 and just west of University Avenue in the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion this business case. are explained in Fair Park 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 Fair Park Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. 2. 3. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 80.34% of its capacity\nThe capacity of the school itself (351) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the size itself is significantly below the average\nEnrollment since 1989 has declined from 332 to 282 and is expected to continue\noi/o*/95 ^^Probl^ Definiti^ SMbBMtM*bv t\u0026gt; Hwm r Wdlt 3Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 6 4. 5. 6. 7. The school is out of racial balance by 12.34%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this\nThe per pupil cost has increased\nOperational costs for the building have increased to make this school as one on the most expensive to operate annually\nThe 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\nFigure 1 illustrates some of these trends. S?1 11 Q. n h Figure 1 Fair Park Elementary Enrollment History Criteria 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Enrollment % Black_______ % Out of Balance Capacity_______ A.ttnd. Zone Ttl7 AZ % Black 332 72.00 12.00 94.59 345 80.87 20.87 98.29 320 80.31 20.31 91.17 243 79.01 19.01 69.23 263 76.05 16.05 74.93 343 49.27 282 72.34 12.34 80.34 348 53.44 I I ^Analysi^^lternatix^ 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 age of building, increasing costs, and low capacity. 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 1 2 Enrollments are for October of each year. Attendance zone data is available for two years only. WiUiaoa. buprfWMHtdaM I 01//* ir TOTUCCXVFair Park School Relocation Business Case 7 for tax-payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: areas of I 1. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow to grow annually\n2. Redraw the attendance  costs zone to increase the number of students attending Fair Park School. This reduces the per-pupil costs at Fair Park but wiU increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Fair Park's. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 3. Relocate students from Fair Park to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all three areas of the problem. a) A plan to relocate students will be devised. Attachment C\nb) An immediate One possible scenario appears in savings of approximately $637,000 wUl be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nc) Staff WiU be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. d) The curriculum offered at Fair Park will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. fnfeusi^ recruitment efforts. Recruitment has been tried. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Fair Park were increased by this effort, it would have a negative impact on neighboring attendance Recommenda tion zones. 3 Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Fair Park to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of i the problem areas. Objective 3 By the opening of school for 1995-96, Fair Park students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed zoith 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. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met\nSalwillMil b* O. Hmy P Wgli oi/OM/95 nc rnnuDf^ 1Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 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\nn w E M 2. II Cl 7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 8. 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. II Impact Analysis ] z a I The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. 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 while achieving a better racial balance. Negatives 1. 2. 3. 4. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\nCommunity reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\nThe building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nThe general community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city. Wd oi/(n/*s K* ntnuLDcrFflzr Park School Relocation Business Case 9 Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned mmAaKkPe nnoeiAwZ sctfuiiddaennkts and ^p,a,1t_ror*n _si _f eeli welcom, ed\nJO school to 3 included in appropriate school correspondence and activities 1wX71i4t-1h^ those who Th___a__v___e_ 1 been enrolled\n* 4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Fair Park\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of and, approximately $637,000\navaUable to the community for use pending court Risks 1 The risks of not implementing this solution is inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal increasing district costs thus The risks of implementation of this solution management. , --------------- are several. .S-nojmiiiec cauree curriitnicciissmm lfoorr abandoning another school buUding in the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will benefits exactly as anticipated. not realize all oi the Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96 If this solution is to be implemented, patrons wiU 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. I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Attrition wiU be used to eliminate positions. nt/o/95 K nrwon 1 1 Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 10 Financial A savings of approximately $637,000 is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. The savings are year-to-year. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the district's budget. I Force Field Analysis to S B' 5 P 5 I Primary supporters of this proposal will be those who do not have children attending the school. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunities and for cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They may argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities\nThat a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. I i I General Implementation Plan 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. y Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Park School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by. I) those who attend Fair Park School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park 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 a 'okoMIted In O r Wt oi/oo/MS (r ntPiutorcFair Park. School Relocation Business Case 11 ______ Milestone 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhnnH /. Conduct informational meetinr ----------- community information meeting to send to: _Date 2/10/95 Person Mayo I ...Jstaff about th?^\n?\n^ aa)) ppaarreennttss \u0026amp;\u0026amp; ssttuuddeennttss\n- community information meeting to: b) community groups and churches\n_ c) media (press release) 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, meeting 10. Conduct community informatinn 11. Notify finance announcing the relocation and date of the information meetings by ^rson to include this as a budget reduction strate. 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court '13. Develop letter to parents and students 14. Inventory buildinn 15. Design plan for ly to relocate students at FairPari\u0026lt; School with announcement and reassignment new attendance zones in southwest 16. Mail letter to parents and students with an^ .Remove materials and equipment from schooT 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure buildinn -------------------- announcement and assignment 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 20, Reassign staff 21. Send final assii inment notices 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 0 Hmr. r. W. Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo n/w/w Rc ntPRx.Dnr Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 12 Attachment A Copy of map of Little Rock with Fair Park Elementary and other schools oi/0tzs ar nmiKDoc a 5*1. X s. ii I II I ,  erson School Little School District \\ \\ Ji -L w ZForreesstt PPaark School ^qWil jams Magnet School5ff^ hall'nigh'dchooP I  'AIR PARR SCHOOL H-W-, i.-VU I / .1 ^..LPJ-tu aski Heights J \"School B  t I f r High School^^ T7 i I- 630 T Fran iklin Incentive \\et H \\ T I I I I I I \\ '' \\ \\ ' \\ ' ' \\ \\ \\ \\ chooL - ^ulasIcfWeights School \\ Li Ovoodruff Sch\n. oIol  rr School F le JjStejne^ School ^LRSD Adm r. King Interdistrict School^ ool itibs Magnet^ 1------- 111 , 'ni77rr\nrrrF  Dunbar Junior High School t l-H \\ I ki 1 rr rr-~rr--ti -ti -ir+i- Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 13 Attachment B Copy of pages from 1994-95 Budget relating to the cost of Fair Park Elementary School **^**01 Hwr wii oi// Bc nnKDOc 0 gl. . M. 1! h I iUnit JIM Little Rock School District Department Budget Func ObJ - Description 0023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM _______________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______________ 0 i20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _________ _____ 02i0~ SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______________0240 INSURANCE _______________ 0380 FOOD SERVICES _______________ 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER _______________ 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER _______________ O548_EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM __________1110 KINDERGARTEN ________________0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX______ ________________ 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES ___ ____________ 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ~ 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______ 0240 INSURANCE___________________ 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT _______ 0342 POSTAGE_________________ ____ _______ 0360 PRINTING A BINDING-INTERN 0410 SUPPLIES _______ 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER _______0421 TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES _______0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 0548 EQUIPMENT  SUPPLY CENTER 1120 ELEMENTARY __________1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC________ --------------------------- 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Date: 8/ 5/94 Vape- 7t Prog: BUD0()2 Actual 92/93 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 FTE 94/95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61,488.31 4,703.86 3,081.67 256.47 0.00 0.00 69,530.31 406,546.70 35,187.90 33,793.04 25,237.13 2.84 282.92 109.00 605.15 3,560.75 239.27 1,347.06 469.90 507,401.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 5.00 17.00 0.00 10,411.00 667.75 1,000.68 0.00 1,977.93 0.00 3,600.00 0.00 17,677.36 68,212.00 4,664.25 2,624.26 212.22 412.00 45.32 76,370.05 421,628.06 33,567.28 35,039.40 23,663.51 515.00 257.50 257.50 1,414.77 1,701.68 257.50 772.50 0.00 519,074.70 15,256.00 1,167.00 592.00 0.00 9,907.00 745.82 997.20 2,572.65 2,849.60 209.03 245.13 918.07 18,444.70 68,212.00 5,188.08 2,229.66 436.68 0.00 0.00 76,066.42 398,563.85 23,948.98 31,403.34 17,078.75 4.05 163.68 302.80 906.46 3,246.82 0.00 472.75 0.00 476,111.48 17,233.50 1,318.32 565.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 13.50 4.00 17.50 0.50 24,089.00 20,066.00 3,190.73 3,315.00 5,400.00 3,233.00 0.00 3,60000 0.00 62,893.73 69,014.00 4,987.08 2,210.00 200.00 200.00 44.00 76,655.08 352,097.00 28,721.70 31,300.44 17,127.50 300.00 100.00 96.50 1,200.00 1,700.00 257.50 500.00 200.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 10.50 3.00 433,600.64 13.50 17,635.00 1,274.34 552.50 0.50 Unit Func ObJ - Description 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM _______0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ 0240 INSURANCE_________________ 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1220 RESOURCE ROOM___________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1220 RESOURCE ROOM Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 0.00 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 17,015.00 Actual 93/94 19,117.78 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budget 94/95 19,461.84 FTE 94/95 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10,411.00 796.44 1,292.94 12,500.38 6,246.71 456.12 600.11 7,302.94 1.00 1.00 6,246.60 451.39 663.00 7,360.99 0.60 0.60 14,392.56 1,101.13 765.59 16,259.28 1.50 1.50 15,226.00 1,065.78 653.15 16,964.93 30,452.00 2,046.64 1,117.88 33,616.52 0.50 0.50 25,004.00 1,806.84 1,105.00 27,915.84 1.00 1.00 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 0117 STIPENDS _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_________ 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0380 FOOD SERVICES _______0410 SUPPLIES_____________________ 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0240 INSURANCE____________ 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES_______ _______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0240 INSURANCE____________ 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES______________ 0 i 20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 2134 NURSING SERVICES Date: 8/ 5/94 Pape- 72 Prog: BUD002 4,703.31 751.69 940.37 29.00 2,585.83 1,079.24 10,089.44 18,044.54 1,380.55 845.79 20,270.88 26,719.00 2,043.86 1,518.67 30,281.53 15,144.45 1,158.26 1,273.28 17,575.99 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40 POSSBJ )ON 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,222.67 4,428.44 7,651.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,438.00 1,314.83 665.41 20,418.24 14,162.00 1,009.90 648.44 15,820.34 14,803.67 1,139.61 1,089.98 17,033.26 11,043.59 644.81 358.48 12,246.88 25,557.47 1,604.61 933.42 28,095.50 10,950.49 837.66 700.94 12,489.09 S9jn)ipii9dx3 sswuisnff 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40 18,438.00 1,332.37 552.50 20,322.87 32,058.00 2,316.57 1,105.00 35,479.57 15,432.65 1,115.19 331.50 16,879.34 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30Little Rock School District Department Budget Unit Func Obj - Description_______________ 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED_____ __________ 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED __________ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX __________0240 INSURANCE ~ __________0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES Actual 92/93 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 FTE 94/95 40,513.26 12,269.00 4,037.91 2,990.07 2,090.60 180.95 62,081.99 1.00 1.00 2.00 41,729.11 6,696.61 2,804.26 2,732.79 176.65 257.50 56,399.12 41,729.11 12,983.00 4,022.20 2,175.10 2,048.39 184.18 63,141.98 1.00 1.00 2.00 41,729.11 5,372.40 3,403.65 1,547.00 1,141.00 1,141.00 54,334.16 1.00 0.40 1.40 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL _______ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED _______ 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICAT^ _______ 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME_________ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______ 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES ~ _ 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS ------- _______ 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME _______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME _______ 0240 INSURANCE 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL _______ 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC _______ 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU _______ 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU 0023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY Dale: 8/ 5/94 Page: 7.1 Prog\nBUD002 44,209.33 16,996.66 0.00 4,682.36 3,01054 24.95 0.00 68,925.86 25,945.41 0.00 1,984.69 696.30 1,686.80 7,304.82 28,873.70 2,327.05 69,022.77 1,917.66 1,917.66 873,357.37 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 31.00 47,375.24 16,059.30 0.00 4,621.13 2,566.65 176.85 257.50 71,056.67 21,574.11 0.00 1,660.80 394.30 1,202.79 5,500.00 43,500.00 2,000.00 75,832.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 918,162.05 46,125.49 31,731.99 135.52 5,966.42 3,136.92 0.00 0.00 87,096.34 15,432.56 780.21 1,240.28 187.45 1,064.62 8,606.37 37,247.41 1,662.45 66,241.35 2,395.52 2,395.52 910,017.61 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 30.00 47,631.90 17,194.65 0.00 4,684.49 2,210.00 180.00 260.00 72,161.04 22,982.97 0.00 1,660.80 0.00 2,210.00 9,000.00 37,000.00 2,500.00 75,353.77 2,000.00 2,000.00 904,418.87 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 27.80 Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 14 Attachment C A possible scenario for relocating students m/o/s ir FwtK-Ooc SMkanOMd D t Wii tB II Ii IJ L 11 ':i I T Fflir Park School Relocation Business Case I Possible Scenario for Fair Park Relocation 15 1. One four-year-old class must be relocated intact or a plan modification must be submitted to eliminate this class. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Reassign the one hundred and thirty-two students (85 black and 47 non-black) who are not living in Fair Park's attendance zone back to their area school. Fair Park will lose thirty sixth graders to jr. high school (25 blacks and 5 non-blacks) thereby leaving a total of one hundred and twenty-one students (99 blacks and 22 non-blacks) to reassign. Encourage twenty-two non-black students to apply to magnet schools, interdistrict schools. Reassign 22 non-black students to Brady. Offer 99 black students seats in Incentive Schools. or Encourage M-to-M transfers. Reassign zone blocks 511, 512, 513, and 554 to McDermott. McDermott current capacity is 494 however, in past years it has been higher in to warrant an assistant principal. 9. Effect of Racial Balance on receiving schools: 3 a) b) c) Magnet and Interdistrict school's racial balance will remain the same. Brady's racial makeup will improve. Brady is currently 64% black and 32.2% non-black. The new balance will be 62.2% black and 37.8% non-black. McDermott racial balance will shift to 69.3 black if all former Fair Park black students transfer to McDermott. 3 Student assignment must assign black students on a matching basis with non-black students to maintain the current racial balance within the affected magnet schools. SobMMrd Ot. Hton' I W\u0026gt; 01ZW/W BT FRPUK-CXf r BUSINESS CASE FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 M 2. The four-year-old program addresses the needs of at-risk students, at the earliest possible age, in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. The program was established in 1988 as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Volume I of the long-term desegregation plan was drafted and submitted to the federal district court during the first semester of the 1988-89 school year. At that time, the Little Rock School District proposed to have a four-year-old program in all elementary schools by the 1993-94 school year. This goal included the provision that the \"scope of this program may be altered, affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan.\" The District proposed modifications to the 1989 settlement plan regarding the four-year-old program in 1992. In May, 1992 the court issued an order addressing the proposed changes. The result of this court order is that the District must now \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the District had a four-year-old program\"(720). r 11 z 0 1 5 1 As of this school year, 1994-95, the District is in compliance with this court order. We are currently providing 720 four-year-old seats located in 20 of the 36 elementary schools for a total of 40 four-year-old classes within the District. The District is currently funding the four-year-old program through desegregation money and ABC grant money. The District is facing serious financial problems along with a decrease and discontinuation of desegregation funding sources. To ensure continued implementation of the program, the Little Rock School District must dedicate funds in order for the program to continue. In an effort to assist the District with its financial difficulty, alternative 6 would save the District the most money. Elimmate the program completely in all schools except the five Incentive Schools. This alternative addresses the following areas: a.) A plan to continue the program in the Incentive Schools in an effortFour-Year-Old Program Page 2 to address the needs of at-risk students and as a recruitment tool to improve racial balances at these schools. b.) A plan which would produce an immediate savings of $1,321,520.48 will be realized by eliminating the four year old programs in all schools except in the five Incentive Schools. Prior to implementing any alternative, the District must consider current filings before and court orders from the U.S. Federal Court and the Eighth Circuit Court. Negatives of this alternative: 1. The District would be out of compliance with the May 1, 1992 Court Order which states: The District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\" (720). 2. Potential loss of some or all of the $183,600.00 supplied through the Arkansas Better Chance grant monies. The grant was written for the following schools: Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Fair Park Geyer Springs King Rightsell Romine Watson Wilson Woodruff Positives of this alternative: 1. The program will students. still be available and provide services for 180 2. The District will realize an immediate cost savings. A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District four-year-old program was started during the 1988-89 school year as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Although Rockefeller Elementary School served four-year-old J 1 IFour-Year-Old Program Page 3 students prior to this time, the emphasis on using this program desegregate schools started in the 1988-89 school year. as a tool to Three schools participated in the four-year-old program during the 1988-89 school year: Ish, Rockefeller, and Stephens. In the following year, 1989-90, four-year-old classes were added to Franklin and Washington. In the ly^U-Vl school year Badgett and Garland were added. 1 tt, 1988 through 1991 the class size was twenty (20) students per class, i ne During the time period of n lyoo LUIUUtU VUV V1U.JU -------------------------J , following year 1991-92, in order for the District to be in compliance wi h O J . .4  ____________urOTlTV I /III TO X S. North Central Accreditation, the class size was reduced from twenty (20) to eighteen (18) students per cUss. Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, and Woodruff were added during the 1991-92 school year. Bale, Cloverdale, Geyer Spring^ II h added during the 1992-93 school year. In 1993-94 Watson, and Wilson were added dunng the scnooi year ru the District closed Ish and classes were expanded at Romine and Cloverdale. Classes were added at Baseline, Brady, Chicot, Fair Park and IGng dunng the During the 1994-95 school year the District closed 1993-94 school year. During the 1994-95 school year me i^i.uiLf Stephens school and classes were expanded at Franklin, Washington, Badgett, Woodruff, Bale, Geyer Springs, and Watson. Mablevale added a four-year- old class during the 1994-95 school year. was drafted and submitted to Volume I of the long-term desegregation plan the federal district court during the first semester of the 1988-89 school year At that time, the Little Rock School District proposed to have a fou^ear-old I XI j 1! program in 'all elementary schools by the 1993-94 school year. Thisi g.^ included the provision that the \"scope of this program may be altered, ... t ____2___________nftncfmpfinn affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan.\" The Court held hearings on the parties proposed modifications (May submissions) to the 1989 settlement plans on December 18-19,1991\nJanuary 21-23, 27-28 1992\nand February 6-7, 1992. The Court issued an order May 1 1992 addressing the proposed changes. According to the May 1 court 'the Court agrees with the parties that four-year-old programs are both . . __J___ tkori itnnarf ni\u0026lt;inaritv Ol order. II. they impact disparity of compensatory and desegregatory in nature since academic achievement by better preparing children for kindergarten and also acaaciniv auuicvcui^ut MJ ----o act to attract white children to the public schools. The parties convinced the desegregation tool, it is wise to place four-year-old programs ,n scnoors u. areas which have proved difficult to desegregate. Therefore, the Little Rock School District will not be requited to place four-year-old programs in every elementaiy school. However, the parties have made Llemn promises regarding early childhood education, Coud^viewshe Court that, as a in schools or areas four-year-old program \"as a which holds great promise to substantive component of the settlement plan reduce achievement disparity between black andFour-Year-Old Program Page 4 white children and to promote racial balance in the schools.\" Now the District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\"(720), (page 16). As of this school year 1994-95 the District is in compliance with this order. We are currently providing 720 four-year-old seats located in 20 of the 36 elementary schools for a total of 40 four-year-old classes within the District. The expected outcomes of the program are: * To provide Early Childhood Education experiences that will increase the opportunity for success of disadvantaged students. * To improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. * To meet our desegregation obligations and to be in compliance with Court orders. During the 1994-95 school year approximately $2,177,675.64 has been allocated to operate the program. The district is receiving $233,992.00 from the State through the Arkansas Better Chance monies, $183,600.00 of the grant is allocated to the four-year-old program and the remaining $50,392.00 is allocated to the HIPPY program. The balance of $1,943,683.64 is funded through desegregation money. 1 B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The District is facing serious financial problems along with a decrease and discontinuation of desegregation funding. The District does not receive any state reimbursement for the students in the four-year-old program\ntherefor, the district must prepare a plan of action for alternate funding sources to continue the program. Individual schools in the Little Rock School District have limited operating funds\nconsequently, they have a difficult time supporting the current programs in operation. To ensure continued implementation of the program, the Little Rock School District must dedicate funds for the program IFour-Year-Old Program Page 5 continuation and should seek outside funding sources vigorously. The District needs to cut its budget in order to eliminate the deficit it is currently experiencing. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Possible alternatives for continuation of the four-year-old programs are. CD S?!. 1. Continue funding the program through desegregation funds until the 11 2. 3. Develop a plan of action to seek desegregation money runs out ot scex outside funding sources, such as Goal 2000 money that the state will be receiving. The program should be eligible under the first national education goal set by the President and the 50 governors in 1990. From a cost point of view, this will not assist the District in resolving its current financial problems. in 1990. Explore the feasibility of contractual services with Head Start The draw back of this alternative is that in the May 1 Court Order the Court ordered the District: \"to limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through agencies, such as Head Start, which the District does not contract and the goals of which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location. and so forth. While the District is encouraged to continue its Head Start and the City cooperative relationship with agencies such as of Little Rock Day Care Center, the parties may programs the obligation the parties themselves assumed when they wrote the 1989 plan\". Charge a weekly fee for the program based on not shift to such the amount the state allocates for vouchers. Currently this amount is $60.00 per week. This would allow the program to generate the following revenues if the program were filled to capacity: $60.00 a week times 720 = $43,200.00 weekly $43,200.00 times 36 weeks = $1,555,200.00 yearly This alternative would conflict with the cunent grant we are receiving in Arkansas Better Chance monies. We would have to discontinue the not charge a fee in the 13 schools for the children grant monies or not charge a tee in tne u scnoois lui me Arkansas Better Chance eligibility criteria. Approximately who meet Arkansas Better cnance eiigioimy ------ 306 of this years children in the 13 schools meet Arkansas Better Chance eligibility criteria. The District could still take in h o. z a IFour-Year-Old Program Page 6 approximately $894,240.00 in revenues and. continue to receive $183,600.00 in Arkansas Better Chance grant money for a total amount in revenues of $1,128,232.00 and not charge for the children who meet Arkansas Better Chance eligibility criteria. From a cost point of view this is attractive because it gives the District additional revenues which would provide immediate assistance in resolving a part of its financial problems. However, since there is currently a two year waiting list for the voucher system, this would not be meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and this alternative would cater to the more affluent clientele. I I I 4. Reduce the number of certified staff to 1 certified teacher for every site where the programs exist, and add an additional certified teacher for sites that have 3 or more programs. This would reduce the number of certified positions from 40 to 25 certified positions. This number does not take into account the new Stephens school. The District would have to add 15 instructional aides to the programs in order to meet the adult to child ratio required by the Department of Human Services for Licensing. The certified teachers would be the lead teacher. They would be responsible for seeing to it that the curriculum is being properly implemented in every classroom that they are responsible for and the instructional aides would work directly with the certified teacher who would rotate among the rooms daily. One of the Early Childhood Teachers at Rockefeller needs to be placed on a 12 month contract in order to meet the needs of the infant, toddler, and three-year-old classes which operate year-round. This individual would be responsible for administering, planning, managing, and controlling the centers daily activities, and for ensuring that the licensing requirements are met. This would be an additional expenditure of approximately $8792.85 to extend a certified teachers contract at Rockefeller to a 12 month contract. The District is continually being criticized by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for not employing a certified teacher during the summer months of operation for the program. This was mentioned again this year in the December 21,1994,1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report page 100. This alternative would be in compliance with licensing standards, and would produce a net savings of $294,188.10 in the operation of the I I program. It would have a negative impact on the quality of the program, however, this would be minor compared to the major impact of totally dissolving all certified teaching positions and operating the program with non-certified personal. This would be a very short term solution if the state approves the new 11 1Four-Year-Old Program Page 7 levels for licensure. In February, three levels of licensure will be presented to the State for approval: Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, and Adolescence/Young Adulthood. Upon approval, the timeline for implementation would be a minimum of one year, therefore we would be out of compliance with State standards within one year. A reduction of 15 certified teachers would provide the District with a immediate short term savings of $294,188.10. a w E M 2, Cost of Certified teachers salary (15) $460,419.75 Cost of 15 additional instructional aides - $157,438.80 Q. Cost of extending 1 teacher to a 12 month contract TOTAL SAVINGS $302,980.95 -$ 8,792.85 $294,188.10 W s. II B 5. Eliminate all 40 certified teaching positions and fill the certified positions with 40 non-certified instructional aides. Hire 4 Early Childhood Specialist to help provide staff development activities and assist in the supervision of curriculum implementation by spending one day a week at each site. I i One of the Early Childhood Specialist needs to be placed on a 12 month contract. The specialist on a 12 month contract would be assigned to Rockefeller during the summer and would be responsible for administering, planning, managing, and controlling the centers daily activities, and for ensuring that the licensing requirements are met. This is necessary because Rockefeller early childhood classes for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds operate year-round. This will address the concern of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as previously stated in their 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report page 100. This alternative would be in compliance with licensing standards, and would produce a net savings of $676,377.36. The certified instructional aides hired for the schools that are receiving ABC money would need to have a Child Development Associate Degree. Though this may be attractive from a cost point of view, it would definitely take time to provide the necessary training to ensure that quality developmentally appropriate activities are taking place in all forty classes. Cost of Certified teachers salary (40) $1,227,786.75Four-Year-Old Program Page 8 Cost of Non-Cert. instr, aides (40) - $419,836.80 6. $807,949.20 Cost of 3 - 9 1/4 month certified specialist and 1 - 12 month specialist TOTAL SAVINGS - $131,571.84 $676,377.36 Eliminate the program completely except at the five Incentive Schools. This would provide the District with $1,321,520.48 in immediate savings which would assist in reducing the deficit the District is currently experiencing. Item Cost Regular Certified Salaries (40 FTE) Regular Non-Certified Salaries (49.5) Stipends Social Security Tax Insurance $1,227,786.00 519,548.22 2,926.00 127,229.30 98,345.00 Total Salaries + Benefits $1,975,834.52 Food Services Supplies Equipment Control Budget 79,000.00 76,011.12 34,200.00 12,630.00 Total Operating Expenses $ 201,841.12 Total Program Budget Less ABC Grant 4YR Less ABC Grant HIPPY $2,177,675.64 (183,600.00) (50,392.00) Total Desegregation Money $1,943,683.64 Less Operating Costs at 5 Inc. Schools (622,163.16) Total Potential Savings $1,321,520.48 Though this may be attractive from a cost point of view, this alternative would 11Four-Year-Old Program Page 9 receive a negative reaction from the community, principals, teachers, instructional aides, the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. D. RECOMMENDATION In an effort to assist the District with its financial difficulty, ALTERATIVE 6 is recommended as the alternative which would produce a potential savings of $1,321,520.48. Eliminate the program completely except for the five Incentive\nSchools. Programs at the following schools would be eliminated (30 classes). STS II II X S. Badgett - 2 Bale -1. Baseline - 2 Brady - 1 Chicot - 1 Cloverdale - 3 Fair Park - 2 Geyer Springs - 2 King - 4 Mablevale - 1 Romine - 2 Washington - 3 Watson - 2 Wilson - 1 Woodruff - 2 E. OBJECTIVE z a B I n The objective of this recommendation is to allow the District to reduce the budget deficit while continuing the implementation of the four-year-old programs as an integral part of the effort to improve the academic achievement of minority and economically disadvantaged children and to attract white students to the Incentive Schools. GOAL SUPPORT The objective supports District goals #1,2, 3,4, 5 and 6. The four-yey-old prograin will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally while closing disparities in achievement (goal #1). Administrators, teaches, and instructional aides will receive on going training during the year (goal #2). The curriculunrcover strategies that will lead students to demonstrate in their daily behavior at in the community, that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and that they view cultural diversity in people as a valued resource (goa Outside funding will be used to help support the program (goal #4) through the ABC (Arkansas Better Chance) Grant. Within the Early Childhood curriculum, skills are Uught which focus on student behavior. The goal is for students to help provide a safS and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students (goa #5) Finally the Early Childhood coordinator monitors the programs to ensure thatT Four-Year-Old Program Page 10 equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (goal #6) which includes program and technical support. EVALUATION CRITERIA * Familiarize parents with four-year-old program through orientations and parent conferences. * Evaluate effectiveness of four-year-old program by analyzing data to determine if measurable growth in student achievement has occurred and to analyze the impact of the program regarding racial balance. EXPECTED BENEFITS The District will be able to continue to utilize the program as a means to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for students in the five Incentive Schools which will result in a reduction of the disparity between white and black students. The five Incentive Schools will be able to continue to use the four-year-old program as a recruitment tool which will result in an increase in white enrollment The District will expend its funds in a more cost-saving manner which can result in the elimination of deficit spending. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Program Students in the five Incentive School Programs will still have the opportunity to participate in meaningful learning experiences and the program will continue to be utilized as a recruitment tool to help improve the racial balance at the Incentive Schools. ! The community will have limited access to the four-year-old programs because of the decreasing number of programs which will create limited services and cause a reduction in the number of students who can participate in the programs. \u0026lt; I Four-Year-Old Program Page 11 Desegregation Plan The District will be out of compliance with the Desegregation Plan. T^e four-year-old program - the Districts preschool curriculum model, will be implemented in all Incentive Schools and other selected schools in the Little Rock School District. Effective the 1990-91 school year, this model will be an integral part of the effort to improve the academic achievement of minority and economically disadvantaged children and to attract white n S?!. students to the schools.\" Court Order By eliminating the four-year-old program at all but the five Incentive Schools the District would be out of compliance with the May 1, 1992 Court Order which states the District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\"(720). Political Factors I I The Early Childhood community in Central Arkansas has been very supportive of this program. Included in the Early Childhood Community are representatives from the Governors office, the Early Childhood Commission, the State Department of Education, U. A.L.R., Headstart, D.H.S., Professional Associations as well as the hundreds of parents whose children have benefited from the program. Risks The risks of implementing this alternative are: 1. Reducing the number of programs from 40 to 10 would lunit the availability of services for students, participants would be reduced from 720 to 180. The number of 2. The differences that exist in the readiness exposure that students are entering school with will continue to exist in a This has a direct affect on the academic larger degree. achievement of the students.Four-Year-Old Program Page 12 Tuning All certified and non-certified personnel must be notified that their contract is being altered 30 days prior to the current contract expiration elate. G. RESOURCE AIWCATION Personnel Analysis Site^Programs Teachers Students Sites Before Modification After Modification Amount of Change (Difference) 20 15 Programs 40 10 30 Certified Non-CerL 40 10 30 49.5 13 36.5 720 180 540 5 Financial Analysis Total Program Budget 1 Before Modification After Modification Amount of Change (Difference) $1,943,683.64 $ 622,163.16 $1,321,520.48 The resulting savings would be $1,321,520.48. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Primary Supporters Primary supporters of the recommendation will be the financial managers because we are going to save $1,321,522.48. J Four-Year-Old Program Page 13 Forces Against Forces against this alternative would be the community, the parents, the principals, the teachers, the instructional aides, the Court, and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN n S?1 Activity Completion Date Responsible/Participating Person(s) M. II II Identify the 30 Certified Teachers affected by the program modification Notify the 30 Certified Teachers of the displacement Identify the 36.5 noncertified instructional aides affected by the program modification Notify the 36.5 noncertified instructional aides of the displacement April 1, 1995 May 1, 1995 P. Price, ECE Coordinator Dr. Hurley, HR Director Dr. Hurley, HR Director May 1, 1995 P. Price, ECE Coordinator Dr. Hurley, HR Director I I May 1, 1995 Dr. Hurley, HR Director P. Price, ECE Coordinator Develop Staff Development Plan for monthly in-service Conduct pre-school inservice July 15, 1995 August 15, 1995 P. Price, ECE Coordinator Staff Dev, P. Price, ECE CoordinatorBUSINESS 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. to STS II h I 5 [A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District was one of the first of four (4) sites to begin implementation in Arkansas in 1986. Those programs included the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County School District, Pine Bluff, and the Early Childhood Development Center in Harrison. The following chart reflects the participation of families in the HIPPY Program since 1986. I 300 -1 250 !I-23 3....... 220 230 ------- 230..... 175 ti II zco -i! ICO - 1' 50 -i. 125 _-140_____  ^112 132~ ^100 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 ENROLLMENT BY AGE GROUP [150 i 125 219 I 4-YEAR OLD FAMILIES .'5-YEAR OLD FAMILIES i! ISO - : 11 I 0 ' 2 1 h 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 ot 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. There has been a decline in the participation of five year olds as a result of mandatory 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. This will Further, there is a need to restructure the program, 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 Stability is lacking when time and effort are being used staff. to train beginners. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 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 i^^^t would be cost effective, saving the district money, and would maintain a high quality program. Weekly staff meetings were held: alternatives were discussed and developed. Parent requests and suggestions were considered. Group meetings and Home Visitor reports during weekly inservices have been helpful in gathering   Some suggested alternatives included: parental input. Q) STS tl h \u0026amp; I I 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. T location. Most Of the Home Visitors recruit in areas across the city and may not reach the required enrollment number. assignments would be made based upon Additional 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 to 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.) I 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. 4 1 I Evaluation Criteria 1. 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. S! II n 4. The numbers of students entering kindergarten ready to learn will be maintained and/or increased. h 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 I [ 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. Early intervention can assist in reducing the disparity and provide quality achievement for all students. 5Impact on Court Orders This modified plan will assist in balancing the budget. Further, the plan will improve productivity by maintaining 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 well central office and the Board of Directors communicate the programs vision to the community. There are no major risks for implementing the recommendations. against implementing these recommendations could result in the HIPPY Program not improving the quality 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 J needed peirmspolennmeenlt ecda.n be?\n.s. elected from^paren.trso m awnnd nn? currently participating in the program. expense for training because the Regional ppovides training at the beginning of each year as part of the program. Additional training will be done weekly by trained central office staff. weeKiy after the The recruiting pool from which There will Program Year 1994-95 Supervisor Home Visitors In-Office Aides Secretary Coordinators 1 20 212 Salary $27,801.00 143,004.00 19,671.35 17,915.00 42,516.00 Fringes Total Salary and Fringes 26 $250,907.35 Materials/Supplies: 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 I $50,693.44 $301,600.79 296 families x $100 29.600.00 TOTAL Home Visitors working 40 hours per week $331,200.79 NUMBER OF FAMILIES SERVED 1994-95 296 6 I i Program Year 1995-96 (Desegregation Fund) Salary Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Superyisor 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 5 $115,777.20 $23,595.41 $139,372.61 Materials/Supplies: 70 families x $100 7.000.00 TOTAL $146,372-61 ms II (B o. Home Visitors working 40 hours per week h TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS $ 185,828.18 Salary Program Year 1995-96_______________ (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 z o I 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 improve 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 The possible detractors may be families of the city. not served in other areas 8 I. 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 n II 3. Parents will enroll four year olds 07/95 Supervisor/ Home Visitors h \u0026amp; 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 I i 6. Monitor on a regular basis the effectiveness of the program 06/96 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT a STS II ho. TII3 INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN STAFFING January 31, 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN - STAFFING BUSINESS CASE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Incentive Schools were designated to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. remodeled facilities, The D 5*1. 11 h Cl The current staffing configuration at the Incentive Scho\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":"mus_sovcom_1-77-0","title":"Byron de La Beckwith","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Byron de La Beckwith, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Byron de La Beckwith"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=120%7C1%7C77%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_50-3-0","title":"Campbell, Clarice T.: Rebuttal File","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Campbell, Clarice T.: Rebuttal File, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Campbell, Clarice T.: Rebuttal File"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1428%7C50%7C3%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_3-78-0","title":"Campbell College","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Campbell College, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Campbell College"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=495%7C3%7C78%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_2-123-0","title":"Camp Landon","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Camp Landon, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Camp Landon"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=478%7C2%7C123%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_37913370","title":"Campus tensions in Connecticut : searching for solutions in the nineties","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Connecticut, 41.66704, -72.66648"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Connecticut Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1994"],"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":["Minority college students--Crimes against--Connecticut","Hate crimes--Connecticut","Connecticut--Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["Campus tensions in Connecticut : searching for solutions in the nineties"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12c15z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_37913370"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["110 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_98-1-0","title":"Card File Index (Alphabetical): A","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Card file index for the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission records for the letter A. The 659 cards in the file list record numbers for each individual, organization, or topic. The cards also include reference cards for acronyms or alternate spellings used in the records.","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Card File Index (Alphabetical): A, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century","Race relations","Race discrimination","Governmental investigations--Mississippi","Indexing--Mississippi","Civil rights movement--Mississippi"],"dcterms_title":["Card File Index (Alphabetical): A"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1188%7C98%7C1%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["administrative records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":233,"next_page":234,"prev_page":232,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":2784,"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}}]}}