{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_182","title":"ABACUS Insturmental Management System (a computer software project)","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":["1992/1995"],"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","Software","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["ABACUS Insturmental Management System (a computer software project)"],"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/182"],"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\nJob Description Abacus Project The purpose of this project is to determine the extent to which the ABACUS software is being used for its intended purpose as represented in the desegregation plan, as ordered in court orders or as represented in testimony and to report on our findings Activities: Provide your personal knowledge of information sources Help prepare the interview questionnaire that will supply the following information plus additional items to be determined: Knowledge of the purpose of ABACUS Level of training Skill level Extent of use i .e. test questions only Availability of terminal Availability of help Availability of encouragement or helpful hints Feedback from the system Mechanism to provide feedback on system problems or shortcomings Is ABACUS helping this teacher to manage the class to the curriculum? Observe use and conduct interviews based upon the instrument and personal knowledge Help compile and analyze the data and draft the report including recommendations Time Needed Schedule calls for instrument development by 11/15, data collection done by 12/16 and report in rough form by 1/27/95ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The ABACUS Instructional Management System can provide: * Continuous monitoring of individual student progress. * Diagnostic placement for ability grouping. * Increased individual attention. * Detailed reports for conferences. * Immediate feedback of test results with diagnostic information. * Comprehensive library of learning resources. * Individualized education plans. ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Standard report formats: * Objectives and Correlated Objectives * Instructional Resources * Test Items * Student, Class, School, and District Objective Mastery Analysis and SummaryABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The system can create, store and print tests. Tests can be cataloged for future use\non recall, test can be altered, if desired. After scoring a test, the system provides analysis reports. Test types includes: * Multiple Choice * Teacher Observable * Matching * Primary K-3 (large print) * Class Mastery * Sub-Test ( Provides up to 8 different tests)ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STUDENT: * Provide individualized student learning plans. * Provide assessment of mastery according to learning objectives and instructional goals. * Provide a rich and stimulating instructional resource bank, including computerized courseware appropriate for various methods of learning: - Tutorial - Simulation - Enrichment - Exploration - Problem Solving - Practice - Drill /iBACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PARENT: The ABACUS Instructional Management System provides ways to help make the parent an integral part of their students learning process. It Will: * Provide reports showing the learning objectives and Instructional goals to be mastered. * Provide regular and timely update reports showing current progress toward those instructional goals. * Clearly show parents which learning objectives have not been mastered or not attempted. * Provide suggested instructional resource listings which the parent can use to supplement classroom instruction in areas where the student needs help. * Enhance parent/teacher cooperation.REPORTING REPORT MENUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 1 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 F7 F8 F9 F10 Fil F12 Objective Report Correlated Object! ve Report - Test Report Class objective Mastery Report Student Mastery Report Students by Objective Report Student Mastery Log Report Student Norm Referenced Testing Reports Composite Cless Mastery Sinmary Report - Composite Objective Mastery Report  Composite Student Mastery Report F15 F16 Next Report Selection Menu Exit _ Help Instr Rsrc Test H t P Score Tests Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster Curriculum Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 2 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F F5 F7 F8 F9 Test Item Suimary Report Test Heading Report Media Resources by Sub-Curriculum Report Media Resources by Objective Report Media Reference Report Location Mastery Report District Mastery Report Location Mastery Period Report F15 F16 Hext Report Selection Menu Exit _ \u0026gt;Help Instr Rare Test M t, P Score Tests \u0026gt;Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster \u0026gt;Currlculum Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 3 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 F7 F8 F9 Control Hester Report * Location Report - Curriculm Report Sub'Curriculua Report Instructor Report Course Report Student by Course/Section Report Student Report FU Exit _ \u0026gt;Help Instr Rare Test H t P Score Tests Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster \u0026gt;Curricutini \u0026gt;Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit I 6.2 CHAPTER 6: REPORT MENUREPORTS Fl F4 F5 F7 FIO Fil F12 F9 F3 * Not demonstrated in class OBJECTIVE REPORT - This report will give a listing of all objectives in a range or for an individual objective. It may be printed in long or short form and can be used for long range planning. CLASS OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT - This report will summarize student mastery performance by objective for a specified group of students. This report will give the teacher a quick synopsis of the class progress by student. Note: (With the current program, the system is unable to select a range\ntherefore, it prints the entire sub-curriculum.) STUDENT MASTERY REPORT - This report will list mastery performance by objective, one student per page. This report is effective in student/teacher/administrator conferences. STUDENTS BY OBJECTIVE REPORT - This report will list, by specified objective, those students who have not mastered the objective and those who have not attempted the objective. The teacher may use this report to survey MPT and S8 mastery. COMPOSITE CLASS MASTERY SUMMARY REPORT - This report will show objectives mastered, objectives not mastered, and objectives not attempted for either the current class (FLOW CHART #5) or for a specific student (FLOW CHART #4). This report is a useful tool to help monitor progress of a specific class or an individual on MPT and S8 objectives. COMPOSITE OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT - This report will summarize the NUMBER of students who have mastered selected objectives. These objectives may be within a single subcurriculum OR various curriculum areas. This report can be used to determine objectives which need to be retaught. COMPOSITE STUDENT MASTERY REPORT - This report wUl provide mastery performance for each student on the list of objectives chosen in a single sub-curriculum OR various curriculum areas. This report may be used when information is needed on description and mastery of several objectives for at-risk students. OBJECTIVE LIST - This list is a compiled list of objectives under a unique LIST NAME. This list is accessed from F8-Main Menu. * This storage of objectives saves time by not having to retype the list of objectives each time. INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES - This list of instructional resources is shown by objective, sub-curriculum and media (book, AV, etc.) -----------------------  FLOW CHARTS #7,#8 02/25/93 16:10:22 CM320100 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET OBJECTIVE REPORT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE LA-04OB Language Arts Grade 4 Objective Description M-% TI GL i LA~040B-001 Demonstrate Positive Attitude Toward Self LA-04OB-002 Read Silently For Increased Periods Of Time LA--04OB-003 Read For Variety Of Purposes LA-04OB-004 Develop Criteria For What Makes Reading Enjoyable/Useful LA-04OB-005 Demonstrate Use Of Functional Print LA-04OB-006 Demonstrate Appropriate Use Of Informational Sources LA-04OB-007 Read And/Or Write For Social Interaction LA-04OB-008 Exhibit Increasing Awareness Of Reading Choices LA-04OB-009 Develop Awareness Views Of Sexism/Racism In Literature LA-04OB-010 Develop Skills To Become Consumers Of Information LA-04OB-011 Work Cooperatively With Peers LA-04OB-012 Use The Library Regularly LA-04OB-013 View Reading As A Meaning-Getting Process LA-04OB-014 Self-Correct When Meaning Is Not Clear LA-04OB-015 Revise Thinking When Predicitons Are Unsatisfactory LA-04OB-016 Generate Clarifying Questions LA-04OB-017 Use A Variety Of Comprehension And Study Strategies LA-04OB-018 Set Own Purpose For Reading And Adjust Rate Accordingly LA-04OB-019 Evaluate Own Performance LA-04OB-020 Give Directions/Explanations 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 0410/14/92 16:14:50 CM320800 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET CLASS OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE Location : 003 Instructors 100 Sub-Curriculums Abacus Elementary DeFrogue\nKermit Course/Sectlont 3001 0 MA-04OB Mathematics Grade 4 -Objective Numbers Brandew\nJess Clayton\nEsther Fernandes\nShiela Fish\nJamie Jackson\nKenneth Johnson\nChris Jones\nSamuel Masterson\nJulie McKenna\nJennifer OMalley\nKatie Patton\nWilliam Rohr\nTerris Taylor\nDenise Yocum\nCeryl 001-040 +++--- 001-040 +++++++- 001-040 +++-+++++ -+++ 001-040 +-+++-+-+-+..,, 001-040 ++++++++-+++--1 001-040 +++-+++-, 001-040 +4-+++++++^.-+^ 001-040 ++++..----- 001-040 ++++++4-+++\u0026gt;4.+++ 001-040 +++-++++...... 001-040 +++4-+++++++4.+^._ 001-040 +-++++---. 001-040 ++++++++++++++1\n001-040 +++++++ * Masi Objective Mastery Summary Objective Mastery Percentages 001-040 11111111 423030106666532 001-040 1 089797774444321 063131913333614 (+)-Objective Mastered {-)=Objectlve Not Mastered 15.( 55.( 40.( 35.( 55.( 35.( 65.( 20.( 75.{ 35.C 70.C 25.C 70.C 40.G (.)-Objective Not Attempted\\ 10/14/92 16:29:20 CM320900 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET STUDEWT MASTERY REPORT OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 1 Student: 301 Johnson\nChris Grade: 04 Location: 003 Abacus Elementary Sub-Curriculum: MA-04OB Mathematics Grade 4 1+j-Objective Mastered (-)-Objective Wot Mastered +001 Solve Won-Routlne Problems + 002 Solve Real-Life Problems (.)-Objective Wot Attempted + 003 Use Problem Solving Strategies - 004 Discuss Thinking About Mathematical Ideas + 005 Participate Productively In Group Dlscusslons/Projects + 006 Present Oral Reports + 007 Read And Discuss Stories + 008 Write And Share Word Problems  009 Write About Mathematics . 010 Show The Meaning Of A Concept- 10/19/92 14:25:49 CM321200 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET STUDENTS BY OBJECTIVE REPORT OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 1 Location Instructor\nIQQ Abacus Elementary DeFroque\nKermit MA-04OB-006 Present Oral Reports Course/Section\n3001 __________Grade\n04 01 reports on results of Individual activities or projects. LL\nD OU\n2 or group AMPT\nS8:\n003 Students Who Have Mastered the Objective 305 306 310 302 313 Clayton\nEsther Jackson\nKenneth Jones\nSamuel O'Malley\nKatie Taylor\nDenise 303 301 308 312 311 Fernandez\nShlela Johnson\nChris McKenna\nJennifer Patton\nWilliam Yocum\nCeryl Students Who Have Not Mastered the Objective 314 309 Brandew\nJess Rohr\nTerrle 304 Fish\nJaftile 307 Students who Have Not Been Tested On the Objective Masterson\nJulie Report Summary Students Mastering the Objective Students Not Mastering the Objective Students Not Yet Tested 10 3 1 Total Students Reported 1402/25/93 15:13:26 CM322100 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET COMPOSITE STUDENT MASTERY REPORT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 1 Location : 003 Abacus Elementary Grade: 04 Minimum: .0% Student : 301 Johnson\nChris Mastery: 50.0% - LA-04OB-004 Develop Criteria For What Makes Reading Enjoyable/Usefu . LA-04OB-006 Demonstrate Appropriate Use Of Informational Sources . LA-04OB-010 Develop Skills To Become Consumers Of Information + MA-04OB-001 Solve Non-Routlne Problems + MA-04OB-002 Solve Real-Life Problems + MA-04OB-007 Read And Discuss Stories {+)=Objective Mastered (-)=Objective Not Mastered (.)=Objective Not AttemptedIntroduction This report was prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), an arm of the United States District Court. ODM is responsible for assisting the court in monitoring the three Pulaski County school districts compliance with the desegregation plans that form the basis of their settlement agreements. Report Purpose and Information Sources This report examines the use of Computer Managed Instructional Technology (CMIT) in The Little Rock School District. CMIT is another descriptor for some assessment tools. We gathered information for this report by interviewing principals and teachers, administration staff such as curriculum specialists and associate-superintendents, and the staff responsible for the operation and management of the system. The district also provided information on finance and hardware and the Abacus extended program evaluation written as a part of the current year budget cycle was a source of information. The president of the software firm supplying the district with CMIT also provided product information and demonstrated the product. Overview What is Abacus? The supplier of the Computer Managed Instructional Technology software the Little Rock School District chose is Abacus Instructional Management Systems(AIMS). It is to be used as a tool to improve the delivery of the curriculum and provide a way to assess the mastery of curriculum objectives by students. Instead of creating a unique district acronym for the system or using the letters A-I-M-S the brand name Abacus has been used to denote the system. Abacus is a computer software product that runs on the district IBM AS/400 computer with input through personal computers and data scanners. The Abacus system has three data banks: The Instructional Objectives - Contains the objectives established for each subject area The Test Items - Stores questions that relate to the instructional objectives The Instructional Resources - Contains references to materials that can supplement teaching a subject or objective. How the System Works The system accumulates information on each students mastery of assigned objectives. Test 1answers and teacher observed assessments of mastery are usually recorded in the system through scan sheets. The record of mastery information can be provided in a variety of report formats. Some reports are run on a nine-week basis that give a composite of the level of mastery for each of the objectives which is then distributed to the associate superintendents and principals. Teachers can request reports run by student or by class. Equipment Used with Abacus Each elementary school has an IBM PS/2 Model 25 computer, an IBM 4029 printer and a scanner. Washington and Carver Schools each have two such sets of equipment. When using the scanner, information from documents, i.e., tests to be scored or teacher observables, is stored on the PS/2. When all the information for a class has been accumulated, the computer makes a telephone line connection with the central office system and sends its collected data to it. For other operations such as selecting test questions the PS/2 acts as a direct terminal to the central computer. Printouts or test questions go directly from the central computer to the school IBM 4029 printer. Background The Need for Assessment To operate in a logical manner, an organization must have a process of assessing needs, developing goals, implementing programs, and evaluating results. The process helps organizations adapt to changing conditions and to improve effectiveness and efficiency. The use of assessment tools is an integral part of all the programs, techniques, and strategic planning guides used to implement real change in the education process. For example, test data is a forceful assessment tool for program improvement when it reflects the student performance goals described in the written curriculum. Recognizing the need for an outside evaluation of its process, the Little Rock School District board of directors commissioned The National Curriculum Audit Center to assess the services and programs of the district. The center team conducted an on-site audit and submitted their findings in a December 1990 Curriculum Audit Report. A curriculum audit reveals the degree to which the officials of the Little Rock School District and professional staff have developed and implemented a sound, valid and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system would enable the Little Rock School District to make maximum utilization of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. If such a system were implemented and fully operational, it would also ensure the Little Rock School District taxpayers and the State of Arkansas, that their financial support had been well used under the conditions in which the school district functioned. (Curriculum Audit Pages 2-3) The model for the audit indicated that the Little Rock School District curricular quality control 2should reveal the presence of a written curriculum which is in turn taught and measured through tests or other assessment. Audit Findings Among the five standards used in examining the Little Rock School District, one indicated that auditors expected to find that the school district had established clear and valid objectives for students. What the team found was a voluminous, incongruous collection of curriculum guides, most of which were inadequate for instructional use and the district had no systematic plan in place for development and revision of the curriculum. Another standard examined the adequacy of the assessment program in the district to cause change of ineffective practices or programs. Considering this standard, the audit team found that the testing program did not yield enough information for a demanding evaluation of programs or practices and that the assessment program lacked sufficient quality to provide adequate data for decision-making. Actions Taken The findings of the Curriculum Audit, while pointed in their criticism of the district, did not reveal new information. The district had already included some corrective steps in the desegregation plan which had gone to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in 1990. In the plan, which was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court in December of 1990, the district made 99 promises and representations about Computer Managed Instructional Technology. Subsequent to the curriculum audit, the superintendent of the Little Rock School District, presented to the board and community No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the Little Rock School District. In No More Excuses, she addressed the identification of problems and issues affecting learning in the district and outlined a plan to allow all students to become successful learners. The problems and issues addressed are national in scope but also appropriate to the Little Rock district. The superintendent emphasized two things that she felt had to be done as the beginning to improve learning outcomes. First, to review, revise and improve board policies with accountability placed on all employees. Second, the curriculum should be reviewed, revised and developed with an appropriate scope and sequence and should have written educational objectives. An Associate Superintendent was reassigned with the task of designing the new curriculum. No More Excuses detailed 16 actions to be authorized by the board with a timetable for implementation. One of the actions was authorization by the board to develop a comprehensive 3grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which students are mastering the curriculum. Another was the implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that would enable the district to track individual progress and provide assistance to improve learning. The backing by the board to revise the curriculum which standardized the mastery objectives by grade, and the plan to assess the extent of curriculum mastery, is the genesis of the Abacus system in the Little Rock School District. Requirements The Desegregation Plan of the Little Rock School District addresses CMIT in the following manner. The eventual goal is to add a computerized management component to provide (1) annual pre and post criterion- referenced tests for most grades including grading and reporting, (2) computerized scoring of unit tests for mastery and (3) the automation of record keeping providing the teacher with more time to work with students and better data with which to approach that task. (LRSD Plan, Page 48-49) Parent Home Study Guides will be developed by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year in each core subject area for each grade (1-6). (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Computer Managed Instructional Technology will be used for continuous tracking of student progress by the beginning of the 1992-93 school year. (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Criterion-Referenced Testing - formative criterion-referenced tests will be computer generated for the ongoing assessment of students. (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Successful use of the Abacus Instructional Management software would satisfy these desegregation plan requirements. Findings Abacus in The Little Rock School District With board approval in March of 1991, the district began immediate curriculum revision and officials started to look for a product that would meet the promises of the newly approved desegregation plan and the goals that had been advanced in No More Excuses. The district gathered information on available products that would address a range of district requirements including an instructional management component. After soliciting vendor proposals for a complete data processing system with software for student accounting, financial management and instructional management, district officials entered into the necessary contracts. Installation of the hardware started almost immediately after the contract award, in order to get as 4much preparatory work done as possible, and to allow operation to start at the beginning of the fiscal year. Training for administrators and principals was held in February of 1992 and by May a training schedule for teachers had been established and training started. Work on the curriculum progressed. Before all plans were solidified and executed for the use of the hardware and software the superintendent announced her retirement from the Little Rock School District. The Manager of Support Services who functioned as the project leader on the computer and software installation also left the district. The board hired a new superintendent, but coordination was very difficult, and hopes for a smooth transition to a new way of doing things faded. When the new superintendent arrived in Little Rock in July, he was under pressure from teachers who felt beset upon having to start teaching a new curriculum and also become familiar with computer operation. Accordingly, he made a decision to delay the implementation of the Abacus project district wide. Instead he proposed use Abacus in fewer schools than initially planned, and schools in the pioneer group responded enthusiastically. Twenty-three schools were chosen to participate in the first year use of Abacus. To ease the effort of startup, the schools were divided into two groups for training and implementation. For the other schools inservice provided strategies and techniques that could be used as alternative assessment methods to determine mastery of curriculum objectives by students, until the time that they could start using Abacus. The Use of Abacus The LRSD was successful in getting the new curriculum completed and ready for the start of school. In order to save the time of creating all new questions and to have the Abacus system ready, the district purchased a test item bank (collection of questions) that were to be identified with the corresponding curriculum objectives and loaded into the Abacus system. The curriculum staffhad a great deal of work to do in correlating the objectives and curriculum. They found many of the test questions to be inappropriate for the curriculum but they made an effort to add and delete questions in order to have test items that accurately reflected what was being taught. During the first year of operation, teachers became frustrated as they were implementing the new curriculum, taking Abacus training, and trying to find how best to include it in their daily routines, while still doing their primary task of instructing their classes. Despite the proliferation of personal computers, many people, teachers among them, are not only computer illiterate but have a genuine fear of computers that no one recognized or acted upon early enough to get resolved. There was little help or opportunity for experimentation to explore the possibilities of Abacus and as response times lengthened patience with the system became increasingly shorter. The district conducted an evaluation to determine the success of Abacus during the first year and made some decisions based on that evaluation. One decision was to delay Abacus for the secondary schools until the elementary schools were fully operational and another was to place technical people in the schools to assist the teachers. The computer interaction in many of the buildings has been completely assumed by the technical assistants relieving many of the frustrations teachers had due to 5poor computer response time and lack of familiarity with computer procedures. Reports The Abacus system is capable of producing reports by district, school, class, or individual that show the level of mastery of all objectives, tested or observed objectives or specific objectives. In addition, the data can be used to create comparisons of the level of mastery by individuals with their class, school, or the within the district. Reports can help teachers plan their lessons by providing a sequence of objectives, questions associated with those objectives and instructional resources to assist in the lesson. The individual test reports show the student name, the test question and the students answer. Abacus has the capability to provide a diagnostic comment for wrong answers but to date this district has not used that feature. A sample report sent to principals in February showed every objective on grade level that is tested on the Stanford 8. The report indicated the mastery or non-mastery of those objectives by students in that class. Principals were encouraged to request the report for each teacher in their building. This kind of reporting could be a tremendous asset in preparation for the Stanford 8. In addition the report could be used to correlate Stanford 8 results to the curriculum and make adjustments to the curriculum as required, or identify additional instructional resources that might be used to reenforce teaching of a particular objective. How much the Abacus data is translated into individual student action plans is difficult to determine. As more information is obtained on the mastery of objectives it should result in revised teaching techniques and/or clarity of objectives. For example, if across all fourth grade classes an objective is only being mastered by 45% of the students, then the associate superintendents, principals and curriculum professionals should determine how critical that objective is overall, and perhaps devise a plan to increase the mastery of that objective, or accept that level of mastery. The same kind of approach is true of individual students, but in fact it is difficult to try to administer 20-25 individual plans. Some schools however, report success with Individual Education Plans (lEPs). At parent conferences teachers can use mastery information to illustrate just how well a student is doing. Instead of relating test scores, the parent can be told the specific skills the child has or has not acquired, and can be told the specific help they might give at home. Training All elementary school principals and teachers in the district have received Abacus training. In some schools, aides have been trained to scan or prepare tests for teachers. As new teachers for the district are hired, they are scheduled for training on Abacus at the Instructional Resource Center. Staff Development and Computer Central personnel alternate in providing the training. Principals have been cooperative in identifying teachers that need additional training and encouraging them to get it. All elementary schools have flyers that offer after school voluntary refresher training. Refresher sessions conducted by staff development last for two hours and are designed to build on specific skills such as scanning or test creation. 6Status of the Curriculum During the summer of 1993, staff revised the Math and Language Arts curriculum and entered it into Abacus. They aligned objectives and test items, added new questions and entered references to those items that are part of the state of Arkansas ffameworksas well as those that are included on the Sanford 8 standardized test During the summer of 1994, the district added revised mathematics and language arts objectives to the Abacus system along with additional test items correlated to the revised objectives. District personnel have not completed the task of aligning the instructional resources for math and language arts with the objectives. The revision of science objectives is scheduled for the summer of 1995 for use starting in the fall, to be followed by social studies in 1996. The Evaluation Process The associate superintendents have included Abacus in their school reviews, and principals have made using Abacus as an assessment tool a priority. The Abacus system was included in the extended evaluation process of February 1995 which was a comprehensive report with observations and recommendations and included teacher responses and suggestions on the use of Abacus during the 1993-94 school year. These responses were far ranging and included all that the monitor encountered in teacher interviews. The extended evaluation notes that district personnel did not act on teacher feedback from 1993-94 because of time and budgetary restraints. We found no indication that the extended evaluation itself has been recognized as information that is useful. If the administration does not intend to act on evaluative data how can it possibly adapt to change of any kind? All elementary schools use Abacus as the record keeping system to varying degrees of success Some schools are also using portfolios as an assessment tool and the state mandates multiple assessment. Abacus can be used as the repository of data for all types of assessment, and it can provide composite information from portfolios. Dedication to Assessment The Little Rock School District has recently embarked upon a Strategic Planning Process and has published its new objectives and twelve strategies to attain the objectives. Three of the strategies seem to reaffirm the decision to use Abacus. The very first of its strategies calls for standards in the curriculum and a means for assessing whether students have met these standards. The third strategy calls for alternatives and interventions for students with poor performance on the standardized tests or who are not meeting the district standards that demonstrate mastery of the core curriculum. Another strategy calls for the planning of individual student goals. All three of these strategies can be executed using Abacus as a tool. 7Financial The Little Rock School District has provided most of the information for the summary of the costs associated with Abacus. Many of the costs are estimates because of a lack of specificity in the district accounting system. Future year projections are only estimates and do not represent budgeted amounts or any obligation on the part of the district except for the hardware cost. The hardware expense represents the lease purchase payment that the district is contractually obligated to pay through 1996-97. In fiscal years 95-96 and 96-97 the district will have expenses for technicians, stipends, training and printing, and other ongoing expenses. Little Rock School District Abacus Financial Summary 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Hardware $102,659.00 $102,659.00 $103,297.00 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 Technicians $32,826.20 $35,926.96 $37,000.00 $38,000.00 Data Processing $36,082.48 $36,572.80 $38,000.00 $39,000.00 School-based Stipends $19,377.00 $18,838.75 $19,000.00 $19,500.00 Forms $18,000.00 $5,201.63 $2,800.00 $2,900.00 $3,000.00 Training-Substitutes $13,471.00 $12,207.51 $1,900.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Training-Stipends $8,073.75 $2,381.40 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Staff Development $37,087.08 $25,428.18 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Travel Printing $2,400.00 $2,176.00 $750.77 $901.55 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Software \u0026amp; Maintenance $108,075.00 Test Item Bank $89,500.00 Custom Progranuning $9,295.15 Data Entry Services $10,235.00 Training by Consultants $18,000.00 Total $474,294.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $235,559.00 $238,159.00 8Recommendations 1. Until such time as the district finds another district-wide approach that can be used, the administration should communicate to the district and community that it takes its commitment to assessment seriously, and that Abacus remains the vehicle for implementing that commitment. Through its strategic planning process, the district has promised to have in place a means to assess whether students have met the established standards. 2. Communicate to teachers that accountability is not blame, and that the reason for an assessment program is to provide feedback to them and to improve the quality of education. Speculation, rumors, frustration, lack of demonstrated support and a myriad of other ills have persistently been attached to the Abacus system. Certainly changes must be made to the use of this tool. Nevertheless the district has come so far and the district administration should quell any unwarranted speculation on the immediate future of Abacus. 3. Concentrate attention on making use of Abacus more user-friendly. Many teachers have volunteered useful ideas that should be incorporated into daily practice. A move to standardize tests and prepare them in advance would relieve much of the frustrations teachers experience 4. No formal feedback mechanism exists to resolve problems. Most problems could be resolved quickly if only they were ultimately referred to the right person. We found no formal and only basic informal feedback from teachers to Abacus administration. As a result, problems that teachers encounter with the system such as poorly stated or inappropriate questions, poor grammar in questions or lack of enough questions in an area' do not get fixed readily. Little helpful information from administration goes to teachers to help them use the system. No regular meetings are held, when assessment is the sole topic, of curriculum administrators, abacus administration, the two associate superintendents and the administrator in charge of the curriculum. ' One teacher reported only ten questions available on the entire human body when there should have been ten questions on each of the bodys systems. 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 25, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Morgan FROM: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for THROUGH: Curriculum and Learning Improvement Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schoolst^^^^V^^^^ SUBJECT: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System ABACUS TRAINING The Little Rock School District remains committed to providing teachers and principals with the training and technical support necessary to ensure that the Abacus system is used by teachers as a viable instructional management tool. In order to fulfill this commitment using District resources currently available, all principals were trained during the first semester (see attachment), but the original plan for training all K-12 core-area teachers during the 1992-93 school year has been modified and, thus, the initial schedule for training has been modified. During the 1992-93 school year, the Abacus system is being implemented in a limited number of schools. All K-9 core area teachers, specialists, and administrators in these schools will be trained and will use the system for management of instruction in core content areas of the revised curriculum. Because of the large number of schools applying for the limited spaces available in the pilot project, the District decided to conduct two (2) cycles of the pilot training in order to include more schools in the project. The schools chosen to participate in each cycle are as follows: Cycle I Mabelvale Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry Cycle II Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights El. Watson Williams WoodruffStatus Report - Abacus Page 2 Each cycle has been divided into two phases of training: the first phase consisted of K-9 core-area teachers in each pilot school attending two half-day training sessions\nthe second phase will consist of individual technical assistance conducted by the Staff Development Specialists at the local pilot schools. Additional training for the teachers trained this past summer will also be provided. Attached are schedules for Cycle I and Cycle II pilot schools that are participating in this project. After teachers have completed the two training sessions, the Staff Development Specialists will spend four to six (4-6) days in each school providing Phase II training which will consist of individual technical assistance to the teachers as they use the Abacus system. This assistance will be provided according to a schedule developed cooperatively by each teacher and the Staff Development Specialists. Following completion of the in-school technical assistance, additional class sessions and/or further in-school training will be scheduled and conducted according to the needs of the participants. Several optional Abacus review/refresher workshops have been scheduled for those teachers who were originally trained this past summer at the IBM center. These workshops were conducted at Metropolitan, Room 213 (these days were during the AEA Convention): Session 1 - November 5, 1992 -- 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Session 2 - November 5, 1992 -- 12:30 - 3:30 p.m. Session 3 - November 6, 1992 -- 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Each session was limited to 20 participants per session. The remaining schools will be targeted for initial training next fall. The process to be used for further training and the schedule will be developed after the process used for training this year has been evaluated. STUDENT ASSESSMENT The new LRSD curriculum offers core content area teachers flexibility in making the best uses of an almost infinite number of assessment possibilities. Teachers realize that assessing student progress is an ongoing part of the instructional process, and most teachers incorporate a variety of assessment strategies into the daily teaching/learning routine. With the new core curriculum, teachers can ensure that students are mastering the grade level objectives by correlating their assessment methods, along with their instructional strategies, to the identified objectives. Since teachers have the freedom to arrange the objectives so that they fit the learner needs and the teacher style, they must also choose how to assess. Teachers will continue to use standardized chapter tests and other similar mass- produced assessments with caution. The new curriculum has been designed by LR teachers for LR teachers. The objectives in all core areas are linked to specific learner outcomes, and any assessment must reflect individual student progress consistent with the aims of those outcomes.Status Report - Abacus Page 3 To assist teachers in the assessment process, inservice during cluster meetings has provided strategies and techniques that can be used as alternative assessment methods to determine mastery of content. The enclosed suggestions and/or guidelines for alternative assessment methods were sent to building principals. Reading and math \"trifolds\" are no longer used in the District as the skills identified on the checklists are not aligned with the revised curriculum\ntherefore, such trifolds are no longer appropriate to track student progress and/or mastery. Alternative Assessment The mastery of many objectives can be measured directly through standard objective tests\nhowever, a number of objectives may be best assessed through alternative means. Alternative assessment allows the teacher to judge student performance in two areas: completion of a product and observation of a process/demonstration of a skill. Products can be such things as:  charts  graphs  models  projects  stories or poems  journals  written reports Some products directly related to curriculum objectives should be kept in folders or portfolios\nothers, however, because of size and/or instability, are not suitable for folders. The other area of alternative assessment is less tangible. Teachers will observe either a process or demonstration of a skill. Examples of this type of objective can be such things as:  reading  writing process  speaking  listening  counting  measuring  classifying  using a piece of equipment  working in a group  discussing a topic or issue  investigating a problem  using a calculator  using manipulatives or modelsStatus Report - Abacus Page 4 Teacher observable computer forms for each of the four core subject areas will be available to students in the project pilot schools. Teachers will bubble in student mastery for each of the observable objectives. Student performance may be judged as pass-fail, mastery-nonmastery, successful participation-unsuccessful participation, etc. Each school will determine criteria on which this evaluation will be made. PARENT HOME STUDY GUIDES To further enhance the Districts instructional program, Parent Home Study Guides will be developed and ready for use by parents by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. Guides will support the delivery of instruction in the revised curriculum (core areas) by empowering parents to become active school partners in their childs education.ABACUS TRAINING FOR PRINCIPALS Principals were scheduled to attend Abacus training at Metropolitan, Room 213, from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. on the days identified below: October 14 \u0026amp; 22 Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. October 15 \u0026amp; 23 Mann Pulaski Hgts. Jr. Southwest Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot October 16 \u0026amp; 27 Cloverdale El. Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish October 20 \u0026amp; 28 Jefferson Mabelvale El. McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts. El. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine October 21 \u0026amp; 29 Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson WoodruffCYCLE I TRAINING SCHEDULE Cycle I of the Abacus training schedule involved the following: All K-6 and 7-9 core area teachers and assistant principals at the following schools: Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine TerryTIME: CYCLE I DATES: 7:45 A.M. Sharra Akers Susan Scott ABACUS PILOT PROJECT SCHEDULES NOVEMBER 30, X992, AND JANUARY 11, 1993 10:45 A.M. Baseline Baseline 1st 1st TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Patty Hardesty - Baseline 2nd Mary Black - Carver Linda Glenn Carver Carolyn Biome - Gibbs Pamela Newsome - Gibbs 1st 1st - 1st - 1st Anita Lamb - Eunice Skubal Julie Curtis Baseline - Carver - Carver 2nd 1st 2nd Carol Shufelberger - Gibbs Beatriz Kimball - Gibbs - - 2nd 3rd Valerie Hare Julie Meeks Dodd Dodd 1st 1st Wanda Huie Dodd 2nd Joyce Alley - Terry - 1st Georgia Hoffman - Terry - 1st William Sheridan - Dodd - 3rd Ann Moore - Terry - 1st Thelma Chesser - Terry - 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. \u0026gt; 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 1, 1992, AND JANUARY 12, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Stacey Young - Baseline - Marilyn James - Baseline - Claudia Hamilton - Carver Carolyn Jefferson - Carver Caryn Taulbee - Gibbs - 3rd Susie Robinson - Gibbs - 4th 1st K - 2nd - 2nd Donna Marshaleck - Baseline Maria Mitchell Lisa Mack - Carver Baseline 2nd K K Susan Childers Dodd Marie Sprinkle - Dodd 4 th 4 th Bryana Kelley - Carver Patricia Luzzi - Gibbs Nancy Foster - Gibbs - Elizabeth Conder - Dodd Yvette Denton Dodd - 3rd - Sth 6 th - Sth Sth Beth Samler - Terry - 2nd Sherry Smelko - Terry - 2nd Margaret Harris - Terry - 3rd Linda Mellberg - Terry - 3rd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 2, 1992, AND JANUARY 13, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Kristi Hartman - Geyer Sp. 1st Nita Hightower - Geyer Sp. - 1st Bobbie Govan - Mitchell - 1st Barbara Banks - Mitchell - 2nd Stephanie Bentiven-Rightsell-lst Rosalyn Zeigler - Rightsell - 1st Patsy Douglas - Geyer Sp. Dolores Hill - Geyer Sp. - Teresa Hamilton - Mitchell 2nd 2nd - 2nd Linda Fleming - Carver Andrew Bennett Carver 6th 6 th Jimmy Calhoun - Mitchell - 3rd Sharon Bryant - Rightsell - 2nd Barbara Fincher - Rightsell - 2nd Vannetta Thomas Carver 6th DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. Paula Bettis - Carver K DECEMBER 3, 1992, AND JANUARY 14, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Barbara Hamrick - Baseline - Keith House - Baseline - 4th Glen Camper - Baseline - 6th 3rd Letitia Brooks - Baseline Betty Deaton - Baseline - Sth Sth Dianne Langleys - Carver Priscilla Penn - Carver Timothy Goetz - Gibbs - - 3rd - 3rd 6 th Lynda White - Gibbs Cynthia Wilson - Carver Rhonda Smith Carver Asst. Prin. Kayren Grayson - Gibbs - 6th Malinda Hamilton - Dodd Vickye Mitchell - Dodd  6th K Belinda Price - Gibbs Shirley Talley - Gibbs Susan Blue Dodd K Jennifer Strange - Terry - 3rd - 3rd 4th K K Theresa Courtney - Carver Dale Dennis - Terry - 4th Asst. Prin.DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 8, 1992, AND JANUARY 15, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Tamara Gingerich - Geyer Sp. Patty Miller - Geyer Sp. Charlotte Guin Mitchell Dazzle Mattison - Mitchell Melanie Hale - Mitchell - 3rd 3rd - 4th K 3rd Rebecca Bohra - Geyer Sp. 4 th Evelyn Stubblefield - Geyer Sp. Gertrude Stubblefield - Mitchell Brenda Hipp - Mitchell 6th 4 th 6th Ann Sanders - Rightsell - 3rd Sue Palmer-Walker -Rightsell-4th Nancy Daily - Rightsell - Sth Jacque Kesler - Rightsell - 4th DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 9, 1992, AND JANUARY 19, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Lisa Gwin - Geyer Sp. Sandra Lee - Geyer Sp. K K Carolyn Doxes - Geyer Sp. 6th Ladonna Falls - Rightsell - 6th Catherine Johnson-Rightsell - Sth Patricia King - Romine - 1st Mary Washington - Romine - 1st Brenda Croft - Rightsell - K Frenzella Dodson - Rightsell - K Janet Gall - Romine 2nd Angela Doyne - Carver K Kathleen Harrison - Carver K Helen Gestaut - Romine - 2nd Mary Martha Roberts - Carver K DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 10, 1992, AND JANUARY 20, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Julie Henry - Carver 4 th Estella Nesmith - Carver - Cindy Powell - Terry - 4th 4 th Virginia Rowland - Carver Betty Glenn - Carver Sth 4 th Jeanette Robinson - Terry - 4th Cindy Mason - Romine -3rd Ardelia Walker - Romine - 3rd Melonie Osborne - Romine - 3rd Rose Graham - Terry - Sth Yana Scott - Terry - Sth Gloria Owens - Romine - 4th Janet Powell - Romine - 4th Barbara Anderson - Romine - Asst. Prin. DATES: TIMEX 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 15, 1992, AND JANUARY 21, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Christi Oliver - Carver Sth Teata Pace Carver Sth Mary Anne Williams - Carver Melody Hammer - Terry - 6th Linda Ford - Terry - K Ann Lineberry - Terry - K Deborah Byrd - Carver - Nona Grubbs - Terry - K Sth 6th Tahliba Ali - Romine 6 th Joyce Willingham - Romine - 6th Karen Lagrone-Abe - Terry - K Tyrone Harris - Terry - Asst. Prin. Gwendolyn Glasgow - Romine - K Noa Robinson - Romine - K DATE: TIME: 7:45 A.M. -\u0026gt; 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 1992 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Sharon Sims Baseline - 2nd Dianne Glason - Baseline 3rd Yoriko Perritt - Carver - Sc. Sp. Meredith Chase-Spann - Carver-G/T Carolyn Huffman - Baseline Delwin Smith - Baseline - - 4th 6th Annie Raines Dodd Anita Henriksen - Dodd. 2nd 3rd Dorothy Peterson - Geyer Sp. Karen Campbell - Carver - Curr. Sp. Patricia Killingsworth - Carver - Math Sp. Brenda Riddle Dodd 6th Sue Rogers - Dodd - Librarian 6th Mildred Jones - Geyer Sp. - 4 yr. old Josephine Dumas -Geyer Sp.-Reading Renee Kovach - Geyer Sp. Jeanne Whitesell - Gibbs - 2nd Mary Jones - Gibbs - Sth Wilhelmina Lewellen - Gibbs 4 th Math Vicki Gonterman - Gibbs - SpecialistDATE\nTIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 17, 1992 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Joann Hestir Mitchell Najmah Cooksey - Mitchell Patricia Ross - Mitchell 1st - 5th K Mildred Walker Linda Hamlet - - Mitchell Mitchell - - 5th 6th Joe Hollins - Rightsell - 3rd Nell Page - Rightsell - Math Eva Fairchild - Rightsell - 6th Deborah Lawson Romine Patricia Henry - Romine 1st 2nd Debbie Jackson - Terry - 5th Rachel Grosserode - Terry - 6th Delores Banks - Romine Sabra Shelby - Romine 5th 5th Martha Shirrell - Terry - 6th Rita James - Terry - Math DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 5, 11:30 A.M. 1993, AND FEBRUARY 2,1993 TIME\n12:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M. Pat Crommet Mvale Jr. Soc. St. Linda Kamara - Mvale Jr. Steve Quattlebaum-Mvle Jr.-Soc.St. Robert Ward - Mvale Jr. Sharron Cannon Leslie Jones - - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Mvale Jr. - Eng. Soc. St. Soc. St. Dawn Terry - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Roger Henson - SW Jr. Alice Bolden - SW Jr. Soc. St. Soc. St. Dorothy Jones - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Robert McDonald - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Clarke Nalley - Mvale Jr. -Sc. Bettie Williford-SW Jr.-Soc. St. Mary Coleman - SW Jr. Ovid Lamb - SW Jr. - Leon Carson SW Jr. - Eng. Robert Fleming - SW Jr. - Soc. St. Soc. St. Soc. St. Betty Crawford - SW Jr. - Eng. Colleen Ferguson - SW Jr. - Eng. Cedric Finley - SW Jr. - Eng. DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 6, 1993, AND FEBRUARY 3, 1993 11:30 A.M. TIME: 12:30 A.M. - 3:30 P.M. Joseph Briscoe - Mvale Jr. Sc. Lisa Bryant - Mvale Jr. Sc. Kathleen Dunbar - Mvale Jr. - Math Merry Zakrzewski - Mvale Jr.- Math Virginia Lindberg -Mvale Jr.- Math Cheryl Aboul-Enein - Mvale Jr. Melissa Duncan - Mvale Jr. - Sc. Rodney White - Mvale Jr. - Sc. Ladonna Atkins -Mvale Jr.-Soc. St. Rodney White - Mvale Jr. Math Terri Phillips - SW Jr. Sherry Keaton - SW Jr. Sc. Sc. Gloria Jones SW Jr. Sc. Cassandra Mason-SW Jr.-Asst. Pr. James Privitt - SW Jr. - Math Mavis Green - Mvale Jr. Asst. Prin. DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 7, 11:30 A.M. 1993, AND FEBRUARY 4, 1993 TIME: 12:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M. Sheila Hudson Mvale Jr. - Math Stella Cameron - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Gloria Billingsley - Mvale Jr. - Soc. St. Sherry Lack - SW Jr. - Eng. Kimberly Gilbert - SW Jr. - Connie Green - Mvale Jr. Sc. Jerome Tidmore Charles Moore Tara Weaver - - SW Jr. - SW Jr. SW Jr. - Math  Math Math Annie Morgan - SW Jr. - Math Christopher Kline - SW Jr. - Math Sc. Jacqueline Falls - SW Jr. - Susan Middlebrooks - SW Jr. Sc. - Sc. John Robinson-Mvale Jr.-Asst. Pr. Elizabeth Willingham - SW Jr. - Eng. Jim Fullerton - SW Jr. Asst. Prin.CYCLE II TRAINING SCHEDULE Cycle II of the Abacus training schedule for the second semester will involve the following: All K-6 core-area teachers, math teachers, reading teachers, special education teachers, gifted/talented teachers, and assistant principals at the Cycle II schools: Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights El. Watson Williams Woodruff All reading, math, special education, and gifted/talented teachers at the Cycle I schools: Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine TerryCYCLE II ABACUS PILOT PROJECT SCHEDULES TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 2. 1993, AND APRIL 29, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Dori McGowan - Badgett, 1st Ann McLennan - Badgett, 2nd Berthena Walker - Booker, 1st Tammy Higdon - Booker, 1st Annita Bogard - Chicot, 1st Deborah Moix - Chicot, 1st Alvin Turner - For.Pk., 1st Carolyn Wenger - For. Pk., 1st Edna Wiley - Ish, 1st Cleveland Ellis - Ish, 2nd Patricia Singer - Badgett, 5th Sandra Childs - Badgett, 6th Cheryl Parks - Booker, 1st Alicia Solomon - Booker, 1st Linda Neal - Chicot, 1st Steve Toran - Chicot, 1st Patricia White - For.Pk., 1st Maple Kearney - For.Pk., 2nd Laura Smith - Ish, 2nd Cleta Harp - Ish, 3rd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 3, 1993, AND APRIL 30, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Rejeana Albert - Badgett, 5th Janet Barge - Booker, 2nd Rose Marie Karp - Booker, 2nd Sylverene Eans - Chicot, 2nd Debra Johnson - Chicot, 2nd Janet Machen - For.Pk., 2nd MaryLee Robinson - For.Pk Yvonne Jackson - Ish, 3rd Hazel Hicks - Ish, 4th Elaine Self - Ish, K 2nd  Crystal Wood - Badgett, K Lois Kelley - Booker, 2nd Merilyn Burruss - Booker, 3rd Shirley Morgan - Chicot, 2nd Jeannie Wells - Chicot, 2nd Rebecca Jenkins - For.Pk., 3rd Tajuana Russell - For. Pk., 3rd Boyce Pearson - Ish, 6th Yolanda Redwood - Ish, K Willie Morris - Chicot, Asst.Prin. DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 4, 1993, AND MAY 3, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Loretta Ellington - Booker, 3rd Dishoungh White - Booker, 3rd Judy Hollingsworth - Chicot, 3rd Brenda Martin - Chicot, 3rd Carolyn Clements - For.Pk., 4th Debbie Capps - For.Pk., Sth Leigh Cooper - Jeff., 1st Meg Holmes - Jeff., 1st Edna Armstrong - Meadcl., 1st Joyce Mason - Meadcl., 1st Martha Armstrong - Booker, 4th Clara Austin - Booker, 4th Sara Rose - Chicot, 3rd Pamelon Isbell - Chicot, 4th Annie Holmes - For.Pk., Sth Yulonda Wallace - For.Pk., 6th Sunny Hawk - Jeff., 1st Mary Burrough - Jeff 2nd  ! Kathryn Thomas - Meadcl., 1st Lois Bishop - Meadcl., 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 5, 1993, AMD MAY 4, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Cassandra Harding - Booker, 4th Carolyn Taylor - Booker, 4th Elizabeth Kesterson - Chicot, 4th Erma Williams - Chicot, 4th Lisa Faulkner - For.Pk., K Marietta Hunt - For.Pk., K Betty Muench - Jeff., 2nd Ann Walker - Jeff., 2nd Karen Burgess - Meadcl., 2nd Myrna Williams - Meadcl., 2nd Denise Clark - Booker, Sth Clementine Kelley - Booker, Sth Jorge Johnson - Chicot, Sth Beth Shanks - Chicot, Sth Cynthia Moore - For.Pk K Vera Robinson - Jeff., Asst.Prin. Cheryl Crutcher - Jeff., 3rd Lana Dove - Jeff., 3rd Katherine Goodwin - Meadcl., 3rd Mary Wetzel - Meadcl., 3rdDATES: MARCH 8, 1993, AND APRIL 13, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED DATES: DATES: DATES: A A A A AA A A A A AA AA Sallie Snowden - Badgett, Math Dixie Fair - Chicot, Math Docia Jones Dodd, Math Sandra Thompson - Jefferson, Math Gloria White - Booker, Math Janice Lewis - Mitchell, Math Mary McDonald - Romine, Math MARCH 9, 1993, AND APRIL 14, 1993 TIME: A* 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Peggy Williams - Baseline, Math Yvonne Davis - Chicot, Math Donna Stiles - For.Pk., Math Mary Torrence - Gibbs, Math Tina Brown - Booker, Math Barbara Hicks Pul.H. El., Math Janet Adans - Watson, Math MARCH 10, 1993, AND APRIL 15, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. MO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED ** AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Margo Rowe - Badgett, Reading Kaye Dickerson - Booker, Reading Cindy Maddox - Chicot, Reading Janet Chant - For.Pk., Reading Juanita Washington - Ish, Reading Mary Balenko - Meadcl Reading Susan Hester - Mitchell, Reading Debbie Finkbeiner - P.H.El., Reading Karen Sebourn - Romine, Reading John Burgin - Watson, Reading MARCH 11, 1993, AND APRIL 16, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Bill Smith - Baseline, Reading Judy Fletcher - Booker, Reading Carolyn Steelman - Dodd, Reading Ann Hurd - Gibbs, Reading Emma Miller - Jefferson, Reading Sherry Norrell - Meade., Reading Ann Averitt ~ Otter Cr., Reading Ada Keown - Rightsell, Reading Harriette Mazzanti - Terry, Reading Martha Couch - Watson, ReadingDATES: MARCH 16, 1993, AMD APRIL 20, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED DATES: DATES: TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - ** ** A* ** ** Mary McMorran - Booker, Sp. Ed. Shirley Walker - Carver, Sp. Ed. Kay Hicks - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Carrie Moore - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Marcus Moore - Dodd, Sp. Ed. Janice Gordon For.Pk., Sp. Ed, Jean Gilbert - Geyer Springs, Sp. Millicent Fowler - Baseline, Sp.Ed. MARCH 17, 1993, AMD APRIL 21, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Nancy Mitchell - Gibbs, Sp. Ed. Terri Finkbeiner - Jeff., Sp. Ed. Katie Pace - Mitchell, Sp. Ed. Gwen Stone Otter cr., Sp. Ed. Carol Blann - Pul.H.El., Sp. Ed. Kathy Joubert - Pul.H.El., Sp. Ed. Carolyn Robinson - Terry, Sp. Ed. Ruth Berry - Watson, Sp. Ed. Linda Curry - Williams, Sp. Ed. MARCH 18, 1993, AND APRIL 22, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. -* 2:45 P.M. MO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED ** ** ** A* AA AA AA AA AA AA Carolyn Rand - Terry, G/T Beverly Kinneman - Otter Cr., G/T Sylvia Tyler - Watson, G/T Nancy Matlock - Chicot, G/T Phill Davis - Dodd, G/T Carolyn Huie - Booker, G/T Dorothy Phillips - Williams, G/T Michelle Kavanaugh - Williams, G/T Kaye Bateman ~ Gibbs, G/T Patricia Phillips - Romine, G/T MARCH 19, 1993, AND APRIL 23. 1993 10:45 A.M. Gayla Pruitt - Badgett, Sp. Ed. Brenda Johnson - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Laura Bedow - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Viki Love - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Richard Horton - Romine, Sp. Ed. Margaret Thomas - Romine, Sp. Ed.TIME: OATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 22, 1993, AND MAY 5, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Denna Lehnhoff - Booker, Sth Paula Hampton - Booker, 6th Sarah Fike - Chicot, 6th Paula Kerr - Chicot, K Debbie Sabo - Chicot, K Daisy Wheeler - Jefferson, 3rd Carolyn Itzkowitz - Jefferson, 4th Suzanne White - Meadcl., 3rd Verdia Hence - Meadcl., 4th Doris Broyles - Otter Cr., 1st Daryl Newcomb - Booker, Sth Nancy Weir - Booker, 6th Sandra Mims - Chicot, K Katie Murph - Chicot, K Edna Wilson - Jefferson, 4th Terri Hammond - Jefferson, Sth Thelma Shorter - Meadcl., 4th Bertha Washington - Meadcl., 4th Shirley Hall - Otter Cr., 1st TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M - MARCH 23, 1993, AND MAY 6, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Wilma Bonds - Booker, K Sonya Burnett - Booker, K Kristianna Pittenger - Jeff., Sth Rosie Williams - Jefferson, Sth Helen Burr - Meadcl., Sth Sharon Cox - Meadcl., Sth Dee Ann Morgan - Meadcl., K Tammi Dockett - Otter Cr., 2nd Laurine Hayes - Otter Cr., 2nd Tracy DeClue - Pul.H.El., 1st Vearlon Jeffries - Booker, K Bobbie Walls - Booker, K Joann Williams - Jefferson, 6th Kathleen Brotherton - Jeff., K Nancy Hudson - Meadcl., Sth Mary Butts - Meadcl., K J.J. Lacey - Booker, Asst.Prin. Rebecca Kessinger - Otter Cr., 2nd Debra Flores - Otter Cr., 3rd Lisa Roberts - Pul.H.El., 1st DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 24, 1993, AND MAY 7, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Kim Pennington - Jefferson, K Marie Pringle - Otter Cr., Sth Patsy Reese - Otter Cr., Sth Joynelle Baker - Pul.H.El.,2nd Eva Maeweather - Pul.H.El., 2nd Alisa Gray - Watson, 1st Mary Lawson - Watson, 1st Patricia Breece - Williams, 1st Ella Mobley - Williams, 1st Sandra Register - Jefferson, K Margaret Cannon - Otter Cr., 6th Ettatricia Clark - Otter Cr., K Toni Skarda - Pul.H.El.,2nd Terrie Davis - Pul.H.El., 3rd Joyce Watson - Watson, 1st Doris Bratton - Watson, 2nd Kathleen Reddoch - Williams, 1st Carmelia Crawford - Williams, 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 25, 1993, AND MAY 11, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Venita Hall - Otter Cr., K Rodney Wallace - Pul.H.El., 3rd Jodi Coffelt - Pul.H.El., 4th Karen Ditto - Watson, 2nd Jeanette Nail - Watson, 2nd Karen Latch - Williams, 2nd Barbara Martin - Williams, 2nd Irma Routen - Woodruff, 6th Alphia Finn - Woodruff, K Rebecca Palinski - Williams, K Anna Tatum - Watson, Asst.Prin. Vivian Gentry - Pul.H.El., 4th Nathalie Hufford - Pul.H.El., 6th Brenda Harper - Watson, 3rd Janice Anderson - Watson, Sth Ardeen Bryant - Williams, 3rd Carolyn Davis - Williams, 3rd Dorothy Howard - Woodruff, K Deborah Mitchell - Williams,Asst.Pr.DATES: TIME: ** 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED MARCH 26, 1993, AMO MAY 12, 1993 Eunice Smith Ish, Sp. Ed. Francella Calvin - Jefferson, Sp. Ed. Margaret Fava - Mitchell, Sp. Ed. Patsy Lewis - Dodd, Sp. Ed. Lorraine Mosby - Geyer Springs, Sp.Ed. ** Betty Nelson - Badget, Sp. Ed. TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 29, 1993, AMD MAY 13, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Peggy Collins - Pul.H.El., K Jamie Neal - Pul.H.El., K Luverda Clay - Watson, Sth Phyllis Johnson - Watson, Sth Marcia Wood - Williams, 3rd Zora Frazier - Williams, 4th Henry Nesby - Williams, 6th Margaret Kinder - Pul.H.El., K Rebecca Chambers - Watson, 6th Margaret Dawson - Watson, 6th Lisa Thomason - Williams, 4th Sharon White - Williams, 4th Mary Bradberry - Williams, K DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 30, 1993, AMD HAY 14, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Karen Worsham - Watson, 6th Sara Brown - Watson, K Thresia Edwards - Williams, Sth Roberta Kemp - Williams, Sth Terri Swan - Woodruff, 1st Shirley Rolax - Woodruff, 2nd Karen Luker - Williams, 6th Ruby Jackson - Watson, K Pamela Jones - Watson, K Mary Weindorf - Williams, Sth Thelma Bloom - Williams, 6th Tom Ford - Woodruff, 4th Kay Smith - Woodruff, 3rd Floretta Babbs - Williams, K TIME: DATES: 8:30 A.M. * 11:30 A.M. MARCH 31, 1993, AMD MAY 10, 1993 TIME: 12:30 P.M. - 3:30 P.M. ** MO SUBSTITUTES MEEDED Beckie Jones - Mabelv.Jr., Reading Susanne Moor SW Jr., Reading Jeffery Ellington - Mabelv.Jr., Math Nelda Tarbet - SW Jr., Reading Betty Harris - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. Rosalie Patton - Mabelv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** ** Diane Kunowski - SW Jr., Math Vera Weller - SE Jr., Sp. Ed. Pamela Wallace Mabelv. Jr., Sp.Ed. Donna Singh - Mabelv. Jr., Reading Susie Robinson - SW Jr., Reading Walter Rowe - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. Sue Smith - Mabelv. Jr., Sp. Ed. Gloria Jones - SW Jr., Sc. ** Janet Kay Holland - Mblv. Jr.Sp.Ed. ** Renita Wilborn - Mblv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** Lorene Ellis - Mblv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** Tamera Lott - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. ** Tony Castile - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. DATE: APRIL 26, 1993 TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Carole Austin - Watson, 3rd Linda Corrigan - Watson, 4th Anna L. Maddox - Williams, Math Diane Goodfellow - Williams, 6th Lisa Cunningham - Woodruff, 1st Cathy Goss - Woodruff, Sth Nancy David - Watson, 3rd Jana Wells - Watson, 4th Nancy Morton - Williams, Curr.Sp. Lynn Haney - Williams, Reading Linda Berman - Woodruff, 6th Nona Whittaker - Baseline, G/TTIME: DATE: 7:45 A.M. APRIL 27, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Ethel Campbell - Badgett, 3rd Vivian Dooley - Booker, 2nd Mayrean Johnson - Booker, Sth Suellen Dimassimo - Chicot, Ida Pettus - Chicot, 6th Sth Cynthia Collins - For.Pk., 4th Nettie Lemle - For.Pk., 6th Ronald Tarkington - Ish, Sth Cherry Norman - Ish, Librarian Kathleen Traylor - Badgett, 4th Jo Ann Abbott - Booker, 3rd Susan Colford - Booker, 6th Ora Mallett - Chicot, 6th Vicki Gershner - Chicot, Reading Gloria Wilson -For.Pk., Sth Buenah Combs - For.Pk., G/T Marva Pearson - Ish, 6th Madelyn Meaney - Ish, Aide TIME: DATE: 7:45 A.M. APRIL 28, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Betty Trimble - Badgett, 6th Annie Ross - Jefferson, 4th Becky Ramsey - Jefferson, 6th Marsha Hunter - Meadcl.,G/T Lisa Lewis - Meadcl., 6th Laura Beth Arnold - Pul.H.El., G/T Ann Freeman - Otter Cr., 3rd Lucille O'Keefe - Otter Cr., 4th Toni Honts - Pul.H.El., Sth Natalie Smith - Pul.H.El., 6th Kristin Compton - Jefferson, 6th Karin Kvaternik - Jefferson, G/T Elizabeth Pruss - Meadcl., 6th Deborah Craig - Meadcl., Math Melissa Bearden ~ Otter Cr., 4th Virginia Dolle - Otter Cr., 6th Barbara Patty - Pul.H.El., SthDate: February 3, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District From: Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor Subject: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System I appreciate receiving your report on the Abacus System, however, I expected to have more in the way of \"status\" information. For example, if Abacus is predicated on the new curriculum, is the new curriculum fully implemented? If not, at what grade levels and/or subject areas and at what schools is it implemented? What are the dates that you expect to have it implemented? What is the phase-in schedule by grade, subject, and school? If the curriculum is fully in place, what are preliminary results? What are the benefits that you are realizing? What unforeseen problems have been encountered? What is the plan to work around those problems? Your memo refers to two \"cycles\" for implementation of Abacus, but only mentions training schedules. When was cycle one started and what is being done with the system? How many students are affected? When will cycle two begin? When will the remaining schools be put on the system? What is being done to record student achievement in the non-pilot schools? As I stated in my original request, a lengthy report is not required\nbut I would like to know exactly where this project stands. cc: Mac BerndLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 4, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor, Office and Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Estelle Mattms, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Learning Improvement THROUGH: Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Cl SUBJECT: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System This communication is to provide additional information and clarification regarding the status of implementation of the revised curriculum in core areas: language arts, science, social studies, and mathematics. The physical education, business education, and gifted/talented curriculum were also revised. Provided is an update on the implementation of Abacus. REVISED CURRICULUM Is the new curriculum fully implemented? The revised curriculum is being fully implemented in all of the districts 49 schools, excluding Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center. The following curriculum courses are now being implemented beginning with the 1992-93 school year: Course/Subject Area Grade Level Language Arts English Language Arts K-6 7-12 Science Regular Science Integration of Life, Earth, and Physical Science Physical Science Biology Chemistry Physics K-6 7-8 9 10 11 12Mathematics Regular Math Regular Math Pre-Algebra Algebra Geometry Algebra II Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra K-6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Social Studies Social Studies Arkansas History History and Geography of the World Part I History and Geography of the World Part II Arkansas and American History Civics American Government American History World History World Geography Arkansas Studies K-6 4-5 6 7 8 9 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 Gifted/Talented All subject areas are used to deliver the gifted/talented curriculum K-12 Physical Education K-6 7-12 Business Education Keyboarding Word Processing 1 and 2 Computer Tech 8-10 10-12 8-12 BTutf are preliminary results? What are the benefits that LRSD is realising from the revised curriculum? The revised curriculum is new, and it will take several years for the district to provide qualitative and evaluative data that will demonstrate its effectiveness. As the revised curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced by K-12 teachers, students must matriculate upward grade wise in order for us to observe and assess substantial objective data that can show an increase in student achievement. 2There are qualitative indicators that are now evident as we implement the revised curriculum. The findings identified in the 1990 Curriculum Audit have been addressed in the following areas: Policies have been established and approved by the Board of Directors. Such policies dictated the process and procedures for revising the curriculum. The revised curriculum is predicated on Board policies. Preliminary Benefits and Results Science  Quality inservice provided to science teachers has been very effective as evidenced by teacher evaluation of inservice. Teachers appear to be pleased with the revised science curriculum.  Teachers are more competent and knowledgeable to deliver quality instruction.  More student involvement in active learning is now taking place in classrooms. Heavier emphasis has been placed on providing students quality hands-on experiences in science.  With 2-3 years of quality exposure to this curriculum that has been properly scoped and sequenced, we filled in the gaps that existed in the past for most of the difficult concepts. Students will be now be able to master content. Such concepts are now introduced earlier as developmental skills/objectives. Providing prior experiences with difficult concepts will minimize and reduce the failure rate for students who have not had rich and challenging experiences outside of their schools. Life. Earth, and Physical Science have been integrated at grades 7 and 8. Such integration focuses on assisting students in mastering of state (AMPT) and national expectations. Biology - Teacher involvement (K-12) in revising the curriculum eliminated the overlap of life science in grades 7-10. The content is now properly scoped and sequenced. Science curriculum is properly articulated, thereby correcting problems identified in the Curriculum Audit. Prerequisite concepts are acquired before 10th grade. Teachers adequately plan and address science at each grade level. 3Chemistry - Physical Science (9th grade) articulation scheme ensures that prerequisites are in place when students approach chemistry. Such instruction should narrow the gap. All students eventually will enter chemistry having acquired the necessary required skills needed to be successful learners in science. Mathematics  More student involvement in active learning is evident.  Teachers appear to be really excited about the curriculum and anxious to select and use the newly-adopted math textbooks. Teachers are anxious to purchase and use the resources that are needed to support the curriculum. (Newly-adopted textbooks and materials will not be available until the 1993-94 school year.)  Students are writing more and using an integrated approach of infusing math into other content areas.  Teachers are utilizing student teams in approaching active learning of their students. Social Studies  Teachers now have a clearer knowledge and understanding of what is to be taught and the appropriate grade level to teach certain objectives and content.  The social studies curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced providing continuity and acquisition of skills from one grade level to another grade level.  Greater infusion of multiculturalism and a de-emphasis on the teaching of isolated skills/content in multicultural and overall social studies content are evident.  The social studies curriculum is more challenging and focused. Such focus is on acquiring higher-order thinking skills and less regurgitation of factual knowledge. American History, World History, and World Geography classes are now more challenging as the courses require a focus on application, synthesis, and evaluation of knowledge rather than comprehension of content. Information is not as repetitive. Students are applying their knowledge of geography and history to worldwide issues and the environment. 4Language Arts Reading, English, spelling, and writing have been combined and integrated into one core area called language arts.  Teachers are now able to incorporate and integrate multiple skills in teaching and learning. This is a more effective and efficient use of their time.  Students are more actively involved in the learning process.  There is greater flexibility to incorporate more resources and materials from other content areas into the language arts curriculum.  Heavier emphasis on writing begins with our kindergarten students, such as responding to use of literature in analyzing characters and writing stories, and continues through grade twelve. Language Arts Grades 7 and 8 More student engagement is noted in the junior high schools particularly, as well as in some of our high school language arts classrooms. Students are viewed as workers in the classroom.  Teachers are exercising greater freedom to make choices about how and when to deliver instruction, such as clustering objectives.  Teachers are making choices in selecting literature including authentic reading experiences, such as finding ways to use the newspaper, periodicals, etc.  Development of thematic units is evident and extend English experiences into other content areas. Gifted and Talented K-12 The revised curriculum is not subject-area based\nhowever, subject areas are used to deliver the curriculum.  Teachers are excited about a very challenging and creative curriculum. 5 All schools have the same gifted/talented curriculum, preventing duplication and repetition of content from grade level to grade level and school to school.  Students are more involved in active learning and participation.  Parents at the elementary level are excited and pleased to see an innovative curriculum in place that is readily understood by parents. Physical Education K-12 The physical education curriculum was revised by K-12 teachers. This curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced to address issues raised in the Curriculum Audit.  Teachers are pleased and excited as they now have a written, articulated curriculum.  Teachers now understand what is expected of them as they plan and deliver the curriculum.  Appropriate resources and materials have been identified for teachers use in physical education courses. Business Education Courses revised: Keyboarding, Grades 8-10\nWord Processing 1 and 2, Grades 10-12\nand Computer Tech, Grades 8-12.  Curriculum is properly scoped and sequenced. Repetitive skills have been eliminated.  More aligned with \"high tech\" equipment wise.  Teachers are excited and pleased with the curriculum.  Students have increased hands-on experiences. iVhat unforseen problems have been encountered? What is the plan to work around these problems? Problems associated with District-wide implementation of Abacus became apparent in the early stages. Such problems appear to be attributed to: user resistance to new technology, hardware problems associated with CIMS, unforseen delay in customization 6of the test item banks, and the need to provide additional staff development for a large number of reluctant users. Given these concerns, the District decided that it was better to pilot the program (Abacus) in 11 schools. Schools were asked to volunteer to participate in the pilot. The response for volunteers was very positive and 23 schools agreed to participate. All 23 schools will participate in the project-11 in Cycle I and 12 in Cycle II. Gary Jones has submitted a report regarding the problems associated with the hardware. The test item bank is now operative and available to teachers in Cycle I schools. Cycle II schools will have access to the test item bank upon completion of their training for utilizing Abacus. When was Cycle I started? All principals (49) trained - October 14 - 29, 1992. Cycle I - November 30, 1992 - February 4, 1993 Schools No. of Core Area Teachers No. of Asst, Principals Total Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry 23 25 17 22 15 15 15 14 14 17 22 25 27 17 23 15 15 15 14 14 18 23 Total trained Cycle I 206 2 2 1 1 1 7When will Cycle II begin? Cycle II - March 2 - May 14, 1993 Schools No. of Core-area Teachers No. of Asst. Principals Total Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Watson Williams Woodruff 9 28 24 18 13 21 20 15 16 20 22 10 1 1 1 1 1 9 29 25 18 13 22 20 15 16 21 23 10 Some of the following are assigned to more than one school: Math Specialists for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Reading Specialists for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Special Education Teachers for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Gifted/Talented Teachers for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools 22 28 40 16 Total Trained in Cycle II 327 Total Trained in Cycle I and Cycle II 533 Total for Principals Cycle I and Cycle II 582 What is being done with the system? Following the training, teachers use the Abacus system for making tests, grading tests, recording mastery, and managing instruction. 8How many students are affected? Cycle I School No. of Students Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry 667 695 339 598 304 264 336 240 234 344 541 Sub total 4562 Cycle II Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Watson Williams Woodruff 185 621 535 444 175 483 440 353 379 434 502 218 Sub total 4769 Grand Total 9331 9a^ien will the remaining schools be put on the system? The remaining schools will be put on the system during the 1993-94 school year. Designated remaining school staff and Cycle I and II schools will be involved in determining the process to be used for training staff members not involved in the 1992-93 Abacus training. The schedule will be developed by the Districts Staff Development Department in conjunction with suggestions from the affected schools. What is being done to record student achievement in non-pilot schools? Provided are charts that indicate how all schools are recording student mastery of objectives. Secondary schools did not have trifolds during the 1991-92 school year and have not been affected in the same manner as elementary schools. 10HOW SCHOOLS ARE RECORDING MASTERY OF OBJECTIVES OF THE REVISED CURRICULUM SECONDARY SCHOOLS School Central Form(s) of Recording Mastery Mastery recorded in the same manner as last year J. A. Fair Hall Parkview Magnet Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Maim Magnet Cloverdale Matrix Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Checklist Southwest McClellan Combination: Abacus and same manner as last year Combination: Abacus and same manner as last year Combination: Checklist and same manner as last year 11How Schools Are Recording Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum Margaret Gremillion February 1993 Dodd School Fair Park Form(s) of Recording Mastery Matrix and checklist off the objectives (highlighted) Grid Forest Park Grid Fulbright Mabelvale Elem. Matrix to check off, ABACUS objective report McDermott Grade books and matrix system Short form objective report using checks and minuses Meadowcliff Pul. Heights Elem. Romine Matrix with checks and minuses - only doing what each child needs to master right now Matrix, individual sheets, curriculum guide Matrix Terry- Wakefield Watson Western Hills Condensed form of the ABACUS objectives, charts, checklists Checklists and objectives crossed out when mastery achieved_____________________________ Matrix, charts, individual portfolio system, ABACUS objectives Math aids and checklists Wilson Woodruff Matrix using checks and minuses Matrix grid which shows the curriculum and child's name 12How Schools Are Recording Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum Incentive Schools February 1993 School Franklin Form(s) of Recording Mastery Grade books Garland Ish Mitchell Grade books (1st semester) Short form objective for each child with checks and minuses, grids, grade books Checklist Rightsell Rockefeller Setting up a matrix system Checklists Stephens Objectives copied on matrix, checked when mastered and skill mastered highlighted 13Little RockSchoolDistrict SchoolOperationsand Climate 810 West Markham Little Rock,AR 72201 February 4, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent FROM: Larry S. RobertsonP^: ssistant Superintendent SUBJECT: How Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum is Recorded The information requested from my assigned schools are as follows: SCHOOL HOW MASTERY IS RECORDED Badgett Charts and Roll Book Bale Charts Baseline Matrix Booker Magnet Matrix Brady Charts and Grade Book Carver Magnet Matrix Chicot Charts Cloverdale Charts and Matrix Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson Otter Creek Matrix Matrix Charts Charts and Roll Book Washington Magnet Williams Magnet Charts Charts 14Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Ms. Estelle Mathis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham St Little Rock, Arkansas November 7, 1994 Dear Estelle, The 1994-95 ODM Monitoring Priorities have been distributed and you probably noted that Computer Managed Instructional Technology is on the list. This is to inform you that I will be doing the monitoring review of the Abacus system. I intend to start this review immediately and ask for your cooperation and support. My understanding is that, at the onset. Abacus would be a tool to insure a consistent curriculum across the district and would help to improve achievement by identifying those areas that needed attention to realize a higher degree of mastery. The purpose of this review is to determine if the Abacus system is being used to its potential and, where appropriate, to make recommendations for improvement. My monitoring plan is to first interview Betsy Choate and Lucy Lyons at the IRC to get an overview of Abacus and then go out to schools to observe on-site use. Principals at the selected schools will be notified in advance, and I don't anticipate that there will be any interference with class activities. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the monitoring process, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Ann Brown Hank WilliamsOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Ms. Estelle Mathis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham St Little Rock, Arkansas November 7, 1994 Dear Estelle, The 1994-95 ODM Monitoring Priorities have been distributed and you probably noted that Computer Managed Instructional Technology is on the list. This is to inform you that I will be doing the monitoring review of the Abacus system. I intend to start this review immediately and ask for your cooperation and support. My understanding is that, at the onset. Abacus would be a tool to insure a consistent curriculum across the district and would help to improve achievement by identifying those areas that needed attention to realize a higher degree of mastery. The purpose of this review is to determine if the Abacus system is being used to its potential and, .where appropriate, to make recommendations for improvement. My monitoring plan is to first interview Betsy Choate and Lucy Lyons at the IRC to get an overview of Abacus and then go out to schools to observe on-site use. Principals at the selected schools will be notified in advance, and I don't anticipate that there will be any interference with class activities. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the monitoring process, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Ann Brown Hank WilliamsLAB TECHNICIANS STAFF DEVELOPMENT DATA PROCESSING SCHOOL BASED STIPENDS TRAINING- SUBSTITUTE COST TRAINING- STIPENDS TRAINING- CONSULTANTS HARDWARE SOFTWARE \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE TRAVEL PRINTING FORMS DATA ENTRY SERVICES CUSTOM PROGRAMMING TEST ITEM BANK TOTAL COST TO DATE YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $856,483.21 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ABACUS COST SUMMARY JANUARY 26, 1995 YEAR 1 1992-93 $13,741.00 $18,000.00 $102,659.00 $108,075.00 $2,400.00 $18,000.00 $10,325.00 $9,295.15 $89,500.00 $371,995.15 YEAR 2 1993-94 $32,826.20 $37,087.08 $36,082.48 $19,377.00 $12,207.51 $8,073.75 $102,659.00 $2,176.00 $750.77 $5,201.63 $256,441.42 YEAR 3 1994-95 $35,926.96 $25,428.18 $36,572.80 $18,838.75 $1,900.00 $2,381.40 $103,297.00 $901.55 $2,800.00 $228,046.64 YEAR 4 1995-96 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 YEAR 5 1996-97 $102,659.00 $102,659.00Enrollment in Magnet Schools by Zone School and Race Booker Carver Gibbs Zone School Garland Stephens Mitchell Franklin Otter Creek Rightsell Watson Baseline Dodd__________________________ Jefferson Chicot Rockefeller Western Hills Meadowcliff Cloverdale Elem Geyer Springs Bale Badgett Mablevale Elem Wilson Wakefield Forest Park Fullbright McDermott Brady Terry Woodruff Pulaski Heights Elem Fair Park M.L. King______________________ Romine Washington Legal Transfer Nozone North Little Rock Pulaski County Grand Total Capacity/Total Enrollment Racial Percentage Percent of Capacity/ Available Seats Black 1 1 4 6 2 9 8 16 _____7 ____15 5 7 3 7 11 5 7 6 5 6 8 4 8 4 1 4 1 1 4 17 4 26 1 2 41 48 305 660 54% 86% White 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 4 5 4 3 2 3 2 9 3 5 5 7 9 it 2 9 7 10 9 0 3 5 0 0 2 0 1 45 93 263 568 46% 92 Black 1 0 4 5 1 ____2 9 3 5 39 6 2 4 6 5 0 4 1 6 9 4 3 8 4 ____1^ 6 0 ____3 3 2 10 ___33 0 8 53 61 311 613 53% 96% White 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 4 0 4 1 0 10 3 d 9 8 6 20 1 3 6 0 0 0 1 7 65 122 280 591 47% 22 Black 2 2 10 5 2 23 ____ 2 0 4 4 3 4 2 5 3 4 1 0 2 3 4 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 13 3 4 0 0 22 20 157 351 55% 81% + Williams White ! Black 0 0 0 1 01 1 ' 1 ' o' 0 5 1 2 0 3 0l 2 3 o' 0 5 1 3' 4' 41 61 2 5 13 6 0 0 0 0 4 21 361 129 286 45% 1 3 2 11 6 1 8 4 11 0 5 1 3 6 3 1 11 1 2 17 4 1 5 8 15 10 1 1 7 0 22 4 0 2 25 44 246 515 53% 651 91% White 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 5 6 5 12 8 0 1 43 0 0 0 0 5 34 85 222 468 47% 47 Grand Total 5 6 21 29 12 39 29 29 29 75 26 17 19 31 37 14 41 15 22 60 34 22 51 40 54 ____OT 9 26 75 32 39 69 2 29 306 509 1913 226 Grand Total Black 5 6 20 27 11 35 26 25 23 58 20 13 14 21 24 9 26 9 13 34 19 12 23 16 20 21 3 6 15 32 39 67 1 12 141 173 1019 White 0 0 1 2 1 4 3 4 6 17 6 4 5 10 13 5 15 6 9 26 15 10 28 24 ____ 39 6 20 60 0 0 2 1 17 165 336 894 Black % of Total 100% 100% 95% 93% 92% 90% 90% 86% 79% 77% 77% 76% 74% 68% 65% 64% 63% 60% 59% 57% 56% 55% 45% 40% 37% 35% 33% 23% 20% 100% 100% 97% 50% 41% 46% 34% 53%School Capacity LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Black White 93-94 93-94 Total 93-94 93-94 Black B/ack White Total 94-95 Black Percent 94-95 94-95 94-9S Percent Available Seats Percent of Capacity Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Fits. McDermott 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 1482 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 1809 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51.47% 45.03% 154 218 234 198 235 197 241 1477 205 284 325 234 307 225 253 1833 359 502 559 432 542 422 494 3310 42.90% 43.43% 41.86% 45.83% 43.36% 46.68% 48.79% 44.62% -8 -10 -44 -33 -2 -48 23 -122 102% 102% 109% 108% 100% 113% 96% 104% Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 147 311 189 215 263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 4074 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 1629 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 148 340 193 215 254 279 344 133 223 254 327 214 204 245 340 312 4025 95 134 105 102 152 132 151 44 77 91 86 95 78 81 87 80 1590 243 474 298 317 406 411 495 177 300 345 413 309 282 326 427 392 5615 60.91% 71.73% 64.77% 67.82% 62.56% 67.88% 69.49% 75.14% 74.33% 73.62% 79.18% 69.26% 72.34% 75.15% 79.63% 79.59% 71.68% 81 41 30 11 61 54 63 80 28 49 79 92 69 64 65 100 967 75% 92% 91% 97% 87% 88% 89% 69% 91% 88% 84% 77% 80% 84% 87% 80% 85% Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller 544 346 346 298 346 425 2305* 300 181 215 141 184 240 1261 45 24 15 4 5 100 193 345 205 230 145 189 340 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 393 246 260 50 36 12 225 264 1388 4 139 241 443 282 272 0 229 403 1629 88.71% 87.23% 95.59% 0.00% 98.25% 65.51% 85.21% 101 64 74 117 22 378 81% 82% 79% 0% 66% 95% 71% Interdistrict Washington King Romine 939 692 487 2118 451 357 247 1055 270 196 87 553 721 553 334 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 443 309 234 986 244 242 89 575 687 551 323 1561 64.48% 56.08% 72.45% 63.16% 252 141 164 557 73% 80% 66% 74% Magnet Booker Williams Carver Gibbs 656 517 613 353 2139 321 257 325 170 1073 274 215 270 129 888 595 472 595 299 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 305 250 309 160 1024 268 224 279 133 904 573 474 588 293 1928 53.23% 52.74% 52.55% 54.61% 53.11% 83 43 25 60 211 87% 92% 96% 83% 90% Incentive school capacities reflected In the 1992 Desegregation Plan rotate for Elementary Scho Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; 16332 2456 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% 8900 2289 5143 14043 86% Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School DistrictElementary Schools Enrollment, Available Seats, Budget and Per Pupil Cost School Area Schools Terry_________ Forest Park Pulaski Hts. Otter Creek Meadowcliff Cloverdale Brady________ Dodd McDermott Wakefield Fulbright______ Jefferson Mablevale Western Hills Baseline Watson Geyer Springs Fair Park Wilson Chicot Woodruff Bale Badgett Principal Capacity Black White Total 4 Year Olds Incentive Schools Franklin Mitchell Garland_________ Rockefeller Rightsell La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Lillie Carter Carolyn Teeter Jerry Worm______ Frederick Fields Betty Raper______ Pattie McNeil Mike Oliver Willie Morris Mac Huffman Francis Cawthon Dr. Ed Jackson Scott Morgan Lonnie S. Dean Teressa Courtney Eleanor Cox Dr. Samual Branch Franklin Davis Otis Presler Pat Higgenbotham Barbara Anderson Mary Golston Area Total 515 399 374 351 465' 492 467 328 517 492 540 492 515 328 390 492 328 351 394 558 324 401 257 9770 234 198 197 154 279 312 254 193 241 327 235 218 340 215 245 340 223 204 254 344 148 214 133 5502 325 234 225 205 132 80 152 105 253 86 307' 284 134 102 81 87 77 78 91 151 95 95 44 3423 559 432 422 359 411 392 406 298 494 413 542 502 474 317 326 427 300 282 345 495 243 309 177 8925 47 17 18 36 36 37 36 18 18 36 35 25 359 No 4 Year Olds in Total 559 432 422 359 411 345 389 298 494 413 542 502 456 317 290 391 263 246 327 477 207 274 152 8566 Available Seats -44 -33 -48 -8 54 100 61 30 23 79 -2 -10 41 11 64 65 28 69 49 63 81 92 80 990 School Budget Per Pupil Cost Julie Davenport Faith Donovan Karen Buchanan Anne Mangan Sharon Brooks Incentive Total Interdistrict Schools King______ Washington Romine Tyrone Harris Gwen Zeigler Sharon Davis Interdistrict Total Other than Magnet Schools Total Magnet Schools Carver_________ Williams_______ Booker Gibbs Diane Barksdale Mary Menking Dr. Cheryl Simmons Marjorie Bassa Magnet Total Grand Total 544 346 346 425 346 2007 728 836 487 2051 13828 613 517 656 353 2139 15967 393 260 246 248 225 1372 50 12 36 122 4 224 443 272 282 370 229 1596 72 19 18 53 18 180 371 253 264 317 211 1416 101 74 64 55 117 411 309 443 234 986 242 244 89 575 551 687 323 1561 66 52 36 154 485 635 287 1407 177 149 164 490 7860 4222 12082 693 11389 1891 309 250 305 160 1024 8884 279 224 268 133 904 588 474 573 293 1928 588 474 573 293 1928 25 43 83 60 211 5126 14010 693 13317 2102 Budget figures do not include the utilities or the cost of the four year old program Available seats includes the four year old program $1,311,672 $1,017,890 $996,492 $854,199 $994,712 $837,813 $983,813 $754,519 $1,261,427 $1,059,024 $1,423,114 $1,346,385 $1,225,280 $853,903 $797,276 $1,106,215 $748,270 $770,525 $1,046,853 $1,535,904 $681,446 $930,903 $580,861 $23,118,495 $1,318,607 $1,059,617 $1,106,629 $1,522,218 $1,062,670 $6,069,741 $1,535,015 $2,063,488 $1,145,379 $4,743,882 $33,932,118 $1,921,659 $1,700,584 $2,136,788 $1,263,200 $7,022,231 $40,954,349 $2,346 $2,356 $2,361 $2,379 $2,420 $2,428 $2,529 $2,532 $2,553 $2,564 $2,626 $2,682 $2,687 $2,694 $2,749 $2,829 $2,845 $3,132 $3,201 $3,220 $3,292 $3,397 $3,821 $2,699 $3,554 $4,188 $4,192 $4,802 $5,036 $4,287 $3,165 $3,250 $3,991 $3,372 $2,979 $3,268 $3,588 $3,729 $4,311 $3,642 $3,075 4/20/95 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDI de: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Subject: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Discussion of ABACUS Attached for discussion is a report on the cost of ABACUS for the past three years. I ( i { t i I I t 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ABACUS COST SUMMARY JANUARY 26, 1995 T YEAR 1 1992-93 YEAR 2 1993-94 YEARS 1994-95 YEAR 4 1995-96 YEAR 5 1996-97 LAB TECHNICIANS (5) $32,826.20 $35,926.96 STAFF DEVELOPMENT (3) $37,087.08 $25,428.18 DATA PROCESSING (1) $36,082.48 $36,572.80 SCHOOL BASED STIPENDS $19,377.00 $18,838.75 TRAINING- SUBSTITUTE COST $13,741.00 $12,207.51 $1,900.00 TRAINING- STIPENDS $8,073.75 $2,381.40 TRAINING- CONSULTANTS $18,000.00 HARDWARE $102,659.00 $102,659.00 $103,297.00 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 SOFTWARE \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE $108,075.00 TRAVEL $2,400.00 $2,176.00 PRINTING $750.77 $901.55 FORMS $18,000.00 $5,201.63 $2,800.00 DATA ENTRY SERVICES $10,325.00 CUSTOM PROGRAMMING $9,295.15 TEST ITEM BANK $89,500.00 1 TOTAL $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 COST TO DATE YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $856,483.21LRSD SORTS OFFICE I CL  OUO-ZZM-MSi Z) noi 292 P02 MftR 08 95 11:55 A JiACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REFERENCES Dr. Sandra Darling Principal Clearview Elementary 7310 Highway 24 Clear Lake, MN 55319 (612) 743-2241 Fran Sitton IMS Coordinator Gaston County Schools 366 W, Garrison Blvd, Gastonia, NC 28053 (704) 866-6273 Ms. Judy Heiney EMS Coordinator Lucia Mar School District 602A Orchard Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473-4390 M. Sharon McEuen (Technical) Ms. Becky Shelton (Curriculum) LeanderISD 501 S. Hwy 183 Leander, TO 78641 (512) 259-6890 - Sharon (512) 259-6578 - Becky Dr. Marie Pickel Superintendent North Mason School District K, 50 N. Mason School Road Belfair, WA 98528 (206) 275-2881 Mr. Mike Lindley Superintendent New Buffalo Schools 222 S. Whittaker Street New Buffalo, MI 49117 (616) 469-2682 Mr. CliffHueoergard Director of Special Services Nonh Mason School District E. 50 N. Mason School Road Belfair. WA 98528 (206) 275-2881 Mr. Dennis Smith Washington County Board of Education Springfield Middle School 334 Sunset Ave, Williamsport, MD 21795 (301) 791-4200 Dr. John Leland Otsego Public Schools 310 W. Allegan St Otsego, WI 49078 (616)694-9904 NCS ABACUS, Inc. 921 SW Washington St, Suite 410 Portland, Ongon 97265\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_210","title":"Academic Programs","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"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","Student assistance programs","Education--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Academic Programs"],"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/210"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["prints (visual works)"],"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\nf A received IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 1 1992 WESTERN DIVISION Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 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 hereby gives notice of the filing of its Academic Support Program as required by the May 1, 1992 Order of the District Court. 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 By: Christopher lerT 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 30th day of June, 1992. -Os f*: ^4 Christopher Heller 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 #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri ipher HellerLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM Overview The future of urban schools is the primary issue facing the Nations educational system. If the system is left as it is, the social and individual costs of inadequate schooling will severely corrode the social fabric of the Nation. The students in these schools, like students everywhere, bring strengths to their classrooms and dream dreams of academic achievement. Drawing on practitioners wisdom accumulated through experience and research findings, we have sufficient knowledge to make changes in schools and classrooms. But, no pat formula to \"grow\" effective schools exists. Curriculum and teaching must be substantially different with individualization, clear objectives, prompt feedback, concrete evidence of progress, and an active role for students. To succeed, we will need to take maximum advantage of the tools and techniques that can support the process. We will need creative and well-integrated uses of technologies of many kinds. Provided is the Little Rock School Districts proposal for Academic Support Programs directed by the Courts. The following process was used to develop the document: as Several urban school districts such as Buffalo, New York, Hartford, Connecticut, and Long Beach, California were contacted regarding how they provided support services to targeted students. A committee composed of principals met several times and provided input for the document. Given the severity of the problem at the secondary level, designated supervisor and the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum met with all the jumor and senior high school principals to discuss their concerns and secure their recommendations. The ?\\ssociate Superintendent for Curriculum also met with the principals of the four restructuring junior high schools to gain additional suggestions and to make sure that our proposal met the needs of all students. Representatives of the Classroom Teachers Association were contacted for their suggestions.Academic Support Program Page 2 Program Name Academic Support Program The Little Rock School District recognizes the need for coherence among improvement initiatives, but we also recognize that no single strategy is likely to solve the diversity of academic problems that the District must remedy. Using the Academic Support Program as the center of our plan, a combination of strategies will be used to increase achievement for all students, which will result in reducing the disparity between minority and non-minority students. Location All schools will implement the proposed Academic Support Program model but will be able to select the option(s) that they deem appropriate for meeting their students needs. Program Goal The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Program Objectives To identify and serve but not to label (stigmatize) students who are at-risk in reading and mathematics using multiple criteria and to prescribe for each identified student a personalized intervention plan that reduces or eliminates potential \"pullout\" away from mainstreamed learning. (The following will be involved in the identification process and implementation of the program: teaching team, school counselor, parents or guardians, student, and appropriate central office technical assistance including the director of reading, the language arts supervisor, mathematics supervisor, the director of staff development, and the coordinator of library media services.) Criteria for Consideration for Academic Support Serxdces Students who are performing below the 50th Normal Curve Equivalency (NCE) on the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, or other appropriate standardized tests, will be screened by using multiple criteria to determine if academic support services ar needed as well as the kind and duration of such sen-ices. The screening/identification process will be divided into two categories: Indirect and Direct Services.Academic Support Program Page 3 Indirect Services: Students scores on standardized achievement tests ranging from the 50th - 25th NCE. Student profile will be developed to include the following: * The students strengths/weaknesses * The students letter grades * The students attendance records * The students medical records * Teacher/parent/student recommendation * The students classroom performance * The students social skills * Other relevant data Direct Services: Student scores on standardized achievement tests ranging from the 24th - 1 NCE. Student profile information will be developed to include the following: * The students strengths/weaknesses * The student is unable to read/understand grade level content materials * The students letter grades * The students attendance * The students classroom participation   The students medical records The students social skills * Teacher/parent/student recommendation  Other relevant data Students who are eligible to receive academic support services will have a prescribed personalized intervention plan that is cooperatively developed including the parents and appropriate District staff. Services provided as Indirect in which language arts and math assistance teams teach in the regular classroom at the elementary and secondary levels are to be viewed as transitional. Such services should be phased out over a two-year period of time. This transitional arrangement would provide adequate time to provide intense, quality inservice to all regular classroom teachers. By the 1994-95 school year, regular classroom teachers will provide the necessary support services to their own students.Academic Support Program Page 4 Program Learner Outcomes The learner will: - Function successfully within a regular classroom. - Improve organization and study skills. - Develop critical and creative thinking skills. - Improve basic skills in language arts and math. - Enhance self confidence and motivation. Program Description Elementary Academic Support Program Indirect Services: Reading and math specialists will be paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skill deficits a minimum of three days per week. Instructional practices involving both the classroom teacher and the reading/math specialists will include small group instruction, cooperative learning, and individual instruction. An emphasis will be placed on mastery learning for all students, using appropriate materials that assist in varying learning experiences. Direct Services: For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers will focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific language problems, using exclusively audio and computer programs correlated to the LRSD language arts and mathematics curricula. This arrangement will promote program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability.Academic Support Program Page 5 Program Description Secondary schools are to implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following three optional approaches: Secondary Academic Support Program - Approach One Indirect Services: The Secondary Academic Support Program is intended to provide connected language arts and math learning for targeted students in a single classroom setting, which brings together appropriate expertise and experiences to support student needs. The driving premise is that targeted students will not succeed simply by repetition of experiences or by separation of experiences spread out over several class periods each day. The academic team approach will, by design, restructure the current secondary language arts staffing by pairing language arts classroom teachers (including English and Learning Foundation teachers) and reading specialists. (Math teachers are already paired for instruction.) Teams will jointly plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences. Direct Services: For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate that interest in reading. Reading teachers will focus on mastery learning, and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific language and math problems, using audio and computer programs correlated to the LRSD language arts and mathematics curricula. This arrangement will promote program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability.Academic Support Program Page 6 Program Description Secondary Academic Support Program - Approach Two Direct Services: The regular classroom teacher serves as his/her own assistant to meet the needs of targeted students. Smaller class loads will be scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. Program Description Secondary Academic Support Program - Approach Three (Language Arts Only) Indirect Services: The Language Arts Plus Program is intended to reinforce regular classroom language arts instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Language Arts Plus Program approach will restructure the current secondary language arts program by reducing the number of separate reading classes, reducing language arts class size, and adding an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. The concept will add an elective credit to student course work and will utilize the services of teachers in whose language arts classes the targeted students are enrolled. These teachers will teach only four out of five class periods and during the fifth period will provide accelerated learning experiences for all students targeted from each of their four classes. Extended Services - Elementary and Secondary: To support and extend learning opportunities for students, the academic team concept will be supported by making available to targeted students before school, at lunch, and after school computer lab instruction. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff in providing some of their extended day services.Academic Support Program Page 7 Targeted Students Learning deficits easiest to remediate are those that never occur in the first place. Increased intensive services in the early grades reduce or eliminate the need for remedial and/or academic support services later on. Prevention programs will focus on preschool, kindergarten, and first through third grades in our district. High quality pre-school programs can give disadvantaged students a leg up in their education. Pre-school is seen as a means of getting students off to a good start in school. Kindergarten classes will start students off with good language skills and school readiness. Full-day kindergarten programs can produce positive effects on first grade readiness and performance. Prevention will mean that the District will offer developmentally-appropriate pre-school and kindergarten programs so students enter first grade ready to succeed and provide regular classroom teachers with effective instructional programs, curricula, and staff development to enable them to make sure that most students are successful the first time they are taught. Early intervention means providing supplementary, accelerated instructional services such as Writing To Read, Math Readiness, use of manipulatives, hands-on approach to science as well as existing language arts software. Language arts and math teachers will also provide support and technical assistance to kindergarten and first grade. We will direct all aspects of school and classroom organization toward the goal of preventing academic deficits from appearing in the first place, recognizing and intensively intervening when any deficits do appear and providing students with a rich and revised comprehensive curriculum to enable them to build on their firm foundation in basic skills. The Little Rock School District will flag all students performing below the 49th Normal Curve Equivalency (NCE) on the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition. Using multiple criteria, identified earlier in this plan, schools will select students that will participate in our Academic Support Programs. (See attachments for individual school targeted populations.)Academic Support Program Page 8 Coordination of Services: The Districts revised curriculum has been sequentially developed by a cadre of K-12 scholars (master teachers). The objectives have been correlated to the skills in the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test and the Stanford Eight norm-referenced tests.\nwill be aligned with our existing computer-assisted instructional software. Resource guides have been developed for each revised content area. The resource guides will identify appropriate resources that are needed to support daily instruction. Resources It found in the curriculum guides are aligned with objectives and concepts identified in our revised curriculum. All teachers, including those who provide academic support services, will be required to implement the revised curriculum. The Instructional Management System permits the storage and retrieval of information on available resources (books, films, videotapes, courseware, etc.). The District will have the ability to better manage resources in a more efficient manner. The installation and implementation of an Instructional Management System this fall will enable us to track progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. Teachers will be able to respond to individual student needs and influence acaderm'c growth. The Instructional Management System will provide ways to help make parents an integral part of their childs learning process. Technology Technology will play a critical role in the delivery of instruction in the Academic Support Program primarily through the use of computer-assisted instruction and video technology. The computer lab will provide support for targeted students during the regular school day as well as during extended day, extended week, and extended year activities. Computer and audiovisual software used in this program will be directly correlated to the revised curriculum and classroom instruction. Use of some of our existing software, which is not applicable for use in supporting our revised curriculum at the secondary level, will not occur during the 1992-93 school year. At the elementary level, targeted students will attend the computer lab along with the regular class. Additional computer-assisted instruction for targeted students may be provided in the areas of reading and math. The reading and math specialists will work closely with the computer lab attendant to determine appropriate lessons. Lessons will be used that reinforce basic skills, higher-level thinking skills, and problem solving strategies. The computer lab will be used to diagnose, reinforce, and assess student progress.Academic Support Program Page 9 At the secondary level, the use of computer-assisted instruction will be closely connected to classroom instruction. In the area of language arts, lessons will reinforce writing skills through literature-based writing activities, process writing activities, word processing, and research strategies. Other appropriate software that reinforces objectives in the revised curriculum may also be used. In the area of mathematics, the computer lab may be used to diagnose problems, review and reinforce specific skills, and assess results. Videotapes and other audiovisual software will be used in instruction for targeted students. Such software will also be directly correlated to classroom instruction and used to teach and reinforce objectives in the curriculum of the District. Parent Involvement The district recognizes that parents serve as an invaluable resource in the process of educating children and believes that a childs education is a responsibility shared by family and school. To assure a collaborative partnership, the Board of Directors, administration, and staff are committed to: 1. Encouraging programs to help parents develop parenting skills and foster conditions at home that support childrens efforts in learning. 2. Providing parents with the knowledge of techniques designed to assist children in learning at home and at school. 3. Providing support and resource information for school staff and parents to enable them to implement and sustain appropriate parent involvement at all grade levels (Pre-K-12). 4. Maintaining communication between parents and schools in regards to school programs and childrens progress. 5. Identifying and involving parents in instructional and support roles at the school. 6. Supporting parents roles in decision-making and encouraging their participation in governance, advisory, and advocacy roles.Academic Support Program Page 10 In support:of the districts commitment to parent involvement, all schools will provide parent involvement activities which are of sufficient size, scope, and quality to promote an effective home-school partnership which will ensure that all participating children (a) succeed in the regular program, (b) attain grade level proficiencies, and (c) achieve basic and advanced skills. The parent involvement activities shall address the following goals: 1. Inform parents of participating children of (a) the reasons their children are participating in the program and (b) the specific instructional objectives and methods of the program. 2. Support the efforts of parents, including training of parents, to the maximum extent practicable to (a) work with their children in the home to attain the instructional objectives of the program and (b) understand the program requirements. 3. Train parents, teachers, and principals to build a partnership between the home and the school. 4. Train teachers, principals, and other staff members to work effectively with the parents of participating children. 5. Consult with parents, on an ongoing basis, concerning the manner in which the school and parents can work together to achieve the programs objectives. 6. Provide a comprehensive range of opportunities for parents to become informed, in a timely way, about how future programs will be designed, operated, and evaluated, allowing opportunities for parental participation so that parents and educators can work together to achieve the programs objectives. 7. Ensure opportunities, to the extent possible, for the full participation of parents who lack literacy skills or whose native language is not English. 8. Provide information to administrators and teachers about how to work effectively with parents from diverse backgrounds.Academic Support Program Page 11 Parents As Learners/Educators To ensure.jjiat parents have the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home, schools will address parent education in their school improvement plans according to the following guidelines: B. C. Parent education sessions will be scheduled to provide parents with the training necessary to reinforce academic learning and social behaviors at home. 1. 2. 3. Parents will have an opportunity to identify their needs for parent education. Schools will schedule parent education sessions each year to address the areas of greatest need as identified by parents. Parents will have an opportunity to evaluate the parent education sessions. The results of the evaluations will be used for future planning. Parents will be provided materials and/or suggestions on ways to help their children at home. 1. 2. 3. The schools newsletter may highlight ways parents can be partners in educating their children. Parents will be informed about community resources which can extend and enrich their childrens education. Other activities may be included to support parents as determined by the Parent/Teacher Association (P.T.A.). Parents will be informed about the Adult Education offerings available through the districts schools for adults, parks and recreation, library programs, community school, and local colleges. To ensure that all the parent involvement activities provided by the district are effective, schools will, on an annual basis, evaluate the effectiveness of all activities provided. Each spring, parents and teacher will be asked to complete an evaluation of parent involvement activities provided throughout the year. The results of the evaluation will be shared with the school community through the newsletter and other relevant ways.Academic Support Program Page 12 The district and parents will review the results of the survey and make recommendations for strengthening the parent involvement program. Evidence is growing that extra care in fashioning and maintaining partnerships between schools and families is paying off. Parents who are trained to reinforce academic and social behavior at home help their children learn more effectively. Parent education programs provide parents with the training to become strong and vital partners with the school in educating their children. The need for support of public education has never been more crucial than at the present time. Informed parents who are involved in educational decision pertaining to their children are likely to be supportive of the schools programs. Parent advisory committees and consultation activities provide opportunities for parents to be informed and involved in the education of their children. Staffing Academic Support Program staff will be teachers whose behavior convey high expectations for their students. Research indicates the relationship between teacher behaviors which convey high expectations and student achievement is positively correlated. What teachers expect, student are likely to learn. This phenomenon is called \"self-fulfilling prophecy.\" The belief that all students can learn must be exhibited on a daily basis by teachers. Intense staff development will be provided to staff in order for them to be able to set appropriate and positive expectations for their students. See Attachment B for specific staffing of Academic Support Programs. Monitoring and Evaluation Formal monitoring during inmlementation wall provide evidence that the curriculum is actually being implemented designed. Ongoing monitoring will ensure continuing review and revision of the instructional program. - To schedule not less than two \"intervention\" meetings (regular academic team meetings) each nine weeks to review student progress and to plan appropriate intervention strategies.Academic Support Program Page 13 - To schedule quarterly meetings by school for academic teams, the school counselor, the school principal, and appropriate central office personnel in order to assess and review program progress and to establish quarterly goals for students gains via improved classroom climate, varied instructional techniques, and ongoing learning enrichment experiences. V - To communicate on a regular basis with parents through conferencing, progress reports, and telephone calls as necessary. Student Evaluation Evaluation at the classroom level will include teacher assessment determined by teacher made tests, informal observation, and alternative assessment forms including portfolios, learning folders, performance/exhibition assessments, and parent conferencing. Additional assessments will be provided through use of computer lab instruction and correlated software programs. At District and State levels, assessments will include appropriate criterion referenced testing, state mandated minimum performance testing, and norm referenced achievement testing. Program Evaluation All sites will plan and host quarterly meetings to assess progress and to formulate new quarterly goals. These meetings will involve the academic teams, counselors, building principals, and appropriate central office staff. The evaluation process focus will include formulating instructional units, coordinating extended day activities, identifying staff development needs, soliciting parental involvement, and reviewing student progress.Academic Support Program Page 14 Implementation Timeline Beginning date: July, 1992 - Duration: Ongoing Outcome: The Academic Support Program will be successfully operating in the elementary, junior high, and senior high schools of the District. Date Step Responsibility Activity Begin End 1. Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum Explain the Academic 8/92 Support Programs options to local school administrators 8/92 2. Local school administrators Select the local schools appropriate Academic Support Program. (Indirect/ direct/extended services.) 8/92 8/15/92 3. Local school teams Identify students targeted for participation in each program by school/grade level 8/15/92 4. Principal Select staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering Academic Support Program 8/15/92 5. Principal Schedule the Academic teams staff 8/15/92Academic Support Program Page 15 6. Principal and staffImplement selected school options at local level 8/3/92 's 9f=S- 7. Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupvs. of Lang. Arts and Mathematics Cluster schools and develop a staff development schedule for the Clusters 9/5/92 8. Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupvs. of Lang. Arts., Mathematics, and Computer Specialists Train all staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Programs 8/15/92 1 II Team Building 11/92 II II Interactive Teaching/ Learning 11/92 II II Mastery Learning 12/1/92 II II Learning Styles 12/92 II II Cooperative Team Learning 12/92 II II Specialized Content Area Strategies 2/93 9. Principals, District-wide staff development team and Computer Specialists Monitor the implementation of the above OngoingAcademic Support Program Page 16 10. Principals, District-wide staff development team, and Computer Specialists Provide technical assistance and and maintenance workshops as needed in the above staff development area Ongoing after initial workshops are delivered V 11. Principal Schedule local level quarterly meetings to access program Middle/end end of each nine weeks 12. Principal and staff Collect appropriate data for end of school program evaluation including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and attendance, samples of student work, and parent/ teacher/student recommendations 6/15/93 13. Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum, Asst. Supts., and principals Analyze the above data to evaluate program effectiveness 6/15/93 14. tl II Identify modification for the Academic Support Program for 1993-94 7/1/93Academic Support Program Page 17 Anticipated/Projected 1992-93 Costs Content Area Level Staffing No. Needed Salaries/Fringes Reading/ Language Arts Elementary Teachers Aides Substitutes (5) (revised contracts) 40 4 $1,826,650.00 51,000.00 43,177.00 Math Elementary Teachers Substitutes (5) (revised contracts) 24 $1,102,135.00 35,009.00 Reading/ Language Arts Secondary Teachers 31 $1,167,080.00 Mathematics Secondary Teachers 30 $1,339,981.00 Elementary and Secondary Supplies $30,000.00 Extended Day $34,730.00 Extended Week $33,446.00 Parent Involvement $10,000.00 Transportation $25.000.00 Projected Grand Total $5,698,305.00 Funding Sources\nLRSD Local School Budgets, Chapter 1, Compensatory Education, and DesegregationAcademic Support Programs Page 18 Staff Development The staff development component is critical to the successful implementation of the Academic Support Program. Since the various elements of the Program require that teachers use approaches and strategies that emphasize the interrelationship of teacher/student behavior with the major focus on resultant accelerated student learning, all participating teachers will be trained in the following areas: Team Building - Because the regular classroom teachers will not be working in isolation with the targeted students but will be assisted by reading and/or mathematics specialists, all parties will receive training in collaborative planning, team teaching, and partnership building. Interactive Teaching/Learning - With the emphasis of the program on meaningful student learning experiences as opposed to isolated seat work, teachers will be trained in classroom skills for planning and delivering motivational learning activities, giving information, asking questions, providing feedback, and keeping students on task. Mastery Learning - To ensure that learning actually occurs for idi students, teachers will receive inservice on the Mastery Learning Model that includes developing learning objectives based on identified LRSD learner outcomes, delivering large group instruction according to targeted objectives, assessing students performance, designing corrective activities that differ from the original instructional strategies for students who did not master the objective, assessing again for mastery, and designing enrichment activities that extend the objectives for students who demonstrated mastery on the first assessment. Learning Styles - Teachers will receive training in administering a learning styles inventory to all targeted students, interpreting the results to determine if a student learns more effectively auditorially, visually, kinesthetically, or a combination of the three styles, and designing instructional strategies that relate to the identified learning styles. .Cooperative/Team Learning - Because teachers in the Academic Support Program will be expected to actively involve all targeted students in the classroom learning process, the teacher will receive training in the Cooperative/Team Learning process  that organizes students into small heterogeneous teams which work together toward a common, meaningful learning objective.Acadenu'c Support Program Page 19 Spedalized Content Area Strategies - The regular classroom teachers, the reading spedalists, and the mathematics specialists will receive training on instructional strategies and alternative assessment methods that are unique to the respective content area. Also, the teachers will be inserviced on using appropriate computer software to diagnose and remediate students learning needs. -Air After initial training is provided in the above areas, maintenance activities will be conducted as needed. Some of the training will be conducted on a Districtwide level, some in cluster meetings, and some on the local school level. This training wnll be accomplished through the joint efforts of the local school staff and District-wde staff development specialists, reading director, English supervisor, mathematics supervisor, and other appropriate District-level personnel.TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics S'* School: CENTRAL HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 10 332 367 11 316 370 12 234 256TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics Sa School: J. A FAIR HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 10 255 285 11 187 215 12 154 144TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics if- School: HALL HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 10 117 149 11 153 189 12 154 183TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MCCLELLAN HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 10 179 214 11 168 174 12 158 153TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics \u0026gt;r School: PARKVIEW HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 10 0 0 11 120 175 12 113 136TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level' Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 7 134 99 8 149 145 9 152 171TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: DUNBAR JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 171 94 127 113 116 136 7 8 9TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 119 117 124 127 151 137 7 8 9TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: HENDERSON JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 7 152 129 8 163 151 9 143 132TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MABELVALE JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 7 124 91 8 144 139 9 111 102TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics ft Ti School: MANN MAGNET JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 7 0 0 8 132 144 9 120 136TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: PULASKI HEIGHTS JR, HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 7 98 87 8 123 115 9 119 146s^- TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: SOUrm^'EST JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 7 143 129 8 153 154 9 128 132TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: BALE Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 33 30 3 30 30 4 35 26 5 81 87 6 41 30TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: BADGETT Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 20 16 14 12 17 13 83 54 34 30 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: baselint: Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 43 50 3 35 30 4 43 27 5 67 43 6 34 19TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: BRADY Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 36 34 3 42 31 4 34 28 5 71 53 6 73 64TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: CHICOT Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 67 52 3 50 37 4 47 39 5 73 59 6 72 62TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: CLOVERDALE Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 20 10 3 29 19 4 33 16 5 65 35 6 62 40School: DODD Grade Level 2 3 4 5 6 TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 38 29 24 64 61 33 30 19 45 39 TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FAIR PARK Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 34 29 26 19 25 20 66 50 83 73 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FOREST PARK Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 31 26 3 16 19 4 23 17 5 46 34 6 59 34TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FRANKLIN Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 59 57 3 57 41 4 59 46 5 81 76 6 85 79TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FULBRIGHT Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 40 38 33 34 32 21 46 40 62 58 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: GARLAND Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 17 23 3 27 22 4 27 24 5 87 61 6 86 66TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: GEYER SPRINGS Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 37 21 3 18 10 4 18 14 5 79 67 6 79 64TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: ISH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 31 31 19 14 16 13 75 45 83 73 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores  Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: JEFFERSON Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 35 27 3 36 24 4 29 17 5 47 40 6 48 29TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MABELVALE Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 52 52 3 51 45 4 43 38 5 67 56 6 76 63TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MCDERMOTT Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 29 28 31 18 26 13 41 29 52 42 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MEADOWCLIFF Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 51 46 3 47 34 4 45 37 5 73 60 6 75 74TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MITCHELL Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 29 33 3 40 27 4 33 23 5 85 71 6 76 48TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: OTTER CREEK Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 30 25 26 11 28 13 40 41 65 39 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: PULASKI HEIGHTS Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 50 38 23 14 22 12 54 47 56 56 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: ROCKEFELLER Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 38 38 3 31 29 4 35 30 5 84 66 6 74 50TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: RIGHTSELL Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 24 23 3 22 8 4 30 22 5 78 46 6 88 65School: ROMINE Grade Level 2 3 4 5 6 TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 29 41 35 56 61 19 42 26 47 64TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: STEPHENS Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 32 24 3 26 24 4 19 13 5 88 78 6 93 69TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Soring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: TERRY Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 27 19 37 26 28 20 47 34 55 61 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WAKEFIELD Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 58 57 3 33 34 4 50 39 5 70 52 6 83 75TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics A School: WASHINGTON Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 82 61 3 75 44 4 69 52 5 54 39 6 67 37TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WATSON Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 54 51 3 39 32 4 35 27 5 69 57 6 73 36TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WESTERN HILLS Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 33 27 3 27 16 4 26 15 5 70 49 6 68 44TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WILSON Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 12 33 19 42 24 72 59 78 72 2 8 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Ranee 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WOODRUFF Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 14 16 3 16 11 4 19 15 5 77 63 6 65 20RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 2 6 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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 hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Academic Support Program\" to replace the document which was filed June 30, 1992 in accordance with the May 1, 1992 Order of the district court. 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 ChrTstopher Helle4^ J kathyVNot-Filing.ASP 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 24th day of March, 1993: 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 ristopher Heller' / lathy \\Not*FiUng. ASP RECEIVED MAR 2 6 1993 Office of Desegregation Moniicring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1992 - 19931. 2. 3. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM Name and Location of Academic Support Programs The name of all district remediation programs will be Academic Support Programs. All school programs will be located at each school site, except Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center. Goals and Objectives for Academic Support Programs The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences that will increase achievement for all students, which will result in reducing disparity among students. The Program will include the following objectives: \u0026lt;   To identify and serve students who are at risk in language arts and mathematics. To prescribe a personalized intervention plan for eligible students. To reduce or eliminate pull-out academic support programs. To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. A Comprehensive Description of Each Programs Components and Activities Elementary Academic Support Program Indirect Services: Reading and math specialists will be paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skill deficits a minimum of three (3) days a week Instructional services and duration are established for each student in order to address individualized needs. The revised curriculum is used by the regular teacher and the reading/math specialists in order to provide a uniform and integrated approach to learning. Schedules are developed in cooperation with the regular teacher in determining appropriate time for the specialists to provide services in the regularElementary Academic Support Program Page 2 classroom. Time is allocated for the specialists to plan/consult with the regular teacher ensiuing consistency in student learning . This cooperative planning allows for a team effort to best meet the needs of students and prevents fragmentation in teaching and learning. This approach improves and enhances educational opportunities for these students to experience academic success in the regular classroom. Pull-out programs result in students missing out on other relevant classroom activities. By developing alternative methods in service delivery, students increase their time on task, make greater gains, and maintain progress. Direct Services: For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers will focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific language problems, using exclusively audio and computer programs correlated to the LRSD language arts and mathematics curricula. This arrangement will promote program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability. Data secured through individual assessment and other relevant records is used to develop the students program and establish the duration of services. All academic support programs are site-based. Staffing is driven by student needs and is in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelmes. Secondary Academic Support Program Secondary schools are to implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following three optional approaches: APPROACH ONE Indirect Services: The academic team approach will, by design, restructure the current secondary language arts staffing by pairing language arts classroom teachers (including English and Learning Foundation teachers) and reading specialists. (Math teachers are already paired for instruction.) Teams will jointly plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences.Secondary Academic Support Program continued Page 3 Math assistants: Assist/tutor individual or small groups of students\nActively monitor work and behavior of targeted students\nKeep a daily log/joumal of classroom activities and services noting special improvements or concerns\nand Assist the classroom teacher in monitoring students learning and assignments. Direct Services: For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO Direct Services: Regular classroom teachers will work to meet the needs of their own targeted students. Smaller class loads will be scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. APPROACH THREE (Language Arts Only) Direct Services: TDie Language Arts Plus Program is intended to reinforce regular classroom language arts instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Language Arts Plus Program approach will restructure the current secondary language arts program by reducing the number of separate pull-out reading classes, reducing language arts class size, and adding an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. The concept will add an elective credit to student course work and will utilize the services of regular English teachers in whose language artsSecondary Academic Support Program continued Page 4 classes the targeted students are enrolled. These English teachers will teach four regular periods and during the fifth period will provide tutorial and remedial learning experiences for all academic students enroll in each of their four regular language arts classes. Average class sizes range from 15 to 20 students per period. The approaches that schools are currently using are identified on the following chartINSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL: Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL: Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest SECONDARY ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO THREE, COMBINATION READING INDIRECT/ DIRECT X X X X X X X X X X MATHEMATICS TWO DIRECT THREE LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS COMB COMB X X X ONE INDIRECT/ DIRECT X X X X X X X X X X TWO DIRECT X X COMB COMB XExtended Services - Elementary and Secondary Page 6 Extended Services - Elementary and Secondary To support and extend learning opportunities for students, the academic team concept will be supported by making available to targeted students before-school, at lunch, and after-school instructional services. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff in providing some of their extended day services. The following schools have planned for extended day programs. Elementary schools not listed will provide tutorial services to meet the needs of their at-risk students before or during regular school hours as identified in their Aimual School Improvement Plans. School Program Elementary Badgett Bale Baseline Carver Chicot Cloverdale Forest Park Geyer Springs Gibbs Mabelvale Elem. I*ulaski Hgts. Elem. Wakefield Incentive schools: Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Extended Day Tutoring Extended Day Tutoring Summer Reading Program Summer Reading Program Extended Day Tutoring Extended Day Tutoring Extended Day Tutoring (6th grade) Extended Day Tutoring 2nd Grade Reading Club Peer Coaching (recess) Extended Day Tutoring (K-2) Extended Day Tutoring (3rd \u0026amp; 6th grades) Extended Day, Week, Year n H It M N n H It N NExtended Services - Elementary and Secondary continued Page 7 Sssomiffry Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday tutoring program Before- and after-school tutoring by teachers\npeer tutoring during school day Before- and after-school tutoring by teachers\n\"Project Promotion\" mentoring program (six teachers and one counselor) Math - before- and after-school tutoring\nreading - during school day Study Hall tutoring program-both teacher and peer tutoring Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Jr. High Forest Heights Jr, High Henderson Jr. High Mabelvale Jr. High Mann Jr. High Pulaski Heights Jr. High Southwest Jr. High New Futures after-school tutoring program UALR tutoring program after school\nbefore- and after-school tutoring by volunteer teachers New Futures after-school tutoring program\nPartner-in-Education (State Health Department) reading tutors\n\"Eagles Nest\" peer tutors Before- and after-school tutoring program\npeer tutors Cornerstone after-school tutoring program\nbefore- and after-school tutoring program by certified staff Before- and after school teacher and peer tutoring New Futures after-school tutoring program UALR tutoring program before school\nNew Futures after-school tutoring program All schools Grades 9-12 All schools Grades K-12 Cornerstone (after-school tutoring) English as a Second Language (ESL) tutoring programCritical Program Attributes Page 8 Critical Program Attributes The major stakeholders in the school community must have valued input regarding the Academic Support Program approaches selected to implement in their schools. Although the approach may differ from school to school, in design, philosophy, and implementation, the following critical attributes will be evident in every Academic Support Program: Instructional Leadership * Principals will monitor instruction and learning. * Principals will clearly articulate the design and implementation of the Academic Support Program.  Principals will analyze data and use the results to improve learning. Principals will establish staff development as a priority that supports academic performance.  Principals will provide needed resources for teachers.  Principals will set high standards for teachers and students. Varied Instructional Strategies * Teachers will involve students in a variety of classroom activities that address learning styles and cultural diversity. * Teachers will select methods and strategies that capitalize on students interests and experiences. * Teachers will demonstrate creativity and resourcefulness in delivering instruction. * Effective classroom strategies, such as tutors, small-eroup instruction, and extended day/week programs, will be used to maintain the gains students have made.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 9 * Teachers will modify and/or change instructional strategies for students who do not make adequate progress. Time on Task * Students will be provided adequate time on task to demonstrate mastery. Students will be actively involved in learning. * Teachers will monitor students progress regularly and modify instructional strategies accordingly. Higher Order Thinking Skills * Students will be provided opportunities to transfer learning from one discipline to another discipline.  Students will be taught to critique their own thinking from the perspective of others.  Students will engage in collaborative and discovery learning. Curriculum and Alignment * Teachers will be provided locally developed uniform written curriculum guides for core content areas for all grade levels. * Teachers will teach the approved curriculum.  District staff will use a variety of assessment (testing) approaches in determining the effectiveness of the planned, written, and taught curriculum. Materials and Resources * Teachers will ensure that materials and resources are aligned to the curriculum.  Teachers will utilize a variety of materials and resources to involve and assist students in active learning.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 10 * Computer assisted instruction that is aligned with the curriculum will be used to reinforce objectives. At the secondary level, the use of computer-assisted instruction will be closely connected to classroom instruction. In the area of language arts, lessons will reinforce writing skills through literature-based writing activities, process writing activities, word processing, and research strategies. Other appropriate software that reinforces objectives in the revised curriculum may also be used. In the area of mathematics, the computer labs may be used to diagnose problems, review and reinforce specific skills, and assess results. Videotapes and other audiovisual software will be used in instruction for targeted students. Such software will also be directly correlated to classroom instruction and used to teach and reinforce objectives in the curriculum of the district. Positive School aimate * Teachers behavior will convey high expectations for all students. * Teachers will interact with students in a caring manner. * Teachers will inform learners of their achievement on a regular basis. * Teachers will make efforts to ensure that students have a positive feeling of success about school. Parent Involvement * Parents will be provided timely information regarding students achievement and behavior. * Parents will be involved in informative and effective conferences concerning their childs education.  Teachers will involve parents as partners in their childs educational process.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 11 Parent Involvement The district recognizes that parents serve as an invaluable resource in the process of educating children and believe that a childs education is a responsibility shared by family and school. To assure a collaborative partnership, the Board of Directors, administration, and staff are committed to: 1. Encouraging programs to help parents develop parenting skills and foster conditions at home that support childrens efforts in learning. 2. Providing parents with the knowledge of techniques designed to assist children in learning at home and at school. 3. Providing support and resource information for school staff and parents to enable them to implement and sustain appropriate parent involvement at all grade levels (Pre-K-12). 4. Maintaining communication between parents and schools in regards to school programs and childrens progress. 5. Identifying and involving parents in instructional and support roles at the school. 6. Supporting parents roles in decision making and encouraging their participation in governance, advisory, and advocacy roles. In support of the districts commitment to parent involvement, all schools will provide parent involvement activities which are of sufficient size, scope, and quality to promote an effective home-school partnership which will ensure that all participating children (a) succeed in the regular classroom, (b) attain grade level proficiencies, and (c) achieve basic and advanced skills. The parent involvement activities shall address the following goals: 1. Inform parents of participating children of (a) the reasons their children are participating in the program and (b) the specific instructional objectives and methods of the program 2. Support the efforts of parents, including training of parents, to the maximum extent practicable to (a) work with their childrenCritical Program Attributes continued Page 12 in the home to attain the instructional objectives of the program and (b) understand the program requirements. 3. Train parents, teachers, and principals to build a partnership between the home and the school. 4. Train teachers, principals, and other staff members to work effectively with the parents of participating children. 5. Consult with parents, on an ongoing basis, concerning the manner in which the school and parents can work together to achieve the programs objectives. 6. Provide a comprehensive range of opportunities for parents to become informed, in a timely way, about how future programs will be designed, operated, and evaluated, allowing opportunities for parental participation so that parents and educators can work together to achieve the programs objectives. 7. Ensure opportunities, to the extent possible, for the full participation of parents who lack literacy skills or whose native language is not English. 8. Provide information to administrators and teachers about how to work effectively with parents from diverse backgrounds. Parents As Learners/Educators To ensure that parents have the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home, schools will address parent education in their school improvement plans according to the following guidelines: A. Parent education sessions will be scheduled to provide parents with the training necessary to reinforce academic learning and social behaviors at home.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 13 1. Parents will have an opportunity to identify their needs for parent education. 2. Parent education sessions will be scheduled each year to address the areas of greatest need as identified by parents. 3. Parents will have an opportunity to evaluate the parent education sessions. The results of the evaluations will be used for future planning. B. C. Parents will be provided materials and/or suggestions on ways to help their children at home. 1. The schools newsletter may highlight ways parents can be partners in educating their children. 2. Parents will be informed about community resources which can extend and enrich their childrens education. 3. Other activities may be included to support parents as determined by the Parent/Teacher Association (P.T.A.). Parents will be informed about the Adult Education offerings available through the districts schools for adults, parks and recreation, library programs, community school, and local colleges. To ensure that all the parent involvement activities provided by the district are effective, schools will, on an annual basis, evaluate the effectiveness of all activities provided. Each year, parents and teachers will be asked to evaluate parent involvement activities provided throughout the year. The results of the evaluation will be shared with the school community through the newsletter and other relevant ways. The district and parents will review the results of the survey and make recommendations for strengthening the parent involvement program.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 14 Problem Analysis * Schools will collect analyze, and disaggregate appropriate data needed to assess student performance and determine program effectiveness. * Schools will review findings to make judgements about change concerning curriculum, support materials, and staff development. Monitoring and Evaluation * Academic teams will meet at least twice each nine weeks to rgvjgw smdght progress and plan appropriate intervention strategies. * Appropriate school-based staff will meet at least once a semester to review and assess program effectiveness. Teachers will use individual and class mastery reports, informal observations, and alternative assessments (including portfolios) to determine student achievement. Monitoring and Evaluation Data gathered by school-based staff will be used by appropriate staff to revise, modify, and/or change students programs in order to effectively meet our students needs. These data will be reviewed on an aimual basis to determine if the academic support program is being implemented as designed and is an effective program. Data will be used to improve the delivery of instruction school and district wide. Staff Development * Teachers will use approaches and strategies that emphasize the interrelationship of teacher/student behavior. * Regular classroom teachers will receive additional training in the delivery of instruction in core content areas.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 15 New Teacher Initiative (New Teacher Mentor Program) The district has had a cooperative arrangement with Henderson State University to provide graduate credit to new teachers and their mentors. The districts instructors, with some assistance from Henderson State, provide all appropriate staff development activities for our new teachers. Given the change in administration and staff reductions for LRSD and Henderson State University, we did not utilize their services this school year. Dialogue has begun to re-establish the collaborative effort for the 1993-94 school year. 4. An Overview of How All the Individual Academic Support Programs Will Be Coordinated for Continuity of Services to Children and Efficient Use of Resources * All schools will implement the Board-approved uniform curriculum. * The established critical attributes of the Academic Support Program will be evident in each school. * The revised curriculum (K-12) has been sequentially developed and the objectives have been correlated to the skills in Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Stanford Achievement Test-Eighth Edition, and existing computer- assisted instructional software. * To provide for continuous improvement of teachers, records will be maintained on staff development activities. * New staff members will be targeted for appropriate staff development activities as well as participation in the districts \"New Teacher Initiative.\" 5. The Number of Students Targeted for Participation in Each Program by School and Grade Level for the 1992-93 School Year (see the following)5. ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THZ MUMBZR 07 STUDKKTS TAROITBD TOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADB LBVBL TOR THB 1892-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: central HIGH SCHOOL Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math 10 91 145 11 123 12 12 TOTALS 284 158 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THl MUNBER OF STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 192\u0026gt;93 SCHOOL YEAR scHOOLt J. A. FAIR Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 10 12 16 11 15 13 12 TOTALS 31 32ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUMBBR OF STUDENTS TARGETED FOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL FOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: hall HIGH SCHOOL Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 10 13 11 17 12 TOTALS 38 0 0 0ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK mniBBR or STUDBMTS TAHOBTXD rOR PARTICirATIOH IB BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD QRAOB LBVBL TOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR SCHOOL: MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL Grade Level Nq, Students - Reading Wo Students - Math 10 36 93 11 31 10 12 TOTALS 85 103ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE MUMBBR OF STUDEMTS TARGETED TOR TARTZCIPATIOM IM EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: parkview HIGH SCHOOL Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 10 31 64 11 38 94 12 TOTALS 103 222ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THZ WUNBBR OT STUDZMTS TAROBTZD TOR PARTICIPATIOM IM ZACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRAOZ LBVZL POR THZ 1992*\u0026gt;93 SCHOOL YZAR SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level Wo. Students - Reading Wo Students - Math TOTALS 67 68 78 66 208 197 7 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUMBBR OB STUDENTS TARGETED BOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL BOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No, Students - Reading- No Students - Math TOTALS 64 44 79 76 173 153 7 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK MUMBER OZ STUDBMTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THB 19*2-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL t FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level yo. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 68 42 56 99 170 225 7 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBER 07 STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM ET SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 7 8 73 79 97 80 9 TOTALS 215 221ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS VUMBSR OH STUDHHTS TAROBTHD TOR PARTICIPATION IN RACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND ORADB LBVIL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL TEAR school: mabelvale JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 73 49 13 44 172 158 7 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MDNBIK 07 STUDBHTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATIOM IE EACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: MANN JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level Nq. Students - Reading No Students - Math 7 8 38 26 43 68 9 TOTALS 99 169ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUKBSR OF BTUDEMTS TARQBTBD FOR FARTICIFATIOM IH BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL FOR TRE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 13 49 93 37 44 7 8 9 7 __0ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE HUMBER OF STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IM EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL FOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR scHOOLt SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 77 68 77 84 211 237 7 8 9 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUXBER 07 STUDENTS TARaSTED TOR PARTICIPATION IM EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: BADGETT Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 12 \u0026lt;0 10 14 IS. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 0 6 7 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS mJMBIR or STUDEMTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL FOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR 8CHOOI1X BALE Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 18 17 23 92 13 14 10 19 12 7C 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK NUMBKR OK STUDEMTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL X BASELINE Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 17 12 19 13 73 17 14 10 54 1 4 4 2 3 4 5 6 4ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBER OS STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: BOOKER Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 38 31 25 18 27 30 14 18 IS IS 114 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL t BRADY Grade Level No. Students - Reading No stvdente_--.Meth TOTALS 19 19 11 21 16 19 17 21 21 101 73 1 0 0 2 8 3 4 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBIR OT STDDBIITS TAROETID TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEAHSL FOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: CARVER Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 10 16 68 46 1 5 1 2 6 4 3 9 4 8 5 6 9 6 22 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THl XXTMBSR OH STXJDEMTS TARGSTED TOR PARTICIRATIOH IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: CHICOT Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 30 27 24 18 18 108 15 19 14 12 99 1 6 6 2 3 4 5 6 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS MUNBKR OT STUDENTS TAROBTID TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 19 12 67 16 12 10 65 1 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 5 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM TKX HUMBER OT STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IM EACH PROORAN Br SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: DODD Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 1 0 1 2 3 4 17 19 16 14 13 6 5 9 8 6 12 TOTALS 67 57ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX MUXBIR or STUDKHTS TAROITBD TOR rARTICirATIOM IM KACH PROORAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORAOB LBVBL TOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: fair PARK Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 11 15 19 12 iQ. 71 12 15 12 59 1 4 3 2 9 3 4 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUMBIR OV STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: FOREST PARK Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 11 10 10 23 14 1 7 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3 5 7 8 21ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB HUMBER 07 STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRRN nr SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL! FRANKLIN Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 11 24 37 23 10 21 126 10 17 22 21 15 11 98 1 2 3 4 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS MUKBBR Of STUDBHTS TAMBTSD TOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADB LBVBL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: FULBRIGHT Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 15 16 13 17 19 12 8C 13 20 11 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 8ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB VUNBBR OF STUDENTS TARGETED EOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL TEAR SCHOOL: GARLAND Grade Level No. Students - Reading yp gtMd^ntS-r Jiatb TOTALS 19 13 23 13 75 53 1 6 6 2 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 5 IIACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THl VnXBKR or STUDKHTS TAROBTID TOR rARTICZPATIOM IM lACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: GEYER SPRINGS Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 19 13 11 10 15. 73 54 1 5 4 2 9 3 8 4 5 6 9 6 1ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBER OE STUDENTS TAROETEO TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: GIBBS Grade Level yp, gtudgntp - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 12 11 52 12 38 1 4 2 3 4 5 6 4 9 7 3 3 3 3ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE HUMBER OE STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: ISH Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 1 3 4 2 3 4 21 20 12 10 6 7 5 9 4 6 12 TOTALS \u0026lt;8 45ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE HDNBER OF STUDENTS TARGETED FOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL FOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: JEFFERSON Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 21 15 25 14 13 10 10 81 11 12 62 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 9 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB trXJXBSR or STUDKHTS TARGBTBD FOB PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADB LBVBL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY Grade Level Mo, Students - Reading Mo Students - Math TOTALS 31 28 32 30 157 15 19 30 25 99 1 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 22ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB NUMBER 07 STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRlOt BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL t MCDERMOTT Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 11 16 10 12 11 12 11 75 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 8 8 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM TBS MDHBBR OF STUDBMTS TARQBTED TOR PARTICIPATION IB BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADS LBVBL TOR TBS 1992-93 SCBOOL YBAR SCHOOL X MEADOWCLIFF Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 33 23 26 19 19 16 112 23 22 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 12 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK VnXBER Or STUDHHTS TARGETHD TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: MITCHELL Gradg Lgvel 1 2 3 4 5 6 No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 19 17 15 15 7\u0026lt; 20 12 17 65 4 3 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUXBBR OB STUDBMTS TARGBTBD FOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND ORADB LBVBL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: otter CREEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 12 TOTALS 10 12 II CO 49 6 4 9 6 9 9 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE NUKBBR 07 STUDENTS TARGETED FOR FARTICIPATZOH IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL FOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 25 19 11 10 75 13 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 11ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX MUMBKR OT STUDEMTS TARGKTBD TOR PARTICIPATION IN HACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LBVBL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR SCHOOL t RIGHTSELL Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 12 14 15 21 70 10 10 10 42 1 3 3 2 3 4 5 6 5 3ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK HUMBER OF STUDHHTS TAHaKTID FOR PARTICIFATIOH IM EACH FROORAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADX LBVXL FOR THX 1992-93 SCHOOL YXAR SCHOOL t ROCKEFELLER Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 22 16 11 12 20 18 14 17 11 88 78 1 5 4 2 3 4 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX MUMBXR Of STtJDEMTS TAROHTHD TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROORAN BT SCHOOL AND ORADB LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL! ROMINE Grade Level Mp. Students - Reading MO-Students - Math TOTALS 12 19 22 13 12 57 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 3 8 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX MUNBKR OF STUDBMTS TAROBTBD FOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADB LBVBL FOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR SCHOOL: STEPHENS Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 23 15 21 21 82 81 1 2 2 2 3 4 9 7 5 6 8 5 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NX7MBSR 07 STTOKNTS TARGETBD TOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: TERRY Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 13 19 11 12 11 70 12 13 22. C2 1 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THH MUMBSR 07 STUDHHTS TAROKTHD TOR PARTICIPATION IM KACH PROORAM BT SCHOOL AMD ORADB LBVBL TOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: WAKEFIELD Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 27 19 19 21 15 124 16 13 15 21 95 1 8 8 2 3 4 5 6 11ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB HUMBBR OB STUDBHTS TARGETED BOR BARTICIBATIOM lit BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADB LBVBL BOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: WASHINGTON Grade Level Ho, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 10 35 36 42 32 192 28 14 28 27 116 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 22 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX HUMBER OX STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-*93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: WATSON Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 32 17 25 23 lie 19 12 18 21 12 SC 1 6 6 2 3 4 5 6 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX HDHBBR 07 STUDEHTS TAROBTED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: western HILLS Grade Level Ho. - Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 15 18 14 17 12 81 CO 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 4 8 7 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THH HUMBER OF STUDHHTS TARGETED HOR PARTICIFATIOH IH EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADB LEVEL POR THB 19*2-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL t WILLIAMS MAGNET Grade Level No, Students  Reading No Students - Math 00 TOTALS 11 33 2S 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 4 3 6 6 5ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX NUXBXR OX STUDBMTS TAROBTED BOB PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AMD GRADE LBVBL POR THB 1982-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: WILSON Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 12 14 10 11 21 SI 58 1 1 1 2 6 6 3 9 4 5 7 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBBR OT STUDENTS TARGETED FOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADB LBVBL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: WOODRUFF Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 11 11 12 12 15. IS 55 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 4 8 5 8 5Number of Teachers or Other Staff Page 16 6. nie Number of Teachers or Other Staff (Identified by Position) Responsible for Delivering Each of the Academic Support Programs Content Area Level Position Total No, Positions Language Arts Elementary Teachers 39 Aides 8 Mathematics Elementary Teachers 30 Language Arts Secondary Teachers 34 Mathematics Secondary Teachers 27 Total Teachers Aides 130 8 Language Arts Elem. Specialists 3 Mathematics Elem. Lab Attendants 37 Language Arts Sec. Specialists 1.5* Language Arts Sec. Lab Attendants 13 Total Specialists Lab Attendants 4.5* 50 ESL Cornerstone Parent Support K-12 Tutors Tutors Coordinators Support/Secretary 8 1 1 1 Jostens Learning Corporation reimburses LRSD for 2.5 salariesImplementation Timeline Page 17 7. Implementation Timeline Beginning date: July, 1992 - Duration: Ongoing Responsibility Adiyiiy Begin Date End 1. Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum Explain the Academic Support Programs options to local school administrators 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 2. Local school administrators Select the local schools appropriate Academic Support Program. (Indirect/ direct/extended services.) 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 3. Local school teams Identify students targeted for participation in each program by school/grade level 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 4. Principal Select staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering Academic Support Program 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 5. Principal Schedule the Academic teams staff 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 6. Principal and staff Implement selected school options at local level 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing*Implementation Timeline continued Page 18 7. Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupvs. of Lang. Arts and Mathematics Cluster schools and develop a staff development schedule for Curriculum Clusters 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 8. Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupvs. of Lang. Arts., Mathematics, and Computer Specialists Begin training staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing H n Specialized Content Area Strategies (Curriculum Cluster) 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* M Team Planning 2nd Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* n Learning Styles/ Cultural Diversity (Review) 2nd Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing Interactive Teaching/ Learning (Curriculum Cluster) 2nd Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 9. w If (1 Mastery Learning Cooperative Team Learning (Review Curriculum Cluster) 1st Quarter/ FY93 (Fall) 3rd Quarter/ FY93 (Spring) Ongoing* Ongoing* Principals, District-wide staff development team and Computer Specialists Monitor the implementation of the above 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing*Implementation Timeline continued Page 19 10. Principals, District-wide staff development team, and Computer Specialists Provide technical assistance and and maintenance workshops as needed in the above staff development areas Ongoing after initial workshops are delivered 11. Principal Schedule school based meetings to assess program effectiveness One per semester Ongoing* 12. Principal and staff Collect appropriate data for end of school program evaluation including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and attendance, samples of student work, and parent/ teacher/student recommendations 1st Quarter/ FY92 4th Quarter/ FY93* 13. Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum, Asst. Supts., Curr. Supervisors, and principals Analyze the above data to evaluate program effectiveness 4th Quarter/ FY93 Ongoing* 14. H Identify modification for the Academic Support Program for 1993-94 4th Quarter/ FY93 Ongoing* 8. Anticipated Costs (see the following)8. ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM ANTICIPATED COSTS 1992-93 ] IMG SOURCE CONTENT AREA NO. POSITIONS TOTAL BUDGET Reading/Math/ Language Arts Elem./Sec. Aides Substitutes 99 8 $3,919,882.00 123,770.00 84,363.00 Parent Advisory Program Reading/Math Reading/Math/ Language Arts Reading/Math/ Language Arts Reading/Math/ ESL Reading/Math Parent Advisory Program ' Academic Support  Partnership Read ing/Math/ Language Arts Reading/Math Language Arts Coordinator/ Support Supplies Elen./Sec. Ext. Day/Week Secondary Supplies/Materials Secondary Specialists Lab Attendants Support Supplies/Materials Secondary Secondary 1.5 88 28 9 4.5 Reimb. 50 .5 6 4 Sub total Re Imbursement 32,979.00 45,939.00 41,880.00 576,362.00 21,883.00 278,360.00 112,416.00 588,908.00 7,465.00 10,000.00 30,000.00 222,534.00 135,253.00 6,231,994.00 112.416.00 $6,119,578.00Overview of Necessary Staff Training Page 21 9. Ah Overview of the Necessary Staff Training by Content, by Year, and by Number of Training Participants The staff development component is critical to the successful implementation of the Academic Support Program since the various elements of the Program require that teachers use approaches and strategies that emphasize the interrelationship of teacher/student behavior. Designated teachers will be trained in the following areas: Overview/Content. 1992-93 No. of Participants Specialized Content Area Strategies - TTie regular classroom teachers, reading specialists, and mathematics specialists will receive training on instructional strategies and alternative assessment methods that are unique to the respective content area. Also, the teachers will receive inservice training on using appropriate computer software to diagnose and remediate students learning needs. 1st Quarter/ FY92 130 Learning Styles/Cultural Diversity - Teachers have received training in administering learning styles inventories and designing instruct- tonal strategies that relate to identified learning styles 2nd Quarter FY92 (Review) 130 Staff Training The schedule for staff training is as follows: 25 teachers/staff per session. At least six (6) sessions are needed to accommodate all 130 teachers. Training is provided only one time during the indicated quarter. Follow-up inservice may be provided on an \"as needed/requested basis.\" Provisions are made either through new teacher initiative or LRSD Staff Development Department to provide the needed inservice for our new teachers.Overview of Necessary Staff Training continued Page 22 Interactive Teaching/Leaming - With the emphasis of the program on meaningful student learning experiences as opposed to isolated seat work, teachers will be trained in classroom skills for planning and delivering motivational learning activities, giving information, asking questions, providing feedback, and keeping students on task. 2nd Quarter/ FY92 130 Team Planning - Reading and/or math specialists will receive training in collaborative planning, team teaching, and partnership building. 2nd Quarter/ FY92 130 Mastery Learning - To ensure that learning actually occurs for students, teachers will receive inservice on the Mastery Learning Model that includes developing learning objectives based on identified LRSD learner outcomes, delivering large group instruction according to targeted objectives, assessing students performance, designing corrective activities that differ from the original instructional strategies for students who did not master the objective, assessing again for mastery, and designing enrichment activities that extend the objectives for students who demonstrated mastery on the first assessment. 1st Quarter/ FY93 (Fall) 130 Mastery Learning A number of teachers (regular and academic support) have been trained in Mastery Learning. We would provide a minimum of six sessions, three hours per session, for 25 participants per session totaling 130 teachers per quarter.Overview of Necessary Staff Training continued Page 23 Cooperative/Team Learning - Because teachers in the Academic Support Program will be expected to actively involve all targeted students in the classroom learning process, the teacher will receive training in the Cooperative/Team Learning process that organizes students into small heterogeneous teams which work together toward a common, meaningful learning objective. 3rd Quarter/ FY93 (Spring) 130 Components of all staff development programs will be reviewed annually. New teachers will be provided intensive inservice in order to maintain program continuity and effectiveness. Staff receiving and staff delivering staff development activities will review the design, delivery, and quality of services provided on an annual basis. This evaluation data will be used to improve the quality and quantity of inservice for academic support programs. Annually beginning school year 1993-94Evaluation Criteria Page 24 10. Evaluation Criteria That Will Indicate How Effectively Teachers Are Implementing New Instructional Approaches Principals will monitor instruction and learning in Academic Supoort Program settings on a regular basis and will observe: Teachers involving students in a variety of classroom activities that address learning styles and cultural diversity.  Teachers selecting methods and strategies that capitalize on students interests and experiences.  Teachers demonstrating creativity and resourcefulness in delivering instruction. Teachers utilizing effective classroom strategies, such as tutors, small-group instruction, and extended day/week programs, to maintain the gains students have made.  Teachers interacting with students in a caring manner. Teachers recording of students data that shows increased student achievement and social skills (letter and citizenship grades, standardized test scores, attendance). 11- Evaluation Criteria That Will Measure the Degree to Which Each Academic Support Program Is Successful in Meeting Its Particular Programmatic Goals and Objectives of Remediating Student Achievement and Contributing to the Overall Reduction of Disparity Between Black and White Students Program Evaluation Academic Support Programs will be successfully operating in all district schools evidenced by: as * Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile.Evaluation Criteria continued Page 25 * Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core areas for each student.  Grade distribution reports (by semester) by class and grade level reflecting an increase in attainment of letter grades of \"C or better in the core areas. 12. Utilization of Resources Invested in the PAL Remediation Approach, Staff Positions. Computer Hardware. Software Programs, and Other Equipment and Materials Previously Devoted to PAL Should be Properly Reallocated Toward the New Approach to Remediation. All existing staff (positions), computer hardware, software programs, other equipment and materials are and will be used extensively in the Districts Academic Support Program. Curriculum-assisted instructional software has been aligned with the Districts revised curriculum and is being used to reinforce curriculum objectives. 13. Provision for Removing Ineffective Teachers Provisions for removing ineffective teachers are outlined in the Professional Negotiations Agreement Between the Board of Directors and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (Article VI).KCkaTXlZ SUPPORT PROGRAM PROGRAM EVALUATION Procrram Description Purpose The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades one through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievement of these targeted students. The support will be provided by certified reading specialists, English and mathematics teachers in the regular classroom, additional classes, and labs. Scope and Content The name of all district remediation programs will be Academic Support Programs. All school programs will be located at each school site, except Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center. The Academic Support Program offers a variety of options to the individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes, or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pull-out at the elementary level. Elementary Academic Support Procrram At the elementary level, the primary delivery method in the area of mathematics is in-class assistance for grade levels 1 and 2, and limited pull-out as a possible second strategy for grade levels 3-6. In the area of reading/language arts, limited pullout is used to provide for the learning needs of students with identified reading deficits for grade levels 1-6. Indirect Services Reading and math specialists are paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skills deficits. An instructional program and duration of services are established for each student in order to address individualized needs. TheAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 2 revised curriculum is used by the regular teacher and the reading/mathematics specialists to provide a uniform and integrated approach to learning. Schedules are developed in cooperation with the regular teacher to determine appropriate time for specialists to provide services in the regular Time is allocated for the specialists to plan and classroom. consult with the regular teacher in order to ensure consistency This cooperative planning allows for a team in student learning. effort to best meet needs of students and to prevent In addition, this fragmentation in teaching and learning. approach improves and enhances educational opportunities for these students to experience academic success in the regular classroom. By developing alternative methods for delivery of instruction, students increase their time on task, make greater gains, and maintain progress. Direct Services. For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific language problems, using a variety of curricular approaches including computer technology. This arrangement will promote program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability. Data secured through individual assessment and other relevant records is used to develop the student's program and establish the duration of services. Secondary Academic Support Program Secondary schools implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following possible approaches: APPROACH ONE Indirect Services The academic team approach restructures the current secondary language arts staffing by pairing language arts classroom teachers (including English and Learning Foundation teachers) andAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 3 instruction.) reading specialists. (Mathematics teachers are already paired for instruction.) Teams will iointlv plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences. Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO Direct Services Regular classroom teachers will work to meet the needs of their own targeted students. Smaller class sizes will be scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. APPROACH THREE (Language Arts Only) Direct Services The Language Arts Plus Program is intended to reinforce regular classroom language arts instruction exclusively and to focus on The Language Arts Plus Program specific student deficits. approach will restructure the current secondary language arts program by reducing the number of separate reading classes, reducing language arts class size, and adding an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. The concept will add an elective credit to student course work and will utilize the These English services of regular English teachers in whose language arts classes the targeted students are enrolled. teachers will teach four regular periods and during the fifth period will provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic students enrolled in each of their four regular Average class size will not exceed 15 language arts classes. students per period in the teachers' fifth periods.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 4 EXTENDED SERVICES ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY To support and extend learning opportunities for students, the academic team concept will be supported by making available to targeted students before-school, at lunch, and after-school instructional services. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff to provide some of their extended day services. The implementation of academic support programs may vary from school to school in design and philosophy. However, the following common critical elements will be evident in every program: instructional strategies including higher order thinking skills, close observance of time on task, use of the District's approved curriculum with appropriate materials and resources, a positive school climate that includes conveying high expectations for all students, parent involvement designed to assure a collaborative partnership between parents and school, problem analysis consisting of collecting, analyzing and disaggregating student data, and monitoring/evaluation. New staff members will participate in development activities that will assist them in use of curriculum guides as well as appropriate staff development activities for targeted students. Participants/Beneficiaries Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the lower quartiles in the annual student assessment. Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records are used to select students from the eligible population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Progrzun Goal The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstream setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 5 Specific objectives have been developed in order to designate what is to be accomplished to implement the adopted goals, program will include the following objectives: The 1. 2. 3. 4. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. To reduce or eliminate pull-out academic support programs. To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Evaluation Criteria The Academic Support Program will be evaluated by comparing data from Spring 1992 through Spring 1994. evaluation will consist of: Specifically the 1. 3. Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students. 2. Personal education plans of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option (s). Individual student folders that include a systematic collection of student work, pre and post standardized test scores, grades, and recommendations to provide individual/group/school progress are maintained for continuous student and program progress. 4 . Parental involvement will show an increase in the numbers of parents attending parent conferences and parent training sessions and visiting schools. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 6 Objective 1 To identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. The Academic Support Program options were explained to local school administrators and they were provided an overview of how all the individual Academic Support Programs were to be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources. Local school administrators selected the appropriate Academic Support Program. 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 from the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Staff assignments were determined at the building-level and schedules were completed to ensure implementation of the selected school options. Discussion For the 1992-93 school year, thirteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while one secondary school chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and three secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1993-94 school year, fourteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while seven secondary schools chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and All six secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach, elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) The District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results for the 1992-93 school year revealed that 11,955 students were eligible for participation. For the 1993-94 school year, 11,044 students were eligible. (Appendix A-2)Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 7 For the 1992-93 school year, uniform multiple criteria were used to identify 8,173 targeted students from the eligible population to be served by the Academic Support Program. For the 1993-94 school year, 7,466 students were selected. (Appendix A-3) 2,525 students at the secondary level were served by the Indirect/Direct Approach during the 1992-93 school year. 26 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 287 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach, elementary level, 5,385 students were served by the At the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1993-94 school year, 2,212 students at the secondary level were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 466 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 622 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 4,655 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) For the 1992-93 school year, a total of 52 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while .6 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 6.1 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 82.4 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) For the 1993-94 school year, a total of 40.6 teaches staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 8.2 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 15.3 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 71.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics/Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) Objective 2 To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. The Stanford 8 Individual Record Sheet for each targeted student served as the basis for developing a personal education plan for each student. The Little Rock School District Curriculum, which is correlated to the Stanford 8 objectives, was used as theAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 8 curriculum in each program option at each school site. Schools were clustered for delivery of staff development and a schedule was developed to provide training to the staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program. Workshops were provided on the topics of specialized content area strategies, team planning, learning styles/cultural diversity, interactive teaching/learning, mastery learning, and cooperative team learning. been addressed. Workshops were monitored to ensure that all topics had Instruction and learning in the Academic Support Program settings were monitored regularly to determine student involvement, appropriateness of learning strategies and cultural diversity, creativity and resourcefulness, use of tutors, small group instruction, and extended day/week programs, teacher-student interaction, increased student achievement and social skills. Technical assistance was provided on an as-needed basis in each of the areas monitored. TABLE B YEAR \u0026amp; CLASSIFICATION SCHOOL VISITS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SCHOOL BASED MEETINGS 1992-93 Totals ELEMENTARY SECONDARY 413 97 40 6 24 13 1993-94 (to 12/15/93) ELEMENTARY SECONDTkRY 183 70 104 62 4 9 Discussion A comparison of the total number of training sessions conducted during the 1992-93 school year to the to-date number of sessions conducted during the 1993-94 school year reveals that there has been an increase in the number of training sessions requested and offered. During the 1992-93 school year, 593 monitoring visits were made to review personal education plans and to observe teacher strategies. visits have been made to date. For the 1993-94 school year, 332 monitoring (Appendix B-1)Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 9 Objective 3 To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. Appropriate data were collected for end of school program evaluation, including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and attendance, samples of student work, and parent/teacher/student recommendations. These data were analyzed to evaluate program effectiveness in meeting its particular programmatic goals and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction of disparity between black and white students. After reviewing the 1992-93 data, modifications were identified for the Academic Support Program for 1993-94. Learning opportunities were supported and extended for students by making available to targeted students before school, at lunch, after school, and periodic extended week computer lab instruction. Discussion A comparison of the 1992-93 Stanford 8 test data for the students being seirved to the 1993-94 test data for the same population revealed that students achieved growth at all grade levels except grades 1, 4, and 10 in reading. Tn the area of mathematics, negative growth occurred at grades 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Cl - C4) (Appendix For the 1993-94 school year, the number of secondary schools choosing the Language Arts Plus Approach increased from only one during the 1992-93 school year to six. Six secondary schools also chose the Mathematics Direct Approach, representing an increase of three schools over the 1992-93 school year. These changes represent a trend at the secondary level away from an exclusive Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach toward the Direct Approaches. (Appendix A-1) During the 1992-93 school year, approximately 50% of the elementary and secondary schools offered targeted students extended learning opportunities before school, at lunch, after school, and extended week. A number of these schools kept signin sheet to validate student participation, but no hard data exist on the success of this endeavor, compiled for the 1993-94 school year. No data have beenAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 10 Objective 4 To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Parents were assisted in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school through provision of information about students' achievement and behavior, conferences about their children, and the establishment of parent/school partnerships. Discussion A comparison of 1992-93 parent activity documentation to the 1993-94 parent activity documentation reveals there has been an increase in the number of participating parents. The number of parents involved during 1993-94 increased two and a third times the rate of parental participation during the 1992-93 school year. Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine schools where data were collected showed positive gains in parent participation. (Appendix D) Obstacles to Goal Attainment The obstacles to goal attainment encountered are indicated by specific objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. Although this objective is achieved, it has not been achieved in a timely manner. Printouts of the eligible students in each building for reading, mathematics, and language arts need to be available at the end of the school year to begin the identification process for the next year. Additionally, printouts of District-wide eligible students need to be in each school at the beginning of the school year to facilitate identification of students new to each building.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 11 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. This objective is largely achieved\nhowever, some folders are not complete because teachers do not have sufficient information to develop the plans. Individual Test Records (Stanford 8) for all Academic Support students are needed in order for teachers to develop the personal education plans. 3. To reduce are eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. Progress has been made in reading and language arts, however, additional time is needed in mathematics. As well, delayed funding from outside sources has hampered plans for providing extended services. 4 . To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Although this objective is largely achieved at the elementary level, there is a need for strengthening efforts at the secondary level. Recommendation 1 It is recommended that District printouts identifying the eligible students be forwarded to each building prior to the close of the school year in order to facilitate the identification process for the next school year. As well, District-wide printouts need to be disseminated to every school at the beginning of the new school year in order to identify new students to the schools who might be eligible for the Academic Support Program. Additionally, at least three copies of the Student Record Sheet for each targeted student need to be forwarded to the schools from the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in order to ensure that program teachers have the appropriate record forms needed to design the personal education plans.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 12 Objective The objective of this recommendation is to ensure timely identification and selection of students to participate in the Academic Support Program and to serve targeted students by developing personal education plans based on their Stanford 8 Individual Test Records. Evaluation Criteria Documentation will indicate that the selection and identification processes occur in a timely and efficient manner and that program teacher record keeping is complete. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts and in mathematics. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Resource Analysis The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department and the Data Processing Department will generate the necessary forms. The Office of Federal Programs will gather and report data so that analysis can be made. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office supervisors, director of federal programs, building principals, program teachers, students, and parents, no known detractors. There areAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 13 General Implementation Plan Date Activity Person(s) Responsible 6/1/94 District SAT-8 printouts forwarded to schools Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation 8/1/94 Updated District SAT-8 printouts forwarded to schools Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation 9/1/94 Student record forms for selected students are forwarded to program teachers Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Recommendation 2 It is recommended that change in the delivery of academic support in secondary mathematics be made by providing additional instructional time for targeted students rather than by providing assistance within the regular class time. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to provide the necessary support in mathematics that is needed to reduce the learning disparity. Evaluation Criteria Targeted students will be assigned to an additional math class or lab. Comparative data as measured on the Stanford 8 (Spring 1995) will show increased achievement. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of increasing achievement and reducing academic disparity.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 14 Impact Analysis This recommendation will provide instructional time needed for teaching and learning mathematics. Resources Analysis Although this may require some additional staff, for the most part existing staff can fill the necessary positions. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office supervisors, the director of federal programs, building principals, programs teachers, students, and parents, not known detractors. There are General Implementation Plan Date Actiyjty Personfs) Responsible 6/1/94 Analysis of Staffing Needs/Staff Selection Mathematics supervisor, principals 7/15/94 Identify schedules/ add classes Principals, counselors 8/30/94 Schedule students into classes Principals, counselorsAPPENDICESAPPENDIX A-1 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1993-93 READIHG/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central X X J. A. Fair X X Hall X X X McClellan X X Parkview Magnet X X JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale X X Dunbar Magnet X X Forest Heights X X Henderson Magnet X X Mabelvale X X Mann X X Pulaski Heights X X Southwest X X Alt. Learning Ctr. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS All X X 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE I mathematics ONE q TWO B Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central X X X J. A. Fair X X X Hall X X McClellan X X X Parkview Magnet X X X JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale X X Dunbar Magnet X X Forest Heights X X Henderson Magnet X X Mabelvale X X X Mann X X X X Pulaski Heights X X X Southwest X X Alt. Learning Ctr. X ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS All X XTotal Tested: APPENDIX A-2 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1992 Number of students scoring within the lowest quartile (1-25 PR) GRADE TOTAL TESTED READING SPRING 1992 MATH SPRING 1992 GRADE READING SERVED 1992-93 MATH SERVED 1992-93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2,094 1,881 1,783 1,904 1,922 1,843 1,795 1,573 1,554 1,602 1,472 Total tested: 804 707 649 524 685 473 668 599 494 495 357 625 418 358 324 406 332 544 621 728 672 472 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1993 Number of students scoring within the lowest quartile (1-25 PR) GRADE TOTAL TESTED READING SPRING 1993 MATH SPRING 1993 GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 700 599 560 505 570 428 432 282 142 137 69 READING SERVED 1993-94 531 455 491 467 507 284 276 254 360 95 29 MATH SERVED 1993-94 1,941 1,912 1,770 1,715 1,821 1,855 1,716 1,571 1,506 1,587 1,383 686 714 575 486 623 466 603 548 471 403 392 584 405 411 197 329 303 555 539 691 547 516 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 514 584 499 435 475 457 503 407 195 190 110 366 334 360 218 324 305 354 422 335 72 7APPENDIX A-3 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE STUDENTS 1992-93 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE Indirect/ Direct TWO Direct THREE Language Arts Plus ONE Indirect/ Direct TWO Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Alt. Learning Ctr. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Appendix A-3 (page 1 of 4) 191 33 22 87 15 198 162 100 150 108 127 149 148 0 63 88 70 120 108 33 135 26 95 99 48 121 29 155 110 129 106 102 97 91 0 50 75 66 115 86 27 118 140Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff Appendix A-3 (page 2 of 4) 68 86 64 65 99 77 76 72 52 57 84 142 78 120 69 58 85 66 85 50 56 74 124 132 123 87 36 68 64 55 64 71 55 97 69 59 55 35 30 67 128 62 122 62 47 63 38 72 54 38 68 93 118 85 61 28 64 54ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE STUDENTS 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Alt. Learning Ctr. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct 58 36 10 203 92 152 203 127 71 187 202 12 57 78 89 135 81 39 133 62 124 91 87 63 28 31 42 * 110 131 59 90 246 20 203 0 29 41 30 92 53 19 94 25 144 112 40 48 75 80 123 Appendix A-3 (page 3 of 4)* Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff 71 72 53 94 79 60 80 52 79 80 131 80 152 66 66 72 44 82 67 44 84 159 140 156 65 78 44 62 44 31 31 69 52 34 30 26 43 46 99 39 88 42 29 36 16 42 35 27 45 81 80 50 32 60 28 51 Approach One is provided in small class settings (App. 2). Appendix A-3 (page 4 of 4)APPENDIX A-4 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE STAFF (FTE per school) 1992-93 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central 3.0 2.0 J. A. Fair Hall 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 McClellan 1.4 3.0 Parkview Magnet 0.6 1.0 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale 4.0 3.0 Dunbar Magnet 2.0 2.0 Forest Heights 3.0 Henderson Magnet Mabelvale 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Mann 2.0 4.1 Pulaski Heights 3.0 2.0 Southwest 3.0 2.0 Alt. Learning Ctr. 0.0 0.0 ELEMENTT^Y SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.4 0.0 Chicot 2.0 1.0 Appendix A-4 (page 1 of 4)Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 *2.0 *1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 *1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 *1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 *2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 *2.0 * Part-time instructional aides Appendix A-4 (page 2 of 4) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 *2.0ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE STAFF (FTE per school) 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet 1.0 0.6 0.4 2.0 1.2 2.2 1.0 0.6 3.6 1.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.2 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale 4.0 2.8 Dunbar Magnet 2.0 2.0 Forest Heights 3.0 2.8 Henderson Magnet 3.0 2.4 Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights 2.0 2.0 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.4 2.0 3.0 3.3 Southwest 3.0 3.0 Alt. Learning Ctr. 0.4 0.0 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.6 0.0 2.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.5 I Appendix A-4 (page 3 of 4)* Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 *2.0 Part-time instructional aides Appendix A-4 (page 4 of 4) 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.2 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"pth_bcja_metapth594958","title":"Accepting Democracy's Responsibilities","collection_id":"pth_bcja","collection_title":"Barbara C. Jordan Archives","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Vermont, 44.00034, -72.74983"],"dcterms_creator":["Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996"],"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["Text of speech delivered at the University of Vermont by Barbara Jordan regarding the necessity of an educated electorate in a democratic nation."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":["local-cont-no: TSOU_0445-004-012","ark: ark:/67531/metapth594958","Accepting Democracy's Responsibilities, ark:/67531/metapth595172","Accepting Democracy's Responsibilities, ark:/67531/metapth611492"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American women politicians--Texas","Speeches, addresses, etc.","Education--Vermont"],"dcterms_title":["Accepting Democracy's Responsibilities","Texas Senate Papers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Texas Southern University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth594958/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["speeches (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":["3 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1006","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)","Educational statistics","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant"],"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/1006"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n~ ~~Ct ~~ fJ 2-~ i -+- 'L-I 1/n 1 uu.~/{_ r t,\n}t 'NJJ c_ u~~rJJ {t\ntihf ?ti- ~a ft\\ 1 ~ J,\n'Jo C?~ \\~ -Ct Z.. - 3ID/ sc\nf-(\n1?3 .(U'/,tz ,Los- JJ a,4v:t'?)Q_ ( 1 \\0-,\u0026amp; ~~ 9tv( ~~ vvlCvt,1.- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp;. CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY , P.A. ROBERT V . LIGHT . P. A . WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A . JAMES W. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW BYRON M . EISEMAN. JR . , P. A . JOE 0. BELL , P.A. JOHN C . ECHOLS . P.A. JAMES A . IUTTRY, P. A . FREDERICK. 8 . URSERY . P. A . H . T. LARZELERE, P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS , JR. JAMES C. CLARl, JR . , P . A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A. PAUL B . IENHAM Ill, P. A . LARRY W. IURlS, P.A . A . WYClllFF NISIET , JR. , P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P. A . J . f\"HILLIP MALCOM. P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON, P .A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P .A. JAMES M . SAXTON, P.A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111 DONALD H . IA.CON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A . WAL TEA A. PAULSON II , P. A . BARRY E. COl\"LIN, P . A . RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P' . A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR . , P . A . ELIZABETH J . ROBBEN, P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P . A . ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill , P.A . THOMAS N . ROSE , P . A . MICHAEL S MOORE DIANE S MACKEY , P . A WAL TER M EB EL Ill . P .A 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL \u0026amp;UILDINQ 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 722013413 TELEPHONE 1501-378-2011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 December 7, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 West -Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 DEC 9 1~2 IC.EVIN A. CRASS. P.A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR . , P. A . CLYDE TA.  TURNER, P.A . CALVIN J . HALL, P. A . SCOTT J . LANCASTER, P.A . JERRY L . MALONE, P. A . M . GAYLE CORLEY . P. A . ROBET I . IEACH, JR .  P' . A . J. LEE IROWN, P . A . JAMEi C . IAI.ER, JR . , P' . A . H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR ., P.A . HARRY A . LIGHT, P'.A . ICOTT H . TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY Al TON WADE PRICE C . GARONER THOMAS F . MEElS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D . WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE T . WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T . TURNER SARAH J . HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF PAMELA D . CORKER CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR. COUNH WILLIAM J . SMITH WILLIAM A . ELDREDGE , JR. , P. A . 8 . S . CLARl WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR ., P. A . WII I TUI'  OUUCT NO. 15011 370 - 1506 D Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Wright: I am writing to provide a status report concerning LRSD's efforts to secure a grant to establish an Aerospace magnet school. The LRSD Board of Directors has adopted a resolution to establish such a school subject to the following conditions: 1. That the district receives from the Magnet School Assistance Fund Grant a minimum of $8,000,000.00 over a two year term\n2. that funds to defray the cost of operating the school will be obtained from public or private sources for a period of five years beginning with the date the school opens. Construction will begin when the five year commitment of operating funds is identified\n3. that the district can demonstrate to the Court that the school will compliment its desegregation plan and receive approval from the Court to modify its plan to include the construction and implementation of the Aerospace school. Al though the board voted to pursue the grant subject to these conditions, several members made it clear that they would vote to reject the grant if, at the time the grant is announced, it appears that sufficient funds are not available for LRSD to effectively implement its desegregation plan, meet its other obligations and establish the Aerospace magnet school. Finally, I have been informed by grant writer Gail Quinn that the deadline for the grant application will probably be extended to early February. I do not yet have a final grant application to share with the Court and the parties, but I will provide one as soon as it is completed. CJH/k cc: All Counsel Ann Brown Gail Quinn *** ****************************************************************************************************** P.01 * * TRANSACTION REPORT * * ------- DEC- 8-92 TUE 14: 33 * ** DATE START SENDER RX TI ME PAGES TYPE NOTE ** * ---------------------------------- * * DEC- 8 14:31 501 324 2032 11 39\" 2 RECEIVE OK * * * ************** ***************************'************************************************************* 12 / 08 / 92 15:J  '6'501 324 2032 LR School Dist   OD~ ..-~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE# SUBJECT Special Instructions 810 WEST l\\1/\\RKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 ~ ~ 1 141001 / 002 Number of Pages (incluM cover page) j__ Fax Phone Number___ Speed dial r__..---- FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By ---------Date --------Time ---- 12/ 08/ 92 15 : 44 '0'501 324 2032 LR School Dist  ODM December 8, 1992 TO: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Dick Holbert Mr. Chris Heller FROM: Mac Bernd, Superintendent of School~ SUBJECT: MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR AEROSPACE SCHOOL l4J 00 2/002 To keep you updated on the status of the grant application, you need to know that we received a telephone call yesterday from Gail Quinn explaining that she is having problems getting the grant application printed and will possibly be required to re-format to another computer program. She was optimistic, however, that she would be able be overnight mail the grant last evening. We have not talked with her this morning and have not yet received the grant. cc: Board of Directors DEC 9 19Y2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Ahsb.-.t The Little Rock Schoo District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicatia, presents a dynamic plan fer implementation of a grade 7-12 Aera\npace Techndogy Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schoos and the new Aera\npace Educatia, Center. The Center combnes a museum of aviatia, histcry with a grade 7-12 Aera\npace Technology Schoo oo a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regirnal Airpai adjacent to the main terminal, Falcoo Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develc.ped with the Aerospace industnesi\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, foor universitiescl and the U.S. Department ci Educatirn Federal Aviatia, Administratia, (FAA), this magnet program targets the readying of students fer immediate employment and/er postsecondary education in either engineering technology er aitway science. As illustrated belON, students are prCNided a wide range ci choices fer career develc.pment in ooe of nine areas at an entry, technician, er prdessiaial level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science ( FAA)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Science Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Professiooal Pilct Majer Arkansas aeraspace employers and the FAA have identified tec:hndogical ocaJpatioos and the skill base students need for future employment. LRSD has incrnpcrated the skill base into a highly integrated program/cairse sequence coosisting ci Academic lnstructioo, Work-Based Leaming, Wcrksite Experience, and Information and Guidance. All magnet students will take a a:mmrn academic ccre of sequenced cairses which include six years ci applied mathematics and science (mcre than required for graduation) keyed to prcxiuct engineering and flight/space ooncepts, two cr more years d a language significant to oor global a:mpetitive marketplace such as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In c:anputer netwcrked laboratcries, students will access and a:ntrd content, applicaticns, and infamatirn in the areas ci rcbotics, bio astronautics, systems simulatioo, CAD/CAM, publishing, wcrd proces.sing, teleccmmunicatirns, material science, and aerodynamics. Students will produce presentatioo material by importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks ci their c,,vn creatioo. In Scien~ students wilt cooduct hands-on investigatirns, manipulate scientific instruments, and cdlect/ analyze data a) Arkansas Aerospac~ Rohr Industries, Falcon Jet, Midcoast, Ce,tral Flying Servic:2 b) Membership attached c) l 'niversities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, He,derson State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH. using the critical thinking skills d observatirn, canmunicating. cnmparing. a-deting. categotizing. relating. inferring. and applying. Specialized curricula related to each d the nine career cptia,s has been developed to meet ocrupation specific kno.vledge and emerging techndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job throogh partidpatioo in industry and airpa-t-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever befae. The vehide for cx:::aipaticnal artificaticn is achievement d the U.S. Department of Labcr's SCANS (Secretary's Canmissicn d Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace canpetendes, e.g. Resources, Interpersaial Skills, lnfa-mation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of c.ertificate3 d Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based a, SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative re3ume, which reports re3ults, will be the permanent reccrd ci genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program ccmpletion in a chosen cx:cupaticnal maja will enat:ie students to receive advance university credit and cootinuatia, of the engineering a airway science career track thrcugh associate ci science and baccalaureate degree programs. As ycu c:cnsider the fine merits of this highly cdlabJrative magnet progrc3Jl\\ please keep in mind the thcusands a students it will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogical ski11s, enoourage to cootinue their education thraigh Artla.ilatta, Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jd:ls so vital to the future a this nation to ccmpete in the wald market. Student Progression in the Aerospace Technology Magnet \"Linking the Curricular Path to Work\" Level 1- Aerospace Education Center Grades 7-12  Engineering Technology or  Airway Science \u0026amp; Professional Pilot Level II - Advanced \u0026amp; Specialized Training  Southern Arkansas University TECH - Associate of Applied Science Degree and/or Advanced Certificates (one year after Associate Degree) ..ar.. -Aviation Maintenance __,,..  UALR - Electronics Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering Technology Level Ill - Baccalaureate Programs  UALA - Manufacturing Engineering - Computer Engineering  Henderson State University .. - Aircraft Systems Management - Professional Pilot - Airway Science Management - Airway Computer Science Entry-Level Employment  Support Analyst  Quality Analyst  CAD Operator  Hazardous Material Specialist Technical Careers ,  Associate Engineer  Tool Designer  Quality Technician  Hazardous Material Team Leader Professional Careers  Production Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer  Liaison Engineer  Design Engineer  Quality Engineer  Environmental Engineer I. Background Information A. Greater Metropolitan Little Rock Greater Little Rock's four county Metropolitan Statistical area (MSA) is the center of the second fastest growing region in the United States. Its central location is within 550 miles of forty percent of the United States buying power and population. The $1.3 billion dollar Arkansas Navigation System, one of the nation's largest water development projects, is a 445 mile waterway providing year-round access to ports on the Arkansas River from the Mississippi River to Tulsa, Oklahoma. The 1,500 acre port with its industrial harbor Foreign Trade Zone -14, and the United States Customs Port of Entry are an indication of the increasing importance of Little Rock's linkage to ports worldwide. All are in close proximity to Adams Field, Little Rock's airport. The city's rich mixture of historic architecture and new development is attracting new residents. Little Rock is seeing growth and revitalization unparalleled in the city's history. Little Rock is on the move. Fueling this revitalization are the aerospace industries, the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, the Governor's Aerospace Task Force, and institutions of higher education. Some of the world's most successful aerospace companies are located here: McDonnell Douglas, Rohr Inc., Arkansas Aerospace (a subsidiary of British Aerospace), Falcon Jet owned by the French-based Avions Dassaut Brequet Aviation, MidCoast, and Central Flying Service. Numerous private and corporate aircraft dealers such as Aero-Commander, Piper, Beechcraft, and Cessna have facilities at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Little Rock Airforce Base is home to the largest C-130 aircraft training and airlift facility in the world. A number of major educational institutions serve Little Rock's M.S.A. By far, the largest of these is the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), enrolling more than 11,000 students in seventy-five undergraduate and forty-two graduate degree programs including Associate, Bachelor and Masters of Science Degrees in Engineering Technology. The Graduate Institute of Technology (GIT) housed in the new Engineering Technology Center offers courses in mechanical, computer science, electrical and manufacturing engineering. Industries utilize GIT facilities for advanced research and graduate study. In 1991, the Arkansas Space Grant Consortium, under the leadership of GIT at UALR, received a four-year training grant award from the NASA National Space Grant College and Fellowship program. The primary purpose of the program is to educate and familiarize faculty and undergraduate and graduate students with aerospace fundamentals and NASA's research programs and opportunities. A secondary objective is to motivate K-12 students to excel in math and science courses necessary for entrance into aerospace programs at the universities and high tech positions in industry. Henderson University, in coordination 1 with Central Flying Service, conducts one of the few aviation degree programs in the nation. The University's Department of Aviation provides four-year programs in Airway Science Management, Airway Computer Science, Professional Pilot, and Aircraft Systems Management. The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society serves the entire state as the focal for the involvement of Arkansas' aerospace industries in community affairs, education, and economic development. In 1989, the Society, executives of aerospace companies, the Little Rock School District, and UALR came together to form the Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership. The unprecedented public/private partnership has planned an Aerospace Education Center. As the architect's drawing illustrates, the Center combines a museum of aviation history with an Aerospace Technology Magnet High School on a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regional Airport adjacent to the main terminal, Falcon Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. The facility will cover 200,000 square feet, including common areas used by both the museum and high school such as the library, cafeteria, and theatre/ auditorium. The upper level of the museum will function as an educational resource for adult programs, and outreach for schools, state and nationwide through a satellite television uplink providea by the Arkansas Electric Cooperatives. The most comprehensive and largest technical and historical aviation and aerospace library collection outside of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum was acquired for the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. Virtually every civil and military aircraft, rotocraft, and spaceship designed and constructed throughout the world is represented in the collection by technical specifications, photographs, and historical descriptive information. There are well over 5,000 books, 50,000 journals, 200,000 photographs and transparancies, hundreds of rare collectable items signed by famous pilots and aviation personalities, original paintings, scale aircraft models, and unique aircraft parts. The Society has raised over five million dollars in gifts and pledges toward construction of the aviation history museum. The Little Rock School District has budgeted six million dollars for the construction of the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School from funds approved by voters at a property tax election in 1990. The Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership believes that Greater Little Rock's future rests on the vitality of its public education system. At all levels of the public education system, educators and industry must develop programs which give students the knowledge and skills that enable them to reach their full economic potential. While the Center will prepare students for aerospace careers, it will also focus the Central Arkansas community on commitment to excellence in education. In March 1819, Arkansas became a territory and the Arkansas Post, the state's first permanent settlement, became its capital. The little French village was soon deemed unsuitable mainly because of its location in the Mississippi Valley, far from the center of the territory. A year later the legislature moved the capital to Little Rock. Today with a metropolitan area spanning a seventy-mile radius, Greater Little Rock MSA is home to over 513,000 people. In the last quarter century, the Greater Little Rock MSA has almost doubled its population - approaching 1,200,000. Today, North Little Rock, the third largest community with a population of 62,000, and Little Rock are joined by the Arkansas River in Pulaski County. Twenty-seven percent of the MSA's population is under 18 years of age. Forty-four percent of the population is within the 18-44 age range. According to the 1990 Census, the population was ------percent Black, -----percent white. B. Little Rock School District The Little Rock School District, encompassing an area in excess of 100 square miles, is the largest school district in the state in terms of enrollment. Enrollment in the schools has increased from 25,975 pupils in 1989 to 26,212 pupils in October 1992. This increase is occuring at the junior high level. 16,538 pupils or 64% of the total district minority enrollment is Black. The percent Black student population exceeds the District 64% average in grades 5-9. The highest percent Black student enrollment is 69% in grade 8. Of the District's forty-nine (49) schools, thiry-six enroll pre-kindergarten or kindergarten through grade 6 students, eight enroll grades 7-9 students, and five enroll grades 10-12 students. Educational program/ school choices include elementary Incentive Schools, grade K-12 Interdistrict Magnet Schools, and elementary area schools. Chart A outlines the number and type of school programs. The text below Chart A defines each type of school and the rationale for selecting certain schools for this project. Chart A - The Organizational Plan for Little Rock Schools n = number of schools ~ie School andlor ucati on Pro IJ'llfll Bern mblry, ~es Pre-IC or -6 JwiorHi~, grades Hgh School~ grades m-1 n n n a.) Area. Md Feeder Schools 22 6 3 b) hcenti-.e Schools 7 NIA NIA c) lntetdistrict ~net Schools 6 2 2 d) h llerdistrict N onm~ net Schools 1 NIA NIA Total 36 8 s a) Area Schools - The elementary school that is the LRSD school for where a student lives is called an Area School. Each Area School feeds into a particular junior high and senior high school. The instructional program focuses on language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. b) Incentive Schools - Incentive Schools are Pre K-Grade 6 elementary schools located within the immediate downtown area. The percent Black student enrollment for Incentive Schools ranges from 85% to 97%. These schools receive double financial resources to provide a teacher-student ratio of 1:20, additional instructional aides, permanent substitute teachers, and extended day-week-year learning opportunities. An individual learning plan is developed for each student based on the district K-6 core curriculum. Computer-assisted instruction, a student homework hotline, a parenting skills center, and a program for four-year olds are additional features that distinguish incentive from area elementary schools. c) Interdistrict Magnet Schools - As Chart A illustrates, Interdistrict Magnet Schools have been established at all three school levels - elementary, junior high, and senior high. Although operated by the Little Rock School District, students from North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) are eligible for enrollment in accord with the desegregation plan. All Interdistrict Magnet Schools are racially balanced within the acceptable range of 55-59 percent black to 41-45 percent white. As Chart A illustrates, there are ten Interdistrict Magnet Schools. These schools provide, in addition to the regular core program, coursework based on a special curricular theme. The desegregation section found on page 8 further describes the purpose and thematic focus for these schools. Chart A indicates there are 31 area and feeder schools. Some of these area/feeder schools are located in racially isolated areas of the school district. This project will establish a new grade 7 -12 inter district magnet 4 of three junior high schools, and the new grade 10 - 12 Aerospace Magnet High School. Each of the three junior high schools exceeds the 64 percent district-wide average for black students. White students will be recruited from across district lines, primarily from North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts to racially balance the three junior high schools. The new Aerospace Magnet High School will begin magnet program operation for tenth graders the second year of the project. The grade 10 enrollment will consist of 300 grade 9 voluntary student transfers from this magnet's junior high enrollment who will be continuing the magnet curricular career path at the new Aerospace Magnet High School. This project, therefore, will establish the first Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet continuation program in four secondary level schools consisting of grades 7-9 the first project year and grades 7-10 the second project year. In subsequent non-project years, the Aerospace Technology High School will add grade 11 in 1995-96 and grade 12 in 1996-97 through normal progession of the magnet's grade level enrollment each year. An Aerospace Technology Magnet has been designed in collaboration with the Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership, the Universities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Henderson State University, and Southern Arkansas University-TECH to attract this magnet's enrollment of 1,200 students. Students who attend each of the three junior high schools will also be eligible to participate in the magnet. The total grade 7 -10 aerospace magnet enrollment will be 2,797 pupils. The breakdown in enrollment is illustrated below: Incoming From outside of LRSD From within LRSD  270 grade 7-9 white students  630 grade 7-9 students  90 grade 10 white students  210 grade 10 students Subtotal: 1,200 Magnet students In-Attendance Enrolled in Magnet Junior High Schools  1597 grade 7-9 students Total: 2,797 students fl By the 1996-97 the Aerospace Magnet High School grade 10-12 enrollment will be at capacity which is 1,800 pupils. The high school enrollment coupled with the grade 7-9 junior high enrollment means the aerospace magnet has the potential to serve 4,597 pupils. The magnet enrollment will reduce black isolation in three junior high schools. C. Interdistrict and Intradistrict Desegregation Measures 1. Background Information on the Court Order The only image that some people have of Little Rock is the one formed in the Fall of 1957 when Governor Orval Faubus defied a federal mandate and tried to use the Arkansas National Guard to keep nine black students from entering Central High School. In Cooper vs. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court stated that \"public opposition to desegregation of the races, no matter how deeply entrenched, could not be allowed to interfere with the full realization of the constitutional rights of black citizens.\" Twenty-four years later (1982), the Little Rock School District brought suit against North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District, claiming that the Constitution compelled the consolidation of the three districts into one governmental unit. This claim was rejected by the courts in 1985 and again in 1986\nhowever, the courts held that interdistrict constitutional violations had occured and must be remedied. Over the course of the next three years, various remedial orders were entered and further appeals were taken to court. Then, in 1988 and 1989, in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this controversy for over thirty years\nthe parties, including the Joshua intervenors representing the injured class of black schoolchildren and citizens, LRSD, the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the State of Arkansas (Arkansas State Board of Education), agreed to settle the case. They submitted to the District Court four comprehensive agreements covering both interdistrict and intradistrict desegregation measures - agreements referred to by the parties as the \"settlement plans.\" They also submitted a separate but related document, called the \"settlement agreement,\" settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this judgement on June 27, 1989, and directed the District Court to adjust the boundary between the LRSD and PCSSD, to revise student attendance within each district to reflect the racial composition of the district, to maintain PCSSD's percent black student enrollment within the range of plus or minus 25% of the districtwide average of blacks by organizational levels\nand to limit busing, one-way, to forty-five minutes. 2. The LRSD Desegregation (Settlement) Plan (1989_) The following description is from the record of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: \"Eight of the 31 non-magnet elementary schools will be designated Incentive Schools. Initially they will be all black. These schools will receive compensatory-education programs and two times the level of funding for six years. The plan includes a detailed and volumous description of the kinds of programs that would take place at the Incentive Schools. A salient feature of these schools is a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. Twenty-two of the twenty-three remaining elementary schools will be called Elementary Academies. These schools will have projected student ratios of between 50 and 62 percent black. The other elementary school, Romine, would be an interdistrict school. Any white student can elect to attend an Incentive School, and a black student living in an Incentive School attendance area can opt to attend one of the Elementary Academies.\" 3. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan is designed to achieve racial balance in the schools and districts of Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski Country Special School District through voluntary movement primarily to magnet prpgrams. Interdistrict schools are \"to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal of these schools to be 50 percent black/white.\" The Little Rock School District reports biannually the number and percent of students enrolled by racial background in each of the district's 49 schools. The above data is also sum~arized in terms of the total district (Pre-K-12). Interdistrict magnets are used to attract a specific student population from outside of the district and from within the original district to racially balance the school and district. Participation in a magnet is through student/parent choice. The Magnet Review Committee (MRC), created by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in September, 1986, oversees the implementation and operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. Comprised of representatives from each of the three districts, the Committee makes policy on issues such as magnet enrollment, transfers, building capacities, and operating funds. The Magnet Educational Team (MET) is the recruitment arm of the MRC, 7 and is responsible for public information and recruitment strategies and activities. In the Little Rock School District, six elementary schools, three junior high schools, and two high schools have magnet programs (refer to Chart A). Six (6) Interdistrict magnets (4 elementary, 1 junior high, 1 senior high) were created in Little Rock in compliance to the 1985 court opinion. Since 1987, five more interdistrict magnets have been established in the Little Rock School District. Magnets enhance the district's core curriculum. The specially designed curricula is the \"hook\" for attracting students across district lines. Individual interdistrict magnet school brochures provide a program description. Chart B summarizes the eleven interdistrict magnets in the LRSD by theme and number of schools participating at each school level. Chart B - LRSD Interdistrict Magnet Programs Theme School Level and # of Schools Elementary Junior High High School 1. Early Education* 1 2. Basic Skills 1 3. Basic Skills/Math-Science 2 4. Arts 1 5. Arts and Sciences 1 1 6. International Studies 1 1 1 Subtotal 6 2 2 Total Magnets -10  This is a Pre-K magnet housed in an Incentive School. The majority of LRSD Interdistrict. Magent Programs have been in operation since the 1986-87 school year. Magnet enrollment that year was 3,647 pupils. This year it is 7,250 pupils. The number of pupils enrolled in LRSD individual magnets has increased 50%. The Interdistrict Desegregaton Plan is more than just magnets. The Pulaski County M-to-M (Majority to Minority) Transfer allows a student to transfer from a district and school where his/her race is in the majority to a district and school where his/her race is in the minority. This means that black students in the LRSD may transfer to schools in North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts, and white students in NLRSD or Pulaski County SSD may transfer to a Little Rock School District school. The Aerospace Technology Magnet will advance the voluntary desegregation efforts of the Settlement Plans. The district commits that it will \"maintain the facilities on a racially integrated basis into perpetuity.\" (Refer to 2/4/91 Amendment in Appendix.) The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, the Pulaski County Special School District Permanent Desegregation Plan, the North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan hold excellent promise for achieving unitary school systems in these three districts. (Exerpted from text of Settlement Plans - refer to Appendix.) 4. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement provided for payments by the State to the three school districts for desegregation purposes only. Under the agreement, the state makes payment to LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD totalling $107,723,175 over the next ten years. The state legislature and the Governor expended these funds without a court order. Moreover, the State also agreed to lend LRSD up to $20,000,000 over the next ten years. The loans are to be forgiven if at any time between the date of the agreement and December 31, 2000 the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students). The settlement plans and the settlement agreement do not limit the District Court's ability to require the creation of additional interdistrict schools. They limit only how new schools may be funded. This funding may include payments by the State for majority-to-minority transfers, but it may not include the imposition on the State of a share of the capital costs of these new facilities. The agreement does not bar the creation of additional interdistrict schools\nit simply provides that, when created, they will not be funded in the same way as the six stipulation magnets. (Refer to entire text of Settlement Agreement in Appendix.) The District Court mandated the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring staffed by a Monitor to supervise compliance to the four Settlement Plans and the Settlement Agreement. II. Needs Assessment The Little Rock School District, in conjunction with North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District, is implementing a court-monitored desegregation plan of which magnet programs and M-to-M transfers are a voluntary option to integrate the three individual school districts. Although Little Rock has achieved racial balance through the creation of interdistrict magnet programs in once racially isolated schools, there are still schools whose percent black to white enrollment exceed the 60%-40% ratio. The district wants to establish more across district voluntary movement of junior high students to bring racially-isolated schools within the balanced range. According to the 1992 LRSD Enrollment Survey, there are three junior high schools that meet this criteria. Three of the junior high schools have been targeted to attract white students primarily from school districts of the Interdistrict (Tri-District) Desegregation Plan, other school districts within close proximity of the Little Rock school districts, and private schools. This plan promotes desegregation. It increases the grade 7-9 white student enrollment at each grade level of three racially (black)-isolated junior high schools. The hook to attain this project's desegregation goals and objectives is the Aerospace Technology curriculum. Since 1900, the United States has become wealthy and powerful by exploiting the rapid changes taking place in technology, world trade, and the international political order. New developments in technology, international competition, demography, and other factors have altered the nation's economic and social landscape. There will be few jobs for those who lack adequate science/technical knowledge and who cannot read, follow directions, or use mathematics. Higher skill requirements of the economy suggest that schools must impove the preparation of the nation's youth in order to economically compete in the global marketplace. This can only be accomplished if the schools have excellence in technology education, communications, problem-solving, and scientific and technological literacy. This district believes it is absolutely necessary to help students understand their technological future if they are to function as responsible, productive members of a competitive society. This district also believes this endeavor must be a cooperative and concentrative effort with this area's prime employers, the aerospace/ aviation industry, the State Department of Education, the Universities of Arkansas, Henderson State University, and Southern Arkansas University-TECH. The aerospace technology education magnet has long range impact for desegregation in the Little Rock School District. First, it involves further voluntary movement of non-district white students to prevent the progressive, increasing isolation of predominantly black junior high schools. Second, this project has carefully planned for a new racially balanced high school to prevent racial isolation in the existing high schools. Between October, 1987 and October, 1992, the Black enrollment increased by 9% from a 51 % Black average to a 60% Black 10 average. The increase will continue due to the progression of the junior high enrollment (69% black average) through the grades. Finally, this district is confident that the aerospace magnet will attract and retain a new enrollment of 360 grade 7-10 white students while maintaining the current enrollment. These are the reasons: 1. \"Aerospace Technology\" is a statewide public education and economic development effort in accordance with the Arkansas Aerospace Task Force and its creation of the Arkansas Aviation and Aerospace Commission through passage of State Senate Bill 35. Their mission is to provide \"the knowledge and skills that will allow students to reach their full economic potential.\" 2. The Stipulation and Consent Order of February 1991 amended the LRSD Desegregation Plan to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School(s) and their maintenance as racially integrated facilities. 3. The public and private contributions of funds for up to 6.5 million dollars to construct the aviation history museum which will implement curricular activities during and after magnet school hours in coordination with the magnet's specialized curriculum. 4. A successful millage campaign approved by voters for six million dollars to construct the Aerospace Magnet High School. 5. The Aerospace employment need for a skilled workforce is well known in Arkansas. Specially-trained employees are required to meet new contracts for aircraft and the employment vacancies listed by the Little Rock Airport Commission. Technology education is addressed in conjunction with the study of applied mathematics and physical science. More science and mathematics have been built into the existing curriculum. The academic and technology-integrated curriculum begins in grade seven to better prepare the minority student for future employment, college, and success in finding his/her niche in a technological society. Because of the strong aerospace industry and university linkage, and the hands-on problem solving approach used to learn the curricula, the district foresees the inclusion of some Little Rock elementary schools in the near future. Need 1: The Reduction and Prevention of Minority Group Isolation There is a need to establish a new interdistrict magnet at the junior high level to racially balance three schools. An end-of-project enrollment of 2,797 will enable each of the aerospace magnet schools and total magnet enrollment to reflect a 11 black/ white ratio of between 60 and 40%. The goal reflected by the% black figure in Table 1 is to reduce racial isolation by increasing the number of white pupils in three Little Rock junior high schools. This will bring the junior high school% black student enrollment in line with the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan goal of 50% black/white. TABLE 1 Reduce Now End of Project Receiving Schools % Black % Black 1. Cloverdale JH 73.7 50.0 2. Forest Heights JH 70.4 50.0 3. Southwest JH 75.3 50.0 The goal reflected by the percent black figure in Table 2 is fo prevent black group isolation in the new high school. This will be accomplished through voluntary movement of grade nine pupils from the three aerospace magnet junior high schools. The grade nine enrollment includes M-toM transfers from NLRSD, PCSSD, and other school districts not a part of the Interdistrict Magnet Desegregation Plan\nand LRSD pupils provided such movement does not negatively impact the racial balance of the sending junior high schools. This will racially balance the new high school in accordance with the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. TABLE2 Receiving School New High School Now % Black 70.0* End of Project % Black 50.0 *based on the % black student enrollment average for the desegregated sending junior high schools located in the attendance area of the new high school. 12 Program Goal 1: To reduce or prevent racial isolation in the Little Rock School District Objective 1.a: By September, 1993, the district will reduce racial isolation through recruitment of white students from out-of-district to aerospace magnet programs. The aerospace magnet program will be balanced when the percent black to white figure is within the 60%-40% balanced range or is 50% black/white. Reduce % Minority % Minority Magnet School Before After 1. Cloverdale JH 73.7 50.0 2. Forest Heights JH 70.4 50.0 3. Southwest JH 75.3 50.0 Objective 1.b: By September, 1994 the district will racially balance the new high school through voluntary transfers from the grade 9 continuing magnet enrollment. The new high school will reflect a 50% black/white ratio. Magnet School New High School Prevent % Minority Before 70.0 % Minority After 50.0 Need 2a.1: Strengthening the Knowledge of Academic Content For the past two decades in America, the low level of academic achievement in our secondary school has spelled disaster for our youth and for our economy. The statistics are alarming: a. Ninety-three percent of 17-year olds do not have the capacity to apply mathematical operations in a variety of problem settings. An increasing number of the nation's students are ill-prepared for college courses or jobs that require technical skills. (National Assessment of Educational Progress 1988, p.# 2) b. For generations traditional prejudices have encouraged mathematics achievemmt in only a pcrtioo ct the student pq,ulatia, - middle class white males. Females and minaities with the exceptioo a Agan-Americans were 13 perceived as beth Niess capalie\" cf learning mathematics, and needing\" it less. (Mathematics Education - Wellspring cf U.S. Industrial Strength, December 1988.) c. In lxxh participation and achievement, American students in science and mathematics are lagging behind previous years and ether countries. (Science and Engineering Indictors, Natienal Science Board, 1990.) d. Only aboot twenty percent ct 10th graders believe that bidogy, chemistry, physics, er gecmetry are needed to qualify fer their first chcice occupatiert Only twenty-eight percent believe they need algebra ( Lengitudinal Survey ct American Yooth, 1988.) e. Schods must imprC1o1e their science instructim to allo.v the nation to base its ecmcrny en high technology. New programs must be developed and strategies reexamined to achieve the sharp focus required. (The Triangle Coolitien fer Science and Techndogy Education, 1988.) Acccrding to the results ct the National Science Foundatien's nationwide study, students are net receiving enoogh hands-a, labcratcry experience. f. The 1.25 grade-level-equivalent decline in the academic achievement cl high schod seniors to.vered the natien's productivity by $86 altien in 19'ir1 and will tower it by more than $200 altien annually by the year 2010 (Journal ct  Currio.ilum Studies, 1989). Studies demcnstrate that ccrnpetence in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and proolem solving are strongly related to productivity in alma\nt all j~ At the histcric education summit, September 1989, President Bush and the natim's gC1o1emors agreed to six national perlcrmance gools in educatim to be achieved by the year 2000. These two impcrtant goals were among those adq,ted: Goal IV - Science and Mathematics U.S. Students will be first in the wortd in science and mathematics achievement The pocr standing ct U.S. students en intematicnal assessments ct mathematics and sdence achievement is no accident, says a new ASCD task fcrce repcrt.  It results frcrn systemic proliems in the quality ct o.irric:ulum and instruction in the United States, the unequal cppcrtunities afferded different students, and peivasive o.iltural beliefs that do little to support high mathematics and science achievement The ASCD t~ fcrce repcrt dtes foor majcr factors a,nttibuting to lo.v U.S. student achievement in mathematics and science. These are: 1) Rdalivdy few :stadmls take uxases that indude high-tevd a..th:id in malhmaalics and sdence Fewer than half c:A students take a chemistry er algrel:ra n course and fewer than ooe in five Erv'er take a rourse in physics, trigonanetry, analysis/precalo.ilus, er calo.ilus. Mcreover, the  Aasl'i!'iCll fq 'i!$11'1Y11iw and Cynja,lwn Pevelq,nwtt. Raising Our Sights Jrrp-rovtng u.s. AchieYa'IW!t tn Mathematics and SdenC!f, DlarnlB' 1991, p. 6 14 widespread tracking a students means many pupils - partirularly minaities - are never required to learn high-level content. 2) Wlwaallcs and sdenm rmrimlmn\\ as wdl as the ledt-11:s and as!lll!S!IDr\"'l!lll!!lldslS tinted tollwm. fail torefted 811: '\"flu.tiers d knowledge\" about how ddl~ lean best. U.S. mathematics and sdence rurrirulums saa\nftce depth fer coverage, dm't take advantage c:J techndogies ... fail to make camectims amcng the disdplines, and generally ignere the real-life experiences and oognitive develq,ment of students. In general, students assume a passive rde, with teamer talk, textbooks, and worksheets predcrninating. The Natimal C.enter fer Educatim Statistics study recently documented the percmtage a 8th graders whose science teamers ronducted sdentific experiments. Bdh Catholic and private - other religious and ncn-religioos schods - science teachers sutpassed public sdlcds science teachers m frequency -- ance per day, and mce per week - fer prCNiding experimentatim in sdence (Educatim Weelc, September 1992). 3) lr.sbudi..a does Id reflect the need fir all stud1:11ts to llliti1lel c:hailengin\u0026amp; cudeiiL The training and suppcrt afferded teachers too aten fail to retlect the mallenge a delivering high-level cx:ntent Teamer preparatim and inservice suppcrt, dass size and teaming Iced, and teachers' oppcrtunities fer crllal:x:ration and dec:isicn making all hinder the delivery a pdent instruction. 4) Odtur.ai values and dher fa.tms antn\"bule to the belief._, fa many sludenls. high addc.:wtid in malh and sienm is not wafh slrMng for ats unallalnalJle. Except fer a small number a highly mctivated students, many pupils appear to be swayed by di~raging rultural attitudes toward math and science prctidency. In additim, the United States is ooe a very feN industrialized demcx:rades that does nct proode strmg incmtives (such as better jcb\n) to students who do well in tough high sdlcd math and science coorses. The Natimal Science Board and the ~D Panel urged that all students should be required to take math and science a full four years in grades 9-12. The Natiooal Crundl a Teachers a Mathematics, the Natimal Science Teachers' Assodaticn, and the American Associaticn fer the Advanament a Science also stated that math and science rurrirulums should cx:nnect learning to werk, integrate principles frcrn the two fields and other disciplines, and take better advantage a technologies. Similarly, grooping students by ability and tradcing shoold be eliminated. Natimwide research m tradcing suggests that being placed in a low ability track effectively slams the gate oo any passil:ility that a student can take ro.irses leading to cdlege (Natimal Educatioo Lmgitudinal Study a 1988). 15 Gaal III - Student Adtievement and Otizenship American students will leave grades foor, eight, and twelve having demcnstrated canpetency in challenging subject matter induding English, mathematics_ science, histcry, and geography\nand every schcxi in America witl ensure that all students team to use their minds wett so they may be prepared fa responsilie citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our mcx1em ecmany. In respmse to Goal ni the Secretary ct Labcr's Canmissioo oo Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) issued its initial report, What Werk Reqires of Schools. This repcrt identified a three-part foundatioo - oosic skills, thinking skills, and personal q.ialities - that witl be at the heart ct jd:\u0026gt; pertcrmance both fa students gang directly to wak and those planning further educatioo. The SCANS three-part foondatioo and the ASCD panel's science and curriculum recommendations indudtng mere aedit hoors wilt be inarpcrated into the project design. In March 1992, representatives fran the fdlo.ving Arkansas educatioo and industry grrups met to discuss the knowledge and academic ampetendes that students shootd possess to sucx::eed in preparing fer aeraspace/aviatioo careers:  Aerospace industry executives  Aerospace Educatioo Center Campaign Leardership  Aviation Historical Society  State Department ct Educaticn Mathematics and Science Consultants, and the Associate Director fer Instructional Programs in Vocational and Technical Education  FAA Air Traffic Manager  LRSD Superintendent a Schods  UALR Schcrl ct Science and Engineering Essentially, the magnet witl strengthen the academic achievement ct magnet work-bamd or cr.itege-1::n.md students in mathematics_ science, techndogy, and ammunicatioo \u0026lt;D'llpetendes in oourses equivalent to cr.itege preparatcry curriculum. Aditions to rurrent typical faeign language oourse ctferings witt indude Russian, Japanese, and German. The planned magnet program ct studies wittt be based oo the Arkansas Plan fer Tech Prep, 2+4+2+2 (February, 1992). Industry represEntatives pointed rut that traditiooat oourses\" in general science and mathematics_ gecrnetry, algel:ra, trigooanetry, and English do nct emphasize enoogh practical applicatioos ct a:,ntent, especially these related to the high-tech 9know-how,  atility-t\u0026lt;Xio\" required in industry. It is imperative that industry and the public schods wcrk together to hlild strong, relevant science/math/ ammunicatioo/techndogy stand into the curriculum. Relevant curriculum 16 TABLE 3 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfcrmance Testing Pr~am - Grade 8 Basic Ski11s A. Mathematics Numeration  ldent. whole num. place value  Recog. whole num./word name  Round whole numbers  Recog. dee. word name/std. fm  Compare decimals Whole Numbers  Add whole numbers  Subtract whole numbers  Multiply whole numbers  Divide whole numbers  Solve Reading Problems B. Science Earth History  Define Earth History terms  Identify evidence which supports theory of plate tectonics Matter and Earth Materlala  Identify characteristics of matter, rock types, minerals  Identify particles of nucleus/energy levels of atom  Define pH Earth Process  Define earth processes terms  Identify agents of erosion 18 Rational Numbers  Change Fraction/equivalent  Add/subtract fractions  Change Fraction to Decimal  Add/subtract decimals  Multiply decimals  Divide dee. by whole number  Write percent as decimal Measurement  Select metric/custom meas  Determine line seg. length Geometry  Identify Shapes  Find perimeter ' Probablllty/Statlstlca  Inter. charts/tables/graphs Meteorology  Define meteorology terms  Identify major cloud types, layers of atmosphere/gases used, air pollutants and their sources, four types of precipitation  Identify weather instruments  Identify lightning causes  Interpret data from a temperature graph Oceanography and Watercycle  Define Oceanography terms  Identify water cycle  Identify causes of water pollution Universe/Astronomy  Define universe/astronomy terms Energy/Natural Resourc  Define environmental terms  Identify/classify natural resources as renewable/non-renewable means the ccnnectedness between wcrk and the magnet's specialized cunicula The magnet program must also articulate oourse ccntent and acareer ladder fran LRSD to UALR in Engtneertng Techndogy and LRSD to Henderscn State University in Aviattm. 1. State cl Arkansas Basic Skills Testing The Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program is the mandated state effa1 fer repcrting the number and percent of grade 3, 6, and 8 students displaying mastery in reading, mathematics, language arts, scien~ and sod al studies. LRSD minimum perfcrmance testing results fer all students and fer students categcrized by race (Black and White) dOCllment national mathematics and science findings locally, and also ccnfirm the opinion held ty industry on ccntent tested. Tal:ie 3, frund m the cppa\nite page, displays what basic skills are tested in mathematics and science An analysis a what is tested and how is indicated in the ccnduding statements below Table 3. This informattm is pcrtrayed to show the need fer a rigcroos mathematics and science linked program 17 Test items fer science and mathematics reflect kna.vledge and slcills typic.al of an upper elementary grade program Measurement and gecmetry is minimal. Testing ct physic.al science CX11cepts is limited. Test items indicated by' the werds recognize, identify, determine, select, define, ask students to recall infonnattcn, the la.vest level ct thinking per Ilcx:m's Taxcnomy. Conduding Needs Statements It interdistrict and district magnet students are, by the year 2000, to leavt. grade 8 having demcnstrated ccmpetency in challenging suqect matter, then this interdistrict magnet must provide the fdlowtng:  The applicaticn ct mathematic.al skills in science thrrugh a hands-en industry-relevant program which measures student ruta:mes thrrugh perfcrmance-based assessment.  Academic antent strengthened by' ccnnecting ooncepts fa earth, life, and physical sciences to engineering tedmdogy and aviattcn, and teaching fer a:nceptual understanding.  An instructiooal approach with 100% utilizaticn ct the science process slct11s and experimental design.  The use ct technology as an instructicnal tod in anjuncticn with ccmputer simulatioos and applicatioos fer rearding and interpreting data. TaHe 4 repats the percentage ct grade 8 students (ct the Aerospace Magnet junicr high schools) passing the Arkansas Minimum Perfamance Testing Program by race and gender catagaies as ccmpared to the percent ~ng fer all students in the district. TABLE 4 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfamance Testing Program - Grade 8 Academic Area Junior Hlah SchooUDlatrfct Percent Passlna All Students White Students BlackStudents SCIENCE Male Female Male Female District  Coverdale JH 64 95 79 70 48  Forest Heights JH 62 83 96 49 53  Southwest JH 46 n 33 46 35 MA THEMATICS District  Cloverdale JH 86 95 89 83 85  Forest Heights JH 80 87 93 70 81  Southwest JH 75 87 76 69 73 19 Results dearly sho.v there is a disparity in mathematics and sdence perfcrmance between white and 1:iack students. Major differences in the percent passing rate occur between 1:iack and white males in ooth sut\nect area5i and white and 1:iack females in sdenc:e. The wide race-gender perfcrmance gap substantiates the need to strengthen how sdence is taught to ensure equal aa:ess to.vard progress in the cxre curriculum 2. Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Editim Students in the Little Rock School Ilstrict also take the Stanford Achievement Test each Spring. Stanford assesses achievement in all cxntent areas - Reading, :Mathematics, Language, Listening, Science, and Social Science. The Science Sllrtest reflects the natimal trend in science curriculum to.vard emphasizing a:ncepts ct science rather than isolated facts. HONever, Stanford uses the traditimal divisims - physical science, 1:idogical sdenc:e, and earth/space science as the vehicles fa testing skills and understanding ct basic oona?pts. The prqxrtims in which the area.5 a science are represented m the Sllrtest retied the emphasis each receives natimally. In mathematics, Stanford has three Sllqec:ts: Cmrepts a Number, :Mathematics Computaticn, and :Mathematics Applicatims. Special soores in using Jnfamation and Thinking Skills are derived fran an evaluatim ct responses students make to items embedded in several Sllrtests such as Mathemati~ Applicatims, Science, Scx:ial Science, Language, and Reading Canprehension. Grade eight and nine beio.v nam percentile scxres fa students enrdled in the three magnet junior high schods are sho.vn on the next page in Tatie 5 fa :Mathematics, Science, Using Jnformaticn, and Thinking Skills. Results are expressed as the percent ct students in q.iartiles me and two who scxred at a beiON a specified percentile scxre. Taal district percentile scxres are used as a basis fa cx:mparism to individual schod results. 20 G R A D E 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 Content Area by Quartiles DISTRICT N = 1669 N = 1625 SCHOOLS Cloverdale JH N =214 N = 199 Forest Heights JH N=205 N =210 Southweat JH N = 167 N = 183 TABLE 5 - Stanferd Achievement Test Spring 1992 Grades 8 and 9 Percentile Sa:res Mathematica Science Us~n Info. Pcentffe ecore Pcer1tlle ecore P  ecore 01 02 01 02 01 02 -  I 17 35 23 40 22 41 13 29 27 45 28 46 15 28 21 36 17 35 13 23 27 39 26 43 15 31 21 40 20 38 18 30 30 50 31 51 13 23 21 36 20 35 9 21 24 36 26 43 Quartile 2 - 50% cl students sccred at er beiow these sares Quartile 1 - 25~ cl students sccred at er beiow these sares Thlnklnff Skills Pcer111  ecore 01 02 20 40 23 41 17 34 21 55 15 35 22 43 17 28 20 36 Results indicate, e,ccept in a,e instan~ that prcposed magnet schods have sares lower than the district. In oontrast to the Arkansas Minimum Protidency Testing, students faired better in sdence than in mathematics. Spring 1992 was the first time the LRSD has given the Stanferd Achievement Test The percentile sares shown in Table 5 will serve as baseline data fer devEicping this magnet's student performance oojectives in the academics. Need 2a2: The Underrep-esentation cl Mincrities in Science and Math The Congres.5iaially estaliished Task Ferce a, Wanen, Mincrities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology report, 0tanging Amaica: The New Face ct Science and Engineering, fwnd that Blacks, who romprise 12% ct the U.S. pqrulation, make up just 2~ ct all sdentists and engineers. The findings are especially 21 unsettling considering changing demographics. Prqectia,s indicate that by the year 2000, Blacks and Hispanics a:rnl:ined will make up 47% a the American students enrdlment. As a result it is imperative that the naticn and local school districts take extraordinary steps to prepare minorities fa- greater levels a partidpatia, in science, math, and engineering. The Quality F.ducatia, fa- Mina-ities Plan fa- improving sdence and mathematics instructia, nationally calls for q.iadrupling the number c:i mina'ity students receiving bachela-'s degrees in the sciences and engineering from 17,000 in 1987 tt, 68,000 ~ 2000 (F.ducatia, Week, April 1992). In the Little Rock Sd\\cxi Ilstrict 68% c:i the grade 7-9 enrollment is Black. This is a 7% inaease over 1987 figures. LRSD anticipates a:ntinued gains in the number/ percent a Black students. The aitical issue c:i underrepresented minorities, i.e. B1acks, and the need to 1:ring Blacks up to parity in perfa-mance and graduaticn rates, and in cdlege enrdlment is a goa1 a the LRSD as evidenced in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Plans and Agreement:  If any a the Incentive Schcrls remains rada11y identifialie (80% or ma-e Blade) after six years, LRSD has explicitly a:mmitted itself to cn1tinue pr~ viding a:rnpensata-y and enhancement funding (refer to page 4).  1t at any time between the date c:i this agreement and December 31, 2000, the a:rnfX]Site sares a LRSD Blade students (exduding special educatim students) a, a standardized test are 90% a- greater a the cxmpa\nite scores a LRSD white students (exduding special educatia, students), the esaONed funds will be paid to LRSD and any wtstanding loans wi11 be fa-given. The intent is that LRSD wi11 receive 20 millicn ddlars plus any accrued interest if its goa1 c:i in~ing student achievement is reached and that the State will be repaid in fu11 amwnt a all loans plus interest if the LRSD does nd reach its goal (September 1989). The magnet enrolls 1,571 Blade students. Curria.tlum focuses a, math/science cn1tent as related to careers in the Aera\npace industry. Additimally, the magnet provides the student with nine (9) career cpticns artiallated to university programs. This magnet was purposefully designed to lay the fwndation fa- later academic perfamance and interest in math and science related fields. Induded in the design is career cnmseUng. Career camseling will stress in the student selfworth, motivaticn, and a:rnmitment to accxmplish personal goals in learning and in Aera\npace career preparatirn. The sdlcxi district, industry, and higher educatim believe this ailaborative etfm to develcp a high tech, marketalie skills magnet wi11 a:nttibute significantly to raising Black student acheivement in mathematics and science, and to increasing the number a blade students receiving associate and 1:adlelor degrees in engineering tedmdogy and airway science. 22 Need 2h ~etc.ping Marketarie Technical Skills  America's on~axnmanding lead in the aitical techndogtes driving ea:nanic growth and natialal security is selwsly threatened by faeign ampetitas,  the Coondl al Competitiveness said in its repcrt Gaining New Grwnd: Technd~ Ptiatties fa America's Future. The term High-Tech is used to describe a wide variety c:i rosinesses and industry which indude: aercspace, a:mputers and software, telecx:1rn11unications, electralic compments, medical technology, instruments fa measuring and cxntrolling manufacturing proces.5es, energy, environmental, phctographic, lasers and cptical, and data processing services. The Natialal Center fa Advanced Techndogies (NCAn a the Aerospace Industries Asscx:iatial (AIA) Key Techndogies fa the Year 2000 Program have indentifted these high-priaity techndogies:  Ccrnputatialal Science  Satware ~elcpment  Advanced Metallic Structures  Advanced Composites  Superconductivity  tntra-Reliarie Electralic Systems  Artificial lntellegence  Airtreathing Prcpulsial  Rodcet Prcpulsion  Optical Information Processing  Advanced Senscrs These techndogies represent a shared view a U.S. technology requirements. Gitical technologies in Engineering Prcxiudial and. Electronic Canponents where the United States is falling behind a will net have a presence are represented in Tatie 6 al the next page.  U.S. Departmens of Comnerce anl W'ense\nW.te House Clflce of SdCIICe and Ta::hnology (Refer to Appendix for defintions anl list of CX\u0026gt;nlributing orgarizali0111.  23 TABLE 6: Tedmd~es in Which the United States is Weak, Losing Badly, er HAS LOST Engineering and Pnxbilc:n Tedmdqpes  Design for Manufacturing  Design a Manufacturing Processes  Aexilie Manufacturing  High-Speed Machining  Predsim Machining and Perming  lntegratim c:J Research, Design, and Manufacturing  Integrated Orwit Fabricatim and Test Equipment  Rolx)tiQ\nand Autanated Equipment  Tctal Quality Management Eediud~ G.up.ai.erds  Memory Cllips  Printed Orcuit Board Techndogy  Optical lnfcrmatim Sterage  Multichip Packaging Systems  Liquid Crystal Displays  Electro StatiQ\nSwrce: Ca.mdl m Canpetitiveness\npartial listing This infcrmation has implicatims fer the need a this magnet to - teach industrial relevant technology skills in state-of-the-art technology laooratories - place a heavy fcx:us m the application c:J scientific knowledge - use engineers and technicians fran industry as instructors - provide industry-msed learning experiences for students. Students in this magnet are primarily being trained as technicians. Technicians working with autcmated equipment must be familiar with lxth software and hardware used by a:,mputers and miaoprcx:es\u0026amp;rs. The development, design, installatim, calil:ratioo, manufacture, assembly, and fabrication processes using sophisticated equipment, tools, machines, and canputers require a roml:ination a knowledge and skills extending far beymd the simple fail-safe mechanical devices c:J a few decades ago The aera\npace industry and its array c:J suppliers and sub-cxntracters are among those that will increasingly require techndogically literate entry level werkers. The American Vocatimal As\u0026amp;x:iation (AV A) and the Center fer Oc:cupatimal 24 Research and I:evelcpment (CORD) pcint wt that technicians currently being prepared for entry in tana-row's werk ferc:e shwld possess several important characteristics. A fei.v ci these are highlighted belo.v because they have ramificatiais on the curriculum desaibed later. 1. , 3. 4. A BROAD KNOWLEDGE BASE: They must possess fundamental academic skills in reading, cxrnmunicating, computing, and applied science. COMPUTER LITERACY: Many high tech processes are cxrnputerized. Thus workers shwld pa\n~ a basic understanding ci a::mputers and their applicaticrts in manufacturing and management infamatia, systems. At base, students should have the kno.vledge necessary to ~ and use miaopr~s er intelligent computer terminals using cxrnmerdally available scitware packages. AWARENFSS OF A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORK ENVIRONMENT: Develq:,ments in CAD (cxrnputer aided design) and CAM (computer aided manufacturing) alaig with advances in telea::rnmunicatiais, integrated circuits_ laser/c:ptics and ether computer applicatims assure that techndogy will continue to grow and expand. Thus, technical werkers require a broad base in technical and mathematical kno.vledge so that they can learn nei.v techndogies and assimilate nei.v infa-matia, after they are employed. UNDERSTANDING OF A SYSfEMS ORIENTATION: Modern manufacturing techniques are cxrnprised ci a:mplex inter-related systems of electrical, electraiic, pneumatic, hydraulic, thermal, and q:\u0026gt;tical devices. People who werk with such equipment need a broad understanding ci such systems. Specialists in each ci these fields will still be required, but a grasp ci the overall systems ci produdia, will be impcrtanl This grasp calls fer an interdisciplinary approach to training. 'With the diversity a high technologies, the need fer new \u0026lt;XJJrses is great. This will require LRSD to integrate techndogies and new content into easting \u0026lt;XJJrses as well as aeate specialized \u0026lt;XJJrses a study. Some examples in this magnet are Computer-aided Design (CAD) Applications_ Lego Logo Rdxxics_ High Tech Presentatiais, Aitway Science Olrriculutl\\ and Quantitative Literacy fer ~ Althwgh LRSD has prepared \u0026lt;XJJrse desaiptions and wtlines (ref er to appendix), additicrtal a:Jltent outlining labcratcry and design prqects need to be develq:\u0026gt;ed with aera.pace/aviatia, representatives and the university. Hight and space cmcepts need to be infused into the new science curriculum thus aeating the aerospace science \u0026lt;XJJrse a study. In additia,, \u0026lt;XJJrse content needs to be incaporated into an assessment design that measures actual student performance in academic and werk-based learning requirements. 25 Need 2c Empl~t and Training Needs in the Aera\npace Industry Tcxiay in our country there is a aitical need for highly-skilled state-a-the-art technicians in the aeraspace industry. Aaxrding to testimeny by the Arlcansas Aerospace Task Face, Tue greatest chattenge is to aeate an educated workface able to rapidly meet the needs a the industry. Although there witt always be a need fa spedalized training, in the Ieng term mudl can be dene to better prepare students fa emplOjtnerlt Education is our largest investment in Arkansas and that investment prq,erty focused can be our ma\nt significant advantage CNer ether states. This statement parallels the disturting finding a the U.S. Labor IRpartment's Secretary's Canmission en Achieving N~ Skills (SCANS): Mae than half a all young peq,le leave schoo without the skills needed fa prcxiuctive empl~t. These young pEq)le witt face the tieak prospect a dead-end jdJ after dead-end jdJ interrupted only by periods a unemployment\" (Education Week, May t 992). Aax:rding to the Natienal Center en Educatien and the E\u0026lt;Dtany, the average skill level a graduates net lnmd fa cxilege is the functienal ecp.livalent a about a 7th a 8th grade achievement level. ~ at risk are students in the so-called general and vocational \"tracks. Because employers generally aren't interested in the oourses jdJ applicants have taken a the grades they have earned, these students have little inCEntive to take tough academic dasses a to earn high marks. As a result, high schod becanes a hdding tank fa tha\ne not gcing en to cxilege. Researdlers studying the wcrkface pcint to an aninous sign: gcx:x:i jct\u0026gt;s - the kind that ctfer reasonatie pay and the cppcrtunity to advance aleng a career ladder - are gradually being shut ctf to students fresh out a school. The ma\nt prominant explanation fa such findings is that while the skill and knowledge requirements fa entry and advancement in the wakf ace are rising, graduates are nd: being prepared to meet inaeased demands. New wakers must be aeative and respa-lsible proolem solvers and have the skills and attitudes on whidl employers can b.lild,  acxxrding to the SCANS Canmissicn \"Traditienal jct\u0026gt;s are changing and new job, are created everyday. High paying, b.lt unskilled jct\u0026gt;s are disappearing. What the Commissien calls '\"high-perfamance\" wakplaces are mae flexitie and rustaner aiented. Schcds must teadl the skills pocple need to be productive and adaptable wa-kers. A commitment to meet this challenge was adopted in a resolutia, by the Board ct Directa-s a the Oty a Little Rc:x:k to use ea:nanic develcpment funds to develq:\u0026gt; an Aerospace Museum and f:ducatien Center. Resduticns pertinent to the empl~t and training need fa this magnet are stated below: '\"Whe:eas. the dfy' d litlle Rak bas mailllained an eamanlc ceMqxueul fund so that the city Cilll enwmage .illld pUide lhe llliilllnlal3II d j~ and 26 'Whel zm dties and stales thmaghoat rm-naUcn cudinue lo me funds fa- eacn::ullc develcp:te4 to ptDde the amllon and ~ d ~ and \\\\k:ca. the d9 llwgh tis lmillDi~ Dewlqm.ad lbnd made availalJle S3 miOicn to fadlffale the aealim d mere than 3111 jdJs al Alkansash-iiifMI\n...t va...ca. dtiZl!IIS and bushrm have janm lcgellNS toplan fa ... ... ., .. e UliiSi:illll and the lit8e Rim Jtwg. iifMP \"fedmdogy Mag11et Sd1DCl (aflnfl'Ulty ti-. \u0026gt;en ,a e Cenlaj as part d the litOe Rim Abpn arm cnrp~ and \\WK.ca. the di wiD beudit .ind be slrmglhened by .. Jw-1 -,ae r..m11rtoaliitie rm- dtizms to be tralrel fajdJs in therelaled a,1-,:ae hdistrywhic:h is gt\u0026lt;Mingin little Ra:k.. Two SCANS repats outline the slcills students should be taught and what needs to be done to Effectively teach them. In additirn to the fourydatirn skills (refer to page 5), there is a set a five cx:mpetendes that are at the oore a jci:\u0026gt; pertcrmance. Acarding to SCANS these will be needed a all graduates, 1:xlth the cdlege-ba.md and those directly entering the wakfcrce. The five wakplace rompetendes are desaibed below:  Resam:es Fmployees need to be able to identify, organize, plan, and allocate resources (such as time, mrney, materials and facilities, and human resources).  hdapa50iwl stills. Employees should be able to wak effectively with ethers. F.xamples are theabilities to participate as a member a a team, teach ethers new slcills, serve dients or custaners, exercise leadership. negotiate, and wak with diverse people  lnfmmallm. Employees need to be able to acquir~ evaluate, interpret, and ccmmunicate informatirn, as well as to use amputers to process infcrmatia,.  Sy:stma. Employees must understand how social, aganizational, and techndogical systems wak and cperate effectively within them They must tllCllita and arred perfcrmance, improve the quality a prcx:1ucts and services in existing systems and develq\u0026gt; new a alternative systEms.  Tedwdcgy. Employees must be al:ie to judge which sets of prcx:edu~ tools, a machines, induding amputers and their programs, will prcx:1uce the desired results. They must be al:ie to set up and q,a-ate amputers and their programming systems as well as maintain and troubleshoot techndogy. 27 The Canmissirn's plan as detailed in America's Choice High Skills or Low Wages also reccmmends that: All students must meet a nalicnal slandard d educaticnal eca.tlena: by age 16 or SCDt themaftel'. Students passing a series d perfmnanm-based zu:\n:a:uls that reffed: the standard waild reaive a Certificale d Initial Maslesy. Nier t\u0026amp;Eiving the amfi~ sludmts waild diuaie to go to wak_ enter a ailegep1t, pttan, a study fa a tedmical or pde!liiicnal amfiClle. In this magnet's prqect design, the SCANS ccmpetencies will be inrotpcrated into the mathematics, science and technical crurses of study as well as the design for measuring student performance and the attainment d this magnet's program oqectives. The change this magnet envisions will require additirnal resoorces through the funding of this prgect. Amrng the most impcrtant will be investments in curriculum writing, teacrer training, technology and instructional material including oomputer-based and multimedia material. To address the employment and technical training needs, Little Rock's Aera\npace Campaign Leadership and Industry has turned to LRSD, UALR, and Hendersoo State University to develcp a better student. With the assistance of the United States Department of Educatirn and the Little Rod\u0026lt; Aera\npace Campaign Leadership and industries, LRSD beleives it can provide a state-a-the-art technology-driven Mathematics, Airway Science and Engineering Magnet Program which meets the purpa\nes, priaities, and special ccnsideratirns d the MSAP as well as addresses the natirnal imperative to maintain a wcrldwide canpetitive lead in techndogy. Progaan Goai 2 To strengthen the kno.vledge a Academic Crntent and to develcp marketable technical skills a students in project magnet schools. Oqective 2.a 1: Performance Assessment: Applied Science/Mathematics/Techndogy Integraticn with SCANS Wcrkplace Competencies and the Occupatioo Program Majors By the condusicn a the prqect period at least 80% of the grade 7-10 students enrolled in the magnet schoo program will have attained the Wcrk-Rea'f,Y Proficiency Levela en the LRSD-SCANS Perfamance-Based Assessment administered the first week d May. a What Wcrk Requires d School, a SCANS Report for America 2000, p. 24-29 (U.S. Department d Labor Secretary's Ccmmission rn A~ieving Necessary Skills. 28 b Perfamance Standards will be set the first prgect year when actual baseline data beccmes available. O1:-\nective 2.a2: Performance Assessment: Certificates ci Initial Mastery (CIM) By the a::nlusion of the prgect period in 1995, at least 90% ci the grade 10 students in the magnet program will have achieved a Certificate ci Initial Masterya as repaied on the student's Cumulative Resume and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. ac1M is defined as the attainment ci an overall standard. The overall standard will be estatiished by the end ci the first prgect year in relatirn to student ootcx:rnes repaied for d.Jjectives 2.a 1 and 2.b, and the Cumulative Resume. The Cumulative Resume will show prcticiency levels fcr the wcrkplace cx:rnpetencies and Aerospace Techndogy courses completed based on evaluatirn results reflected in Pcrtfdias and Perfa-man~Based Assessment materials. Leaming a Living: A Blueprint fcr High Perfcrmance. A SCANS Repcrt fcr America 2000, pages 60-68. Objective 2.b: Pcrtfdio Assessment By the ca,dusirn ci the project period, 80% ci the grade 7-12 students enrdled in the magnet schcxi program will scx:re at cr aoove an established competene,ya sare oo each ci foor ( 4) teacher and student selected SCANS Integrated Assignments. One repai cr assignment must be selected fran each of the four (4) major areas. The extent to which this d.Jjective is met will be determined by teacher records and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. aeanpetency will be defined as an average ci at least 2 on each report using the follCJNing scale: 4 Well beyond expec:tatirns fcr grade level\nextracrdinary. 3 Does better than expectatirns fcr grade level\ncx:rnpetent/fluent. 2 At level cr average performance fcr grade level\nappears cx:rnfaiable with demands ci prgec:t. 1 Approaching average pertcrmance for this grade level\nsome skill/ comprehensirn acquired. 0 Novice\nno evidence of relevant skill/ cx:rnprehension Computer Technology 1. Word Processing/ Keyboarding - Using proper keyboarding and editing skills to produce documents. 2. Graphic Design: Using the graphic program to produce graphics. 3. Communicatirns: Using speaking, writing, video cr hypermedia to 29 express an idea. 4. Programming: Being able to write a set d instruc:t:ioos in the hypermedia or LEGO/ LOGO environments. and Technology Lab 2000 1. 2. 3. 4. and Aeros_pace Science 1. Scientific Method - Experimental Design: Given a questicn er a prol::iem, students will fcrmulate a hypcthesis, design an experiment, observe and draw ca,dusions fran the data 2. Process Skills: Canparing, erganizing, categcrizing, relating, infening, applying. 3. Computer Technology fer Scientific Purpcses: Having a product that reflects the use ct computers, laser discs, VCR's, cala.tlators, and science equipment. 4. Self-Assessment/Self-Esteem: Student and teacher selected werk will be placed in individual student pcrtfdias. and Airway Science 1. 2. 3. 4. or Engineering Technology 1. 30 I 2. 3. 4. olective 2.d Program Effectiveness During June ci each prqect year, at least 80% ci the parents, students, and teachers will rate the fdlowing items \"effective\" oo a locally develc:ped survey:  breadth ci curriClllum  program qua! ity  parent training  teacher training  use of community resources  program ccntributions to career c:ptions  improved student achievement  pcsitive ccntributioo to student career plans By the conclusion of the project in 1995, the percent of Aerospace School students scoring in the second, third and fourth quartiles on the Stanford Achievement Test : in mathematics and science will exceed the percent of students scoring in the sec~nd, third and fourth  quartile~. in other LRSD schools_ in grades 8, 9 and 10. 31 I : Quality of Project Design The project includes the f dlowing topics: A OJerview: The Aera\npace Techndogy Curriwlum 1. Applied Science and Science Labcratay 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Canputer Tedmdogy Laboratay 4. Faeign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS I\u0026lt;now-Ho.v 8. Work-Based and Wak-Site Leaming and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Sdence 3. Content I\u0026lt;no.vledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Cuniwlum Integrattoo c.enter 5. Infamatioo and Guidance  C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content I\u0026lt;no.vledge in Mathematics, Sden~ and Computer Technology 2. Content l\u0026lt;nONledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Uterac.y Center 4. Caltent Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships 0 . Instruc:ticnal Approaches and ft\u0026amp;essment a Student Perfamance 1. Learning in Caltm 2. Product Development Team.1/Cooperative Leaming 3. The Patfdio 4. Perfanance-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizatioo F. flexible Scheduling G. The Aviatiat Museum Educaticn Department Docent Program 1. Courses a Instruc:tioo 2. The Library 3. School Visitatiat Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater ! l The Aerospace Technology Curriculum ---------.... Applied Mathematica Aerospaoe Mathematics (7) Applied Mathematics I (8)  Applied Mathematics II (9) Oescnptive Geometry (10 Technical Algebra II (11) Ouant,tallve Literacy lot Aerospace (12) Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geometry (9) Tecmical Algebra II (10) Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry ( 11) Calcuus (12) Aviation Airway Science Intro AeronauticsA.ab (9) or General Aviation (9) or Machine Shop Technology (9) Programming Language (10) or Aircraft Systems Theory (10) or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance (10) Powerplant Theory (11) Of Electncal Circuit Analysis ( 11) Fortran..Cobol ( 11) or Av1at1on SaletyA..egislation/Air Transportation (11) Pnvate Pilot Cert.A.ab (12) Powerplant Systems (12) or Air Traffic Control\" (12) or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Internship I, II (11 , 12) Aerodynamics \u0026amp; Performance (12)  Classes w,11 be instructed ,n Museum of Aviation HistOfy - Comput Technology Integrated Software Applications and Logowriter Robotics (7) Hypercard.tiypermedia and Aerospaoe Pr9-CAO(8) HI-Tech Preeentationl (9, 10) Applied Comnulicallon (English) (12) I Foreign Language Japaneee or RuNian or~ or Spanish or German Magnet Course Sequences Grad 7-12 Title Ill  Magnet Schools Asaistance, Sec. 3003: Statement of PurJ)098 (2) - Courses of instruction to substantialy strengthen academe subjects and the tangible/ marketable vocational skills. --- Applied Science Aeroepaoe Science I (7) Aeroapece Science II (8) Aeroepace Biology (9) ~ Phyaical Science (10) I Chemistry (10) Aerodynamcs and Meteorology (11) Physics ( 11) Deea1)tive Mtro11omy \u0026amp; Physical Geology (12) Engineering Technology Intro. Concurent Ens\nneering (9) or km\u0026gt;. eon,,ue. Sc:lence (9) Coquer-Alded O.V, Appbtons (10) or Marulldwing E11gl11wtng Technology I, II (10, 11) E1ec:nl lice Engineer' ig TectuologyCAD I. II (10, 11) AdvMOed Con1)Ullr-Aided Design Applications (11) Progran'ln'ing tor Englneer:.ig Majors (12) Fabrication DNis,l Prqecta (12) or Mechanical Systems DP (12) or Manufacturing Design Project (12) Internship I, II (11, 12) - - H. The Staff Training Plan L The Aviation Museum Educaticnal Reswrce Center fer Teachers J. The Planning Canpcnent to Develc:p Aera\npace Tochndogy Magnet Curriculum fer the High Schoo K Bringing Students Fran Different Backgroonds Together L Staff Experience in and Knowledge d Curriculum Development and Desegregation Strategies M Addressing Educaticnal Needs Appropriate to Students Enrdled N. Parental Decisicn-Making and Involvement Each tc:pic is desaibed in detail after the averview to this secticn. A Overview What fdlows is a oomprehensive summary cl the Aera\npace Technology c:urridum As shown in the erganizaticnal chart below, the Aerospace Techndogy Magnet is erganized into two cxx:upatiooal program majers d nine career tracks and an interrelated academic and tedlndogy cxre of requirements ansisting of Applied Mathematics and Science, and Canputer Techndogy. The Aerospace Technology Curriculum Elective Elective Integration Core Integration Aviation Applied Engineering  Airway Science Science Technology Aitway Coml)IUf  Manufadl.ling Engineering Sa.nee Applied Technology A:lrway Science Mathematica Management * *  Electronics Engineering Alo-craft Systems Computer Technology Management Technology  Computer Engineering Aviation Maintenance Tedinology  Professional Pilot Foreign Language  Mechanical Engineering Tedinology A structured sequence ci courses has been specifically designed fcr each ci the three curricular canponents to enhance participants' prospects fcr immediate employment cr continued education following high school graduation. All magnet students in grades seven through ten will participate in applied mathematics and science, and a:mputer technology roursework each year. This means that magnet students will take one mere year d math and two more years of science than is required for high schoo graduation. All magnet students have the optirn of beginning f ereign language instructia, in grade 7, 8, er 9 in a,e language d their chcice. This allCMts for six years of c:x:ncentrated study d a global language. Magnet students will select ether the Aviatia, er Engineering Techndogy Occupational Magnet program majer and a career track within the selected occupatia,al area upa, entering grade nine. The magnet student will then fdlCMt the specialized course sequence throogh grade 12, thereby rompleting the program in his/her occupational program majer. The chart a, the cpposite page ootlines the curriculum by' a::rnprnents and grade levels fer the entire grade 7-12 aera\npace magnet. Grade 7-10 course sequences willl be implemented during the two year MSAP prqect period (1993-95). Grade 10 students will ccntinue the curricular path as eleventh graders in 1995-96 and as twelfth graders in 1996-97. The latter two years (1995-97) are not MSAP prqect years fer this particular application, theref er~ courses intrcx:iuced during these two years will be desaibed in the Canmitment and Capacity sectia, of this application. The magnet's articulated course sequences in Mathematics and Science, Aviation, and Engineering Techndogy are designed fer students to romplete in advance some requirements to.vard receipt a Federal Aviatirn Administration (FAA) certificates, and/ a Associate d Applied Science or Bachelcr a Science degrees. 1. Applied Science and Sdence Lal:xratg:y Aerospace Science ccntent will be presented in ccnnectia, with its applicatirns in aviatioo/space, design and production technology, and envirrnment protection. This will be aa::omplished throogh the reaganization a the district's science curriculum and the aera\npace science applications (refer to Appendix) to themes. Themes are ideas that integrate the ccncepts of different scientific disciplines. Crnnecting the impatant science ccncepts between existing curriculum and aerospace science with science themes will improve students' ability to make more meaningful the relatirnships between science c:x:nc:epts and ether related disciplines. Amrng the maja themes that will be used are tha\ne discussed in Science Fer All Americans: * Chapter 11, Common Themes, p. 155. See Appendix.  Systems  Coostancy  Patterns c:i O,ange  Scale  Model  Evolution Table 1 represents a pattern fer a a:ntent matrix that will be filled in with a:ncepts and thematic ideas. Table 1 - A Pattern for a Content Matrix Grade 7 8 9 10 Phyalcal Science General Science Earth Science Aerospace Science LHe Aviatlorv Product erw, a 11 a El Science Spece Engln..,ing .... Unifying Concepts Theme(a) Subconcepts The magnet's science teacher specialists wi11 use the pattern fer a a:ntent matrix to design the sa:pe and sequence d the Aerospace Science curriculum (grades 7-8) Aerospace lidogy (grade 9) Aerospace Physical Science (grade 10) in cxnjunctia, with the district's General Science and lidogy airticulum. Building the matrix will require that magnet teacher specialists have a cxncentrated pericxi d time free from teaching respcnsibilities. This applicatim asks for cuniculum writing time during the summers and after school hrurs to develop the matrix in collabcratim with the universities and industry. Implementatim of the matrix will be enhanced by student investigatim and experimentatia, in a laboratory setting. This program also requires a science labcratcry at each magnet site for students to experience hands-a, activities keyed to the matrix. The lal::x:lratcry will be set-up to indude scientific equipment and materials, fifteen canputers and canputer interface boxes, probeware, and software pad\u0026lt;ages that will allow students to simulate experiences and use canputer utilities (spreadsheet, graphing programs, database, wcrd processing). The district is asking fer magnet program assistance to enable its 1:fack students and incaning white students to participate together in these specialty-designed experiences. The lab will be staffed by a prqect-hired science teacher specialist who will be a member ci a,e of the magnet's Science/Math/TECH instructirnal teams. This instructia,al team will direct each ci its four teams of 30 magnet students in the labcratcry per the flexible schedule desaibed a, page __ . To determine impcrtant aspects of lal:xratory implementatia, major goals have been established. These are student attainment ci: Manipulative and canmunicative skills to indude the manipulation of materials and equipment, and the cdlectioo/ organizatioo/ canmunication ci information fran lalx:ratcry experiments and activities Ratiooal and aeative thinking precesses throogh obsetving and ccnducting statistical procedures, through cdlecting, dassifying, and measuring oqects\nthroogh indentifying and ccntrdling variables in ccntrolled experiments This goal invdves students in learning the scientific precesses ci cbserving, canmuni~ting, canparing, crganizing, relating, and applying. The district envisioos the fdlowing scenario as to ooe way magnet students witl learn in the special science laboratory: The Aerospace science teacher specialist prOv'ides an interactive video disc presentation desaihng gravity as fcrce. Because it is hooked to a canputer program, the infcrmatioo on the disk will be accessed in a variety ci ways (e.g., noo-linear). Throughoot the viewing ci the video, students will disa.iss gravity and fcrmulate answers to fellow students' questions about gravity a, ether planets in oor sdar system. To protide them with additiooal infcrmatioo, the students will have acx:ess to 1) the Aerospace Educatioo Center films, 2) university programs, and 3) a variety d other infcrmaticn sources available throogh satellite canmunicatirns netwcrks. Werking in teams, students will use a variety d canputer programs to simulate gravity in various envirrnments, logging infamation aboot each envirrnment into a spreadsheet using the graphing fundioo. They will use a wcrd processcr to reard and analyze their observatirns. Students will use telec:cmmunicatirns sdtware to seek advice from a NASA scientist atout findings frcrn their simulation studies and the relationship between these simulations and actual NASA expeditirns. They will prepare a aief video presentatirn, desaiang their experiences, to help other students understand gravity. The skills to implement videcxiisc instructirn and authcring programs will be taught in the Integrated Scttware Applicatirns and Hypermedia ccmputer cuurses. 2. Applied Mathematics As displayed in the Applied Mathematics box of the chart on page---, all grade 7 magnet students wiJt take Aera\npace Mathematics. Beginning in grade 8, two cuurse sequmce routes are depicted: A Applied Mathematics I (8) Applied Mathematics II (9) Desaiptive Geomeay (10) Technical Algetra (11) Quantitative Literacy fer Aerospace (12) n Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geaneay (9) Technical Algetra II (10) Advanced Algebra/Trigonanetry (11) Calculus (12) Ca.irse sequence A was devised fer learners who have generally an eighth-grade, pre-algetra mathematics a:mpetency level. Coorse sequmce B captures the student whose perfcrmance indicates readiness fer algetra in grade 8. Beth CDJrses antain required antent knowledge which is supplemented ~ engineering er aviatirn related skills and activities. The engineering and aviatirn applications have been develq:,ed with industry and university persamel, are relevant to careers emphasized in this program, and are linked to the Aerospace Science and occupational curriculum Coorse antent is desaibed rn pages __ . 3. Computer Technol~y and the Computer Techndogy Latoratay Course crntent in Integrated Scttware Applicatirns, Logo.vriter Rolxtics, Hypercard/ Hypermedia, Aerospace Pre-CAD, and Hi-Tech Presentatirn will give students the backgroond of knONledge and skills needed to be competent a:mputer users in the Engineering Techndogy and Airway Science COJrsewcrk\nin the Techndogy Lab 2000\nand at the wcrksite. Canputer COJrse content reflects a se::iuential program d skill development and task ccmplexity invdving the learning of sdtware applications, specific programs, and multimedia equipment. To implement the OJUrsewcrk, this magnet program requires a ccmputer labcratay at the individual magnet sites. Canputer cwrsewcrk will require ooe ccmputer per student in a class. To accanodate the typical grade 7-10 class size, 30 Macintosh LC Ifs, 3 Laserwriter Ifs and 2 Imagwriter Ifs, Telea:rnmunications hardware/scttware, a Macintosh Quadra file server system, and Appletalk Netwerk (Ethernet) hardware will be needed for each lab. All programs will be stered oo the Quadra fileserver. Printers, the Quadra file server, and individual Macintosh ccmputers will be c:a,nected together into a network system. Via the network, students will acces.s and c:a,trd cx:ntent, applications, and infamatioo in the areas ci systems simulattoo, wcrd processing, Lego Logq rd:xJti~ and publishing. They will produce their own presentatioo material by importing so.md, graphi~ digitized phctographs to hypercard or laserdisc stacks ci their CJINn creatioo, and receive suppcrting visual imagery oo adjacent video mooiters. The 1~ netwerk wilt allow teachers and students to share files, scitware, and printers. In additioo, dassrcx:ms within the school, the fair magnet schools, and the museum will be tied In together to the Prqect Directer's Office allowing for additional netwerk services like electronic mail and database sharing that will be widely utilized fer ccilalxrative prqects amo.ing the Aerospace Magnet Schcds. Educational benefits of the Aerospace Magnet Netwcrk include:  Group document editing and management (student and teacher prqects).  Screen sharing giving the Prqect Director and teacher the capaality to view any Macintosh mooiter oo the netwerk.  Central database fer scitware documents, and aerospace magnet information.  Calendaring fer magnet and museum events.  Electronic Mail to speed up ccmmunicaticn and reduce paper. Hypermedia, Hi-Tech Presentatioo cwrse hardware requirements indude an Apple One Scanner, Apple CD 150, Videodisc Player, Macreccrders, Video recorders, Cama:rders, Video Digitizer, Roster Opps Board, and speakers. This hardware will be erganized Cl'\\ teacher and student werkstations. The ccmputer curriculum goals and oojectives statements found en page ---, and project o.itlines located in the appendix illustrate hew students will apply knowledge/skills attained within the disttid and aerospace techndogy curriculum in multimedia, team projects. The lessoo design and project ootlines spell rut the suqect area concepts er skill extensioos, the scttware program and applicaticn, student team activities, and product. Fer example, students will use canputer applic.atirns in spreadsheets to answer \"What If?\" questirns, to test hypctheses, and to ca1struct famulas pertaining to mathematical and logic.al functirns. Students will e,cpress ideas via wcrd processing and create simulatirns cr variws situatioos using hypercard. In progamming, students will prcx:iuc:e output in text, graphics, and rdxt actioos. They will use numeric and variables, arithmetic operates, and design appropriate errcr tapping rwtines. Instruction in the canputer coorsewak and integrated rumcular team projects will cane fran a Canputer Techndogy Specialist who will be a TECH member cr the Science/Math/TECH lnstructa Team Canputer Techndogy Specialists will use a single canputer with a large TV as a derna,stratioo device. They will preplan lessons a, the canputer and will reccrd the Jessa, using the VCR The Jessa, will be presented to students to actively invdve them in disoovery learning. Lesson segments may be replayed cr stepped as needed for disrussia, and darificatiai. Video benetits students' conceptual understanding cl mathematics and science applicatioos. Real cbject or events can be sha.vn fran several angles. perspectives, aders cl magnification and pcints cl view, such as flipping and rctattng shapes in geanetry. Video animation 1~ and canputer graphics will especially be used to introduce, explain, a reinface ooncepts. Ptia lessen planning using the canputer, TV saeen, and VCR enable the teacher to better JT\\Cllita and adjust the teaming fa students and to give individualized help as needed during the Jessa,. The canputer techndogy instructiaial schedule will oonsist cl eight, 50-60 minute periods that will interface with the magnet block fJexibte schedule ootlined a, page ---. The cx:mputer labcratory will be cpened fa students to use befae schcd and at lunch. After schcd the a:mputer lab will be used fa parent education. The Madnt~ Product Registry (September 1992) p-ogram desaiptims, (in cx:x,sultatim with expert users), was used to identify software utility programs. All satware programs pia to purchase will be previewed by magnet teacher specialists in cx:x,junctfon with the Aeraspac:e Techndogy 0.1rrt0.1lum Scttware evaluatia, fains specially-designed for this p-qect will be a:rnpleted to dcx:ument 0.1rrt0.1tum relevance and prcblem-sdvtng capa}jlities. 4. Faeign LaniYap Japanese, Russian, German, French, and Spanish wilt be clfered beginning in grade 7. Currently, the CXJl\"e rurria.llum for grades seven and eight does net emphasize foreign language The high school a.miailum requires 2 years of the same language. The Aerospace Techndogy Currirulutl\\ thereta~ is providing students with the cppatunity to start a modern language early to  L ' ... ,. -  - ~ - -    \nI'  I ..., ... - ...... ,.\n I g I I w .\n:) u t,J tJ u\nl .:\u0026gt; f.Jt \\., I d I ll t:: :::\nLRSD Occupational Areas of Focus Computer-Aided Design/Drafting Product Engineering Environmental Quality Assurance Job Descriptions Product Engineering DefWllon: The llnplementalion ol all ~ of manufacturing  product and ll0ollng delign, COit, deCal P,odUCllon and ope,allan plant, ayatema and procedurNhnlthodt, qualty aaurance mlthodt, meteriall and procna apeclflcaliona, and problem rwoMion. Job Description: Production EnginMta adm.,..., tool Ind manufactlmg P,actlcN for. rna\no, projecl ~ ptOduc:t ..... At the tectinlcal level emphult It on dNlgn analytil, performance analyllt, 1Y11MM and p,ooedurN mlNI, geneaa1 problem lnvNlglon, and maleflalt and PfOCNa IIMeligldona. AJ. ll'le eriry lewl, .nons .. dlr9Cled to ad and con1n11 ~- ~ ...........  Produclan e...,  MlnllaclUtlng e...,  UlltanEnginNr Compuw Aided 0..lgn Appllcatlona Definition: Computer Aided DNigrl appl:1ll111 lndude the UM ot advanced computar tools to a.A Ille unique geomeay ol Ille product at W9I a lpeclal tool UN (CAE) to delannine the adequacy ol Iha deelgn ll'ldlr apecllc GDlldlbii. Job DNcrlpllon: CA0,4CAE Engineen utlllza OOffltMrlzed work1tallon1 to create unique daalgna of Of ueocillacl wlttl product geometry. TheN ltaff 1Mfflber9  uaually nilled clNign englnNrt who er ... the product claligll In ,_, time on the tyllaffl. The potltion tor !hit encry 1ew1 .non 11 '9lalad to copying or repaallng Hitting product datiglll Uling 1h11 181M workat.ion. The open,or wll allo ba trained In ttle UN ol a CAE tool to perform analyllt ot dNlgn a,1lclN and glllMt crltical dnlgn data. All or thil _,,. II under the dlrecllon ot aenlor dNign 919,_,. and IUbmlaed to ll'lern for approval. Entry...i  CAO e\u0026gt;p.alor Speciallat Tedlnlcal Profeaalonal  T~I Oeeipr  Dnlgn EnglnNr QuaUty Auuranc1 DefNllon: The degrM ol contormance by an item to governing crtena apec11caaoru, tellact company or oontractual Inspection ~tortpaefflc:,,..,._, pana, or atNmblN. Job DNcrtpclon: To provide manufacturing or englnMring aupport tulrt In accordance with customer, company, or pe,1w1 p,aduca qually apecllca\u0026amp;lona Ind requirements. ~  0ualty Engineer Environmental Definition: Compliance with i:.cs.,.,, - local, -,ct company NNty, healtl, and enwotlMfllal regulallont . Jab DNcr1plo... ~ Englnaart--. In dlwlopment of anvtrol..,... p,cuction prog,ama and Operalona U w.11 U anhancement of a,nployae and management awarenftl of ~-,... and objec:INN. They prowie lal90n for organizallonal ~ to the OClfflffll.llil and lncMtry on enwoi.,... aahllt!N. M the tac:fln6oll and antry 1eYe1 eflorta a,e dlrec:lad to plant-wide tl\u0026amp;nrdout wute handllng and aaodated documentation regantl119 tranaportlng, llorlng, 0111i1M111.a.c, clwlup n prOONlfng d haZlrdout w.  Hmfdcul Mlllrlal  Hazlrdout S9ecia1i11 Matertal TNm LNdlr  Enwoni'MIUII EngiMer enable them to achieve oral and written language fluency and proficiency 0v1er a period d six years. Magnet fcreign language cifetings will be scheduled as part d the eight class period day cxntained within the block schedule. An instructcr pod will be created among the university magnet partners. This magnet's fcreign language teachers will be selected fran the poo. 5. Engineering Technotqsy The Engineering Technology occupatirnal program majcr will prepare students for entry into tomcrrCM1s manufacturing engineering envirooment and postserondary programs. As the diagram a, the opposite page illustrates, four demand manufacturing engineering areas and the entry level technical and prctessiaial career path have been identified in rollabcration with state aerospace industries: product engineering, CAD, Quality Assurance, and Envirrnmental. Additonally, industry has defined jd:\u0026gt; titles and respa,sialities. These are also stated in the diagram The University ct Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and Scuthern Arkasas University TECH have aligned aitical cx:cupatia, needs with four engineering technology programs ct study - Mechanical, Manufacturing, Canputer, and Electrrnics. A a:mma, ccre ct engineering technology courses which pEmleate these fwr programs, and specialized courses pertinent to individual programs have been arranged into grade 9-12 CDUrse sequences. Students a:mpleting grade 9-12 course sequences with a graded C er better will receive up to 15 advance credits when a:ntinuing in one engineering technology program at UALR The Mechanical and Electraiics Engineering Technology Programs are two a fa.ir year progra~ fa which a student may earn either an Associate ct Science a- Bachelor ct Science degree. Manufacturing Engineering Technology and Canputer Engineering Technology are four-year Baccalaureate programs. Belo.v is a sample flo.v chart based a, the Arkansas Plan fa- TECH PREP, 2+4+2+2  which displays the Engineering Technology grade 9-12 sequence. The entire course sequence is sho.vn here tn relattrn to graduatia, requirements to facilitate a:mprehensicn a the entire program Pages --- desaibe a:ntent kno.vledge fa grades 9 and 10 coursewa-k. The Canmitment and Capacity secticn, page --, explains a:ntent knowledge fa- grades 11 and 12 coursewa-k. Grades 9 10 11 12 The Engineering Technology Flow Chart Courses= 1 unit unless shown as .5 unit m = Aerospace Technology Magnet Academic Core* Mechanical, Electronic, Manufacturing Eng. Tech. Math (m) Science (m) World History Intro. to Concurrent Engineering English Physical Ed. (.5) Health (.5) Math (m) Science (m) Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Applications or Government (.5) Manufaduring Eng. Tech. I or Global Studies (.5) Electronics Eng. Tech . .CAD I English Wor1\u0026lt;place Readiness (.5) Fine Arts (.5) Math(m) Advanced CAO or ' Sdence(m) Manufacturing Eng. Tech. II or American History Electronics Eng. Tech . .CAD II English Internship I Foreign Language (m) Math (m) Science (m) Fabrication Design Project or Applied Communica- Manufaduring Design Project or lion (m) Mechanical Systems Design Project Foreign Language (m) Internship II Speech Elective Computer Eng. Tech. Intro. to Computer Science Computer-Aided De-sign Applications Electronics Eng. Tech . .CAD I Programming for Engineering Majors  Arkansas State Board of Education standards for Accreditation (1984) state that students will take 3 units of science and 2 units of mathematics or 3 units of mathematics and 2 units of science to meet high school graduation requirements. ' There are three requirements with this COJrsewcrk: a) Students must take the engineering techndogy rourses related to their engineering program majer, i.e. manufacturing, computer, mechanical, electrrnics. b) Ca.trses must be taken in the sequence shown oo the flo.v chart. c) Foor units (years) each cf mathematiQi and science are mandated fer attainment of Engineering Technology perfcrmance standards. This magnet will reflect current practices used in industry, including tha\ne cf emerging techndogies. Th~e indude ccmputer numerical contrd (CNQ machinery, cx:rnputer-aided drafting and manufacturing( NCCAD/ NCCAM) software, todtng, robotics systems, printed circuit bead equipment, scanners, and plotters. The goal is fer students to wak in teams and e\u0026lt;perience real productioo, ooe which requires them to plan for, design, and produce a product, inccrpcrting the elements cf quality and envirooment prctectirn. A netwaked CAD labcratory cf 30 Madnta\nh Quadras, three Laserwriter II printers, three platers, and two scanners will be set-up in a specially-designed facility that also includes drafting tables with track drafting mechanism\n. The manufacturing and electrrnics facilities will each house fifteen (15) netwaked Macintosh Quadras, 2 Laserwriter printers, a scanner, and an integrated manufacturing cell of NC equipment and robotic systems with a::mputer link-ups. Additional instructional materials and equipment requirements include industrial measuring instruments, pnaimatic and hydraulic ccmpooents, and mechanisms trainers. Ccntent knCM'ledge is described in the next sectirn .. Engineering Technology instructers will ccme fran the program's university partners, industry, the schcd district, and the Metrcpditan Vocatirnal-Technical F.ducation Center. These instructors will also be assigned to a l\\1ath/ Science/TECH Instructa Team and will teach classes per the bloc:k schedule desaibed on page---. 6. Aviation The Aviation program majas will be implemented in cdlabaation with Hendersa, State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH, the Federal Aviairn Administratioo, and Central Aying Service. There ae five artiwlated, curricular paths depicted a, page --- and delineated in the grade 9-12 flON chart shown a, the oppa\nite page: The Aviation Flow Chart Program Major g 10 11 12 1. Aviation  General Aviation  Powerplant  Electric Circuit  Powerplant Maintenance  Machine Shop Theory \u0026amp; Analysis Systems and Technology Maintenance Components 2. Airway  Introduction to  Programming  Fortran/Cobol  Assembler Computer Aeronautics + Language Language and Science Lab Operating Systems 3. Airway Science  Introduction to  Programming  Aircraft Systems  Air Traffic Control Aeronautics + Language Theory lab 4. Aircaft Systems  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Aerodynamics + 5. Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Performance lab Theory , Professional  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Private Pilot Pilot Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Certification \u0026amp; Lab Theory lab  All students take the same math, science, a::mputer techndogy oore as the Engineering Techndogy program students.  Students ccntinue Aviatic::n Maintenanc:2 a.mirular path at Sa.lthem Arkansas University- TECH. Cwrsewak for all ether Aitway Science and Professic::nal Pilct program majas ccntinue at Hendersc::n State University.  All students will take a c::ne year Aviatic::n course regarding Aviation Safety I Legislati en/ Trans.portation.  All students will have flight training ccnduded by certificated flight instrudas under the guidelines c:i Federal Aviatic::n Regulatic::ns, parts 141 and 61.  All Aviation coorsework will be taught at the Museum c:i Aviatioo History ~ Southern Arkansas University TECH and Hendersoo State University instrudas in a:xrdination with Central flying Servic:2 and the Federal Aviatioo Administratic::n. Instrudas will share the same students as members c:i Math/Science/TECH Instructor teams.  Students will receive advance credits from the two universities for canpleting the Aviatic::n Magnet program. Cooditions and stipulations faadvance credit receipt are outlined in Artirulatic::n Agreements. This program has an infcrmation and guidance romprnent that will be implemented with industry, the universities, and the Aera\npace Technology career camselcrs. Through a camseling team made-up d professirnals frcrn each crganizatirn, students wilt be advised CJ the eca,omic and educaticnal benefits related to the engineering technology and avi atia, career path. This witl enable students to make soond career decisirns aoout which area to select as a program major. A six week, four hoor summer session wilt be held at the three magnet junicr high schods in 1994, and in all magnet sites in 1995. Any student attending the Aerospace Magnet site during the regular school year, inc:cming distic:t seventh graders to the magnet sites, and oot-CJ-district white students will be targeted fer Summer Schad enrollment. Summer magnet site enrollment will be within the 60 (~ack) - 40 (white) 'oa}anced range. Summer magnet enrollees will be required to sign an agreement c.cncurring with attendance stipulatirns. 7. SCANS Know-Hew SCANS America 2000 cxrnpetencies (as desaibed rn pages 27-28) will be integrated aC\"OSs the Aeraspace Technology curriculum and aligned with the Accountal:ility System CJ measures and standards ot performance fer this magnet program. Students will learn the SCANS Know-How throughout mathematics, science, cxrnputer, and occupatirnal c.cntent\nand in the more specialized oontexts a the technology laboratories and industry-oosed wcrk. Every student, therefcr~ will ccrnplete the magnet junior high school with an intrcx.1uc:tirn to wcrkptace Know-How. By age 16, magnet students will attain initial mastery in the SCANS Kna.v-Ha.v and be sufficiently praicient upa, canpletirn a this magnet program in grade 12. The instructional strategy employed fer attaining praidency is learning c.cntent while solving realistic proolems. Students and teachers will learn and apply kna.vledge in real-life situatirns, for exampl~ by participating in this magnet's industry internship program .. From: QUALITY CONNECTION SERVICES PHONE No. 310 598 5773 ,o, 'tv\\o.c... ~ d, ~n 9-,v-ow'r'\"\"'I Q Lc..-\\L \\--te \\ ~ y Dec.10 1992 2:12PM P01 M. e...,s ::, ,\"---1-e. \\ K'e~W\\-0\\.~ r  (.,} } r, ~-1.--t C.ar/1~ P\"-Je,, o.,f~.. .. e.e  \\kfA \"\"I K,.~ 9   Dec. 10 1992 2 : 12PM P02 bm : QUALITY CONNECTION SERVICES PHONE Mo. 310 598 6773 ~~ 1996-97 the Aerosp~l\u0026lt;l.i\\ll\"et l-ligh School gcade 10-12 enrollment wlll be n.l capaclly which is ~pupils. The high s~houb\u0026lt;.?nrollmcnt c-uupleU with the grade 7-9 junior high enrollmen'Fe'!.'?.s the aerospace magnet has the potential lo serve 4,597 pupils. The magnet enrollment will reduce black isolation in three junior high schools. C. Interdistrict and Intradistrict Desegregation Measures 1. Background Information on the Court Order The only image that some people have of Little Rock is the one formed in the Pall of 1957 when Governor Orval Paubu!S defied a feut!ral manuatt! a1,d tried to use the Arkansas National Guard to keep nine black students from entering Central High School. In Cooper vs. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court stated that \"public opposition to desegregation of the races, no matter how deeply entrenched, could not be allowed to interfere with the full realization of the constitutional rights of black citizens.\" Twenty-four years later (1982), the Little Rock School District brought suit against North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District, claiming that the Constitution compelled the consolidation of the three districts into one governmental unit. n,is claim was rejected by the courts in 1985 and again in 1986\nhowever, the courts held that interdistrict constitutional violations had occured and must be remedied. Over the course of the next three years, various remedial orders were entered and further appeals were taken to court. Then, in 1988 and 1989, in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this controversy for over thirty years\nthe parties, including the Joshua intervenors representing the injured class of black schoolchildren and citizens, LRSD, the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the State of Arkansas (Arkansas State Board of Education), agreed to settle the case. 'they submitted to the District Court four comprehensive agreements covering both interdistrict and inttadistrict desegregation measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the \"settlement plans.\" They also submitted a separate but related document, called the \"settlement agreement,\" settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this judgement on June 27, 1989, and directed the District Court to adjust the boundary between the LRSD and PCSSD, to revise student attendance within each district to reflect the racial composition of the district, to maintain PCSSD's percent black student enrollment within the range of plus or minus 25% of the districtwide average of blacks by organizational FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P .A . ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW BYRON M . EISEMAN, JR., P . A . JOE 0. BELL , P .A. JOHN C . ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A . BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICKS. URSERY, P . A . H . T. LARZELERE, P .A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR . JAMES C. CLARK, JR . . P.A. THOMAS P . LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P . A . PAUL 8. BENHAM Ill, P . A. LARRY W. BURKS, P . A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EOWARO HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P .A. JAMES M. SIMPSO N , P .A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P . A . JAMES M , SAXTON, P .A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill DONALO H. BACON, P .A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P .A. WALTER A . PAULSO N II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARDO. TAYLOR, P . A . JOSEPH B . HURST, JR., P .A . EL I ZABETH J . ROBBEN, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P . A . ROBERTS. SHAFER , P.A . WILLIAM M . GRIFF IN 111 , P. A. THOMAS N. ROSE , P.A. MICHAELS . MOORE DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M . EBEL Ill, P.A. Mr. Sam Jones 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILOINO 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-378-2011 FAX NO . 601 -376 - 2147 December 9, 1992 DEC 1 0 \\992 01.. o' -uo~er,.-r.aticn Monitoring ('.Ctl I .,., ~~ cl Mr. Steve Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONESt P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers 200 West Capitol Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Grant Application Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 .:EVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL . JR., P.A. CLYDE TAB TURNER, P. A. CALVIN J . HALL. P . A . SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P .A. JERRY L. MALONE, P . A . M . GAYLE CORLEY, P . A . ROIERT I .  EACH , JR., P .A. J. LEE IJROWN , P . A . JAMES C. I.A.KER , JR ., P. A . H . CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR .. P.A . HARRY A . LIGHT, P . A . SCOTT H . TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WAD E PRICE C. GARONER THOMAS F. MEEKS J . MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOO RE T . WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J . HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M . GRAF PAMELA 0. CORKER CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. COUNIH WILLIAM J, SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P .A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P . A . WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501) 370-1506 370-1506 I have enclosed a copy of the grant application I received today from Gail Quinn. CJH/k Enc c-v DEC 1 0 1~2 Office of Desegregaiion Monitoring Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Absbad The Little Rock Schoo District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicatia, presents a dynamic plan fer implementation of a grade 7-12 Aerospace Techndogy Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schoos and the new Aeraspace Educatirn Center. The Center combnes a museum of aviatirn histcry with a grade 7-12 Aerospace Technology Schoo a, a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rcx:k RegirnaJ Airpcrt adjacent to the main terminal, Falca, Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develcped with the Aerospace indusmes-1\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, foor universitiescl and the U.S. Department ci Educatia, Federal Aviatia, Administratirn (FM), this magnet program targets the readying of students fer immediate employment and/er pa\ntsecondary education In either engineering technology er airway science. As illustrated belc,.v, students are prooded a wide range ci choices fer c.areer develcpment in a,e of nine areas at an entry, technidan, er prdessirnaJ level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science (FM)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Sciente Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Protessiaial Pilct Majer Arkansas aerospace employers and the FM have identified techndogical occupatia,s and the skill base students need for future empl~ent. LRSD has inoorperated the skill base into a highly integrated program/ ca1rse sequence ccnsisting ci Academic lnstructicn, Work-Based Leaming, Werksite Experience, and Information and Guidance. All magnet students will take a CXJTlmal academic cxre of sequenced a,.irses whidl include six years ci applied mathematics and science (mere than required for graduation) keyed to prcx:1uc:t engineering and flight/space cmcepts, two er more years ci a language significant to our glcbal arnpetitive marketplace sudl as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In CXlllpUter netwerked laooratcri~ students will access and a:rttrd oontent, applicatirns, and infcrmatia, in the areas ct robotics, bio astrooautics, systems simulatia,, CAD/CAM, publishing, werd pr~ing, teleccmmunicaticns, material science, and aercx:1ynamics. Students will produce presentatia, material ~ importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks ci their c,.vn creatiai. In Science, students will ccnduct hands-on investigatia,s, manipulate scientific instruments, and cdlec:t:/ analyze data a) Arkansas Aer~ Rohr Industries. Falaxt Jet, Midmast. Ca,tral Flying Service b) Membership attached c) l'niversities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Hatderson State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH. using the critical thinking skills d cbservatioo, canmunicating, comparing. crdering, categorizing. relating. inferring. and applying. Specialized curricula related to each ci the nine career cpticns has been developed to meet OCOJpation specific kno.vledge and emerging tec:hndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job throogh partidpatioo in industry and aitpcrt-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever betae. The vehide for OCOJpattcnal certiftcattai is achievement ci the U.S. Department of Labcr's SCANS (Seaetary's Canmissia, ci Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace ccmpetendes, e.g. Resources, lnterperscnal Skills, Infamation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of C.ertificates ci Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based en SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative resume, which reports results, will be the permanent recxrd a genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program c:anpletion in a chosen cxx:upatiaial majcr will enatie students to receive advance university aedit and ccntinuatia, of the engineering a airway science career track throogh associate a science and baccalaureate degree programs. As yoo cx:nsider the fine merits a this highly cx:ilabcrative magnet program, please keep in mind the thoosands a students it Will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogical skills, en~rage to ccntinue their educatim thra.agh Articulatia, Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jc:bs so vital to the future ct this nation to c:anpete in the wald market. I. Background Informati_on A. Greater Metropolitan Little Rock Greater Little Rock's four county Metropolitan Statistical area (MSA) is the center of the second fastest growing region in the United States. Its central location is within 550 miles of forty percent of the United States buying power and population. The $1.3 billion dollar Arkansas Navigation System, one of the nation's largest water development projects, is a 445 mile waterway providing year-round access to ports on the Arkansas River from the Mississippi River to Tulsa, Oklahoma. The 1,500 acre port with its industrial harbor Foreign Trade Zone - 14, and the United States Customs Port of Entry are an indication of the increasing importance of Little Rock's linkage to ports worldwide. All are in close proximity to Adams Field, Little Rock's airport. The city's rich mixture of historic architecture and new development is attracting new residents. Little Rock is seeing growth and revitalization unparalleled in the city's history. ' Little Rock is on the move. Fueling this revitalization are the aerospace industries, the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, the Governor's Aerospace Task Force, and institutions of higher education. Some of the world's most successful aerospace companies are located here: McDonnell Douglas, Rohr Inc., Arkansas Aerospace (a subsidiary of British Aerospace), Falcon Jet owned by the French-based A vions Dassaut Brequet Aviation, MidCoast, and Central Flying Service. Numerous private and corporate aircraft dealers such as Aero-Commander, Piper, Beechcraft, and Cessna have facilities at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Little Rock Airforce Base is home to the largest C-130 aircraft training and airlift facility in the world. A number of major educational institutions serve Little Rock's M.S.A. By far, the largest of these is the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), enrolling more than 11,000 students in seventy-five undergraduate and forty-two graduate degree programs including Associate, Bachelor and Masters of Science Degrees in Engineedng Technology. The Graduate Institute of Technology (GIT) housed in the new Engineering Technology Center offers courses in mechanical, computer science, electrical and manufacturing engineering. Industries utilize GIT facilities for advanced research and graduate study. In 1991, the Arkansas Space Grant Consortium, under the leadership of GIT at UALR, received a four-year training grant award from the NASA National Space Grant College and Fellowship program. The primary purpose of the program i:\nto educate and familiarize faculty and undergraduate and graduate students with aerospace fundamentals and NASA's research programs and opportunities. A secondary objective is to motivate K-12 students to excel in math and science courses necessary for entrance into aerospace programs at the universities and high tech positions in industry. Henderson University, in coordination with Central Flying Service, conducts one of the few aviation degree programs in the nation. The University's Department of Aviation provides four-year programs in Airway Science Management,Airway Computer Science, Professional Pilot, and Aircraft Systems Management. The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society serves the entire state as the focal for the involvement of Arkansas' aerospace industries in community affairs, education, and economic development. In 1989, the Society, executives of aerospace companies, the Little Rock School District, and UALR came together to form the Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership. The unprecedented public/private partnership has planned an Aerospace Education Center. As the architect's drawing illustrates, the Center combines a museum of aviation history with an Aerospace Technology Magnet High School on a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regional Airport adjacent to the main terminal, Falcon Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. The facility will cover 200,000 square feet, including common areas used by both the museum and high school such as the library, cafeteria, and theatre/ auditorium. The upper level of the museum will function as an educational resource for adult programs, and outreach for schools, state and nationwide through a satellite television uplink provided by the Arkansas Electric Cooperatives. The most comprehensive and largest technical and historical aviation and aerospace library collection outside of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum was acquired for the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. Virtually every civil and military aircraft, rotocraft, and spaceship designed and constructed throughout the world is represented in the collection by technical specifications, photographs, and historical descriptive information. There are well over 5,000 books, 50,000 journals, 200,000 photographs and transparancies, hundreds of rare collectable items signed by famous pilots and aviation personalities, original paintings, scale aircraft models, and unique aircraft parts. The Society has raised over five million dollars in gifts and pledges toward construction of the aviation history museum. The Llttle Rock School District has budgeted six million dollars for the construction of the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School from funds approved by voters at a property tax election in 1990. The Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership believes that Greater Little Rock's future rests on the vitality of its public education system. At all levels of the public education system, educators and industry must develop programs which give students the knowledge and skills that enable them to reach their full economic potential. While the Center will prepare students for aerospace careers, it will also focus the Central Arkansas community on commitment to excellence in education. In March 1819, Arkansas became a territory and the Arkansas Post, the state's fir\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1034","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"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 planning","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant"],"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/1034"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n. ., .,,. ,:.- \"  -. . . . . . , , ~ \"\": .\"'~: ..... ,: . ~~-11~1\n~!?'\n. 4:~::~ .,~:-..: ,W,.-.-.:.... -\"\n,. _ _... -\u0026gt;~ _ w-- ~.\n.,.,\n.  . I. ' ! I ' . ..... .. ~ ~. ..~ ~ .. =. /. .: .-~,\n~ .... -, \"':!' \u0026gt;-.. ~ . .f',\"'', , .... ~~ ::=,/ :\"1..  \" I .... . .... , .... , . ,  ,- , ' ,~,   ..  ,.. ' ..: ~ \\ l f  \\:? . : '. -. F~ Jtepatw / VQl. 57, No. 159 / W~eY, Au\nut U. Dl2 (Prol)olfe11f ~  ..... , 3837: . . .. . ' ,\n... - ' ..  !' ' , ,. . ' ,, ... .,, ., I ____ .................. _ .......... . .. .. ... ------------- -  - \"'----- - ------------ : , ~.\n, 1 , ,~ .. .. .... ----- .......... ---  Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlCl\\Ning topics: A Overview: The Aerospace Techndogy Cunirulum 1. Applied Science and Science Lal:xratay 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratcry 4. Fa-eign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-How 8. Work-Based and Wa-k-Site Learning and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content Knowledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Cunic.ulum Integration Center 5. Infa-matioo and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics, Sden~ and Computer Technology 2. Content Knowledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. Instructiooal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Learning in Context 2. Product Develq.,ment Teams/Cooperative Learning 3. The Pa-tfdio 4. Perfananc:e-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizaticn F. Aexible Scheduling G. The Aviation Museum Educatioo Department Docent Program 1. Courses ct Instructicn 2. The Library 3. School Visitaticn Program 4. Planetarium 5. !max Theater The Aerospace Technology Curriculum -----------. Applied Mathematics Aerospace Mathematics (7) Applied Mathematics I (8)  Applied Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (10 Technical Algebra II ( 11) Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace (12) Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geometry (9) Technical Algebra II (10) Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry (11) Calculus (12) Aviation Airway Science Intro. AeronauticsA.ab* (9) or General Aviation (9) or Machine Shop Technology (9) Prograrrvning Language (10) or Aircraft Systems Theory (10) or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance (10) Powerplant Theory ( 11) or Electrical Circuit Analysis ( 11) Fortran.Cobol ( 11 ) or Aviation SafetyA.egislation/Air Transportation (11) Private Pilot Cert.A.ab* (12) Powerplant Systems (12) or Air Traffic Control* (12) or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Internship I, II (11, 12) Aerodynamics \u0026amp; Performance (12)  Classes will be instructed in Museum of Aviation History - Computer Technology Integrated Software Applications and Logowriter Robotics (7) Hypercard/Hypermedia and Aerospace Pre-CAD(8) Hi-Tech Presentations (9, 10) Applied Communication (English) (12) I Foreign Language Japanese or Russian or French or Spanish or German Magnet Course Sequences Grades 7-12 Title Ill  Magnet Schools Assistance, Sec. 3003: Statement of Purpose (2)  Courses of instruction to substantially strengthen academic subjects and the tangible/ marketable vocational skills. --- Applied Science Aerospace Science I (7) Aerospace Science II (8) Aerospace Biology (9) Aerospace Physical Science (10) I Chemistry (10) Aerodynamics and Meteorology (11) Physics (11) Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Physical Geology ( 12) Engineering Technology Intro. Concurrent Engineering (9) or Intro. Computer Science (9) Computer-Aided Design Applications (10) or Manufacturing Engineering Technology I, II (10, 11) Electronics Engineering Technology.CAD I, II (10, 11) Advanced Computer-Aided Design Applications ( 11) Programming for Engineering Majors (12) Fabrication Design Projects ( 12) or Mechanical Systems DP (12) or Manufacturing Design Project (12) Internship I, II (11, 12) - .. CATHERINE JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATE ' @J ........ _______ 721111 150/J .lil -J.l.11 .. TO: FROM: Catherine Johnson DATE: 10 f=/J/9.c. ___ Pages, including this cover Special ._ Instructions: 'Drd.C ~2 ~ b\"ci{ I q ll ut O - ftVl ( 1t?t? ' PLEASE CALL 501-371-0331 IF A PROBLEM OCCURS DURING TRANSMISSION. AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET PROGRAM FINAL PLANNING SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR NOVEMBER 10, 1992 November 10. 1992 1. Dr. Mac Bernd Gall Quinn 2. Marie Parker 3. Individual Meetings With Curriculum Spooi:ilists 4. Board Work~hop Planning: 5. Cail Ouinn, Sterling Ingram, Estelle, Dianne, Dennis .I.lm.a. 9:00  10:00 am 10:00 - Noon 1 :00  2:00 pm (Dennis Glasgow) 2:00 - 3:00 pm (Dianne Wood) 3:00 - 4:00 pm (Estelle, Dianne, Dennis) 4:00  4:30 pm  Please have material ready November 11 1992 Ilm.e. 6. Judy Harrison, 8:30  9:30 am Jerry Robln~on, Doug Dodds, Lyle Lane SAU-TECH \u0026amp; Henderson University 7. Chuck Stevens 9:45 - 10:45 am 8. Dr. Bernd 12:00 Noon 9. Dr. John Gilmore, 3:00 - 4:00 pm Eddie Branch. UArB 10. Dr. Bernd, Gall Quinn 4:30 - 5:00  Please have draft written agreement ready Pl1cuu100 Board of Education Workshops (See Agenda) New School Planning Modification of lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Timeline Magnet Program Continuation Magnet School enrollmQnt numbers and student assignment plan Comprehensive plan for recruitment Board Workshop Course Outline Review and Instructional Approach  (I.e. Sciencg For All Americans) Agonda Finali2ing, Handouts Stanford Achievement Performance Objective PISCYSSIPD Articulation Agn,ements  Board of Education Workshop Plannlnc Articulation Agreements Llttle Rock Club Articulation Agreements Finalizing C3oard of Education Workshop AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET PROGR/\\M SCHEDULE PAGE TWO H0vemh1u 12 1992 .Ilm.l. 11. Ray Richey . Gail Quinn 8 :30 - 11 :30 am CBM Office 12. Roy Richey, Ed Riddick 1 :00 - 3:30 pm Doug Eaton, Gary 13.Board of Education Workshop November 13, 1992 14. \"Wrapping up loose ends\" morning 01,cuufon Equipment/Software Budget The New School T'ichnology Requirements, etc LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL plSTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION WORKSHOP DRAFT AGENDA NOVEMBER 12, 1992 I. Title Ill - Magnet Schools Gail Quinn II. II I. IV. V. Assistance , P.L. 100-297 (MSAP) .. Stahiment of Purpose, Goals and the American 2000 Strategy  Application Requirements  Uses of Funds Selection Criteria and the Scoring of Applications  Special Consideration (Extra Points) - Recentness of approved Desegregation Plan  Involvement of minority group chlldren  Need for Assistance  Degree of Achievement  Collaborative Efforts LRSD Magnet Project Design and Innovation Group Gall Quinn . Estelle Math. Dianne Woodruff, Dennis GlasijOW, Judy Harrison  SAU Tech, JQrry RobiMon - Henderson State University , U of A Q.t Pina Bluff Representative Program Components  Articulated CourM Se~uences - Applie(l Mathematics and Scienee  Technology Requirements  Artlculatlon Agreements  Staff Training \" Student and Teach Organization Flexible Scheduling M8.isuring Stud8nt Outcomes Relevant to Gail Quinn MSAP Goals Modification of lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Gall Quinn And Need for Board Aesolution 11.A:HiA P~rkAr Meeting Commitment and Capacity Gail Quinn Requirements for Program Continuation Dr. Mac Bernd tvEM) TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Dr. Mac Bernd Gail Quinn October 29, 1992 Grant Preparation SchGdule and material for Board members and staff review Mac, onclosQd are the new proposed re9ulations (soon to be final) for the US Department of Education Magnet Schools Assistance Program (Title Ill  P.L. 100-207), a tentative Board workshop agenda, and planning schedule for my next visit the week of November 10-13. Please distribute the Federal Register material to Board members and staff indicated on the schodulo for their review prior to the Board presentation. I wilt contact you on Thursday, October 29 to discuss the planning schedule and notification of meetings, Aerospace Technology Magnet Instructional Program Grades 7-12 Elective Elective Integration Core Integration Aerospace Science Applied Airway Mathematics Engineering Science Applied Communication Technology Computer Technology I n t e g r a t i 0 n ...  Technology Lab 2000  SCANS Know-How  TOM  Worksite Leaming Experience  Occupational Certification  Authentic Assessment Aerospace Technology Program Magnet Course Sequence ~ Junior High School Grade7 Aerospace Mathematics* Aerospace Science Integrated Software Applications (.5) Logowriter Robotics* (.5) Grades Applied Mathematics I or Technical Algebra*  Aerospace Science* Hypercard/Hypermedia*  Aerospace Pre-CAD* (.5) Career Development (.5) High School Grade9 Applied Mathematics II or Descriptive Geometry* Aerospace Biology  Intro Aeronautics Lab a Intro. to Computer Science a Intro. to Concurrent Engineering or Machine Shop Technology  Hi-Tech Presentations  Computer Facilities Grade 10  Descriptive Geometry or Technical Algebra II  Aerospace Physical Science or Chemistry Computer-Aided Design Applications or Programming Language I, II or Aircraft Systems Theory or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance  Workplace Readiness (.5) Grade 11 Technical Algebra 11 or Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry  Aerodynamics (.5) \u0026amp; Meteorology (.5) or Chemistry Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French 1, 2 Manufacturing Engineering Tech.* or Electronics Engineering Technology,CAD* or Advanced Computer-Aided Design Applications or Powerplant Systems or Powerplant Theory or Fortran,Cobol Aviation Safety Legislation/Air Transportation Airway Science or Engineering Technology Internship I (Industry-based) Grade 12  Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace* or Calculus Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Physical Geology  Applied Communications  Japanese or German or Russian or Spanish or French 3, 4 Intro. to Aeronautics Lab \u0026amp; Private Pilot Cert. Air Traffic Control or Electric Circuit Analysis or Programming for Engineering Majors or Fabrication Design Project or Mechanical Systems DP or Manufacturing Design Project or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Airway Science or Engineering Technology Internship II (Industry-based) Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Organization Stengthening the Knowledge of Academic Content and Marketable Technical Skills C A. Academic B. Work-Based C. Worksite D. Information \u0026amp; Instruction Learning Experience  Guidance 0 M  Applied Mathematics  Occupation Specific  Achievement of  Advising Students of Knowledge, Skills, Academic Occupational p  Applied Science Abilities Requirements Opportunities and Career Path at Three 0  Applied  SCANS Workplace  Achievement of Levels Communication Competencies Work-based Learning N Requirements  Occupational  Work Samples \u0026amp; Certification E Written Reports  Airway Science \u0026amp; Engineering  The Postsecondary N Technology Articulated Career Internships Path T  Assessing  Job Descriptions s Performance in the Workplace l Badground lnfmmatia1 A Greater Metrq,olitan Little Rock Greater Little Rock's foor ca.mty Metrq,olitan Statistical area (MSA) is the center cf the secrnd fastest growing region in the United States. Its central location is within 550 miles of fcrty percent of the United States buying pawer and pq,ulatirn. The $1.3 billion dollar Arkansas Navigatirn System, ooe cf the natirn's largest water develq,ment prqects, is a 445 mile waterway prCJ\\/iding year-ro.md access to ports en the Arkansas River frcrn the Mississippi River to Tulsa, Oklahcrna. The 1,500 acre part with its industrial harlxr Fcreign Trade Zrne - 14, and the United States Customs Pert of Entry are an indication d the increasing impcrtance cf Little Rock's linkage to perts wcrldwide. All are in close prodmity to Adams Field, Little Rock's airpcrt. The city's rich mixture cf historic architecture and new devefopment is attracting new residents. Little Rock is seeing grCM'th and revitalization unparalleled in the city's history. Little Rock is en the mCJ\\/e. Fueling this revitalizatioo are the aerospace industries, the Arkansas Aviation Histcrical Society, the Governor's Aera\npace Task Force, and institutirns cf higher educatioo. Sane cf the world's most successful aerospace ccmpanies are located here McDonnell Dooglas, Rohr Inc., Arkansas Aerospace (a subsidiary cf British Aera\npace), Falccn Jet awned by the French-based Aviens Dassaut Brequet Aviation, MidCoast, and Central flying Service. Numeroos private and caporate aircraft dealers such as Aero-Commander, Piper, Beechcraft, and Cessna have facilities at the Little Rock Regienal Airpcrt. Little Rock Airferce Base is hcrne to the largest C-130 aircraft training and airlift facility in the wcrld. A number cf majer educational institutiens serve Little Rock's MS.A By far, the largest cf these is the University cf Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), enrolling mere than 11,000 students in seventy-five undergraduate and forty-two graduate degree programs induding .Associate, Bachelcr and Masters of Science Degrees in Engineering Technology. The Graduate Institute cf Technology (GIT) hoosed in the new Engineering Technology Center cifers courses in mechanical, ccmputer scien~ electrical and manufacturing engineering. Industries utilize GIT facilities fer advanced research and graduate study. In 1991, the Arkansas Space Grant Censortium, under the leadership cf GIT at UALR, received a foor-year training grant award fran the NASA Natienal Space Grant College and Fellawship program The primary purpose cf the program is to educate and familiarize faa.11ty and undergraduate and graduate students with aerospace fundamentals and NASA's research programs and q,portunities. A seccrtdary oqective is to motivate K-12 students to excel in math and science ca.irses necessary fer entrance into aera\npace programs at the universities and high tech positions in industry. Hendersoo University, in coordinatioo 1 with Central Flying Setvice, Clllducts ooe d the few aviation degree programs in the nation. The University's Department d Aviation pravides   four-year programs in Airway Science Management, Airway Ccmputer Scien~ Professiooal Pilct, and Aircraft Systems Management. The Arkansas Aviatioo Histaical Society serves the entire state as the focal for the involvement d Arkansas' aerospace industries in community affairs, education, and eca1anic development. In 1989, the Society, exerutives of aercspace rompanies, the Little Rocle Schad District, and UALR came together to fam the Aerospace Educaticn Center Campaign Leadership. The unprecedented public/private partnership has planned an Aerospace Education Center. As the architect's drawing illustrates, the Center ccmbines a museum of aviaticn history with an Aercspace Technology c.\n}1- , JI Magnet High School en a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rod\u0026lt; Regional Airpai ~ adjacent to the main tenninal, Falccn Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. The facility will a:Ner 200,000 square feet, induding cx:mmrn areas used by bcth the museum and high school such as the library, cafeteria, and theatre/ auditaium The upper level of the museum will functirn as an educational resoorce f cr adult programs, and outreach for schools, state and natienwide throogh a satellite televisirn uplink prcwided by the Arkansas Electric Coc.peratives. The most cx:mprehensive and largest technical and histaical aviatien and aerospace lilrary collecticn outside d the Smithsonian's Natirnal Air and Space Museum was acquired for the Arkansas Museum d Aviaticn Histcry. Virtually every civil and military aircraft, rctocraft, and spaceship designed and ccrtstructed throughoot the world is represented in the cdlection by technical specificaticns, photographs, and histaical descriptive infamatien. There are well ewer 5,000 books, 50,000 joomals, 200,000 phctographs and transparandes, hundreds d rare collecta1:fo items signed by famous pilots and aviatirn personalities, aiginal paintings, scale aircraft models, and unique aircraft parts. The Society has raised over five millicn dollars in gifts and pledges to.vard ccrtstructirn of the aviatioo histay museum The Little Rock School District has hldgeted six million dollars for the constructicn of the Aercspace Technology Magnet High School fran funds apprcwed by voters at a property tax electicn in 1990. The Aercspace Educaticn Center Campaign Leadership believes that Greater Little Rod\u0026lt;'s future rests en the vitality d its puliic educatioo system At all levels of the puliic educaticn system, educators and industry must develq, programs which give students the knowledge and skills that enable them to reach their full eronornic potential. Vv'hile the Center will prepare students for aerospace careers, it will also focus the Central Arkansas ccmmunity rn oommitment to excellence in educaticn. 2 In March 1819, Arkansas became a territcry and the Arkansas Past, the state's first permanent settlement, became its capital. The little French village was sooo deemed unsuitable mainly because cf its location in the Mississippi Valley, far from the center ci the territcry. A year later the legislature moved the capital to Little Roel\u0026lt;. Tcx:iay with a metropolitan area spanning a seventy-mile radius\nGreater Little Rod\u0026lt; MSA is home to over 513,000 people In the last quarter century, the Greater Little Rock MSA has almost doob15 its populatirn - approaching 1,200,000. Today, Ncrth Little Rock, the third ,}. (IY\\, largest canmunity with a population ci 62,000, and Little Rock af'e joined--sy' ~ the Arkansas River in Pulaski Ca.mty. Twenty-seven percent ci the MSA's p,OW,,v' population is under 18 years of age Forty-foor percent of the populatirn is ~la,~ within the 18-44 age range. Accxrding to the 1990 Census, the populatirn was ------percent Black, -------percent white. B. Little Rock Sdlool District The Llttle Rod\u0026lt; Sdlod District, encompassing an area in excess ci 100 square miles, is the largest school district in the state in terms cf enrollment. Enrdlment in the sdiods has increased fran cai .. pupils inq 1-- to 26,055 pupils in January 1992. This increase is expected to continue and result in a total enrdlment of 'by the year 2000. 16,439 pupils cr 64% ci the total district minority enrollment is Black. The percent Black student populaticn exceeds the District 64% average in grades 4-9. The highest percent Black student enrollment is 70% in grade 8. Of the District's fcrty-nine ( 4, schools, thiry-six enrdl pre-kindergarten cr kindergarten throogh grade o students, eight enrdl grades 7-9 students, and five enrdl grades 10-12 students. Educatiooal program/sdiool chcices include elementary Incentive Schools, grade K-12 Interdistfict Magnet Schools, and elementary area schools. Olart A ootlines the number and type ci schod programs. The text below Olart A defines each type of school and the raticnale fcr selecting certain schods for this prqect. 1 3 Cllart A - The Orpli7.aliaial Plan fa litfle Rode Sdmds n = number of schros gie School andlor ucalionProwam Bemmhly, ~es PrH:: or -6 JwiorHi~, s,-ades 1-igh School~ s,-ades 10-1 n n n a) Area SJ'ld Feeder Schools 22 6 3 b) hcenti\\e Schools 7 NIA NIA c) lnteiois~ot MBQnet Schools 6 2 2 d) hterdis~ot Nonmagnet Schools 1 NIA NIA Total 36 8 5 a) Area Schools - The elementary school that is the LRSD school fer where a student lives is called an Area Schad. F.ach Area School feeds into a partirular junicr high and senicr high schod. The instructional program focuses on language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. b) Incentive Schools - Incentive Schros are Pre K-Grade 6 elementary schools located within the immediate davmtown area The percent Black student enrcilment fcr Incentive Schools ranges from 85tl to 97~. These schools receive double financial resources to provide a teac er-student ratio cf 1:20, additional instructional aides, permanent sub.stitute teachers, and. extended day-week-year learning oppcrtunities. An individual learning plan is developed fcr each student based an the district K-6 cxre curriculum Ccmputer-assisted instructirn, a student homework hotline, a parenting skills center, and a program fcr faur-year cids are additional features that distinguish incentive frcm area elementary schools. c) Interdistrict Magnet Schools - As Olart A illustrates, Interdistrict Magnet Schools have been established at all three school levels -elementary, junicr high, and senior high. Althoogh operated by the Little Rock School District, students frcm Ncrth Little Rock School District and Pulaski Co.tnty Special School District (PCSSD) are eligible for enrollment in accord with the desegregation plan. As Olart A illustrates, there are ten Interdistrict Magnet Schools. These schools provide, in addition to the regular care program, coorsework based en a special curricular theme. The desegregatirn section faund on page ---- further desaibe the purpa.e and thematic focus for these schools. Olart A indicates there are 31 area and feeder schools. Some of these area/feeder schools are located in racially isciated areas of the school district. This project will establish a new grade 7-12 interdistrict magn:} 1 cf three junicr high schools, and the new grade 9 - 12 Aerospace Magnet , High School. 4 ( C Each of the three junier high schools exreeds the 64 percent district-wide average fer black students. White students will be recruited from across district lines, primarily fran North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special Schcol Districts to racially balance the three junicr high schcols. The new Aerospace Magnet High School wilt begin magnet program operation fer ninth andtenth graders the secrnd year of the prqect. The grade 9 and 10 1 enrollment will consist ci 600 vduntary student transfers fran this _ - magnet's junicr high enrdlment. This prqect, therefere, will establish the first Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet ca,tinuatioo program in four sea:mdary level schcols consisting ci grades 7-9 the first project year and grades 7-10 the secood prqect year. In sub\nequent non-project years, the Aerospace Technology High School will add grade 11 in 1995-96 and grade 12 in 1996-97 through ncrmal magnet grade level enrollment each year. An Aerospace Techndogy Magnet has been designed in croperatia, with the Aerospace Educatia, Center Campaign Leadership, the University ci Arkansas at Little Rock, and Hendersrn State University to attract this magnet's enrollment ci 1,200 students. Students who attend each ci the four junicr high schcols will also be eligible to participate in the magnet. The tctal grade 7 -10 aerospace magnet enrdlment will be 2,887 pupils. The 1::reakdawn in }o enrollment by schcol level is: Incoming In attendance  4.00 grade 7-9 students  2,187 grade 7-9 students  300 grade 10 students Tc.tat: 2,887 students By the 1996-97 the Aerospace Magnet High School grade 9-12 enrdlment will be at capacity which is 1,200 pupils. The high schcol enrollment ca.1pled with the grade 7-9 junicr high enrdlment means the aerospace magnet has the pctential to serve 3,500 pupils. The magnet enrollment will reduce black isdatirn in three junier high schools. Interdistrict and Intradistrict Desegregatioo Measures 1. Backgroond Infcrmation on the Court Order The only image that sane people have ci Little Rock is the one fcrmed in the Fall ci 1957 when Governer Orval Fauoos defied a federal mandate and tried to use the Arkansas National Guard to keep nine black students fran entering Central High School. In CcXlper vs. Aarrn (1958), the Supreme Coort stated that \"public oppositia, to desegregation of the 5 races, no matter how deeply entrenched, could nct be allowed to interfere with the full realizatioo d the ronstitutiooal rights d black citizens.\" Twenty-fa.tr years later (1982), the Little Rock Schcxi District brooght suit against Naih Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District, /l ~ claiming that the Coostitution canpelled the consolidation of the three v\\J\\:I districts into one governmental unit. This claim was rejected by the courts in 1985 and again in 1986\nhowever, the coorts held that interdistrict ca1stitutiooal violatioos had cx:a.tred and must be remedied. Over the course of the next three years, varioos remedial orders were entered and further appeals were taken to court. Then, in 1988 and 1989, in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this rontroversy fa- over thirty years\nthe parties, including the Joshua intervenors representing the injured class d black schoolchildren and citizens, LRSD, the Nath Little Rock School District (NLRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the State of Arkansas (Arkansas State Board ~tion), agreed to settle th~e case. They submitted to the District Co~rt four JJmprehensive agreements covering bd:h interdistrict anct.,j!)tradistrict desegregatioo measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the \"settlement plans.\" They also suanitted a separate but related document, called the \"settlement agreement,\" settling the financial liability of the State cf Arkansas. ~ The United States Court of /\\ppeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed~ t judgement on June 27, 1989, and directed the District Court to adjust the ~ between the LRSD and PCSSD, to revise student attendance within each district to reflect the racial canpositioo d the district, to maintain PCSSD's percent black student enrollment within the range cf plus cr minus 25% d the districtwide average of blacks by organizaticnal levels\nand to limit busing, one-way, to forty-five minutes. 2. The LRSD Desegregatioo (Settlement) Plan (1989) The following description is from the reccrd of the United States Court cf Appeals fa- the Eighth Orel.lit: \"Eight d the 31 nm-magnet elementary schcxis will be designated Incentive Schcxis. Initially they will be all black. These schcxis will receive compensatory-educatioo programs and two times the level cf funding for six years. The plan includes a detailed and volumous desaiption of the kinds d programs that would take place at the Incentive Schcxis. A salient featured these sdlools is a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. Twenty-two of the twenty-three remaining elementary sdlcxis will be called Elementary Academies. These schcxis will have prqected student ratios d between 50 and 62 6 Wi.,etlul\u0026lt;u,.., ~ IN~ (ki,t~ ~ percent black. The other elementary school, Romine, would be an interdistrict school. Any white student can elect to attend an Incentive School, and a black student living in an IncentiveSchool attendance area can opt to attend ooe ci the Elementary Academies.\" 3. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan is designed to achieve racial balance in the schools and districts of Little Rock, Nai:h Little Rock, and Pulaski Country Special School District through voluntary movement primarily to magnet programs. The Little Rock Schad District reports quarterly the number and percent ci students enrolled by racial backgroond in each ci the district's 49 schools. The above data is also summarized in terms of ~ the total district (Pre-K-12). The district defines a school \"balanced\" when its percent black student populatioo is between fifty-five to sixty-five percent and the percent white student enrollment is between thirty-five and fcrty-five percent. Interdistrict magnets are used to attract a specific student populatioo frc:rn ootside ci the district and from within the original district to racially balance the school and district. Participation in a magnet is through student/parent chcice. The Magnet Review Cc:rnmittee (MRO, created by the Eight Orcuit Court ri Appeals in September, 1986, oversees the implementation and ope~~moo d the' interdistrict magnet schods. Canprised of representatives frc:rn each ci the three districts, the Committee makes policy rn issues such as magnet enrollment, tr,/msfers, building capacities, and operating funds. /{fov- S-ffj_!f:}\n')6:,/,.,t.v(. The Magnet Educatirnal Team (MET) is the recruitment arm of the MRC, and is responsible fer public infamation and recruitment strategies and activities. In the Little Rock School District, six elementary schools, three junier high schools, and two high schools have magnet programs (refer to 01art A). Six (6) Interdistrict magnets (4 elementary, 2 junier high, 1 senior high) were created in Little Rock in ccmpliance to the 1985 court opinion. Since 1987, five mere interdistrict magnets have been established in the Little Rod\u0026lt; School District. Magnets enhance the district's c:cre a.irriculum The specially designed curria.ila is the \"hook\" fer attracting students across district lines. Individual interdistrict magnet school brochures provide a program description. 01art B summarizes the eleven interdistrict magnets in the LRSD by theme and number ci schools participating at each school level. 7 Cll3lt B - LRSD lnlerdislrid Magnet Pmgaans Theme School Level and # of Schools Elementary Junior High High School 1. Early Education 1 2. Basic Skills 1 3. Basic Skills/Math-Science 2 ~~ 4. Arts 1 ~ 5. Arts and Sciences 1 1 6. International Studies 1 1 1 Subtotal 6 2 2 Total Magnets - 10  This is a PreK magnet housed in an Incentive School. The majority ct LRSD Interdistrict Magent Programs have been in cperatioo since the 1986-87 school year. Magnet enrollment that year was 3,647 pupils. This year it is 6,919 pupils. The number ct pupils enrolled in LRSD individual magnets has increased 53%. The most successful magnets acccrding to c:cmmunity /staff/ student responses and magnet waiting lists are ------------------, -----------------------, -------------------------. (Expand en waiting list.) The Interdistrict Desegregatcn Plan is mere than just magnets. The Pulaski County M-to-M (Majaity to Minority) Transfer allo.vs a student to transfer fran a district and schoo where his/her race is in the majority to a district and schoo where his/her race is in the minority. This means that black students in the LRSD may transfer to schoos in North Little Rcx:k and the Pulaski County Special Schoo Districts, and white students in NLRSD er Pulaski County SSD may transfer to a Little Rock School District school. The Aera\npace Techndogy Magnet will advance the vduntaty desegregatioo etfais ct the Settlement Plans. The district ccmmits that it will \"maintain the facilities en a racially integrated basis into perpetuity.\" (Refer to 2/4/91 Amendment in Appendix.) The Little Rock Schoo District Desegregation Plan, the Pulaski County Special Schad District Permanent Desegregation Plan, the North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, and the Interdistrict 8 Desegregatia, Plan hdd excellent premise fcr achieving unitary school systems in these three districts. (Exerpted frcm text of Settlement Plans - refer to Appendix.) 4. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement provided for payments by the State to the three school districts fer desegregatia, purposes cnly. Under the agreement, the state makes payment to LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD totalling $107,723,175 over the next ten years. The state legislature and the Governcr expended these funds withoot a coort order. Mcreover, the State also agreed to lend LRSD up to $20,000,000 over the next ten years. [  The loans are to be forgiven if by December 31, 2000, the existing gap in achievement between black and white pupils in LRSD has been reduced to ()Jfa~ ~ ~ Cl} p/t' The settlement plans and the settlement agreement do not limit the (1 C ID t District Cwrt's ability to require the creatia, of additional interdistrict '--\"{ 1\nt, schools. They limit cnly hem new schods may be funded. This funding { ~ \\ may indude payments by the State for majcrity-to-minority transfers, but o- ) it may not include the impositioo en the State of a shared the capital casts c:i these new facilities. The aglb::iili:ill does nd: bar 1he crmlim cl additimal interdislrid sdtods\nit simply povides 1hat,, wher1 aeah:d, 1hE:f will nd: be funded in 1he same way as the six stipilalicm magnets. (Refer to entire text c:i Settlement Agreement in Appendix.) The District Cwrt mandated the creatia, c:i the Office of Desegregatia, Mooitoring staffed by a Monitor to supervise compliance t.6 the foor Settlement Plans and the Settlement Agreement. ( wv.1L 9 Il Needs Assesslnent The Little Rock Schcd District, in coojunctioo with Nath Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District, is implementing a ca.trt-monitcred desegregatioo plan ci which magnet programs and M-to-M transfers are a voluntary cptioo to integrate the three individual schcd districts. _J. Although Little Rock has achieved racial balance throogh the creatioo ci __ () 6}I interdi strict magnet programs in once racial] y isolated sch eds, therp/are still --5~ '. -.A schods whose percent black to white enrollment exceed the distri~-45% : H. J1Sf'I\"\"' approved range. The district wants to establish mere across district volunta ~ /k-movement of junior high students to bing racially-isolated schools within the ) r)J balanced range. Acccrding to the 1992 LRSD Enrollment Survey, there are three junior high schools that meet this aiteria Three ci the junicr high schcds have been targeted to attract white students primarily fran school districts ci the Interdistrict (Tri-District) Desegregatioo Plan, ct:her school districts within close proximity ci the Little Rock school districts, and private schools. This plan prcrnct:es desegregatirn. It increases the grade 7-9 white student enrollment at each grade level ci three racially (1:fack)-isolated junior high schcds. The hook to attain this prqect's desegregation goals and objectives is the Aerospace Technology curriculum Since 1900, the United States has becane wealthy and powerful 1:rf expldting the rapid changes taking place in technology, wcrld trade, and the internatiooal political crder. New developments in technology, !ntematirnal competition, demography, and other factcrs have altered the natirn's ecaiomic and social landscape. There will be few jobs for those who lack adequate science/technical knowledge and who cannot read, follow directions, or use mathematics. Higher skill requirements of the economy suggest that schools must impave the preparatirn of the natirn's youth in crder to eroncrnically compete in the global marketplace. This can only be acccrnplished if the schools have excellence in technology educatirn, communications, problem-solving, and scientific and technological literacy. This district believes it is absolutely necessary to help students understand their technological future if they are to functirn as respmsible, productive members ci a competitive society. This district also believes this endeavcr must be a coq::ierative and concentrative effcrt with this area's prime employers, the aerospace/ aviation industry, the State Department ci Educatioo, the University ci Arkansas, and Hendersoo State University. The aerospace technology educatirn magnet has lrng range impact for desegregatirn in the Little Rock School District. First, it involves further voluntary movement ci nm-district white students to prevent the progressive, increasing isolation ci predcrninantly 1:fack junicr high schools. Serond, this prgect has carefully planned fer a nevv racially balanred high schcd. Finally, this district is 10 coofident that the aerospace magnet will attract a new enrollment of 1,300 grade 7-10 students while maintaining the current enrollment. 'I These are the reasons: 1~a-' 1. \"Aerospace Technology\" is a statewide public education and economic development effort in accordance with the Arkansas Aerospace Task Force and its a-eaticn of the Arkansas Aviatioo and Aerospace Cornmissicn throogh passage of State Senate Bill 35. Their missi en is to provide \"the knowledge and skills that will allow students to reach their full ea:manic 2. potential.\" -~l The Stipulaticn and Consent Order of February 1991 amended the LRS~ ~ticn Plan to include the Aerospace Technology :Magnet Sch (s) anumaintenance as racially integrated facilities. 3. 4. The putlic and private rontributicns of funds for up to 6.5 millirn dollars to coostruct the aviation histcry museum which will implement curricular activities during and after magnet schod hoors in coordinatioo with the magnet's specialized curriculum A successful millage campaign apprc,.,ed by voters for six million dollars to ~ coostruct the Aerospace Magnet High Schad. 5. The Aerospace employment need fer a skilled workforce is well known in \"1 Central Arkansas. # specially-trained employees are required to meet new  ccntracts for aira-aft and the employment vacancies listed by the Little Rock Airport Commission. Technology education is addressed in cnnjunctioo with the study of mathematics and physical science. Mere science and mathematics has been ruilt into the existing curriculum The academic and technology-integrated currirulum begins in grade seven to better prepare the minority student fer future employment, cdleg~ and success in finding his/her niche in a tedmdogical society. Because c::J the stroog aerospace industry and university linkage, and the hands-oo problem solving approach used to learn the rurricula, the district fcresees the indusioo c::J some Little Rock elementary schools in the near future. / /--t~ (n Need t The Reduction and Pre,entim cf Minority Group Isolatim /~ '/) fo1 There is a need to estatlish a new interdistric:t magnet at the junier high level to 01 racially balance three schods. An end-c::J-prqec:t enrdlment c::J 2,887 will enatle each c::J the aerospace magnet schools and total magnet enrollment to reflect the district's percent racial avera e. 11 The goal reflected ~ the% black figure in Table 1 is to reduce racial isolatirn ~ increasing the number ci white pupils in three Little Rock junier high schcds. This wi111 1:ring the junier high schcd % black student enrollment mere in line with the district-wide percent black figure cr 64%. TABLE 1 Redice Now Endd Prqed: Kea!iving Sdl\u0026lt;ds 'I. Bin 'I. Bid 1. Ooverdale JH 70.2 60.0 2. Fcrest Heights JH 70.6 60.0 3. Southwest JH 77.0 60.0 The goal reflected ~ the percent black figure in Table 2 is to prevent black groop isolation in the new high schod. This will be accanplished throogh voluntary movement of (1) grade eight and nine pupils from three aera\npace magnet junicr high schools, (2) new M-toM transfers-from NLRSD, PCSSD, an~her school districts not a part ci the ~district Magnet Desegregation P~and (3) LRSD grade 9 pupils provided such movement does net negatively mpact the racial balance cr the sending junicr high school. This will racially balance the new high school in ac:ccrdance with the racial demographics fer the senior high level. TABLE 2 ,,.., f. End d Prqed: Kea!iving Sdl\u0026lt;d Bin 'I, Bladt New High School 70.0 58.0 based rn the % black student enrollment average fer the desegregated sending junior high schools located in the attendance area of the new high school. Plugtan Goal t: To reduce or prevent rad al isolatirn in the Little Rock School District Objective 1.a: By September, 1993, the district will reduce racial isolation throogh recruitment of white students fran oot-cr-district to aerospace magnet programs. The aera\npace magnet program will be balanced when the percent black to white 12 figure is within the 6ef 40% balanced ra11g .Redu\u0026lt;E ~ Minaity ~ Minmty Magnet Sdlod Before After 1. OCNerdale JH 70.2 60.0 2. Ferest Heights JH 70.6 60.0 3. So.lthwest JH 75.0 60.0 Objective 1.b: By September, 1994 the district will racially balance the new high schod through vduntary transfers fran the grade 9 ccntinuing magnet enrdlment and M-to-M transfers. The new high schod will reflect the racial balance ci the district's senior high schools indicated in Olart B: CHART B Magnet SdKJcj New High Schod PreVl!nt ~ Minaity Before 70.0 Need 2a 1: Strengthening the Knowledge ci Academic Cootent Fer the past two decades in America, the low level of academic achievement in our seccndaty schc:xi has spelled disaster for our yooth and fer oor ea:nany. The statistics are alarming: a. Ninety-three percent ci 17-year dds do nd have the capacity to apply mathematical operaticns in a variety of problem settings. An increasing number ci the natirn's students are ill-prepared fer cdlege cnirses or jobs that require technical skills. (Naticnal Assessment of Educational Progress 1988, p.# 2) b Fer generaticns traditirnal prejudices have encouraged mathematics achievement in only a pc:rticn ci the student pcpulaticn - middle class white males. Females and mincriti~with the exceptirn ci Asian-Americans\nWere perceived as bdh \"less capable\" d learning mathematics, and \"needing'' it less. (Mathematics Education - Wellspring ci U.S. Industrial Strength, December 1988.) 13 c. In lxth participation and achievement, American students in science and mathematics are lagging behind previoos years and other ca.mtries. (Science and Engineering lndictors, Natiooal Science Board, 1990.) ct. Only about twenty percent ci 10th graders believe that biology, chemistry, physics, er geanetry are needed to qualify fer their first chace occupatioo. Only twenty-eight percent believe they need algebra. ( Lrngitudinal Survey ci American Yooth, 1988.) e \"Schools must imprave their science instructioo to alla.v the nation to base its ea::nany oo high technology. New programs must be developed and strategies reexamined to achieve the sharp focus required.\" (The Triangle Coalitirn fer Science and Technology Education, 1988.) According to the results ci the National Science Foundatirn's nationwide study, students are not receiving enoogh hands-oo labcratery experience. f. The 1.25 grade-level -equivalent decline in the academic achievement ci high schod seniors la.vered the natioo's productivity by $86 1:illirn in 1987 and will lower it by more than $200 allioo annually by the year 2010 (Joornal ci Currirulum Studies, 1989). Studies demoostrate that canpetence in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and problem solving are strongly related to productivity in almost all jobs. At the histaic \"education summit,\" September 1989, President Bush and the natioo's gaverncrs agreed to six national perfermance goals in educatioo to be achieved by.the year 2000. These two impcrtant goals were among those adcpted: Goal IV - Science and Mathematics U.S. Students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. The pocr standing ci U. 5. students en intematiooal assessments ci mathematics and science achievement is no accident, says a new ASCD task ferce repcrt. It results from systemic problems in the quality ci rurrirulum and instruction in the United States, the unequal cppcrtunities afferded different students, and pervasive rultural beliefs that do little to support high mathematics and science achievement. The ASCD task fcrce repcrt cites four majer factors rontributing to la.v U.S. student achievement in mathematics and science. These are: 1) Relativdy few students take murses that indude high-levd oonl:ent in malhemalic:s and sdence Fewer than half of students take a chemistry er algrel:ra II course and fewer than ooe in five ever take a course in physics, trigonanetry, analysis/precalculus, er calculus. Mcreover, the ,. Assoqation for Supervisioo and Curriculum Devel\u0026lt;\nJ?IDent , Raising Our Sights: lmprroving U.S. Achievement in Mathematics and Scence, December 1991, p. 6 14 widespread tracking of students means many pupils - particularly minorities - are never required to learn high-level ~ntent. 2) Mathematics andsdenre anrimlUID!\\. as well as the tedlo~s and aa w uals linked to them. fail to reflect the llfrontiers d knowledge'\" about how children learn best. U.S. mathematics and science curriculums \"sacrifice depth fer coverage, doo't take advantage d technologies .. .fail to make connectioos amoog the disciplines, and generally ignere the real-life experiences and cognitive development of students.\" In general, students assume a passive role, with teamer talk, textl:xx)ks, and worksheets predcrninating. The Natiooal Center fer Educatioo Statistics study recently documented the percentage c:i 8th graders whose science teamers conducted scientific experiments. Bcth Catholic and private - other religious and nm-religious schools - science teachers surpassed public smcds science teachers en frequency -- \"Once per day, and ooce per week\" -- fer providing experimentaticn in science (Educatioo Week, September 1992). 3) lnslrudiai does nd tdlect the need fer al students to maslEr malenging CXDtent. The training and suppcrt affcrded teachers too c:iten fail to reflect the mallenge c:i delivering high-level content. Teamer preparaticn and inservice suppcrt, class size and teaching load, and teachers' oppcrtunities fer collalxration and decision making all hinder the delivery c:i pctent instruction. 4) OJltural values and olher fadors a:ntn\"bute to the belief that,, fer many slu~ high adnevement in malh and science is not wath striving fa er is unattainable. Exrept fer a small number of high! y mctivated students, many pupils appear to be swayed cy discouraging wltural attitudes tCM1ard math and science prc:iiciency. In additicn, the United States is one of very fe.v industrialized democracies that does net provide stroog incentives (such as better joh\n) to students who do well in tough high school math and science courses. The Naticnal Science Board and the ASCD Panel urged that all students should be required to take math and science a full foor years in grades 9-12. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Natiooal Science Teachers' Assodatirn, and the American Assodatirn fer the Advancement c:i Science also stated that math and science curriculums should cx:nnect learning to wcrk, integrate principles frcrn the two fields and other disciplines, and take better advantage d technologies. Similarly, grouping students cy ability and tracking should be eliminated. Natirnwide research en tracking suggests that being placed in a 1cm ability track effectively slams the gate on any pa\nsibility that a student can take coorses leading to cdlege (Natirnal Education Lrngitudinal Study c:i 1988). 15 Goal III - Student Achievement and Citizenship American students will leave grades foor, eight, and twelve having demrnstrated ccmpetency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, histcry, and geography\nand every schc:ol in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well so they may be prepared fer responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modem eccnomy. In respcnse to Goal IIL the Secretary ct Latx:r's Canmissicn en Achieving Necessary Skills ( SCANS) issued its initial report, What Werk Reqires of Schools. This repcrt identified a three-part foundatirn - basic skills, thinking skills, and personal qualities - that will be at the heart of job perfamance ooth fer students gcing directly to werk and those planning further educaticn. The SCANS three-part foondation and the ASCD panel's science and curriculum recommendations including mere credit hoors will be ina:rperated into the project design. In March 1992, representatives frcrn the fdlCM'ing Arkansas educaticn and industry groops met to discuss the knCM'ledge and academic competencies that students shoold possess to succeed in preparing fer aerospace/aviaticn careers:  Aerospace industry exerutives  Aerospace Educatirn Center Campaign Leardership  Aviation Historical Society  State Department ci: Educatirn Mathematics and Science Consultants, and the Associate Director fer Instructional Programs in Vocational and Technical Education  FAA Air Traffic Manager  LRSD Superintendent of Schools  UALR Schad ct Science and Engineering Essentially, the magnet will strengthen the academic achievement ct magnet work-bound or college-ln.md students in mathematics, science, techndogy, and canmunicatirn ccmpetencies in coorses equivalent to college preparatcry curriculum. Aditions to rurrent typical fereign language oourse ci:ferings will include Russian, Japanese, and German. The planned magnet program d studies wil11 be based en the Arkansas Plan fer Tech Prep, 2+4+2+2 (February, 1992). Industry representatives pointed oot that \"traditirnal coorses\" in general science and mathematics, gecmetry, algerra, trigrncrnetry, and English do nct emphasize enoogh practical applicatirns ci: content, especially those related to the high-tech \"know-how,\" \"atility-to-do\" required in industry. It is imperative that industry and the public schods werk together to wild strong, relevant science/math/ canmunicatirn/technology stand into the curriculum. Relevant curriculum 16 means the connectedness between wcrk and the magnet's specialized curricula. The magnet program must also articulate co.irse content and a career ladder frcrn LRSD to UALR in Engineering Technology and LRSD to Henderson State University in Aviatim. 1. State ct Arkansas Basic Skills Testing The Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program is the mandated state effai fcr reporting the number and percent of grade 3, 6, and 8 students displaying mastery in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and soda] studies. LRSD minimum perfcrmance testing results for all students and for students categcrized by race (Black and White) dCXl.lment national mathematics and science findings locally, and also confirm the opinion held 1:7.\u0026gt;' industry on content tested. Tatie 3, foond m the opposite page, displays what basic skills are tested in mathematics and science. An analysis of what is tested and hO\\N is indicated in the conducting statements belO\\N Table 3. This information is pcrtrayed to shOIN the need fcr a rigcroos mathematics and science linked program 17 TABLE 3 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfcrmance Testing Program - Grade 8 Basic Skills A. Mathematics Numeration  ldent. whole num. place value  Recog. whole num./word name  Round whole numbers  Recog. dee. word name/std. fm  Compare decimals Whole Numbers  Add whole numbers  Subtract whole numbers  Multiply whole numbers  Divide whole numbers  Solve Reading Problems B. Science . Earth History  Define Earth History terms  Identify evidence which supports theory of plate tectonics Matter and Earth Materials  Identify characteristics of matter, rock types, minerals  Identify particles of nucleus/energy levels of atom  Define pH Earth Processes  Define earth processes terms  Identify agents of erosion 18 Rational Numbers  Change Fraction/equivelent  Add/subtract fractions  Change Fraction to Decimal  Add/subtract decimals  Multiply decimals  Divide dee. by whole number  Write percent as decimal Measurement  Select metric/custom meas  Determine line seg. length Geometry  Identify Shapes  Find perimeter Probability/Statistics  Inter. charts/tables/graphs Meteorology  Define meteorology terms  Identify major cloud types, layers of atmosphere/gases used, air pollutants and their sources, four types of precipitation  Identify weather instruments  Identify lightning causes  Interpret data from a temperature graph Oceanography and Watercycle  Define Oceanography terms  Identify water cycle  Identify causes of water pollution Universe/Astronomy  Define universe/astronomy terms Energy/Natural Resources  Define environmental terms  Identify/classify natural resources as renewable/non-renewable Test items fer science and mathematics reflect knowledge and skills typical of an upper elementary grade program Measurement and geometry is minimal. Testing ci physical science crncepts is limited Test items indicated by the werds recognize, identify, determine, select, define, ask students to recall informatirn, the lowest level cf thinking per Blc:x:m's Taxonomy. mterdistrict and distrct ma ents are, by the year 2000, to leave grade -S- havmg demrnstrated competen'3/ in challenging sugect matter, then this interdistrict magnet must provide the fdlowing:  The applicatirn cf mathematical skills in science throogh a hands-rn industry-relevant program which measures student ootcanes throogh perfermance-based assessment.  Academic c:cntent strengthened by camecting concepts fer earth, life, and physical sciences to engineering tedmdogy and aviatirn, and teaching fer crnceptual understanding.  An instructional approach with 100% utilizatirn d the sd ence process skills and experimental design.  The use cf technology as an instructional tad in crnjunction with canputer simulations and applications fer reccrding and interpreting data. Table 4 repcrts the percentage cf grade 8 students (ct the Aerospace Magnet junier high schools) passing the Arkansas Minimum Perfamance Testing Program by race and gender catagcries as canpared to the percent passing fer all students in the district. TABLE 4 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfcrmance Testing Program - Grade 8 Academic Area Junior High School/District Percent Passing All Students White Students Bl ackStudents SCIENCE Male Female Male Female District  Coverdale JH 64 95 79 70 48  Forest Heights JH 62 83 96 49 53  Southwest JH 46 77 33 46 35 MATHEMATICS District  Cloverdale JH 86 95 89 83 85  Forest Heights JH 80 87 93 70 81  Southwest JH 75 87 76 69 73 19 Results clearly sh(Jl,\\I there is a disparity in mathematics and science performance between white and black students. Major differences in the percent passing rate occur between black and white males in ooth suqect areas, and white and black females in science. The wide race-gender perfamance gap suhstantiates the need to strengthen how science is taught to ensure equal aa:ess t(Jl,\\lard progress in the a:re curriculum 2. Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Editic\n11 Students in the Little Rock School District also take the Stanford Achievement Test each Spring. Stanford assesses achievement in all crntent areas - Reading, Mathematics, Language, Listening, Science, and Social Science. The Science subtest reflects the natirnal trend in science curriculum tOl,\\lard emphasizing crncepts ci science rather than isolated facts. HOl,\\lever, Stanford uses the traditirnal divisirns - physical science, aological science, and earth/space science as the vehicles fcr testing skills and understanding ci basic cx:mcepts. The prq)(rticns in which the areas of science are represented en the subtest reflect the emphasis each receives natirnally. In mathematics, Stanford has three suqects: Crncepts of Number, Mathematics Computatirn, and Mathematics Applicaticns. Special soores in using Infamation and Thinking Skills are derived from an evaluatirn ci responses students make to items embedded in several subtests such as Mathematic. Applicaticns, Science, Scx:ial Science, Language, and Reading Comprehension. Grade ~ght and nine belOl,\\I nam percentile sa:res for students enrolled in the three magnet junior high schools are sh(Jl,\\ln on the next page in Table 5 fer Mathematics, Science, Using Informatirn, and Thinking Skills. Results are expressed as the percent of students in quartiles rne and two who sa:red at er bel(Jl,\\I a specified percentile sa:re Tctal district percentile sa:res are used as a basis fer a:rnparisrn to individual school results. ~Ju~ ~.~~f k /1f'1-))__ C ~ 111...1) 20 G R A D E 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 Content Area by Quartiles DISTRICT N = 1669 N = 1625 SCHOOLS Cloverdale JH N =214 N = 199 Forest Heights JH N =205 N =210 Southwest JH N = 167 N = 183 TABLE 5 - Stanfcrd Achievement Test Spring 1992 Grades 8 and 9 Percentile Sccres Mathematics Science Usi~lnfo. Percentile score Percentile score Perce I e score 01 02 01 02 01 02 17 35 23 40 22 41 13 29 27 45 28 46 15 28 21 36 17 35 13 23 27 39 26 43 15 31 21 40 20 38 18 30 30 50 31 51 13 23 21 36 20 35 9 21 24 36 26 43 Quartile 2 - 50% c::i students sccred at er below these sccres Quartile 1 - 25% cf students sccred at cr'\u0026lt;-below these sccres Thinklnff Skills Percenti e score 01 02 20 40 23 41 17 34 21 55 15 35 22 43 17 28 20 36 Results indicate, except in rne inst~ that proposed magnet schools have sccres lower than the distrid:i~~ntrast to the Arkansas Minimum Proficiency Testing, students faired better in science than in mathematics. Spring 1992 was the first time the LRSD has given the Stanford Achievement Test. The percentile sccres shcmn in Table 5 will serve as baseline data fer develcping this magnet's student performance objectives in the academics. Need 2a2: The Underrepresentation c:i Mincrities in Science and Math The Congressirnally established Task Fcrce en Wcrnen, Mincrities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology report, \"Olanging America: The New Face c::i Science and Engineering, N found that Blacks, who oomprise 12% of the U.S. pcpulation, make up just 2% cf all scientists and engineers. The findings are especially 21 unsettling considering changing demographics. Prqectirns indicate that by the year 2000, Blacks and Hispanics canbined will make up 47% of the American students enrdlment. As a result it is imperative that the naticn and local school districts take extraordinary steps to prepare minorities for greater levels d participatioo in scien~ math, and engineering. The Quality Educatirn for Mincrities Plan for improving science and mathematics instructioo nationally calls for quadrupling the number of minority students receiving bachelor's degrees in the sciences and engineering from 17,000 in 1987 to 68,000 by 2000 (Education Week, April 1992). In the Little Rock Schad District 68% of the grade 7-9 enrollment is Black. This is a 7% increase over 1987 figures. LRSD anticipates ca1tinued gains in the number/ percent d Black students. The critical issue of underrepresented minorities, i.e. Blacks, and the need to bing Blacks up to parity in performance and graduaticn rates, and in college enrdlment J is a goal d the LRSD as evidenced in the Pulaski Coun_!y Schg\n\u0026amp;D esegi-egation ~ ~ Case Sett! ement ans and Agreement: - fi.{j\n \"If any d the Incentive Schools remains racially identifiable (80% or more Black) after six years, LRSD has explicitly committed itself to continue providing compensatay and enhancement funding\" (refer to page 4).  \"If at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000, the c:anpa\nite scores d LRSD Black students (excluding special educatioo students) en a standardized test are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special educatioo students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any ootstanding loans will be fa-given. The intent is that LRSD will rereive 20 millicn ddlars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amoont d all loans plus interest if the LRSD does nct reach its goal (September 1989).\" * The magnet enrolls 1,571 Black students. Curriculum focuses ai math/science crntent as related to careers in the Aerospace industry. Additiooally, the magnet provides the student with nine (9) career ~tioos articulated to university programs. This magnet was putposefully designed to lay the foondation for later academic performance and interest in math and science related fields. Included in the design is career counseling. Career counseling will stress in the student selfworth, motivatirn, and commitment to accanplish personal goals in learning and in Aerospace career preparation. The schod district, industry, and higher educatioo believe this collaborative effort to devel~ a high tech, marketable skills magnet will cxntribute significantly to raising Black student acheivement in mathematics and science, and to increasing the number d black students receiving associate and bachelor degrees in engineering techndogy and airway science 22 Need 2b Developing Marketable Technical Skills \"America's once-rommandtng lead in the aitical technologies drivjng eccJ1cmic growth and natirnal sea.irity is seiously threatened by f ereign cx:mpetiters,\" the Council rn Competitiveness said in its repert Gaining New Ground: Technolqgy Pricrities fer America's Future. The term High-Tech is used to describe a wide variety d businesses and industry which include: aerospace, canputers and software, telecommunications, electrrnic comprnents, medical technology, instruments fer measuring and cootrolling manufacturing processes, energy, environmental, phctographic, lasers and optical, and data processing services. The Natirnal Center for Advanced Technologies (NCAD of the Aerospace Industries Associatirn (AIA) Key Technologies fer the Year 2000 Program have indentified these high-pricrity technologies:  Computatirnal Science  Sdtware Development  Advanced Metallic Structures  Advanced Composites  Superconductivity  Ultra- Reliable Electrrnic Systems  Artificial Intellegence  Airbreathing Propulsirn  Rocket Propulsion  Optical Information Processing  Advanced Sensors These technologies represent a shared view of U.S. technology requirements. Gitical technologies in Engineering Proouctirn and Electronic Canponents where the United States is falling behind cr will net have a presence are represented in Table 6 on the next page. ,. U.S. Departments of Commerce and Defen~ Wute House Office of Sdeice and Tromology (Refer to Appendix for definitions and list of contributing organizations. 23 TABLE 6: Technologies in Which the United States is Weak, La\ning Badly, or HAS LOST f F.ngineering and Pnxluctiai Tedmdcwes  Design for Manufacturing  Design ci Manufacturing Processes  Flexil::xe Manufacturing  High-Speed Machining  Precisioo Machining and Faming  Integratioo ci Research, I:Rsign, and Manufacturing  Integrated Orcuit Fabricatioo and Test Equipment  Robotics and Autc:mated Equipment  Tctal Quality Management Eedladc:Canp\u0026lt;Dents  Mem0ty Olips  Printed Circuit Board Technology  Optical Infcnnatioo Sterage  Multichip Packaging Systems  Liquid Ctystal Displays  Electro Statics Soorce: Camcil oo Canpetitiveness\npartial listing This infamation has implicatirns fer the need ci this magnet to - teach industrial relevant technology skills in state-of-the-art technology laboratories - place a heavy focus rn the application ci scientific kno.vledge - use engineers and technicians frcrn industry as instructors - provide industry-based learning experiences for students. Students in this magnet are primarily being trained as technicians. Technicians working with automated equipment must be familiar with beth software and hardware used by computers and microprocessers. The development, design, installatioo, calilYation, manufacture, assembly, and fabrication processes using sophisticated equipment, tools, machines, and ccmputers require a combination ci knowledge and skills extending far beyood the simple fail -safe mechanical devices ci a few decades ago The aera\npace industry and its array cf suppliers and sub-ccntracters are among tha\ne that will increasingly require technologically literate entty level werkers. The American Vocatiooal Association (AV A) and the Center fer Occupatiooal 24 Research and I:Rvelq:,ment (CORD) point out that technicians currently being prepared for entry in tancrrow's wcrk fcrce should possess several important characteristics. A few d these are highlighted bela.v because they have ramificatirns on the curriculum described later. 1. A BROAD KNOWLEDGE BASE: They must possess fundamental academic skills in reading, ccrnmunicating, computing, and applied science 2. COMPUTER LITERACY: Many high tech processes are ccmputerized. Thus workers should pa.sess a basic understanding d romputers and their applicatirns in manufacturing and management infamatirn systems. At base, students should have the kna.vledge necessary to access and use microprocesscrs er intelligent romputer terminals using canmerdally available sdtware packages. 3. AWARENESS OF A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORK ENVIRONMENT: Develq:,ments in CAD (ccrnputer aided design) and CAM (computer aided manufacturing) alrng with advances in teleccrnmunicatirns, integrated circuits, laser/ q:,tics and other ccrnputer applicatirns assure that techndogy will continue to grow and expand. Thus, technical wcrkers require a broad base in technical and mathematical kna.vledge so that they can learn new techndogies and assimilate new infamatirn after they are employed. 4. UNDERSTANDING OF A SYSTEMS ORIENTATION: Modern manufacturing techniques are canprised d ccrnplex inter-related systems of electriq:tl, electrcnic, pneumatic, hydraulic, thermal, and optical devices. People who wcrk with such equipment need a broad understanding d such systems. Specialists in each d these fields will still be required, but a grasp d the overall systems d prcxiuc:tirn will be impcrtant. This grasp calls fer an interdisciplinary approach to training. Ji L v-  ~I.,(, \\..A-1 1 l v- v-,,p With the diversity of high technologies, the need fer new courses is great. This l_.,wl ,1r_ will require LRSD to integrate technologies and new rontent into existing courses .) ~\\?, 7 as well as create specialized courses of study. Some examples in this magnet are \u0026gt;(C,.,.V\u0026lt;/ . Computer-aided Design (CAD) Applications, Lego Logo Robotics, High Tech Presentatirns, Airway Science Curriculum, and Quantitative Literacy fer Aerospace Althoogh LRSD has prepared course descriptions and outlines (refer to appendix), additirnal ccntent outlining lalxratcry and design prqects need to be develq:,ed with aera.pace/ aviatirn representatives and the university. Flight and space ccncepts need to be infused into the new science curriculum thus creating the aerospace science course of study. In additirn, course rontent needs to be incxrporated into an assessment design that measures actual student performance In academic and work-based learning requirements. 25 r Need 2c: Emplqyment and Training Needs in the Aerospace Industry Today in oor coontry there is a critical need for highly-skilled state-ct-the-art technicians in the aeraspac:e industry. Acccrding to testimrny by the Arkansas Aerospace Task Ferce, \"The greatest challenge is to create an educated workferce able to rapidly meet the needs ci the-industry. Although there will always be a need fer specialized training, in the Ieng term much can be dene to better prepare students fer employment. Education is our largest investment in Arkansas and that investment prcperly focused can be oor most significant advantage CNer other states.\" This statement parallels the disturl:ing finding of the U.S. Laoor ~partment's Secretary's Commission en Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS): \"Mere than half ct all yoong pecple leave schcd withoot the skills needed fer productive employment. These yoong people will face the bleak prospect ct dead-end job after dead-end job interrupted only by periods ci unemployment\" (Education Wee\u0026lt;, May 1992). Acccrding to the Naticnal Center rn Educaticn and the Eca1crny, the average skill level ci graduates not boond fer cdlege is the functirnal equivalent ct aoout a 7th er 8th grade achievement level. M,st at risk are students in the so-called general and vocational \"tracks.\" Because employers generally aren't interested in the CX)Urses job applicants have taken er the grades they have earned, these students have little incentive to take toogh academic dasses er to earn high marks. As a result, high schcx:i beccrnes a holding tank fer those not gang rn to cdlege. Researchers ~dying the werkferce pant to an crninoos sign: good jobs - the kind that cifer reasonable pay and the cppcrtunity to advance aloog a career ladder - are gradually being shut off to students fresh oot ci school. The most prominant explanation fer such findings is that while the skill and knowledge requirements fer entry and advancement in the werkf erce are rising, graduates are not being prepared to meet increased demands. \"New werkers must be creative and responsible problem solvers and have the skills and attitudes en which employers can ooild,\" ac:ccrding to the SCANS Commission. \"Traditicnal jobs are changing and neo.v jobs are created everyday. High paying, but unskilled jobs are disappearing. What the Cornmissien calls \"high-perfcrmance\" werkplaces are mere flexible and custcrner oriented. Schcds must teach the skills peq,le need to be productive and adaptable werkers.\" A commitment to meet this challenge was adopted in a resolutien by the Board of Directers ct the Oty ci Little Rock to use eccncrnic develcpment funds to develcp an Aerospace Museum and Educatien Center. Resolutirns pertinent to the employment and training need fer this magnet are stated below: Wh~ the city c1 little Rak has maintained an eamanic develqxnenl fund so that the city can enmurage and punch: the mainhnanm d jd:B\nand 26 Whereas cities and stales throughout DD' natiaa am:inue to use funds fer eamanic dew:iq:xueul to parde the aealiai and maintenancE d jdls\nand Whereas, the df through its F.ananic Develq:xaa:nl Rmd made avail.tie S3 rnilliai to faalilale the aeali\u0026lt;n d nue 1han 300 jdJs at Alkansas h1n\npac E: .and Whereas_ dtizens and busines.,gs have j\u0026lt;ined qelher to plan fer an .MNifa::E wauseum and the little Km .Akt\"iMP 1\"edmdogy Magnet Smod (ailectivdy the ABOSifMP Cenla1 as part d the little Km .Aitpml area cxnp~ and Whereas_ the df will benefit and he strengthened by an Ae11t5_1ae Center to enable \u0026lt;Dr dtizens to be trained fer jdJs in the relaled aeu asiae industry which is growing in little Rock.. Two SCANS repc:rts outline the skills students should be taught and what needs to be done to effectively teach them. In additirn to the foundation skills (refer to page 5), there is a set ci five canpetencies that are at the core of job perfamance. Acea-ding to SCANS these will be needed ci all graduates, both the college-bo,md and those directly entering the werkferce. The five werkplace competencies are described below:  Resain::es Employees need to be able to identify, organize, plan, and all~te resources (such as time, mcney, materials and facilities, and human resoorces).  lnh:iperscnal skills.. Employees should be able to werk effectively with others. Examples are the abilities to participate as a member ci a team, teach others new skills, serve clients or rustomers, exercise leadership, negotiate, and werk with diverse people  Informal:iai.. Employees need to be able to acquire, evaluate, interpret, and canmunicate informatirn, as well as to use ccmputers to process information.  Systems. Employees must understand how social, erganizational, and techndogical systems werk and cperate effectively within them They must mc:niter and ccrrect performance, improve the quality ci products and services in existing systems and develcp new er alternative systems.  Tedmdqw. Employees must be able to judge which sets of procedures, tools, er machines, including ccmputers and their programs, will produce the desired results. They must be able to set up and cperate ccmputers and their programming systems as well as maintain and troobleshoot techndogy. 27 The Ccmmissioo's plan as detailed in America's Oloice High Skills cr Low Wages also reccmmends that: All students must meet a natiaial slandd d educalicmal exa!lleDJe by age 16 er som thaeaftei. Sludents passing a series d pedamanoe-based asM\n,smenls that retied: the slandard would receive a Certificate d Initial M.may. Nier receiving the c:ntificm\n. sludents would moa\ne to go to work. enter a a:flege-ptp pog,aa-, er sludy fer a technical er pdessicmal astificale.. In this magnet's prqect design, the SCANS ccmpetendes will be inrorpcrated into the mathematic., science and technical courses of stupy as well as the design for measuring student performance and the attainment d this magnet's program oqectives. The change this magnet envisions will require additiooal resoorces through the funding of this prqect. Amrng the most impcrtant will be investments in curriculum writing, teacher training, technology and instructional material including oomputer-based and multimedia material. To address the employment and technical training needs, Little Rod\u0026lt;'s Aeraspace Campaign Leadership and Industry has turned to LRSD, UALR, and Hendersoo State University to develc:p a better student. With the assistance of the United States Department of Educatioo and the Little Rode Aeraspace Campaign Leadership and industries, LRSD beleives it can provide a state-a-the-art technology-driven Mathematics, Airway Science and Engineering Magnet Program which meets the purpases, pricrities, and special CCJ1sideratioos d the MSAP as well as addresses the national imperative to maintain a wcrldwide ccmpetitive lead in techndogy. Progtan Goal 2 To strengthen the knowledge d Academic Ccntent and to develc:p marketable technical skills d students in project magnet schools. Objective 2.a1: Perfcrmance Assessment: Aerospace Science/ Applied Mathematics Integration By the condusioo d the prqect period at least 80% of the grade 7-12 students enrolled in the magnet school program will have ccmpleted with minimum ccmpetencya the LRSD Performance Based Assessment administered the first week d May. a Minimum ccmpetency will be defined as an average d at least 70% 28 Objective 2.a.2: Performance Assessment By the conlusioo cf the prqect period in 1995, at least 80% of the grade 7-12 students enrolled in the magnet program will sccre at or aoove an established proficiency sccre oo each ct two (2) LRSD/SCANS Know-How Performance Based Assessment repc:rts. The extent to which this objective is met will be determined by teacher reccrds and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. aMinimum proficiency will be defined as at least a 2 for each Airway Science and Engineering Techndogy course using the fdlowing scale: Proficiency Level Performance Benchmark 1. Preparatory 2. Werk-ready 3. Intermediate 4. Advanced 5. Specialist Objective 2.~ Pcrtfdio Assessment By the condusicn cf the project period, 80% ci the grade 7-12 students enrdled in the magnet schod program will sccre at er abo,.,e an established oompetencya sccre en each cf foor ( 4) teacher and student selected SCANS Integrated Assignments. One repcrt cr assignment must be selected fran each of the four (4) major areas. The extent to which this objective is met will be determined by teacher records and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. aMinimum canpetency will be defined as an average ci at least 2 oo each repcrt using the fdlo.ving scale: 4 Well beyond expectatirns fcr grade level\nextracrdinary. 3 Does better than expectaticns fcr grade level\nc:cmpetent/fluent. 2 At level er average performance fcr grade level\nappears canfcrtable with demands ci prc,ect. 1 Approoching average performance for this grade level\nsome skill/ comprehensicn acquired. 0 Novice\nno evidence of relevant skill/ ccmprehension 29 Computer Technology 1. Word Processing/ Keyboarding - Using proper keyboarding and editing skills to produce documents. 2. Graphic Design: Using the graphic program to produce graphics. 3. Communicaticns: Using speaking, writing, video a- hypermedia to express an idea. 4. Programming: Being able to write a set ci instructicns in the hypermedia or LEGO/ LOGO environments. and Technd CJSY Lab 2000 1. 2. 3. 4. and Aerospace Science 1. Scientific Method - Experimental Design: Given a questicn or a problem, students will fcrmulate a hypcthesis, design an experiment, observe and draw a:nclusions frcm the data 2. Process Skills: Canparing, organizing, categcrizing, relating, inferring, applying. 3. Computer Technology fa- Scientific Purpa\nes: Having a product that reflects the use ci computers, laser discs, VCR's, calatlators, and science equipment. 4. Self-Assessment/Self-Esteem: Student and teacher selected wcrk will be placed in individual student pcrtfdias. and Airway Science 1. 2. 3. 4. 30 or Engineering Techndogy 1. 2. 3. 4. Objective 2.c: Program Effectiveness During June d each prtject year, at least 80% d the parents, students, and teachers will rate the fdlowing items \"effective'' oo a locally developed survey:  breadth d curria.1lum  program quality  parent training  teacher training  use of community resources  program ccntributions to career options  improved student achievement  positive ccntributioo to student career plans 31 Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlawing topics: A Overview: School, Program and Curriculum Organizaticn 1. The Visicn of the Redesigned Junia- High and High School 2. Teacher and Student Organizatirn 3. Flexil:ie Scheduling 4. SCANS KnCJW-How Integratirn 5. Applied Mathematics, Scienre, and Communication Skills 6. Computer Technology and the Computer Techndogy Laboratcry 7. Engineering Techndogy 8. Airway Science 9. Work-Based and Wcrk-Site Learning and Experience 10. Infcrmaticn and Guidance B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Scienre 3. Content KnCJWledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Curriculum Integration Center 5. Career Development C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine Throogh Twelve (High School) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics, Science, Canmunicatirn, and Canputer Techndogy 2. Content Knowledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Concurrent Engineering 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. The Aviatirn Museum Educatia, Department Docent Program 1. Courses d Instructia, 2. The Libraty 3. School Visitatia, Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater E. Instructirnal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Learning in Context 2. Product Development Teams/Cooperative Learning 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfcmance-Based Assessment F. The Staff Training Plan G. The Aviation Museum Educatiooal Resoorre Center fa- Teachers H. The Planning Canpooent to Develcp Aera.pace Technology Magnet Curriculum fer the High Sd1od I. Bringing Students Fran Different Backgroonds Together J. Staff Experience in and Kncmledge d Curriculum Development and Desegregation Strategies K Addressing Educatiooal Needs Appropriate to Students Enrdled L Parental Decisirn-Making and Jnvdvement Each tcpic is described in detail after the CJ11erview to this sectioo. I n t e g r a t i 0 n  Technology Lab2000  SCANS Know-How  TOM  Worksite Leaming Experience  Occupational Certification  Authentic Assessment Aerospace I echnology Program Magnet Course Sequence Junior High School Grade7 Aerospace Mathematics Aerospace Science Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French  Integrated Software Applications (.5)  Logowriter Robotics (.5) Grade8 Applied Mathematics I or Technical Algebra I  Aerospace Science Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French Hypercard/Hypermedia  Aerospace Pre-CAD (.5)  Career Development (.5) High School Grade9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12  Applied Mathematics II  Descriptive Geometry Technical Algebra II  Quantitative Literacy for or Descriptive or Technical Algebra II or Advanced Algebra/ Aerospace or Calculus Geometry Trigonometry  Aerospace Physical  Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Japanese, German, Science or Chemistry  Aerodynamics (.5) \u0026amp; Physical Geology Russian, Spanish, or Meteorology (.5) or French Japanese, German, Physics Applied Communications Russian, Spanish, or Aerospace Biology French Japanese, German, Japanese or German or Russian, Spanish, or Russian or Spanish or Intro Aeronautics/Lab Computer-Aided French French a Design Applications Intro. to Computer or Manufacturing Engineering Private Pilot Cert/Lab Science Manufacturing Tech. II a Engineering or Air Traffic Control Intro. to Concurrent Technology I Electronics Engineering or Engineering a Technology.CAD II Powerplant Systems or Electronic Engineering or or Machine Shop Technology.CAD I Advanced Computer- Aerodynamics + Perf. Technology a Aided Design Applications a a Programming or Programming for  General Aviation Language I, II Aircraft Systems Theory Engineering Majors or or or  Hi-Tech Presentations Aircraft Systems Theory Aircraft Powerplant Theory Fabrication Design or or Project Powerplant Theory Fortran.Cobol or \u0026amp; Maintenance a Mechanical Systems DP Electric Circuit Analysis or  Workplace Readiness Manufacturing Design (.5) Aviation Safety Project Legislation/Air or  Hi-Tech Presentations Transportation Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems  Airway Science or Engineering Technology Airway Science or Internship I Engineering Technology (Industry-based) Internship II (Industry-based) Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Prepared by Gail Quinn October 1992 The Little Rock School District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicaticn presents a dynamic plan fcr implementation of a grade 7-12 Aerospace Technology Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schcds and the new Aerospace Educatioo Center. The Center comhnes a museum of aviaticn histcry with a grade 7-12 Aerospace Technology School en a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regicnal Airpcrt adjacent to the main terminal, Falcon Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develcped with the Aerospace industriesa\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, four universitiesc\u0026gt; and the U.S. Department d Educaticn Federal Aviaticn Adrninistraticn (FAA), this magnet program targets the readying of students fcr immediate employment and/ er postsecondary education in either engineering technology cr airway science. As illustrated belON, students are provided a wide range cl choices fer career develcpment in ooe of nine areas at an entry, technician, cr prciessional level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science (FAA)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Science Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Professional Pild: Majcr Arkansas aerospace employers and the FAA have identified technological occupaticns and the skill base students need for future employment. LRSD has incorpcrated the skill base into a highly integrated program/course sequence ccnsisting d Academic lnstructioo, Work-Based Leaming, Wcrksite Experience, and Information and Gui dance. All magnet students will take a canmon academic ccre of sequenced courses which indude six years d applied mathematics and science (more than required for graduation) keyed to product engineering and flight/space roncepts, two er more years d a language significant to our global canpetitive marketplace such as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In canputer netwcrked laboratcries, students will access and control content, applicaticns, and infcrmaticn in the areas d robotics, bio astronautics, systems simulatioo, CAD/ CAM, publishing, wcrd processing, telecommunications, material science, and aerodynamics. Students will produce presentaticn material try importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks cl their CM'n creatioo. In Science, students will conduct hands-on investigations, manipulate scientific instruments, and collect/ analyze data a) Arkansas Aa-ospac~ Rohr Industries, Falcon Jet, Midcoast, Cmtral Hying Service b) tv1embership attached c) Universities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Hmderson State University, Southern Arkansas Unive-sity TECH. using the critic.al thinking skills ct observatioo, canmunicating, wmparing, crdeting, c.ategorizing, relating, inferring, and applying. Specialized curricula related to each ct the nine career opticns has been developed to meet oca.tpation specific kno.vledge and emerging techndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job throogh partidpatioo in industry and airpcrt-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever betcre. The vehicle for occupaticnal certificatirn is achievement ct the U.S. Department of Labcr's SCANS (Secretary's Canmissirn ct Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace ccrnpetencies, e.g. Resources, Interperscnal Skills, Infcrmation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of Certificates ci Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based en SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative resume, which reports results, will be the permanent reard ct genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program canpletion in a cnosen oc:cupaticnal majcr will enatle students to receive advance university credit and ca,tinuatirn of the engineering er airway science c.areer track throogh associate ct science and baccalaureate degree programs. As yoo ca,sider the fine merits of this highly cdlaoorative magnet program, please keep in mind the thoosands ct students it will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogic:al skills, enca.1rage to cootinue their education throogh Artirulaticn Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jobs so vital to the future ct this nation to canpete in the wcrld market. Student Progression in the Aerospace Technology Magnet \"Linking the Curricular Path to Work\" Level I - Aerospace Education Center Grades 7-12  Engineering Technology or  Airway Science \u0026amp; Professional Pilot Level II - Advanced \u0026amp; Specialized Training  Southern Arkansas University TECH - Associate of Applied Science Degree and/or Advanced Certificates (one year after Associate Degree) - Aviation Maintenance  UALR - Electronics Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering Technology Level Ill - Baccalaureate Programs  UALR - Manufacturing Engineering - Computer Engineering  Henderson State University - Aircraft Systems Management  - Professional Pilot - Airway Science Management - Airway Computer Science Entry-Level Employment  Support Analyst  Quality Analyst  CAD Operator  Hazardous Material Specialist Technical Careers  Associate Engineer  Tool Designer  Quality Technician  Hazardous Material T earn Leader Professional Careers  Production Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer  Liaison Engineer  Design Engineer  Quality Engineer  Environmental Engineer Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlowing topics: A Oveiview: The Aera\npace Techndogy Currirulum 1. Applied Science and Science Labcratcry 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratcry 4. Fcreign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-HCJN 8. Work-Based and Werk-Site Leaming and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content l\u0026lt;nCJNledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Cunirulum Integration Center 5. Infcrmatioo and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content KnCJNledge in Mathematics, Science, and Computer Technology 2. Content l\u0026lt;nCJNledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. Instructiooal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Leaming in Context 2. Product Develcpment Teams/Cooperative Leaming 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfanance-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizatioo F. Flexible Scheduling G. The Aviatioo Museum Educatioo Department Docent Program 1. Courses d Instructioo 2. The Library 3. School Visitatioo Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater H. The Staff Training Plan 1 The Aviation Museum Educaticnal Reso..irce Center fer Teachers J. The Planning Canpcnent to Develcp Aerospace Techndogy Magnet Curriculum fer the High School K Bringing Students Fran Different Backgra.mds Together L. Staff Experience in and Knowledge ci Curriculum Development and Clesegregation Strategies M Addressing Educatiooal Needs Appropriate to Students Enrdled N. Parental ~sioo-Making and Involvement Each tcpic is described in detail after the overview to this secticn. A Overview What fdlows is a comprehensive summary ci the Aerospace Technology curridum As sho.vn in the crganizaticnal chart below, the Aerospace Techndogy Magnet is crganized into two occupational program majers of nine career tracks and an interrelated academic and techndogy core of requirements oonsisting of Applied Mathematics and Science, and Canputer Techndogy. The Aerospace Technology Curriculum Elective Elective Integration Core Integration Aviation Applied Engineering  Airway Science Science Technology Airway Computer  Manufacturing Engineering Science Applied Technology Airway Science Mathematics Management * *  Electronics Engineering Aircraft Systems Computer Technology Management Technology  Computer Engineering Aviation Maintenance Technology  Professional Pilot Foreign Language  Mechanical Engineering Technology 2 A structured sequence ci courses has been specifically designed fer each ci the three curricular canponents to enhance participants' prospects for immediate emplayment er continued education following high sch-ool graduation. All magnet students in grades seven through ten will participate in applied mathematics and science, and a::mputer technology roursework each year. This means that magnet students will take one mere year ct math and two more years of science than is required for high schod graduation. All magnet students have the optim of beginning f ereign language instructim in grade 7, 8, er 9 in me language ci their chace. This allOvVs for six years of coocentrated study ct a global language. Magnet students will select either the Aviatim er Engineering Techndogy Occupational Magnet program majer and a career track within the selected occupational area upm entering grade nine. The magnet student will then fdlOIN the specialized coorse sequence throogh grade 12, thereby rompleting the program in his/her cx:cupational program majer. The chart m the cpposite page ootlines the curriculum bf camprnents and grade levels fer the entire grade 7-12 aera\npace magnet. Grade 7-10 coorse sequences wi111 be implemented during the two year MSAP prqect period (1993-95). Grade 10 students will cootinue the curricular path as eleventh graders in 1995-96 and as twelfth graders in 1996-97. The latter two years (1995-97) are not MSAP prqect years fer this particular application, theref er~ rourses intrcx:iuced during these two years will be desaibed in the Canmitment and Capacity section of this application. The magnet's articulated coorse sequences in Mathematics and Science, Aviation, and Engineering Techndogy are designed fer students to romplete in advance some requirements tOvVard receipt ct Federal Aviatirn Administration (FAA) certificates, and/ er Associate ct Applied Science or Bachelor ct Science degrees. 1. Applied Science and Science Labcrata:y Aerospace Science cootent will be presented in coonectirn with its applications in aviation/space, design and production technology, and environment protection. This will be accomplished throogh the recrganization ct the district's science curriculum and the aerrnpace science applications (refer to Appendix) to themes. Themes are ideas that integrate the crncepts of different scientific disciplines. Camecting the impcrtant science cmcepts between existing curriculum and aerospace science with science themes will improve students' al:ility to make more meaningful the relatiooships between science ccncepts and other related disciplines. Amrng the majer themes that will be used are thrne discussed in Science Fer All Americans: * Chapter 11, Common Themes, p. 155. See Appendix. 3  Systems  Constancy  Patterns ct Change  Scale  Model  Evolution Table 1 represents a pattern fer a crntent matrix that will be filled in with crncepts and thematic ideas. Table 1 - A Pattern for a Content Matrix Grade 7 8 9 10 Physical Science General Science Earth Science Life Science Aerospace Science A vlatlorv Product Enviamar1al Space Engineering Issues Unifying Concepts Theme(s) Subconcepts The magnet's science teacher specialists will use the pattern fer a ccntent matrix to design the sccpe and sequence ct the Aerospace Science rurriculum (grades 7-8) Aerospace Biology (grade 9) Aerospace Physical Science (grade 10) in ccnjunction with the district's General Science and Biology curriculum. Building the matrix will require that magnet teacher specialists have a ccncentrated peticxi ct time free from teaching responsibilities. This application asks for curriculum writing time during the summers and after school hours to develop the matrix in collabcratioo with the universities and industry. Implementation of the matrix will be enhanced ~ student investigatioo and experimentatioo in a lalx\u0026gt;ratoty setting. This program also requires a science labcratcry at each magnet site for students to experience hands-oo activities keyed to the matrix. The lab:\u0026gt;ratcry will be set-up to indude scientific equipment and materials, fifteen ccrnputers and canputer interface ooxes, probeware, and software packages that will allo.v students to simulate experienres and use ccmputer utilities (spreadsheet, graphing programs, database, wcrd processing). The district is asking fer magnet program assistance to enable its tiack students and inccming white students to participate together in these specially-designed experiences. The lab will be staffed by a prtject-hired science teacher specialist who will be a member cf ooe of the magnet's Science/Math/TECH instructional teams. This instructiooal team will direct each ci its four teams of 30 magnet students in the labcratcry per the flexible schedule described oo page __ . To determine impcrtant aspects of lalxratory implementatioo major goals have been estaliished. These are student attainment cf: Manipulative and ccmmunicative skills to indude the manipulation of materials and equipment, and the collecticn/organizatioo/canmunication cf information fran labcratcry experiments and activities Ratiooal and creative thinking prcx:esses throogh observing and ca1ducting statistical procedures, through collecting, classifying, and measuring oqects\nthrough indentifying and ccntrdling variables in ca1trolled experiments This goal invdves students in learning the scientific precesses cf observing, ccmmunicating, ccmparing, crganizing, relating, and applying. The district envisioos the follo.ving scenario as to ooe way magnet students will learn in the special science laooratory: The Aerospace science teacher specialist prC1vides an interactive video disc presentation describing gravity as fcrce. Because it is hooked to a ccmputer program, the infcrmatioo on the disk will be acressed in a variety cf ways (e.g., nm-linear). Throughout the viewing cf the video, students will disruss gravity and fcrmulate answers to fellow students' questions alx\u0026gt;ut gravity oo ether planets in our solar system. To prC1vide them with additiooal infcrmatioo, the stuaents will have acx:ess to 1) the Aerospace Educatioo Center films, 2) university programs, and 3) a variety d ether infcrmaticn sources availa}je through satellite canmunicatioos netwcrks. Werking in teams, students will use a variety d ccmputer programs to simulate gravity in various envircnments, logging infcrmation about each envircnment into a spreadsheet using the graphing functicn. They will use a werd processcr to reccrd and analyze their observatirns. Students will use teleccmmunicaticns sdtware to seek advice from a NASA scientist aoout findings fran their simulation studies and the relationship between these simulations and actual NASA expediticns. They will prepare a 1:rief video presentaticn, desaihng their experiences, to help other students understand gravity. The skills to implement videodisc instructicn and authcring programs will be taught in the Integrated Sdtware Applicaticns and Hypermedia canputer rourses. 2. Applied Mathematics As displayed in the Applied Mathematics box of the chart on page ---, all grade 7 magnet students will take Aera\npace :Mathematics. Beginning in grade 8, two course sequence routes are depicted: A Applied Mathematics I (8) Applied :Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (10) Technical Algetra (11) Quantitative Literacy fer Aerospace (12) ~ Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geanetry (9) Technical Algetra II (10) Advanced Algebra/Trigonanetry (11) Calculus (12) Course sequence A was devised fer learners who have generally an eighth-grade, pre-algetra mathematics canpetency level. Course sequence B captures the student whose perfamance indicates readiness fer algel:ra in grade 8. Beth ca.trses ccntain required ccntent knowledge which is supplemented by engineering er aviation related skills and activities. The engineering and aviaticn applications have been developed with industry and university persrnnel, are relevant to careers emphasized in this program, and are linked to the Aerospace Science and occupational curriculum Coorse content is described en pages __ . 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Technology Laooratory Course ccntent in Integrated Sdtware Applicaticns, Logowriter Robotics, Hypercard/Hypermedia, J\\eraspace Pre-CAD, and Hi-Tech Presentaticn will give students the background of knowledge and skills needed to be competent computer users in the Engineering Technology and Airway Science CCA.Jrsevvork\nin the Technology Lab 2000\nand at the worksite. Ccmputer CCA.Jrse content reflects a sequential program d skill development and task cornplexity involving the learning of sdtware applications, specific programs, and multimedia equipment. To implement the CCA.Jrsework, this magnet program requires a canputer laboratory at the individual magnet sites. Ccmputer coorsework will require ooe cornputer per student in a class. To accanodate the typical grade 7-10 class size, 30 ~dntosh LC Irs, 3 Laserwriter H's and 2 Imagwriter Ir s, Telecanmunications hardware/scttwar~ a Macintosh Quadra file server system, and Appletalk Network (Ethernet) hardware will be needed for each lab. All programs will be stored en the Quadra fileserver. Printers, the Quadra file server, and individual Macintosh computers will be crnnected together into a network system. Via the network, students will ac:ce$ and crntrd cootent, applications, and infamatioo in the areas d systems simulatioo, word processing, Lego LogQ rolxrtics, and puliishing. They will produce their own presentatioo material by importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard or laserdisc stacks d their own c:reatioo, and receive supporting visual imagery oo adjacent video menitors. The local network will allow teachers and students to share files, sdtwar~ and printers. In additioo, classrooms within the school, the foor magnet schools, and the museum will be tied in together to the Prgect Directcr's Office allowing for additional network services like electronic mail and database sharing that will be widely utilized for collaborative projects amoong the Aerospace Magnet Schools. Educational benefits of the Aerospace ~gnet Network include:  Group document editing and management (student and teacher prgects).  Screen sharing giving the Project Director and teacher the capal:ility to view any Macintosh monitor en the network.  Central database fer sdtware documents, and aerospace magnet information.  Calendaring fer magnet and museum events.  Electronic Mail to speed up communicatioo and reduce paper. Hypermedia, Hi-Tech Presentatioo CCA.Jrse hardware requirements indude an Apple One Scanner, Apple CD 150, Videodisc Player, Mac:reccrders, Video recorders, Camccrders, Video Digitizer, Roster Opps Board, and speakers. This hardware will be erganized en teacher and student werkstations. The cornputer curriculum goals and objectives statements found en page ---, and project ootlines located in the appendix illustrate how students will apply knowledge/skills attained within the district and aerospace technology curriculum in multimedia, team projects. The lessoo design and project ootlines spell out the suqect area a:mcepts er skill extensioos, the sdtware program and applicatioo, student team activities, and product. Fer example, 7 students will use ccmputer applicatirns in spreadsheets to answer \"What If?\" questioos, to test hypctheses, and to ca,struct fa-mu las pertaining to mathematical and logical functirns. Students will express ideas via wcrd processing and create simulatioos ci varioos situatioos using hypercard. In progamming, students will produce output in text, graphics, and robct actioos. They will use numeric and variables, arithmetic operates, and design appropriate erra- tapping rootines. Instruction in the canputer coursewa-k and integrated curricular team projects will cane fran a Canputer Tedmdogy Specialist who will be a TECH member ci the Science/ Math/TECH lnstructa- Team Canputer Techndogy Specialists will use a single canputer with a large TV as a demoostratioo device. They will preplan lessons en the canputer and will reccrd the lessa, using the VCR The lessa, will be presented to students to actively invdve them in disrovery learning. Lesson segments may be replayed a- stepped as needed for discussicn and clarificaticn. Video benefits students' conceptual understanding ci mathematics and science applicaticns. Real object or events can be shown fran several angles, perspectives, a-ders ci magnification and pcints ci view, such as flipping and rctating shapes in geanetty. Video animation lessoos and canputer graphics will especially be used to introduce, explain, er reinfa-ce roncepts. Prier lessen planning using the canputer, TV screen, and VCR enable the teacher to better mcnita- and adjust the learning fa students and to give individualized help as needed during the lessoo. The canputer techndogy instructicnal schedule will consist cl eight, 50-60 minute periods that will interface with the magnet block \"flexible\" schedule ootlined on page ---. The romputer lal:xratrny will be cpened fa students to use befa-e schod and at lunch. After schod the romputer lab will be used fer parent education. The Macintosh Product Registry (September 1992) program descriptioos, (in crnsultatioo with expert users), was used to identify software utility programs. All software programs prier to purchase will be previewed by magnet teacher specialists in crnjunction with the Aera\npace Techndogy curriculum. Scitware evaluation forms specially-designed for this prqect will be ccmpleted to document curriculum relevance and prcblern-sdving capablities. 4. Fa-eign Language Japanese, Russian, German, French, and Spanish will be cifered beginning in grade 7. Currently, the rore curriculum for grades seven and eight does net emphasize foreign language. The high school currirulum requires 2 years of the same language The Aera\npace Techndogy Curriculum, thereto-~ is providing students with the cppatunity to start a modem language early to h,M,ulU1i:11\\\nLi.,1 o iyt oou ,1 a u p ::\nec1an1es LRSD Occupational Areas of Focus Computer-Aided Design/Drafting Product Engineering Environmental Quality Assurance Job Descriptions Product Engineering Definition: The Implementation ot all phases of manufacturing  product and tooling design, eost, detail production and operation plans, systems and procedureshnethods, quality a11urance methods, materials and process specificatlons, and problem resolution. Job Description: Production Engineers administer tool and manufacturing practices for a major project and/or product lines. At the technical level emphasis Is on design analysis, performance analysis, systems and procedures reviews, general problem investigation, and materials and prooen Investigations. At the entry lewl, efforts are directed to audit and control support. Entry-level  Support Analyst Technlcal Associate Engineer Profelonal Produc:tlon Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer Uaison Engineer Computer Aided Design Appllcationa Definition: Computer Aided Design applications include the use of advanced computer tools to create the unique geometry of the product as well u special tool use (CAE) to determine the adequacy of that design under specific oonditions. Job Description: CAD~AE Engineers utilize computerized workstations to create unique designs of or associated with product geometry. These staff members are usually skilled design engineers who create the product design In real time on the system. The position for this entry level effort Is related to copying or repeating existing product designs using this same workstation. The operator wiN also be trained In the use ol a CAE tool to perform analysis of design articln and gather critical  design data. All of this work Is under the direction of senior design engineers and submitted to them for approval. Entry~evel  CAD Operator Specialist Technical Protslonal Tool Designer  Design Engineer Quality Asaurance Definition: The degree ot conformance by an Item to governing criteria specifications reflect company or contractual inspection requirements for specific materials, parts, or assemblies. Job Description: To provide manufacturing or engineering support tasks in accordance with customer, company, or government product quality specifications and requirements. Entry-MY91  Quality Analyst Environmental Technical Ouaity Technician ProfNelonal  Quality Engineer Definition: Compliance with Federal, state, local, and company safety, health, and environmental regulations. Job Description: Environmental Engineers assist, In development of environmental protection programs and operations as well u enhancement of employee and management awareness of environmental needs and objectives. They provide llalson for organizational representatives to the community and Industry on environmental activities. Al the technical and entry level efforts are directed to plant-wide hazardous waste handling and associated documentation regarding transporting, storing, containment, cleanup and processing of hazardous wastes. Entylewl Technlcal Protelonal  Hazardous Material Hazardous Environmental Specialist Material Team Engineer Leader enable them to achieve oral and written language fluency and proficiency aver a period ct six years. Magnet foreign language ctferings will be scheduled as part ct the eight class period day crntained within the block schedule An instructer pool will be created among the university magnet partners. This magnet's foreign language teachers will be selected from the pool. 5. Engineering Technology The Engineering Technology occupaticnal program majcr will prepare students for entry into tomorrONs manufacturing engineering environment and postsecnndary programs. As the diagram oo the opposite page illustrates, four demand manufacturing engineering areas and the entty level technical and prctessiooal career path have been identified in rollal:xration with state aera\npace industries: product engineering, CAD, Quality Assurance, and Envircnmental. Additonally, industry has defined job titles and respoosibilities. These are also stated in the diagram The University ct Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and Salthem Arkasas University TECH have aligned critical occupatioo needs with four engineering technology programs ct study - Mechanical, Manufacturing, Canputer, and Etectrooics. A ccmmcn a:re ct engineering technology courses which permeate these foor programs, and specialized courses pertinent to individual programs have been arranged into grade 9-12 rourse sequences. Students ccmpleting grade 9-12 coorse sequences with a grade ct C er better will receive up to 15 advance credits when crntinuing in one engineering technology program at UALR The Mechanical and Electronics Engineering Technology Programs are two or foor year programs fer which a student may earn either an Associate ct Science or Bachelor ct Science degree Manufacturing Engineering Technology and Computer Engineering Tedmotogy are four-year Baccalaureate programs. Be!ON is a sample f!ON chart based oo the Arkansas Plan for TECH PREP, 2+4+2+2  which displays the Engineering Technology grade 9-12 sequence. The entire course sequence is sho.vn here in relatioo to graduaticn requirements to facilitate canprehensicn of the entire program Pages --- describe crntent kn(M!Jedge fer grades 9 and 10 roursewerk. The Commitment and Capacity sectioo, page ---, explains rontent knowledge fer grades 11 and 12 coorse-vvcrk. Grades 9 10 11 12 The Engineering Technology Flow Chart Courses= 1 unit unless shown as .5 unit m = Aerospace Technology Magnet Academic Core Mechanical, Electronic, Manufacturing Eng. Tech. Math (m) Science (m) World History Intro. to Concurrent Engineering English Physical Ed. (.5) Health (.5) Math (m) Science (m) Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Applications or Government (.5) Manufacturing Eng. Tech. I or Global Studies (.5) Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD I English Workplace Readiness (.5) Fine Arts (.5) Math (m) Advanced CAD or Science (m) Manufacturing Eng. Tech. II or American History Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD II English Internship I Foreign Language (m) Math (m) Science (m) Fabrication Design Project or Applied Communica Manufacturing Design Project or tion (m) Mechanical Systems Design Project Foreign Language (m) Internship II Speech Elective Computer Eng. Tech. Intro. to Computer Science Computer-Aided De sign Applications Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD I Programming for Engineering Majors  Arkansas State Board of Education standards for Accreditation (1984) state that students will take 3 units of sci ence and 2 units of mathematics or 3 units of mathematics and 2 units of science to meet high school graduation re quirements. ID There are three requirements with this coursewcrk: a) Students must take the engineering technology rourses related to their engineering program majcr, i.e. manufacturing, computer, mechanical, electrooics. b) Courses must be taken in the sequence shown oo the flow chart. c) Four units (years) each d mathematics and science are mandated fer attainment of Engineering Technology perfcrmance standards. This magnet will reflect current practices used in industry, including those d emerging technologies. These indude canputer numerical control (CNQ machinery, ccmputer-aided drafting and manufacturing(NCCAD/ NCCAM) software, tooling, robotics systems, printed circuit boad equipment, scanners, and plotters. The goal is fer students to werk in teams and experience real prcx.iuctioo, ooe which requires them to plan for, design, and produce a product, inccrpcrting the elements d quality and envirrnment protectioo. A netwcrked CAD labcratory d 30 Macintosh Quadras, three Laserwriter II printers, three plotters, and two scanners will be set-up in a specially-designed facility that also includes drafting tables with track drafting mechanisms. The manufacturing and electrrnics facilities will each house fifteen (15) netwcrked Macintosh Quadras, 2 Laserwriter printers, a scanner, and an integrated manufacturing cell of NC equipment and robotic systems with ccrnputer link-ups. Additional instructional materials and equipment requirements include industrial measuring instruments, pneumatic and hydraulic canpooents, and mechanisms trainers. Ccntent knowledge is described in the next sectioo. Engineering Technology instructcrs will cane fran the program's university partners, industry, the school district, and the Metropolitan Vocatirnal-Technical Education Center. These instructors will also be assigned to a Math/Science/TECH Instructer Team and will teach classes per the block schedule described on page ---. 6. Aviation The Aviation program majers will be implemented in collabcration with Hendersoo State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH, the Federal Aviaicn Administratioo, and Central Flying Service. There ae five artirulated, curricular paths depicted en page --- and delineated in the grade 9-12 flow chart shown oo the opposite page 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Aviation Flow Chart Program Major 9 10 11 12 Aviation  General Aviation  Powerplant  Electric Circuit  Powerplant Maintenance  Machine Shop Theory \u0026amp; Analysis Systems and Technology Maintenance Components Airway  Introduction to  Programming  Fortran/Cobol  Assembler Computer Aeronautics + Language Language and Science lab Operating Systems Airway Science  Introduction to  Programming  Aircraft Systems  Air Traffic Control Aeronautics + Language Theory lab Aircaft Systems  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Aerodynamics + Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Performance lab Theory Professional  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Private Pilot Pilot Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Certification \u0026amp; lab Theory lab  All students take the same math, science, cnnputer technology core as the Engineering Technology program students.  Students ccntinue Aviatioo Maintenance curriailar path at Southern Arkansas University- TECH. Coursevvcrk for all other Airway Science and Professiooal Pilot program majcrs cc:ntinue at Hendersoo State University.  All students will take a ooe year Aviatirn course regarding Aviation Safety I Legislati oo / Transportation.  All students will have flight training ccnducted by certificated flight instructcrs under the guidelines ci Federal Aviatioo Regulatioos, parts 141 and 61.  All Aviation coursevvork will be taught at the Museum ci Aviatirn Histaty by Southern Arkansas University TECH and Hendersoo State University instructcrs in cocrdination with Central Flying Service and the Federal Aviatioo Administratirn. lnstructcrs will share the same students as members c:i Math/Science/TECH Instructor teams.  Students will receive advance credits from the two universities for canpleting the Aviatioo Magnet program. Cooditions and stipulations fer advance credit receipt are outlined in Articulatirn Agreements. 12 This program has an infcrmation and guidance component that will be implemented with industry, the universities, and the Aerospace Technology career counselcrs. Through a counseling team made-up d professionals fran each crganization, students will be advised d the eccnomic and educational benefits related to the engineering technology and aviation career path. This will enable students to make sound career decisions about which area to select as a program major. A six week, four hoor summer session will be held at the three magnet juniahigh sch\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;ls in 1994, and in all magnet sites in 1995. Any student attending the Aerospace Magnet site during the regular school year, incaning distict seventh graders to the magnet sites, and out-d-district white students will be targeted fcr Summer Sch\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;l enrollment. Summer magnet site enrollment will be within the 60 (black) - 40 (white) balanced range. Summer magnet enrollees will be required to sign an agreement concurring with attendance stipulatioos. 7. SCANS Know-Ho.v SCANS America 2000 ccmpetendes (as described oo pages 27-28) will be integrated across the Aerospace Technology curriculum and aligned with the Accountability System d measures and standards of performance fcr this magnet program. Students will learn the SCANS Know-How throughout mathematics, science, ccmputer, and occupatiooal content\nand in the more specialized contexts d the technology laboratories and industry-based wcrk. Every student, therefcr~ will canplete the magnet junior high school with an introductirn to wcrkplace Know-How. By age 16, magnet students will attain initial mastery in the SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and be sufficiently prdident upoo canpleticn d this magnet program in grade 12. The instructional strategy employed fer attaining prdidency is learning ccntent while solving realistic problems. Students and teachers will learn and apply knCM1ledge in real-life situatioos, for exampl~ by participating in this magnet's industry internship program Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Prepared by Gail Quinn October 1992 Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Organization Stengthenlng the Knowledge of Academic Content and Marketable Technical Skills C A. Academic B. Work-Based C. Worksite D. Information \u0026amp; Instruction Learning Experience Guidance 0 M  Applied Mathematics  Occupation Specific  Achievement of  Advising Students of p Knowledge, Skills, Academic Occupational  Applied Science Abilities Requirements Opportunities and Career Path at Three 0  Applied  SCANS Workplace  Achievement of Levels Communication Competencies Work-based Learning N Requirements  Occupational  Work Samples \u0026amp; Certification E Written Reports  Airway Science \u0026amp; Engineering  The Postsecondary N Technology Articulated Career Internships Path T  Assessing  Job Descriptions s Performance in the Workplace Absilad The Little Rock Schad District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicatirn presents a dynamic plan fer implementation of a grade 7-12 Aeraspace Techndogy Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schoos and the new Aerospace Educatirn Center. The Center comtines a museum of aviatirn histcry with a grade 7-12 Aeraspace Technology Schad rn a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regirnal Airpcrt adjacent to the main terminal, Falca, Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develcped with the Aerospace industries!\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, frur universitiesc\u0026gt; and the U.S. [)epartment ct Educatirn Federal Aviatirn Administratirn (FAA), this magnet program targets the readying of students fer immediate employment and/ er pa\ntsecondary education in either engineering technology er airway science. As illustrated belCMI, students are prCNided a wide range ct choices fer career develcpment in rne of nine areas at an entry, technician, er prctessirnal level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science (FAA)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Science Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Professirnal Pilot Majer Arkansas aerospace employers and the FAA have identified techndogical occupatirns and the skill base students need for future employment. LRSD has incorperated the skill base into a highly integrated program/ COJrse sequence cx:nsisting ct Academic Instructirn, Work-Based Leaming, Werksite Experience, and Information and Gui dance. All magnet students will take a a:mmrn academic are of sequenced coorses whim indude six years ct applied mathematics and science (mere than required for graduation) keyed to product engineering and flight/space roncepts, two a- more years ct a language significant to our global a:mpetitive marketplace sucn as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In a:mputer netwerked laboratcries, students will access and ca,trd oontent, applicatirns, and infa-matirn in the areas ct roootics, bio astronautics, systems simulatirn, CAD/CAM, publishing, werd processing, telec:cmmunicatirns, material science, and aerodynamics. Students will produce presentatirn material by importing srund, graphics, digitized photographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks ct their o.vn creatirn. In Science, students will cx:nduct hands-on investigatirns, manipulate scientific instruments, and collect/ analyze data a) Arkansas Ae-ospac~ Rohr lrdustries, Falcon Jet, Midcoast, Cmtral Aying Savice b) Membership attached c) Universities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Hmderson State University, Southern Arkansas Unive-sity TECH. using the critical thinking skills ct cbservatioo, a:mmunicating, cnmparing, crdering, categorizing, relating, inferring, and applying. Specialized curria.lla related to each d the nine career q,tioos has been developed to meet OC0.1pation specific kno.vledge and emerging techndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job through partidpatioo in industry and aitpcrt-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever betae. The vehicle for cx:c:upatiaial certificatia, is achievement d the U.S. Department of Lalxr's SCANS (Secretary's Canrnissioo a Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace a:mpetendes, e.g. Resources, Interpersaial Skills, Infamation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of Certificates d Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based oo SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative resume, which reports results, will be the permanent reccrd d genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program c:cmpletion in a dla\nen occupatia,al maja will enal:ie students to receive advance university a-edit and ccntinuatia, of the engineering a airway science career track thrwgh ~cx:iate ci science and ba~aureate degree programs. ,A.s you a:nsider the fine merits a this highly cdlaoorative magnet progrcll1\\ please keep in mind the thousands a students it will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogical skills, encn.trage to ccntinue their education through Articulatia, Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jobs so vital to the future d this nation to c:cmpete in the wald market. Student Progression in the Aerospace Technology Magnet \"Linking the Curricular Path to Work\" Level I - Aerospace Education Center Grades 7-12  Engineering Technology or  Airway Science \u0026amp; Professional Pilot Level II - Advanced \u0026amp; Specialized Training  Southern Arkansas University TECH - Associate of Applied Science Degree and/or Advanced Certificates (one year after .. Associate Degree) ....lili... - Aviation Maintenance ...,..  UALR - Electronics Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering Technology Level Ill - Baccalaureate Programs  UALR - Manufacturing Engineering - Computer Engineering  Henderson State University - Aircraft Systems Management - Professional Pilot - Airway Science Management - Airway Computer Science Entry-Level Employment  Support Analyst  Quality Analyst  CAD Operator  Hazardous Material Specialist Technical Careers  Associate Engineer  Tool Designer  Quality Technician  Hazardous Material T earn Leader Professional Careers  Production Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer  Liaison Engineer  Design Engineer  Quality Engineer  Environmental Engineer Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlawing topics: A Overview: The Aera\npace Techndogy Curriculum 1. Applied Science and Science Lalxratay 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratay 4. Fcreign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-HON 8. Work-Based and Werk-Site Leaming and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content Kna.vledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Curriculum Integration Center 5. Infcrmaticn and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content KnONledge in Mathematics, Scien~ and Computer Technology 2. Content KnONledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/Business Internships D. Instructicnal Approaches and ~essment a Student Performance 1. Leaming in Context 2. Prcxiuct Develcpment Teams/Cooperative Leaming 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfananc:e-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizatia, F. Flexible Scheduling G. The Aviaticn Museum Educaticn Department Docent Program 1. Courses ci Instructicn 2. The Library 3. School Visitaticn Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater The Aerospace Technology Curriculum ----------. Applied Mathematica Aerospace Mathematics (7) Applied Mathematics I (8) Technical Algebra I (8)  Applied Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (9) Descriptive Geometry (10 Technical Algebra II (11) Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace (12) Techlical Algebra II (10) Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry (11) caJculus (12) Aviation Airway Science Intro. AeronauticsA.ab (9) or General Aviation (9) or Machine Shop Technology (9) Programming Language (10) or Aircraft Systems Theory (10) or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance (10) Powerplant Theory ( 11) or Electrical Circuit Analysis ( 11) Fortran.Cobol (11) or Aviation SafetyA.egislation/Air Transportation (11) Private Pilot CertA.ab (12) ' Powerplant Systems (12) or Air Traffic Control\" (12) or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Internship I, II (11, 12) Aerodynamics \u0026amp; Performance (12)  Classes will be\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"scdl_clemsonboard_95","title":"Annual Report of the Clemson Board of Trustees, 1991-1992","collection_id":"scdl_clemsonboard","collection_title":"Board of Trustees","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Pickens County, 34.88752, -82.72532"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Trustees, Clemson University"],"dc_date":["1992-01-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Clemson, S.C. : Clemson University Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Trustees Annual Reports"],"dcterms_subject":["Libraries","Information science"],"dcterms_title":["Annual Report of the Clemson Board of Trustees, 1991-1992"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Carolina Digital Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/trustees_reports/95"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright of Clemson University. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required."],"dcterms_medium":["manuscripts (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_84","title":"The B-Cean Yearbook, 1992-1993","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"dcterms_description":["The B-Cean Yearbook."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","Universities and colleges--Employees","Greek letter societies"],"dcterms_title":["The B-Cean Yearbook, 1992-1993"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/84"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["yearbooks","school yearbooks"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_249","title":"Bernd, Cloyde Mckinley \"Mac,\" Ph.D.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School administrators","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Bernd, Cloyde Mckinley \"Mac,\" Ph.D."],"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/249"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nBernd was Superintendent of Little Rock School District from July 1992 to June 1993. Includes correspondence and newspaper clippings\nJune 6, 1992 Dear Mac: As promised, here (from my For-What-lts-Worth Department) is my old idea for pulling together areas that are too scattered and out of touch with each other in the LRSD. This is an oldie but still a goodie, 1 think. Take all, part, or none: my feelings wont be hurt in any case, honest. Very truly yours, P.S. Although 1 didnt do it at the time 1 dreamed this up, the personnel department, a.k.a. Human Resources, would fit into this arrangement very well. However, the folks presently in that department wouldnt do as the management of a Community Resources and Relations configuration. The present Human Resources staff doesnt often practice positive community relations and they dont understand that volunteers are really just unpaid staff.Department of Community Resources and Relations Encompassing the following programs or function areas: Volunteers in Public Schools Partners in Education PTA/PTO/PTSA/ liaisonship Parent education (programs that help parents help us, such as APPLE [Arkansas Parents: Partners in Learning Experiences], HIPPY [Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters], Parents as Teachers, etc. PAC (Chapter 1 Parent Advisory Council) Grants procurement (to provide research, development, technical assistance and oversight for grants procurement [federal, state, and private sector] in support of new or existing programs.) Special programs (to develop specialized programs involving creative use of community resources like NIKE [Neighbors Involved in Kids Education], You Miss School-You Miss Out, etc., and to provide liaisonship and facilitation for such school/community projects as New Futures, Cornerstone, etc.) Communications Department Federal Programs Materials Resource Center (to provide an organized, systematic means for promoting donation of surplus materials from the community-especially businesses~to the district. This MRC would be coordinated with the Supply Center and Instructional Resource Center.) The Department of Community Resources and Relations would bring more closely together those programs and activities which channel our communitys human, financial, and material resources into the district. This departments broad umbrella would cover and coordinate all manner of: volunteer programs and services parent involvement and education relationships with business and community organizations identification and development of new human, financial, and material resources development and support of model programs of community collaboration communications and public relations fill various community liaison rolesFRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL e. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ml DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON M. P.A. BARRY . COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D- TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ml. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3493 TELEPHONE 601*376*2011 FAX NO. 601*376*2147 August 26, 1992 RECEIVED AUG 2 a Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Office of Des^^aSiCO WiMiWiXins Re\nLRSD Desegregation Issues Dear John: I am writing in regard to two letters which you mailed to Dr. desegregation Bernd on August 14, issues. Dr. Bernd 1992, I and DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL IM. P.A KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P.A. CLYDE 'TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. M. CHARLES GSCHWEND. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE counsel WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.8.CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. V RITEN't DIRECT NO . (6011 370-3367 faxed and both of which raised I agree that all communications from counsel in LRSD v. PCSSD to the Little Rock School District concerning desegregation issues should be directed to me. Please direct all future communications to me. I learned today that you made direct contact with an LRSD administrator to request a list by race and gender of students who will participate in an Aerospace symposium on September 4, LRSD has not compiled such a list. _ 1992 . CJH/k cc: Dr. Mac Bernd Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Yours_ye: '/ Christopher Aleller Little Rock School District August 28, 1992 Mrs. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 ! Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\nMrs. Kumpuris spoke with Mrs. Gulden this afternoon on my behalf concerning a situation and a proposed resolution. This letter is to ask your ratification of our solution. A white student by the name of Jasmine Elizabeth Cassel lives in the Little Rock School District at 3701 Boyd Street, which is in the Southwest Junior High School attendance zone. This address is a racially mixed neighborhood and the student lives on a street where a number of black students attend Fuller Jr. High in the Pulaski County Special School District on an M to M transfer. By mistake. Jasmine was enrolled in Fuller Jr. High and was accepted into the TAG program. The residency error was discovered and the parents were informed that the child, because she is white, could not be released from LRSD to a PCSSD school. student was extremely disappointed and upset, friend is black and attends Fuller Jr. High. Needless to say, the Jasmine's best Our office has conferred with Mr. Bobby Lester of the PCSSD, and we feel that we could resolve this matter on a win-win basis by assigning a willing Fuller Jr. High white student to the LRSD in exchange for Jasmine enrolling at Fuller, the racial balance of either district. This would not affect Mrs. Gulden and Ms. Powell conferred and gave our office verbal approval to assign Jasmine to Fuller. sensitivity to the plight of this young lady. appreciate their cc\nMr. Bobby Lester Ms. Marie Parker Ms. Melissa Gulden 810 West Markham Street  Sincerely, Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools APPROVED\nAnn Brown Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 I ) I s g J I I i JMEMORANDUM Date: September 10, 1992 From: Melissa Guldin To: Subject: Ann Brown LRSD Transportation of M-to-M Students I am concerned about the persistent problems associated with the LRSD transportation of M to M students to PCSSD. As we have discussed previously, M-to-M students are continually delivered late to County schools. In some instances, students are arriving as much as an hour late. This has been a long term problem and I received complaints regarding this issue last year, but it seems much more severe now. I realize we encouraged the PCSSD administration to deal directly with LRSD to expedite a resolution, but this does not seem to be working. I called BiUy Bowles this morning to inquire if any progress had been made in resolving the transportation problems. He stated that he had spoken regularly to Mr. Armstrong in the transportation department, but problems were still numerous. Students are regularly delivered late to Crystal Hill, Robinson Elementary, Robinson Junior High, Robinson Senior High, Oak Grove, and Sylvan HiUs Junior High. There may be problems at other schools with M-to-M students also. These schools were given to me by Mr. Bowles as those he remembered with the greatest problems. He did not refer to his records for a detailed list. I also continue to be concerned about the LRSD students participating tn the Baker extended day program. I do not believe their transportation problems have been resolved either. The success of all three districts desegregation plans depends upon voluntary student movement. This movement is accomplished through M-to-M transfers. How can the districts meet their goals if students are discouraged from seeking transfers due to an inferior transportation system? While I understand the complexity of the transportation system, students should not have to pay the price for an administrative snafu. The daily late arrivals at school are a bigger problem than the slight irritation and inconvenience caused by any tardy student. By continually arriving late, the M-to-M students are missing learning time and they are bound to feel like outsiders. A conscientious student trapped on a habitually late bus must feel so frustrated and powerless. In the past the LRSD relied on cabs to deliver many students. I understand that an effort has been initiated to greatly reduce or eliminate cab transport. This is perfectly acceptable as long as students are being transported to the proper school in a timely fashion. That is not happening. There seems to be some indication that routes are either too long or too poorly organized to assure that students arrive on time. If additional bus route are needed to accomplish this goal, they should be added immediately. The relationship between an effective transportation department and successful desegregation is clear\nmore attention must be given to making the system work for kids.MEMORANDUM Date: September 16, 1992 From: To: Subject: Melissa Ann Incentive School Enrollment As you requested, Bob and I have been trying to acquire the current incentive school enrollment lists that will determine the number of incentive school children reassigned for the 1992-93 school year. While I have been working on this for quite some time, there is little progress to report. A chronology of the quest follows: 7/30/92 - 1 sent the attached letter to Marie Parker requesting information. Approximately three weeks later -1 placed a reminder call to Marie. She indicated she would get right on the matter and determine the reason for delay. 9/1/92 - The computer list of 1991-92 incentive school enrollment and the preliminary assignments for 1992-93 was received. This information was generated by the Hewlitt Packard (HP) system and indicated that all students were reassigned to the same schools in 1992-93 as the previous year. No new registration information had been entered. 9/10/92 - Bob called Becky Rather in the student assignment office to inquire about usable lists. After several attempts, he spoke with her and was informed that Julie Weidower had requested the earlier information and Bob was directed to speak to her. Julie was not in the office that afternoon, so he left a request to speak to her on the following Monday (9/14/92). 9/14/92 - When Bob reached Julie, she indicated that while she had ordered the earlier enrollment information for ODM, it was really Sue Pedersons job and Bob should speak to her. Bob left a message for Sue to call. 9/15/92 - Sue Pederson returned Bobs call and indicated that it would be a problem to furnish the information we requested. The original printouts furnished to ODM were generated by the old HP system and now all records have been converted to the new software. To follow this up Bob Morgan placed two calls to the LRSDs Bob Connelly trying to determine the capacity their system had to generate the desired student assignmentinformation. During the first call, Connelly stated that the problem arose because the data processing people had used the old software for student promotion before transferring that information to the new software. The new software was used for the subsequent assignments. As a result, the information regarding each childs 1991-92 school assignment is not currently recorded with this years information. Connelly indicated that the 1991-92 assignment information would be added in about a month or so. After this initial conversation, Morgan called Connelly again to suggest that student ID numbers used as a bridge between the two software systems, allowing generation of the desired data. Morgan did not succeed in persuading Connelly to undertake this task. This has been a rather frustrating process. It has taken quite awhile to receive information and we still do not have the data we need. The assignment fate of children attending the incentive schools during 1991-92 remains unclear. There is continued concern that students may have been too strongly encouraged to leave incentive schools simply to reduce class sizes to the 20 limit. It is already so late in the school year that any student changes would be disruptive, but neither children nor their parents should feel pressured to make school assignment for a districts convenience. Please let Bob or me know if we should pursue the matter further.To: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Equity From: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Subject: Incentive School Enrollment Date: July 30, 1992 The May 1, 1992 court order regarding proposed modifications to the desegregation plan dealt at great length with the issue of class size in the seven incentive schools. In that order students who attended the incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year were allowed to remain at their current school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to a new school. The order also states that no new student may enroll at any incentive school if his/ her enrollment would cause the class size to exceed the ordered limits. An exception to the class size limit is permitted if the new students enrollment would improve racial balance. In order to effectively monitor compliance with the May order, I need some information from your office. The first item required is a list, by school, of all students who attended each incentive school during the 1991-92 school year. There is no need for the assignment office to prepare a special report\na copy of your computer printout listing student names would be fine. Please forward the 1991-92 data to ODM by August 10, 1992. The same information will be needed for the 1992-93 school year as soon as it is available. Thank you again for the opportunity to sit in on the student assignment appeals review. I now have a much better understanding of the appeals process. I hope your first week with the Little Rock School district has been a good one and I look forward to working with you.\\0 'Z? BvA I Little Rock School District October 14, 1992 Q ocr I 5 I9S2 Office of Desegregalion Moniioring Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District. Jim Smith, Bobby Lester, and I have discussed and agreed upon the need to have a short time to examine monitoring reports before they are released to the Court and to the media. We understand that your office has a need to give timely and accurate information to all parties. At the same time, it is necessary for us to notify our Boards and to develop appropriate responses for the media. In order for this to be accomplished, we would appreciate it if you would wait three days after giving us a monitoring report before filing it with the Court and releasing it to the media. We realize it will be important for us to maintain the confidentiality of this information during this three-day period, and we pledge to do so. We have enjoyed the support and consideration that your office has given us and feel that the waiting period we have requested in this letter will only reinforce our positive relationship. Although I am writing this letter, please feel free to contact any of the three superintendents regarding this issue. Sincerely, Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools cc: Mr. Bobby Lester Mr. James Smith J 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 16, 1992 Dr. Mac Bernd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mac: Thank you for letting me know that Bobby Lester, James Smith, and you would like to have some time to examine ODM monitoring reports before the media receives them. I have discussed your request with Judge Wright, and we are agreeable to your having reasonable time to prepare public responses to ODM reports. Lets try the following approach to see how well it meets your need for advance notice and my need for fulfilling ODMs responsibilities to the court: I will give ODM reports to you and the other parties the morning of the day before the documents are filed with the court. Reports will not be filed until the afternoon of the following day. This schedule will give you almost two full days to review a report before having to deal with media inquiries. I will count on you, Bobby, and James to maintain your pledge for strictest confidentiality. If there should be a confidentiality breach at any time, 1 will no longer furnish advance copies of reports. In any case, my staff and I will continue our practice of reviewing preliminary ODM reports with your staff, a discussion that affords another type of advance notice. Please let me know how this arrangement works for you. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Little Rock School District RECEIV^^ February 5, 1993 FEB 1 1 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham Suite 510 Office of Desegrsgation Moi tnng Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have appreciated your help and support as all of us work hard to improve the Little Rock School District. I also am concerned about carrying out the orders of the desegregation plan. Court with regard to Because of my concern about this issue, our would sincerely appreciate your sending me the instrumentation which you will be using for future monitoring activities. I am making this request so that the District can better follow the desegregation plan and maintain its focus on this vitally important issue. I would certainly appreciate receipt of these instruments as soon as possible so we may use them in conjunction with our own compliance efforts. I We have appreciated your past cooperation in this regard and apologize for any possible duplication, but we would like to have a complete set of past instruments as well complete file of all of these documents. so we may have a Sincerely, Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 17, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mac\nThank you for your letter of February 5, 1993, which 1 received on February 11, 1993. As you requested. Im enclosing copies of monitoring information 1 provided last fall. If you should need additional copies of any ODM monitoring reports, which 1 have routinely furnished all parties, please let me know. I share your concerns about the importance of the districts canying out the desegregation plan and related court orders. Thats why I place such emphasis upon communication and understanding, and why my staff and 1 spend a great deal of time trying to promote both those processes in the spirit of helpfulness and support. As a matter of fact, since last July when you became superintendent, my staff and 1 have had more than 30 meetings with your administrators to discuss ODMs monitoring. The implications of the December 30,1992 Court Order, which deals with the impact of the LRSD budget cuts, have been the subject of some of those discussions. Over the months, weve also covered many other topics, including ODM monitoring priorities, instruments, methods, and findings\nthe incentive schools\nearly childhood programs\nthe Biracial Committees\nthe McClellan magnet program\nincentive school staffing needs assessment\nthe alternative school\nthe Academic Support Program\nthe Four- Year-Old Longterm Plan\ncounseling ser\\'ices and state counseling standards\nthe budget process and budgeting cuts\nthe aerospace magnet school and grant\nand the King assignment zones and theme selection process. In addition to the many in-person meetings, there have been countless phone calls exchanged between members of my staff and yours about these same topics and many others. You are also well aware of the numerous conversations that Chris Heller and I have engaged in, as have you and 1.Page Two February 17, 1993 Moreover, to promote accuracy and to minimize the chance of \"surprises,\" we routinely review our written monitoring reports with district administrators before filing them with the Court and releasing them to the press and the public, judge Wright has also taken steps to ensure the best use of the time and resources of us all, issuing a scheduling order prior to hearings so the parties and counsel can fully prepare for the subjects to be covered. I also try to help you and your colleagues anticipate what to expect at hearings. Prior to the last hearing, 1 repeatedly emphasized to you, Chris, and others that the Court would have many hard questions about the status of the LRSD budgeting process and junior high capacities. 1 also stressed that, since judge Wright does not engage in ex parte communication, she would likely pose questions on other topics related to her Orders of May, November, and December 1992. There is no secret or mystery about how ODM monitors. My staff and 1 frequently discuss our monitoring priorities, methods, and findings in both formal and informal meetings with district personnel. Also, 1 recap the ODM monitoring approach in the introductory section of each ODM report. As 1 stated in my October 15, 1992 letter, which listed ODMs 1992-93 monitoring priorities, our monitoring is based on the desegregation plans, court orders and directives, and any unforeseen events\" related to ODMs charge. A recent order is one of those unforeseen events to which ODM is now responding. As you know from the last court date, judge Wrights December 30, 1992 Order will be the subject of a hearing to be scheduled soon. To explain ODMs response to that Order and what you can expect at the hearing, 1 will briefly summarize information that has appeared in my previous letters, memos, and reports about ODMs monitoring approach: All our monitoring relates to the districts settlement agreements, court orders, the judges directives, and state requirements. The monitoring instruments (or guides\" as we call them) used in long term monitoring are based directly on desegregation plan and order language. The introduction to ODMs june 5,1992 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report details ODMs systematic approach to a long term monitoring project and the three main information sources we use: written information, interviews, and observation. In short term or \"status\" monitoring, which takes place within a short time period, we do not create a special monitoring instrument\ninstead, as explained in the introduction to the Octobers, 1992 McClellan Status Report, ODMs investigation is guided by plan provisions and court orders that pertain most directly to the subject being scrutinized. We also rely on the same three main information categories: written sources, interviews, and observation. (The distinction between a long term monitoring report and a short term status report is clearly defined in the McClellan report.) Given the short timeline we have for monitoring the December 30, 1992 Order, ODM is presently conducting a status type investigation, as we did with McClellan last fall, using the specific language of the Order, the desegregation plans, and state standards to guide our monitoring. Also because of the brief time period, instead of publishing a written report, we will present our findings during the hearing scheduled for that purpose.Page Three February 17, 1993 By analyzing the December 30, 1992 Order and reviewing our previous monitoring reports, you and your staff will be able to anticipate the focus of our current monitoring and how we are going about it. Heres an example that, while not exhaustive, illustrates how we are carrying out our present monitoring assignment: In the section of the Order entitled \"Counselor Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel Department,\" the Court stated (on page 10) that \"if monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore u eliminated positions.' To monitor this part of the Order, we are looking at a variety of information that includes the requirements of the desegregation plans and state statutes\nreviewing documentation to determine the number and placement of counselors before and after the reductions\nexamining records to assess the extent of any caseload changes\nreviewing school records and interviewing counselors, principals, and other administrators to identify any changes in the number and types of counseling programs or services mandated by the plan and state standards, such as individual and group counseling, at-risk interventions, career development activities, test-taking assistance, etc. If you or your staff want to contact me or my associates for additional information about a particular aspect of our current monitoring, well be happy to answer any questions. Very truly yours, cAv Ann S. Brown Enc.Pat Lynch show, March 22, 1993 Mac: I miss Lynch at Large L: Whats going on in the district? re Judge Wrights comments.. How will district respond? Mac: As supt, it is my job to carry out plan and thats what 1 intend to do. The board is concerned about what was said. Will meet this Thursday. I believe SWW has said its possible we cant afford the plan, its a tremendous dilemma. L- She appointed a man who doesnt even live in LR [Mooney] to oversee the districts spending on deseg. What will he do? Mac: Were lucky because that amount of money is already in ODMs budget. He will help us develop the system so the Court can effectively monitor expenses. Ive talked with him and he has an excellent background in terms of the skills needed. This kind of a system is something we do need. We are trying to fix the car while driving it, so Mooney can work to help develop the budget system and the reporting system. Weve had a tremendous problem with our computer system. He will be able to work with that system. L: Is SWW trying to provoke the crisis that will cause the parties and settlement to say uncle? Mac: For me to comment would be a value judgement. It could be. We have a problem, we are charged with implementing the plan. Everyone can see the situation the district is in. One purpose of the hearing was to look at the effect of the cuts. Were looking at deficit of 5.6 million for 93-94. If we have to put back in former cuts, that will add that costs to next years deficit. L- How will the study group proposal fare? Mac: We will put some of those suggestions to the board. Some suggestions we couldnt put hard dollars to. Some suggestions will be politically unpopular, like closing of schools. In the end, I have to make the recommendations, some will come through and some not. L\nWere you surprised at stern tone of the committees recommendations? Mac: No, they appreciate the financial mess we are in. L What recommendations would you not put before the board. Mac: Cant answer it directly. What I plan on doing after consultation will be to put three or four alternatives before the board so they can choose most viable. Salary freeze would provoke outcry. L- The committee seemed to protect the classroom. Reflective of the school district as a whole. Mac: LR has a lot of interest groups protective of their turf and the battle is focused on the district. There will be powerful and vocal interests concerned about the proposals. Basically, the committee wasnt politically sensitive. L: Whats the timeframe? Mac\nWill have to have it concluded by the end of April. Will have community sessions, plenty of sunshine on everything.Arkansas Democrat\"W(!5azcllc June 11, 1993 Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 received JUN I 4 1993 Dear Ann\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring Here is the copy we have of Mac Bernd's employment contract, which I mentioned when we spoke over the tele-phone earlier today. Although it is full of a reporter's chicken scratch, I think our copy is still readable. As always, thanks for returning my call so promptly today and for your help during the court hearing earlier in the week. I appreciated it. Best, Danny Shameer CAPITOL AND SCOTT  P.O. BOX 2221  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-2221  (501) 378-3400 z 11, EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN DR. CLOYDE M. BERND AND THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS This employment contract is made and entered into this twenty second day of May, 1992 by and between the Little Rock School District Board of Directors (hereinafter referred to as \"Board\"), and Dr. 11 Cloyde M. Bernd Superintendent\"). (hereinafter referred to as WHEREAS, the Board desires to provide the Little Rock School District Superintendent with a written employment contract in order to enhance administrative stability and continuity within the Little Rock School District, which the Board believes improves the quality of its overall educational program\nand, MuroPBc t * A f o Board and Superintendent believe that a written employment contract is necessary to specifically describe their relationship and to serve as the basis of effective communication between them as they fulfill their covenants and administrative functions in the operation of the educational program of the District\nNOW THEREFORE, the Board and Superintendent, for the consideration herein specified, agree as follows: 1. Term The Contract shall be from the starting date until June 30, 1995. It is mutually understood and agreed between the Board and Superintendent that in the absence of a written notice from one to the other of an intention not to renew this contract, such notice to be given by the parties hereto not sooner than October 31 and not later than December 31 of each calendar year, this Contract shall be automatically extended and kept in full force and effect subject to all its terms and conditions for a three year term commencing on the following July 1. Service of notice shall be by hand delivery or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Should the Superintendent be able to work for the Board prior to July 1, 1992, the Board shall pay fnr this wor]c nn p^g H-ph basis calculated from the Superintendent's annual salary. ^Tray.l_for the SuperintendenttQ accomplish this-work^shSll be 'the Board, /\"aridisshan hot count as the \"house hunting\" discussed in Paragraph 3b. below unless the Superintendent's spouse accompanies him on such trips. 2. Salary The Board shall pay the Superintendent an annual salary of $110,000.00 payable in equal monthly installments for the 1992-93 ioT iscal year.The Board will review the Superintendent's performance on a date between October 31 and December 31, 1992 and annually thereafter. This review will be conducted in Closed Session and will be accompanied by a statement in writing which specifically describes and evaluates the Superintendent's performance. The Superintendent may respond to the review in writing. attached to the written statement by the Board. Any written response will be Immediately following each annual performance review, the Board will establish an annual salary for the Superintendent. Tjie Superintendent will receive annual salary at least equal to the same perge^age rate as the rate granted to teachers in the Little Rock increases SchoolDistrict, so 16nq~as tJiT^_percentage does not exceed five (5_%) percent.' In no event shall the salary^be decreased from the prevxoOsyear's Superintendent. salary without the written consent of the 3. Benefits a. The Board shall pay one time actual relocation expenses for the superintendent to fslocAte from his^present' residence to the vicinity of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. Arrangement shall be made for the Board to pay said expenses directly to the vendors accomplishing the move. b. The Board shall pay actual expenses for trips for the Superintendent and his spouse. o house hunting i c. The Board shall pay for temporary housing for th\u0026amp; Superintendent, if necessary, with payment up to $600.00 per month for two (2) months. d. Because the Superintendent is on call for twenty-four (24) hours during his regular work days, the Board shall provide the Superintendent a. - new. mid size domestic automobile. equipped with a cellular tp.lpphnnp for hiq sole and, professional The Board will pay the operational, use. e. f. maintenance, telephone. and replacement costs of the automobile and years by the Board. This \"atlLoiiiubirlestiarH bs repTac^ every\" three The Board will also furnish a new A notebook computer to the Superintendent for work at his place of residence or other locations away from the District. The Superintendent agrees that the Board is authorized to make such deductions from his salary as may be authorized or required by applicable law, including, but not limited to, withholding and other applicable taxes and contributions to retirement plans. The Board agrees to give the Superintendent an expense allowance of $200.00 per month to coyer the cost of misc^laneous expenses incurred in the course of his duties.~ The Superintendent shall have twelve (12X-Workinq-dav\u0026amp;-of-\u0026amp;ick.. 2g- h. 1. j  leave annually. His beginning amount of sick leave will be sixty (60) days as of July 1, 1992 with accrual of-one (1) day per month of sick leave to begin immediately thereafter. If the Board funds a plan for payment to teachers for unused sick days, the Superintendent will be compensated at his per diem rate for the number of sick days for which he would be entitled to payment under the plan. The Superintendent shall have twenty (20) working days of vacation annually. each school fiscal year. These days shall be awSTded on July 1 of these vacation days, they shall be accrued. Should the Superintendent not use All accumulated unused vacation days shall be compensated at the per diem Superintendent's salary rate in effect at the time the Superintendent leaves the District. The Superintendent shall also be entitled to such holidays as are authorized by the Board for all administrative employees for the Little Rock School District. The Board agrees to maintain disability, medical. dental. vision, and term life insurance on and for the benefit of the Superintendent and medical, dental, and vision insurance on and for the t nf Superintendent's-wife arid dependent children. These benefits shall be a eas to the benefits provided to teachers in the Little Rock School District. In the event the Superintendent shall be disabled and unable to perform his duties under this Agreement by reason of sickness, accident. or other cause beyond his control, and such disability continues for more than thirty (30) days, the Board may appoint an Acting Superintendent to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Superintendent under this Agreement. In the event the Superintendent shall be disabled and unable to perform his duties under this Agreement by reason of sickness, accident. or other cause beyond his control, and such disability continues for more than ninety (90) days, the Board may terminate this Agreement. In the event of termination due to disability, the Superintendent shall continue to receive the salary and benefits provided for in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Agreement for a period of six months from the date the Superintendent becomes disabled and also has exhausted all accrued sick leave and vacation. The Board's decision and determination as to the disability of the Superintendent shall be final and shall be based on the opinion of a properly licensed medical doctor or doctors. Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties, the Board shall exercise__its best efforts to ^obtainapo 1 icy of di_saBiTity insurance for_the benefit of the Superintendent exercise nbtain provTdihg for payments,._in the_eventofdisahility due to sickness or accidents, \u0026lt; commencing six (6) months after the 3 j I I si i ! I Ik. 1. Superintendent ^becomes disabled and continuing to age 65, which policy of~3isability insurance shall provide a monthly income of at' east Sxiperintendent's base sa forty-five percent (45%) of the ___ ,rv as piuvided in this Agreement,~ with Waiver of premium provisions. Board does not The represent or warrant that disability as defined by such policy shall be the same as disability as determined and defined by the Board. If the Board disability insurance policy, is successful it will pay in obtaining the a necessary premiums thereon to maintain said policy in force during the remaining term of this Agreement and any extension thereof. The parties hereto recognize that the terms and conditions of disability insurance policies vary and that the Board shall consult with the Superintendent before final selection of any such policy. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the obligations undertaken in this Paragraph shall be fully discharged if the Board obtains and maintains in force a policy of disability insurance containing terms and provisions consistent with those referred to under this Paragraph. Because the Superintendent has relocated from another State, and said relocation detrimentally affects the Superintendent's retirement, the Board agrees to furnish to the Superintendent aru^dditional $ 10, OOOTUO annually to BS placedin This Annuity plan is to be Sheltered Annuity (l.R.S. 403 B)~7 -aTax selected by the Superintendent. If the Superintendent leave's\"* the)-isti~rctbefor'e~servihg three ^contract years, he shall~\u0026gt; repay' the District the full amount of all pa^ymehts made If the Superintendent leaves rhe pursuant to this paragraph.' District after serving three full contract years but before serving four full contract years, he shall repay the District one-half of all_pavments made,.pursuant to tHTS\" paragraph. Tf the Superintendent leaves the District after serving four full contract years but before serving five full contract years, he shall repay the District one-quarter of all payments made pursuant to this paragraph. If the Superintendent leaves the District after five full years, the Superintendent shall have no obligation to repay any of the payments which have been made pursuant to this paragraph. If the Board terminates the Superintendent's contract before June 30, 1997, or decides not to extend the contract beyond that date, the Superintendenf^ shall have no obligation to repay any of the payments whicli.7 have been made pursuant to this paragraph. The Board encourages the continuing professional growth of the Superintendent through his participation in state and national conventions, seminars, or other functions intended for the purpose of increasing his knowledge and leadership ability. In addition to the expense allowance in paragraph 3(e) above, the Superintendent will keep abreast of developments in the field of education, and the Board agrees to pay his expenses , in attending meetings, seminars, workshops and other programs 4m. n. for this purpose. With the prior knowledge of the Board, the Superintendent may undertake consultative work, speaking engagements, writing, lecturing, or other professional duties and obligations\nsaid outside professional activities may be performed for consideration provided they do not interfere with or conflict with the Superintendent's performance of his duties under this Agreement. The Board shall pay the Superintendent's membership charges for the American Association of School Administrators and for the Arkansas Administrators Association. In addition, the Board shall pay the membership charges and associated expenses for one (1) service club. 4. Physical and Professional Conditions There shall be filed in the records of the Little Rock School district an official transcript of the Superintendent's college training, proof of his date of birth, and a current, valid teaching license of the highest grade attainable with college credits, which license the Superintendent shall be responsible for maintaining during the term of this Agreement. Because his current license is from another state, a reasonable amount of time will be given^Tor the Superintendent to obtain such license after beg~ihhih~g his~ duties on July 1, 1992. in accordance with law and the regulations of the Arkansas State Board of Health, the Superintendent shall file annually a certificate issued by a reflecting his condition of physical and mental health. licensed physician The Board shall bear the expense of the Superintendent's annual physical. 5. Related Employees The Superintendent represents to the Board that he is not related to any member of the Board within the degrees prohibited by the laws of the State of Arkansas. 6. Duties and Responsibilities The Superintendent shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. All powers and duties which may be delegated lawfully to the Superintendent are so delegated by the Board. These powers and duties are subject only to those powers vested exclusively in the Board under state and federal law. In addition, the Superintendent shall perfor-m such further duties as shall be assigned or required of him by the Board, provided however, such additional duties shall be in character and consistent with Superintendent of the district. the position Only the Board, of the in a legally 5 called meeting, may direct the Superintendent. The Superintendent will have complete freedom, subject to state and federal law, to organize. reorganize. and arrange the administrative and supervisory staff in a way which, in his judgment, best serves the Little Rock School District. This authority does not empower the Superintendent to increase the number of positions in his cabinet without Board approval. It is understood by the Board that the employees of the District report to the Superintendent in his capacity as chief executive officer of the Board and shall work under his direction. The responsibility for selection, placement, evaluation, and transfer of personnel shall be vested in the Superintendent. Board will not act on personnel matters except upon recommendation ~of the Superintendent.~ District. It is understood by the Board that its individuaX direct or command any of the employees of the It is also understood that the Superintendent as chief executive officgr~'dr~the Board, is the designated spokesperson for the District because he alone is empowered to carry out the Board's direction. Board members may express their individual views to the public and the press on matters of public concern, but the Superintendent will speak for the District. concern. The Board will not enter into district Superintendent. any binding agT-ftiainxrvbwithany union ^representing employees except upon recommendation of the 7. Board/Superintendent Relationships The Superintendent will work closely with the Board in developing a spirit of cooperation and teamwork in which the Board will accept responsibility for the formulation and adoption of policy and for taking action on matters which by law require Board action. It is agreed that the Board, individually and collectively, will refer promptly to the Superintendent, for study and recommendation, all criticism, complaints, and suggestions brought to their attention. 8. Discharge for Good and Just Cause The Superintendent may be discharged for good and just cause provided. however, that the Board does not arbitrarily or capriciously call for his dismissal and has given him reasonable time to correct the conditions which are the cause of the Board's concern. In the event the Board exercises such right, the Board shall follow the procedures provided by the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, as it may be amended, for nonprobationary teachers. In addition, notice of discharge for good and just cause shall be given in writing along with the specific reason or reasons therefor, and a copy of any and all documents upon which the claim of good and just cause is based. The Superintendent shall be 6entitled to a full, establish such cause and reasons. evidentiary hearing before the Board to If the Superintendent chooses to be accompanied by legal counsel at such hearing, the Board shall bear all fees and costs therein involved. Reasonable time shall be pemnitted for the Superintendent to prepare for the hearing. Such hearing shall be conducted in closed session unless specifically prohibited by State law or a public hearing is requested by the Superintendent. 9. Professional Liability The Board agrees that it shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the Superintendent from any and all demands, claims, suits, actions and legal proceedings brought against the Superintendent in his individual capacity. or in his official capacity as agent and employee of the Board, including costs and attorney fees, provided the matter arose while the Superintendent was acting within the scope of his employment and excluding criminal litigation and provided such liability coverage is within the authority of the Board to provide under state law. individual Board members be Except that, in no case, will considered personally liable for indemnifying the Superintendent against such demands. suits, actions and legal proceedings. claims. The requirements of this paragraph may be met by the purchase by the Board of a professional liability policy of insurance. 10. Public Record The parties hereto agree and understand that this Agreement shall become a part of the public record. 11. Waiver The failure of either party to insist upon performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any right granted hereunder or of the future performance of any such term or condition. but the obligations of either party with respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. 12. Severability In case any provisions of the Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall be severable and shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereafter. 713. Entire Agreement This instrument contains the entire agreement of the parties. It may not be changed orally, but only by agreement in writing signed by both parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on May 21, 1992, at Little Rock, Arkansas. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD By: (Board President) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) Superintendent 8Arkansas Democrat 17 (gazette MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16. 1992 I Public invited to Bernd broadcast today -St .Superintendent Mac Bernd will present a live broadcast entitledBernd will TeS?i?i'VeSe'SS = by members of pubHc recen t \u0026lt; _____.., 5 puuiic at a recent series nr seven fnr,,.. luemDers ot the Dublir at a Z - taiocu budding at 810 W. Markham St. .he drSsTd tteSeV''' s administration repeat the major issues discussed at the are being ad-Arkansjvs Democrat /WitCiazcllc THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1992 B Bernd, board find all quiet on school front BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Ornrocai-Gazelle Eduralion Wtilet Lillie Hock School Board members and Superintendent Mac Bernd went Io where the action wa.s Wednesday, taking the enlire da,v Io visit classes in seven of Ihe disiricl.s schools. Though individual bojird member.s fre(|uenlly visit build ing.s or attend school functions on I heir own time, the tour Wednesday wa.s the first one . taken in recent years by a group of board members whi le school wa.s in session. What they generally found were (|uiel hallway.s and order- I.V classrooms where teachers were leaching and .studenl.s were learning, For example, at .Jefferson El- cnicnlary Scliool, second- graders were listening to a story. \"Annie and the Old One, a.s part of their studies aboul pil- grim.s and American Indians. Sixth graders in Becky Ham seys class were using calcula- lor.s to delcrmine how many item.s on ,a menu they could pur chase for under $3. Al McClellan Community High, I Ith-graflers were taking a standardized apliliide test spun sored by the armed forces, while 's two of Marolyn Ogden.s pupil. Ill l''air Park ICIeinenl.ary were improving llieir reading skills by reading aloud the story of \"Hairy Bear. Pupil.s throughout I''air Park were wearing hats in observance of \"Hats Off To Heading Hay. At Western IlilLs Elemenlary, the board members inspected renovated and new classroom.s and raved aboul the school's ap pearance. They checked on the business and communicalion.s magnet program at McClellan and found evidence that the program i.s indeed being implemented, though not all the com[)uter equipment for the student.s ha.s been installed. Al Terry, the board paused for lunch, eating the same macaroni dish, rolLs and pineapple chunk.s served to students. \"The roll.s were wonderful, board member O.G. .Jacovclli said. At Eoresl lleighl.s .lunior High. Ihe board member.s eyed with relief Ihe adjoining sleel structure that will evenlually become aboul 30 new classrooms. The new building will virtu- aIly replace Ihc existing school, whicli was not the besl-looking facililj' board members saw Wednesday. The new classroom.s could be opened in lime for school next fall. \"I havent seen anything shocking, board member Horsey Jackson said near the end of the lour, which started at Mitchell Elemenlary al 8:4.', a in. and ended at 3:15 p.m. at Forest Heights. The schools were orderly. .laekson said. Board ineinber.s diligentl.v checked the condition*\nof porlahle buildings at some of jhe schools, and asked aboul Ilie impact of lost counseling posi- tion.s thi.s year. The counselors rank.s were reduced as pari of a $10 niillion spending ctil this year. Bernd, who look a few 111111- Utes to read a story to some Fair Park students, ,said that he had asked school office worker.s about their use of the new, somewhat controversial, computer system thi.s year. Barbara Ball, school secretary at .Jefferson, said she has had no problems learning to keep enrollment and attendance records on the new system. She attended five clas.s ses- sioihs to ac\u0026lt;|nainl herself with the system and was beginning to use it to make purchases for the school, she said.2B  FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1992   LR group to bolster Bernd pay  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Good schools mean industrial development. For that  reason Fifty for the Future Inc. is responding to a Little Rock School Board request for private funds to supplement Superintendent Mac Bernds\nsalary, the president of the organization said Thursday. We are an industrial development group.\" Sam Sowell said. We exist solely for i that purpose, and good\nschools mean good industrial development. The board of directors for Filly for the Future has agreed i to contribute $25,000 and to try to raise an additional $25,000 through voluntary contributions from their membership for Bernd. The organization will take out a second mortgage on Bernds home. According to the plan, if the superintendent keeps his job for five years, he will not have to repay the money to the organization. If he leaves, he will have to reimburse the organization for the funds when he sells his home. Bill Cravens, another member of Fifty for the Future, is making the arrangements for the mortgage agreement. Sowell, owner of International Graphics Inc., said Fifty for the Future is continuing to seek contributions from its members and that the money is beginning to come in. He declined to say how much has been raised. He said there was no reluctance by the board, which met for a regular meeting ' Thursday morning, to proceed with the effort despite some criticism of the plan from the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and some media commentators. The financial request by some of the school board members came to light Monday during a radio talk show. The effort had not been publicized previously. School board members said they told Bernd when he was hired in May that they would try to supplement his salary' with private funds from the busines.s community, but I they could not guarantee the extra money. Bernds contract provides a $110,000 annual salary, plus an annual $10,000 annuity. If he stays in the district three years, he can keep half of the accumulated annuity funds. If he stay.s five years, he can keep the entire amount. The idea of private funds for public ofTicial.s is not new in Arkansas. , U.S. District Judge Henry\nWoods in 1989 made provisions for community organizations to supplement the salary of Eugene Reville, hired by Woods to be the metropolitan supervisor in the three Pulaski County districts. Woods set Revilles salary at $98,500 to be paid by the three school districts. He also said arrangements could be made with community organizations to prevent Reville from losing money as the result of moving from Buffalo, N.Y. In 1967, when the late Winthrop Rockefeller was governor of Arkansas, it was disclosed that he was person- ally supplementing the salaries of at least 13 state employees by more than $1,000 a year each. The late Joe Purcell, who was attorney general at the time, said in an opinion that it was improper for the governor to supplement the salaries to a point above the salary limits set by the Legislature for the positions. However, according to news accounts from the lime, the practice was not stopped. Rockefeller said it often took more money than the state was providing for a position to get top-night leadership.(l\u0026gt;azcttc p FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1992 EDITORIALS w More light, please Private money and public business hats wrong with a group of civic-minded leaders inducing a promising school superintendent to stay on the job by trying to raise $50,000 in extra pay? Nothing we can think of except not mentioning the idea to the public. Which of course leaves the impression that there is something wrong with it. Actually, this deal sounds like an act of responsibility and generosity on the part of Fifty for the Future in Little Rock, where the school district has had seven superintendents in the past 10 years. It would be more than nice. It would be stabilizing, if somebody like Mac Bernd stayed on for at least five years. It would have been nicer if the school board had mentioned the idea proudly and openly at a press conference when Dr. Bernd first came to town  as if it were the public business it is. Then the board wouldnt have had to hold a press conference this week to explain it all and try to dispel the doubts that quiet deals always raise. Moral: There is nothing like secrecy, even the unintended sort, to rouse suspicion  and nothing like sunlight to chase away any shadows. The school board made a misL J take when it discussed this deal only informally in executive session and never took a public vote on it. This is the kind of thing the Freedom of Information Act was designed to prevent. If its spirit had been followed, or just remembered, the board and Dr. Bernd would have been spared this weeks embarrassment. The extra $50,000 for Dr. Bernd may represent a commendable private initiative, but it also affects a prominent public employee. And the public  like any employer needs to be told when somebody else is paying its servant for doing his job, how much, and why. So, as any good educator would ask, what have we learned from this? That at the end of any executive session of a school board, or even during it, someone should be specifically responsible for asking whether the public needs to know what is being discussed, or if a vote on the matter needs to be taken in open session. One good way of telling is to ask the question: Suppose some radio talk-show host, like KARNs Pat Lynch, produces a memorandum about the decision and asks for an explanation. If that would embarrass, then either the board should not be talking about the subject in private session, or it should let the public in on what has been said as soon as it walks out the door. Its simple when you think about it. Beforehand. If the board needs a reminder, it is welcome to clip and save this editorial for handy reference during every executive session. We would consider it an honor to be of public service. Aikansas Democrat (gazette MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1992 Copyright O 1992. Littte Aock Newspapers Inc. I I Mac Bernd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, I is convening an organizational meeting of about 30 business peo- pie Tuesday night at the school district administration building. The committee will assist in financial planning for the 1993-94 school year. Bernd asked in November for volunteers for the special finance committee, which wilt make recommendations on budget cuts and streamlining the districts operation. Bernd has estimated that the district will have to cut $4.6 million in expenses next year to balance the budget. That cut would follow on the heels of a $10 million budget cut this year. 4Arkansas Demcxirat (gazette D WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1992 CoQyngnt O 1992. Utita Rock Newspapers Ine. Bernd asks citizens to assess 8 areas looking for savings 4 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrai-Qazette Education Writer Little Rock Superintendent Mac Bernd has asked a citizens committee to study eight areas of school district operations that could be more efficient. Bernd formed the committee of about 35 people, including parents and business and civic leaders, earlier this month to make recommendations that could be incorporated into the 1993-94 district budget. He told the committee at a meeting Dec. 16 that the district will have to trim as much as $5.2 million in expenses to balance next years budget. The district has a $112 million budget this year. Based on priorities listed by the committee members, Bernd is recommending that the committee focus on the following eight areas:  Safety and discipline. Bernd said the issue is of tremendous concern to patrons and addition of police resource officers in the 13 secondary schools could be a new cost.  Physical plant. The district is being asked to build new schools while older buildings need repairs and renovations. The committee should consider whether the district has too many schools that are under capacity or are too small to be operated efficiently.  Staffing. Seventy-five percent of the operating budget is spent on personnel. The committee should examine areas for reductions and for reallocations of funds so that personnel can be added in high priority areas.  Teaching and learning. Academic programs in the district should be studied to see whether the costs of the programs can be justified in terms of student learning.  Nonacademic areas. Can any of the nonacademic functions be eliminated or made more cost-effective? Many of the functions are required by laws and regulations or are expected by the community. He told the committee Dec. 16 that the district will have to trim as much as 35.2 million in expenses to balance next years budget. The district has a SI 12 million budget this year.  Transportation. The district is required to transport students because of geography, the districts desegregation plan or by law. The committee should study the efficiency of the system.  Courts and desegregation. The district is committed to a quality desegregated education system for all children. However, the desegregation plan should be studied to identify requirements that are ineffective, outdated or inefficient.  Revenues. The committee agreed earlier that sources of new revenues should be studied. Bernd said the districts financial future cannot be secured by budget cuts alone or by millage increases without making budget cuts. Other public or private sources of funds may exist. Committee members will select the topic in which they are interested. Groups for each subject area will meet at 6 p.m. Jan. 13. The overall committee is scheduled to complete its recommendations to Bernd in early March. Bernd is planning to submit a proposed budget to the school board in early April.1 \u0026gt; 6B  SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1993 Lawyer wants Bernd contraet defined BY CYNTHIA HOWELL . Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock civil rights lawyer .John Walker filed three documents in federal court Friday pertaining to different aspects of the 10-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit. The documents, sub-  mitted to U,S. District Judge Su-  san Webber Wright, included\n A request that the Little Rock School District clearly define the terms of Superinten- dent -Mac Bernds employment , contract, including any funds * being paid to him by members , of the business community,  A request that Wright an- \\nounce the criteria she will use fin selecting a court appointee 'to develop a Little Rock district Xbudget that will enable her to jmonitor the districts compliance with its school desegrega- -tion plan. The motion further 'requested an additional time -for Walker and other parties in the school case to nominate people for the job.  Objections to the Little Rock School Board election zone plan approved in January by the Pulaski County Board of Education. Walker, who represents the class of black residents who intervened in the Pulaski County desegregation case, said that although Bernds contract is a public matter, the public records are uncertain. He specifically asked that the district disclose whether it has made any arrangement with private citizens to supplement Bernds pay. Late last year it was disclosed that school board members had approached Fifty for the Future, a group of business people interested in economic development, about providing Bernd with $50,000 that he would be able to keep if he stays in the Little Rock position for five years. Where private money is paid to public officials without there being public accountability, the public officials may be subject to undue influence of their private benefactors, Walker said. He said the interests of a private group may be in opposition to the interests and needs of minority schoolchildren. He also contended that when the school board sought a new superintendent last summer, it did not disclose a $50,000 supplement to the pay. That could have been a ke5' factor in the decision of a black candidate. The black candidate, who was the first choice of the board, did not take the job. Walker said the different offers made to the candidates constitute an act of discrimination. In response to Wrights order Tuesday that she would appoint a person to develop a budget that links revenues to desegregation programs. Walker said he hoped the pool of job applicants would include black candidates. He said the district has shown no inclination to respect minority interests in the budget process. He also pointed out that a new Little Rock budget employee, who will essentially be working for the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring, could affect the neutrality of the monitors office. Wright has said the new person will work in the Little Rock administration and be paid by Little Rock, but will answer to the desegregation monitor. Walker noted objections Lit- tie Rock School Board members had Thursday night to the judges plans. School board members objected to the cost of a new employee and suggested that the Office of Desegregation Moni- , toring do the job. One board 1 member said the district is | spending about $500,000 for the office, Ann Brown, the desegregation monitor, said Friday that the Little Rock district contributed $169,728 last year and she expected the amount to be the same this year. She said the office has been frugal in its expenditures and that the district may not have to increase its share of the office costs by much when the new budget employee is appointed. The Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock districts and the state of Arkansas also contribute to the cost of the monitors office. The total budget in 1991-92 was $591,557, On the issue of the election zones. Walker said the proposed zones do not comply with the provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965,- Arkansas Arkansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 1993 Copyright  1993. Utile Rock Newspapers. Inc. B Two districts out West lure Bernd to interviews BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District Superintendent Mac Bernd is a candidate for similar jobs in Newport Beach, Calif., and Glendale, Ariz. Bernd confirmed Friday night that he was recruited for those jobs and had interviewed in both cities. He has had a fbllow-up interview for the Newport Beach superintendent job, which indicates he is one of a relatively small number of remaining candidates. Richard Luehrs, co-chairman of a 50-member citizens committee, said Friday that Bernd was among 13 semifinalists interviewed for the position last month. Luehrs refused to say whether Bernd was a finalist but said: Mac Bernd is an outstanding candidate. I do remember his interview, and he is very quali- There has been wide speculation in Little Rock that Bernd went on recent job interviews. Bernd became Little Rock schools superintendent July 1, 1992. Reached before Luehrs comments, Bernd refused to speak about the matter. I couldnt comment on that, Bernd said when asked whether he had applied for any superintendent positions. Its the season for superintendent jobs to open. Were like baseball managers. Ive had contacts from headhunters. It happens every spring. I think if you look at the pressures on the Little Rock superintendent, when anyone hears if one gets anywhere near an airport, people wonder if they will come back, he joked. But after learning of Luehrs remarks, Bernd commented briefly, confirming that he had been interviewed for the jobs. I have not made any decisions about leaving, Bernd said Friday evening. Im just interested in finding out what the situation is like, and the fact that they expressed interest in me is flattering. He said he is not unhappy in Little Rock and that he finds many aspects of the job satisfying, including working with the people in the district, city and on the school board. He said what displeased him in his first year as superintendent in Little Rock was not having time to visit classrooms because he had to deal with other issues. John Moore, Little Rock School Board president, likened the news of Bernds job interSee BERND, Page 3BBernd  Continued from Page 1B views to the story that broke last month about University of Arkansas basketball coach Nolan Richardsons speaking with officials who ran the Atlanta Hawks professional basketball team about coaching opportunities. Anybody in this day and time would be irresponsible to their family if they did not check about other opportunities, Moore said. Im personally glad that other school districts think enough of our superintendent. Little Rock is a hard district, principally because of the fact that we are in a desegregation lawsuit, and, essentially, the federal judge attempts to run the district. And its hard on a superintendent, hard on a school board. In the months leading toward Bernds hiring, board members said a long-term superintendent would contribute greatly to the stability of the district. The Little Rock district has had seven superintendents in the last 10 years, including Bemd. Bernd receives an annual, salary of $110,000 and is eligible for an annual annuity payment of $10,000. Board members included in his three-year contract a golden-cuff clause meant to entice Bemd to stay at least five years and to penalize him if he left before then. According to the terms, Bemd would have to return all payments the district made to his tax-sheltered annuity if he left before the end of three years. He would have to repay half the money if he left after three years and a quarter if he left after four years. If he stays five years, he will be free to keep the $50,000 paid into the annuity. School board members told Bernd privately when he was hired that they would seek community- financed supplemental pay, but that was not part of the contract. Bernds first year on the job I i Mac Bemd has been a baptism by fire. Within the first week, hed already been sued over cheerleader tryouts and called to testify in a school desegregation hearing in federal court. Several weeks afterward, Bernd led the district in teacher contract negotiations and cut about $8 million out of the $122 million budget. Last winter, Bernd became embroiled in a fight over his decision to suspend Central High School Principal John L. Hickman Jr., who is well-liked by some people in the city. Bernd suspended Hickman with pay Jan. 7 over allegations of sexual misconduct and mishandling school funds. Hickmans suspension hearing, which began March 4, has yet to be resolved. Bernd, meanwhile, investigated the allegations and on April 9 wrote Hickman a letter recommending that he be fired. But even while dealing with the Hickman matter, which has been time-consuming, Bemd led the district through an unprecedented one-day teachers contract { negotiation and balanced the\nbudget smoothly. Bernd came to Little Rock af- 1 ter having overseen the 10,000-\nstudent San Marcos Unified : School District in San Diego County, Calif., since 1986. I 2B  TUESDAY, JUNE 8,1993 Bernd still in running for one job Old Arizona district hires someone else BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rocks school superintendent remains a finalist for a California job, but an Arizona school district that named him a superintendent finalist has hired someone else. Dr. Mac Bernd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, remained in the running Monday to head the Newport Beach, Calif., public schools. The school district has about 17,500 students in 23 schools in Gosta Mesa and Newport Beach. The Little Rock district, which Bernd joined July 1, 1992, has about 26,000 students in 51 schools. Some Newport Beach board members said Monday they may make a decision as early as today, when a regular School Board meeting is scheduled. But other board members thought that it may take another week or two to reach a decision. The school district has about 17,500 students in 23 schools in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, ' A spokesman for the 9,300- student Glendale Elementary School District in suburban Phoenix said Monday that the School Board had selected Dr. Richard Terbush from the Pendergast, Ariz., public school system, as its new superintendent. '. Bernd, who used to work in the district, and Dr. Dan Johnson, assistant superintendent of the Cherry Creek, Colo., public schools, were finalists. -\nThe Newport-Mesa Unified School Board, which is recovering from last falls discovery that its top financial officer embezzled $4 million in school money, met in closed session in Newport Beach, Calif., Monday night to discuss whom to hire. The discussion centered on Bernd and Dr. Jerry Gross, area superintendent for the Long Beach, Calif., school district. Some board members said they may pull in two other candidates if Bernd or Gross drops out of the running.Arkansas Democrat (^azeU^ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1993 Copyright C 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Bernd still in running for California school post DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette EcJucaWon Writer A California school board remained undecided Tuesday over whether to offer Little Rock School District Superintendent Mac Bernd a job as its new chief. Newport-Mesa School Board President Rod MacMillian said . the board met twice Tuesday  once in the afternoon and again in the evening  to discuss op tions that included offering the job to one of two men, adding more candidates for ftnalist consideration or taking a site visit to Little Rock. If the board settles on one of , the two candidates, the winner will be contacted to see whether the job offer is accepted before the choice will be revealed publicly, MacMillian said. He said that Bernd and Jerry Gross, Long Beach, Calif., School District area superintendent, remain the top contenders to run the 17,500-student Newport-Mesa School District, which has 23 schools and includes the towns of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Board members had visited the San Marcos Unifed School District in suburban San Diego to review Bernds record as superintendent there and may visit Little Rock if interest remains with Bernd. Some Newport-Mesa board members have contacted some Little Rock School District board members and other community leaders by telephone to learn more about Bernds record here. Bernd ran the 10,000-student San Marcos district from 1986 until July 1,1992, when he came to Arkansas to run Little Rocks public schools. Little Rock is Arkansas largest district, with about 26,000 students in 51 schools. Richard Montgomery, executive assistant director of the California School Boards Association, the search firm that recruited Bernd as a finalist, said late Tuesday that he thinks the process has reached its day-to- day stage. Montgomery is advising the board in the selection process. The district, which is based in ritzy Newport Beach, Calif., is trying to rebound from a discovery last fall that the top financial ofTicer embezzled $4 million from the district. The board spent part of its time Tuesday in a budget session. . Sixty-three people applied for the Newport-Mesa position, which opened after John Nicoll retired in December 1992, after 21 years, because of illness. A citizens committee narrowed the list to 13 semifinalists Bernd and Gross emerged as the top contenders from the semifinalist list, and each has been interviewed by the board.Aikansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. Bernd leads other finalist for California school post BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District Superintendent Mac Bernd appears to be a front-runner for a job with a California public school district. The Newport-Mesa School Board interviewed Bernd, 49, in closed session Thursday night. A source in California with direct knowledge of the search, but who declined to be identified, said Thursday that the school board is leaning toward offering Bernd a job. Bernds interview marked his third session with the board since he applied for the superintendents job this year. The other finalist. Dr. Jerry Gross, 53, area superintendent of the Long Beach, Calif., Unified School District, has had two interviews. The boards decision to interview Bernd a third time represents more interest in Bernd than Gross as of Thursday night, though Gross remained a finalist, the source said. Board members wanted to ask Bernd some additional questions before making a decision, which could come as early as today, the source said. Bernd missed a regularly scheduled Little Rock School Board agenda meeting Thursday night  reportedly the first time he had been absent for such a session. A Little Rock School District official said Bernd had taken two personal days off, including today, but did not add where he was or what caused his absence. After the agenda meeting, the Little Rock board went into executive session for about 90 minutes over unspecified personnel matters without taking any action. John Moore, Little Rock board president, told reporters afterward that the board had discussed possible options to pursue if Bernd takes another job. Moore said the discussion included what steps the board might need to take to fill Bernds shoes, who may be available to fill in as a possible interim superintendent, and what plans may be needed to keep the district running administratively if Bernd quits. Bernd  who joined the Little Rock district July 1,1992  acknowledged a week ago that he had been interviewed for superintendent positions in Arizona and California. The Glendale, Ariz., Elementary School Board named Bernd as one of three finalists for superintendent, but ultimately selected Dr. Richard Terbush from Pendergast, Ariz. Bernd has spent much of his first year on the job in Little Rock dealing with the federal See BERND, Page 7B Bernd  Continued from Page IB court that oversees the Pulaski County school desegregation case and sitting through suspension hearings over a popular principal, John L. Hickman ' Jr. of Little Rock Central, on charges of breaking district policies. Bernd came to Little Rock after serving as superintendent of the 10,000-student San Marcos Unified School District in northern San Diego County, Calif. The Little Rock board, which oversees 26,000 students in 51 schools, signed him to a contract that pays him $110,000 in fiscal 1993. Before hiring Bernd last year, board members said a long-term superintendent would help provide stability for the district, the states largest. The Little Rock board gave Bernd a contract that offers financial incentives to stay at least five years, Bernd has said he applied for the California and Glendale jobs only after being recruited. He also has said he was flattered by the California and Arizona districts interest in him and simply wanted to learn about the situation in those places. The Newport-Mesa district, which includes ritzy Newport Beach and the town of Costa Mesa, has about 17,500 student in 23 schools. The search for a school chief in that oceanfront community brought attention on the West Coast because the California district is looking for its first superintendent in 21 years. John Nicoll, the California districts former superintendent, retired because of ill health in December 1992 after officials discovered that the school systems chief financial officer had embezzled $4 million in school funds.Arkansas Democrat W (gazette SATURDAY. JUNE 12.1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Bernd resigns to take California job Says court oversight of LRSD drained his enthusiasm ----- The board voted 4-3 to select BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Dr. Mac Bernd i.s leaving the Lillie Rock School District superintendents post after less than a year on the job. The Newport-Mesa School Board  which oversees the towns of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa in Orange County. Calif.  hired Bernd as superintendent at a special meeting Eriday morning. 1 like being in classrooms more than 1 like being in federal court, Bernd said by tele Departure of Bernd removes second of lop two officials responsible lor action against Hickman 13A phone from California. The last couple of days in court drove home the kind of activity the l.it-tle Rock superintendent gets involved in  a lot of time in fed eral court and a lol of lime with litigation. Thal had a tremendous influence on my decision. Bernd becomes the seventh superintendent, including acting superintendents, to leave the Little Rock post since 1982. He will gel a three-year contract with a starling salary of $104,000, beginning .July 15, to run the 17,500-student district in California. The Little Rock board hired Bernd last year at $110,000 a year, plus financial incentives to stay longer. His contract also called for raises geared to teacher pay increases. The California board interviewed Bernd Thursday night and took two votes Friday morning. Bernd, 49, over Dr. Jerry C. Gross, 53, area superintendent of the Long Beach, Calif., Unified School District and the only other finalist for the position. Edward Decker, one of the three board members who voted against selecting Bernd, then proposed that the board take a unanimous vote in support of and to hire Bernd. \"My no vote on Dr. Bernd simply meant that I believed that another candidate would See BERND, Page 13A Dr. Mac Bernd Bernd  Continued from Page 1A have been a better match for the needs of the district at this time, Decker said by telephone. ? But my no vote does not indicate that I think Dr. Bernd wont be a good superintendent. I believe he will be a good superintendent. Rod MacMillian, board president and one of the four members who voted for selecting Bernd, said he thought Bernd Would grasp educational issues and come to firm decisions better than the other candidate. I think that Mac has a more direct approach than the other candidate, MacMillian said. The second vote was 7-0. Bernd will replace John Nicoll, who headed the Newport- Mesa Unified School District for 21 years. Nicoll retired because of ill health in December 1992. Shortly before that, officials accused the school districts chief financial officer of embezzling about $4 million in school funds. - Bernd acknowledged on June  4 that he had interviewed for superintendent positions in Glendale, Ariz., and Newport Beach, calif. In both places, the boards selected him as a finalist. 'J John Moore, Little Rock . Sthool Board president, said he was disappointed to see Bernd leave but that it is understandable. 7 1 The leader of a school dis- .trict in most cities is an educational leader, Moore said. But in the last year the superinten- 'dent of Little Rock schools has juot had the chance to work in LRSD superintendents  Uttle flock School District su^^ntendents for the last IS ye^ 'Aug. 1978 - May 1982 May 1982-June 1982 JsA, -kJ ' June 1982 - June 1987 ! Dr. Paul Maseru, Supt. i Dr. Ruth Steele (Acting) \"tiW Dr. Ed Kelly, Supt. I Mr. Vance Jones (Acting) Dr. George Cannon (Acting) Dr. George Cannon, Supt, Dr. Ruth Steele, Supt, Dr. Mac Bernd, Supt. STEVE SCALLION /Ark. Dmocrat-Gaxtt9 education, but instead spends time in court and dealing with July 1989-June 1992 July 1992-July 1993 - July 1987-Oct. 1987 Oct. 1987- Dec. 1987 Dec. 1987-Aug. 1989 must have a masters degree that includes at least 60 hours ' of graduate study in educational administration or its equivalent. Moore said that, when Bernd returns to Little Rock next week, they will go over a list of pressing issues the district must handle as it prepares to enter a new fiscal year July 1 and another round of federal court hearings in the summer. Desegregation issues include gaining court permission for a site for Stephens Elementary School and addressing U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wrights concerns and questions regarding the districts budget and how that money is spent to comply with the plan. Wright oversees the Pulaski County school desegregation case. Bernd leaves a contract that offered incentives to stay. That contract, which took effect July 1, 1992, states that Bernd would get $10,000 annually in a tax-sheltered annuity. But the contract called for repayment if he left before serv-financial matters. He said that some people on the Little Rock board are considering whether the next superintendent ought to deal exclusively with the districts desegregation case and long-term financial condition, while a deputy or assistant superintendent oversees educational matters. As a result, Moore said, the board may consider the suggestion of one board member who thinks it is time for the district to examine whether it can get a waiver from the state Department of Education on the minimum requirements of a superintendent. If the board follows this path, it may leave room for the board to consider someone from the corporate world to become the next Little Rock superintendent. Ken Vaughn, who runs the certification office in the state Department of Education, said the basic requirement of a superintendent of an Arkansas public school district is certification as a teacher and four years of public school teaching experience, including three as a classroom teacher. The superintendent also Bernd did a lot of homework to learn about the job when he applied for it in 1992 and appeared to know what kind of situation he was entering. But Bernd said that kind of preparation cannot get anyone ready to deal with operating a district that is involved with oversight from a federal court. The legal system is designed to catch and punish people who do things wrong, Bernd said. To really improve education, you need to catch people who do things right. Bernd came to the 26,(X)0-stu-dent Little Rock district after serving as superintendent of the 10,000-student San Marcos Unified School District in northern San Diego, Calif., where he worked from 1986-92. He has spent much of his first year on the job dealing with the federal court that oversees the school desegregation case and sitting through suspension hearings over a popular principal, John L. Hickman Jr. of Little Rock Central High., for allegedly breaking school district policies. Ann Brown, who heads the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, an arm of the federal court, said that although the district will once again have to find a new leader, she is optimistic that the states largest school system can overcome the latest chapter of revolving-door superintendents. The Little Rock district is a survivor, and it will carry on, said Brown, who is also a parent of a child in the district. It will be difficult right now, but there is a lot of talent in that dis-ing three contract years. He also got a mid-sized domestic car equipped with a cellular telephone for personal trict and I think if everyone and professional use and a note- - - book computer for his home. pulls together, the district will make it, JUN-21-93 HON 11:36 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 ^Newport-Mesa mines New - a Superintendent By BOB ELSTON .SrSCIAl to THE TIMES c  ^ NEWPORT BEACH-After a four-monUi nationwide search, the j iiALiuiiwiu^ acGuk.li, viic ^ttoubled Newport-Mesa Unified j hool District on Friday hired the\n/school superintendent from Little SCBOO ? Rock, r|.kG.iC, Ark., but trustees were fj sharply divided in choosing the district's first new top administra- S tor in 22 years. After Cloyde McKinley (Mac) Bernd was hired in a 4-3 vole J\n1^. during a brief meeting Friday\nt. morning, he told the assembled ^ teachers, principals and adminis- . iraiors that he \"will give nothing , but my 100% effort to make this _distrlci the best in the nation.\"  it- Bernd, who was superintendent in the San Marcos School District in northern San Diego county for 'six years and then held the same 'post in Little Rock this past school ..year, was chosen over another .'finalist, Jerry C. Gross, an area superintendent in the Long Beach Unified School District. However, some trustees thought ! the district was hiring the wrong 1 man to the S104.000-a-year post. It'was an agonizing decision. V said trustee Martha Fluor, who. along with Judy Franco and Ed- ^.ward Decker, voted against Bernd. . We got a starkly contrasting picture of him\" from former col-' . leagues in San Marcos. I \"I dont think he is the right man j for the district at this lime,\" Fluor ' said, declining to elaborate.-\nAlthough the three dissenting trustees shied away from discussing specific reasons for opposing Bernd, they indicated that concerns about his reportedly tough management style were raised by officials in Ban Marcos. Trustees Please see BERND, A14JUN-21-93 HON 11:36 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 04 }* A14  SATURDAY, JUNE 12.1993/R i  J BERND: 3 I - 14* Dissenting  ^L Trustees  ..CoBtiausd from Al .also spoke with school offlcjals in . - 14ttle Rock during the screening  .   Xi P\u0026gt;as. X- \"\"TI felt some of hie qualities were $^Jnot as desirable as other candi- \u0026gt; 'dates',*' Decker said. I . Bui some of Decker's concerns .'about Bernd served as selling  points to other trustees, lit' '\"IT t hink hek hna..s the spark to bring S' this community together,\" said ^.trustee Sherry Loofbourrow. \"He pT can really connect with people, ft\" publicly and personally. |r..., Trustee Forrest Werner said: \"'Ke seta high goals and demands excellence from the people around .? him. . . . DAVID MUBONaKA / Lot Anfeks Timet Cloyde McKinley Bemd vows to work hard for Newport-Mesa schools. . The district, which includes 23 schools and 17,500 students .'!\u0026lt; throughout Newport Beach and - Cosu Mesa, began its search In i January, a month after longtime superintendent John W. NicoU announced his retirement, citing ill health. N icoU stepped down as the district was under heavy crit- ' iciam from parents and teachers outraged by the $4-million embez- ! zlement of the' district by its then-\n budget chief, Stephen A. Wagner. , Wagner has since pleaded guilty to I. the embezzlement charges and is j awaiting sentencing. { Since then, the district has tried 1 io recover its credibility with the community by Involving parents, . teachers, administrators and resi-dents in aelecling a new superin-tcndenU Sixty-three applicants from 20 sutes appUed for the Newpon- ! Mesa job, and after the resume- Profile: Cloyde McKinley (Mac) Bemd Bom\nOctober, 1943_____________ Marital status\nMarried with one child MUttary aafviee! Sergeant. Army Cdueatlon: Doctorate in education. 1975, University oT Colorado\nmaster's degras, political scierrce/sociology. 1970, University of Colorado\nbachelor's, degree, social science/psychology, 1967. University of Northern Colorado Most recent Jobs: Superintendent of schools. Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Ark.. 1992 to present\nsuperintendent of schools for San Marcos Unified School District, San Diego County, 1986-92_________________________ Hobbles: Marathon runner and avid reader flenul hygienist in Denver. The 49-year-old educator said in \u0026gt; an interview that he has make i decisions that created enemies. . \"In my experience as a superiO' tendent, I have had to make ded I I sioM that were not popular, he  said. F ! or example. Bernd was forced to lay off bilingual aides and i , screening committee and a M-member interview committee narrowed the field to eight, trustees . talked with colleagues in the home .  districts o{ the final two candidates I before making a selection. The district hired Bernd for\n IKMXX. which is *6,000 less than he made in Little Roick, where he\nwas responsible for overseeing 63 I schools and 26,000 studenU. Al-\n.  though the new superintendent , doesn't begin his new job until I July, Bernd spent most of the day Friday visiting district schools. A motorcycle lover who rides a Harley-Davidson, Bernd grew up in Colorado and has degrees from the University of Colorado and the University of Northern Colorado. He began his career as a social studies teacher and a coach of football, wrestling and track at a Colorado high school. He took the San Marcos job in 1986. Bernd is married and has a 26-year-old daughter, who is a \"cut into the flesh of the system to : balance the San Marcos School District budget in his final years : there. Some Ncwporl-Mesa trust-\nees suggested they were concerned\nby reports from some former col-  leagues in San Marcos that Bernd , pushed two prindpals into retire-  ment and shifted a third into another job. But despite budget constraints, student CAP scores in San Marcos under his tenure improved faster than In any other district in Cali- ' fornia. While In Little Rock for less than a year. Bernd logged a lot of ! time in Arkansas courtrooms as the\ncourts sought to uke control In desegregating schools there. , \"1 spent more time in the court- , room than I did in the clasaroom,\" Bernd said Friday. Even after taking over In Newport-Mesa, he may be forced to fly ^ck to Little Rock ! to testify in the legal battle. ! \"That is very frustrating for an educator,\" said Bernd, \"and is ex-  acily why I came here. T % Judge tells board 4 departures wont cut any slack for LRSD LO O cu BV DANNY SHAMEER \"oenMUMtt* educaltan WMw U.S, District Judge Susan Webber Wright said Thursday she is concerned about whos minding the store in the Little Rock Schiwl District because four top administrators are leaving But Wright told Little Rock School Board members during _  hearing that she doesnt plan \" lo let the district back off its de- ~ xgregatioH commitments while it goes through administrative rr transition for the second con- o o o Lo secutive year. \"1 am sympathetic to the dis- o hict.\" Wright said during a hear- iag mainly about a proposed site for a new elementary school building. I thought I was patient with the new administration in getting   FRIDAY. JUNE 25.1993   Related articles ISA, 28 its house in order last year, and I'm not about to go through the same thing again this year. The board faces a number of problems\n Dr. Mac Bernd, the superintendent. is leaving alter a year in office to accept a job in Newport Beach, Calif.  Gary Jones, the district's chief financial affairs official, is leaving to work for Memphis public schools.  Associate Superintendent Janet L, Bernard is leaving for a job in Poway, Calif.  Acting Assistant Superintendent Sam Stueart is returning to a teaching job.  Wright has scheduled hearings on the school districts budget for July 7-8.  District officials are trying to finish the new Dr, Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School and recruit a racially balanced student body for it  District officials are trying to prepare for the opening c? classes in August while seeking a replacement for Bernd. So far, no acting superintendent has been designated. Wright ignored a suggestion to postpone next month's scheduled hearing on the school district's budget. She urged board members to make sure the district is prepared for the hearing and suggested they turn to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring  which aids the federal court in Soo WRIGHT, Page tSA SVright Conlinued Irom Pago IA i^ersceing the desegregation plans and tl29.7S million fi- rtanciai settlement  if they need any help.\nWright, the federal judge who oversees the Pulaski Coun- ly school desegregation case, touched on the district's administrative turnover twice during the hearing. She used some of the hearing's opening minutes to allow tile court record to reflect the latest loss of top-level admin- Islrators.\"  a loss, joked John f-it. mmnk wllh the olan Walker, a lawyer who represents the Joshua intervenors, the black children and parents in the desegregation case.   Walkers otT-lhe-cufTremark (irompted some laughter.  Wriglitthen asked tlie school districts atlorney to reel off the itames and titles of the latest Repartees. - 'If0ie county board I Cannot meet its 1 qbligations under the  plan, the county district I the a separate Entity, and / want to iftake sure board ^embers understand ihat*Judge Susan Webber Wright I I Wright told school board them her 8 attending a hearing Thursday that their oversight is increasingly importanL ' Wright mentioned once again that receivership is alfails to comply with the plan and the court's instructions. Jerry Malone, the atlorney Who represented the district in court 'Thursday, said in an interview after the hearing the judge was sounding a concern, riot an alarm over the empty administrators' offices. ' \"I think slie just wanted to express an concern, which the board shares. The board has met several times to discuss alternatives and continues to meet to find solutions. The I f board is aware of its desegre- I gation obligations and I think  co 03 I LO CM I zter able in recruiting, inter- CO CD CD CD co CD LO oz X \u0026lt;x lx. \u0026lt;X) CD Q et\nlx. co CD I LO CdzI viewing and selecting a new team that can demonstrate a track record and an ability to become familiar with the issues we face here In a rapid and quick manner. Malone said the judge hasn't made clear what placing the district in receivership would entail, but that it implies that someone other than the school board would be given decisionmaking power. The Little Rock district wasnt the only one to feel Wrights touch Thursday. While instructing attorneys about next months budget hearings, Wright said she \"strongly suggests the Pulaski County Special School Board attend. If the county board cannot meet its obligations under the plan, the county district wont be a separate entity, and I want to make sure board members understand that, she said. The Little Rock School District sued the state and two neighboring school districts in 1982, seeking consolidation, setting off what is known as the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St Louis overturned a consolidation order but changed some of the Little Rock district boundaries to bring in more white students to the city school system. Wright is monitoring the parties' compliance with a subsequent settlement The Little Rock board was required to attend Thursdays hearing. During the hearing\nDorsey Jackson, the boards vice presgation plan to make sure correct language in the case was being put into the record. The board members spent about 30 minutes after the hearing with administrators from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts to discuss how to handle the delayed opening of the [ I I I King Jr. Elementary School. \"I think the board will have to take a more active role until we get someone in there and until the transition process has been completed, Jackson said during a break in the hearing. The Little Rock district, the states largest with 26,000 students, is facing its second con-secutive year of administrative turnover. Last year several top administrators left, but the board had already hired Bernd and started the process to hire the others. Bernd said he thinks the district will be able.to ride out the next couple ofWeeka without a problem. ......... . tble.toride if^eeka wi He said the administrators who are staying are handling various duties that they would normally do now. Mark Milfaollen, the districts controller, is preparing matef-lai for the districts budget i hearing before the court : Bernd said that other administrators are holding routine biweekly meetings to plart the opening of school next fall, which Involve Associate Superintendent Estelle Mattbis and others.  \"The conditions are such that this is a good time for a transition, Bernd said, refer'- ring to a prepared 1993-04 budget and a new teachers contract, \"What would really be tough is if there was no budget and if a contract still bad to be negotiated. The board has some breathing room.\"  Ann Brown, the desegregation monitor, said she does not anticipate any problems working with the district during the trari-sition period and afterward.  \"We will be as supportive as we can be, Brown said. ' Aikansas Democrat ^(gazette THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1993 Copynght o 1993. Unia Rock Nawapwan, Ire. LRSD board tackles filling Bernds shoes i Picking interim chief tops meeting agenda BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Board has tentatively scheduled a special meeting for 5 p.m. today and hopes to name an interim superintendent. The board has a self-imposed deadline to name or hire by today an interim superintendent for the states largest school district. John Moore, board president, said Wednesday. Moore said the board hopes to be ready with someone to fill in for Dr. Mac Bernd, the districts superintendent, who resigned to take a similar position in Newport Beach, Calif. Bernd vacated his office and left for California on Wednesday, which marked the end of the 1993 fiscal year.  Three other top administrators also have left. Two resigned to take similar jobs in other states, and one interim administrator returned to a teaching position because he did not j know who his immediate super- i visor would be. i Meanwhile, remaining ad- ministrators continue to handle the routine duties of the district and cooperate to perform the duties of the vacant positions. The district headquarters is\nat 810 W. Markham St.r I LOCAL NEWS/WEATHER/EDITORIAL PAGES S ACTION B SUNDAY JULY 11, 1993 ORANGE COUNTY cct I t HIGHLIGHTS I CANCER THERAPY EFFECTS: Young cancer survivors may find themselves suffering the side effects of radiation and chemotherar py\nlearning disabilities, stymied growth, weakened hearts and lungs, and loss of fertility. Bl NEW SCHOOLS CHIEF: Cloyde McKinley (Mac) Bemd, who will become superintendent in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District on Monday, talks about his plans to be accessible to students and teachers, and other issues. Bl A DUCKS CROWD: People lined up early at the Anaheim Arena for a chance to appear as non-paid extras in \"Mighty Ducks 2, lured by the chance to be in a movie, check out the new arena or see the films star, Emilio Estevez, Bl  !  i\n! '  ( New Schools Chief to Work to Restore Faith  Q\u0026amp;A: aoyde McKinley (Mac) Bemd, who will become superintendent of the troubled Newport-Mesa district, wants to be accessible to the community. For the first time in 21 years, a new person will sit in the office of the superintendent in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District on Monday. Cloyde McKinley Bemd, 49, who loves to ride Harley-Davidson motorcycles and goes by the nickname Mac, was hired last month from Little Rock, Ark., to lead the embattled district through some tough educational and budgetary issues. The Newport-Mesa school district is stiLL stinging from the largest embezzlement in the history of California schools. And when the school year resumes this fall, most teachers will handle classes that will have about 30 students from many cultures and races. All the while, school districts try to do more educating with less money. Bemd talks with Times correspondent Bob Elston about what it will be like to be superintendent of schools in Neuyport Beach and Costa Mesa and what QA changes can be expected during his tenure. #4 Q uestion: This is the beginning of a new era for the Newport-Mesa school dis-s A' \u0026amp; trict. You are the first superintendent to be hired in more than 20 years. Where do you plan to take this district, its faculty, administration and students? Answer: This school district has a long record of accomplishments. That is not to say that we have not had some recent problems. . . . What I will spend a lot of time on initially is determining what is really good about this school district and what needs to be improved. You have to keep both those things in mind at once, almost QWhat were your initial impressions of this district when you visited schools for the first time a couple of weeks ago? One of the things 1 asked teachers to do when I visited classrooms was to introduce me. And after they introduced me, the kids knew what a superintendent was and knew I was new. The [students] were responsive and helpful. They don't act like young people that have been Oppressed. Initially, I saw a good climate in the schools, responsive kids and people, who are proud to work for the district. Q Do you have an idea of what you can do to make yourself accessible to every-body, the students, the teachers, the par- ents and the administrators? I am going to be in every school twice before winter breakthat is 26 schools. That will keep me busy. We are-going to have some community forums set up where people have a chance to come in and talk about the schools. . . . We are going to set up the same kind of occasion for all employees. We see this being culminated with a sort of an education summit. We want to lay out our own map and move forward. QYou spent six years as superintendent in the northern San Diego County school district of San Marcos and then last year in the same position in Little Rock, Ark. Can you relate how those experienceswill influence what you do here? ASan Marcos had about 10,000 students Please see BERND, B5 LOS ANGELES TIMES BERND Continued from Bl when I left The district was a revenue-limit district, so finances were tough there. You would have to characterize it as a suburban district that is about 40% Hispanic. Over my six years there, various socioeconomic measures actually went down while [student] test scores went up. From there, I went to Little Rock, which was a typical urban school district It is a city that is 70% white and 65% of the school district was African-Ameri-can. . . . White flight was epidemic. There also was a heavy court-ordered desegregation order and, quite frankly, it was like nothing I have ever experienced in my life. I spent the majority of my time there, thinking about, preparing for or attending [court] hearings on implementing that desegregation plan. I could only spend very little time teaching and learning. QTell me a bit about yourself. It is hard to talk about Mac Bernd without talking about the Harley- Davidson and the nickname. I am a man of many interests and contrasts. I am in a line of work that requires me to be extremely straight-laced. People have made light of the Harley-Davidson, but that is a real enjoyment to me. I enjoy getting my hands dirty and getting out on the weekends riding. It kind of cleans out my head. I spend a lot of my time working with humans and human problems, and they are not like machines. The results are not predictable. ORANGE COUNTY being responsive to the community. When a cataclysmic thing happens. it really clears peoples head and gets them focused again. QWhat will restore the districts credibiiity with the community in the wake of the Wagner embezzlement? A In San Marcos, we had the same auditing firm that the district hired here to tighten things up. We (in San Marcos] had gotten things to the point where we had a tight operation. . . . You really got to get the community involved in the financial processes of the district. If people knew what was going on, then you are not going to have the opportunity that Mr. Wagner was able to avail himself. Q Moving on to other issues: The nature of a sex education curriculum has been an issue in this district Recently at Costa Mesa High School, parents had raised concerns about a presentation which used a banana to show how to use a condom. What is a good sex education curriculum and how much is too much? A State law says we have to forthrightly address some issues that students are exposed to in this society, and I think we have to do that within the bounds of good taste and what is acceptable to the community. 1 am not for spontaneous assemblies or other types of activities not within the curriculum. 'These are sensitive matters. QIs there a right way and a wrong way to present a bilin-gual education curriculum? Alt depends on who you talk to. You have got English-only oroDonents who sav that you have fully functional is this society. Even in multicultural Southern California, in order for them to do that, they will have to speak English well. QDo you speak another language? AYeah, I stumbled around in Spanish. I can probably at least get up and get through a speech if I am prepared well and get a lot of help. QWhat are your thoughts on campus security? There is a zero-tolerance policy for weapons In this district and on two occasions during the past school year kids as young as second or third grade were suspended for bringing a kitchen knife to school. The kids were suspended and then sent to other schools. AI absolutely agree with zero tolerance. You have to look at conditions in the community to decide how to enforce it In [San Marcos] we really didnt need a strong policy and in [Little RockJ we had metal detection in all the secondary schools. . . . When you get into young children who dont understand what they are doing, you have to be compassionate in how you handle it Transferring students or taking other measures which do not result in disruption of their education and do make a strong statement for the institution, it is a good way to handle it Q 'The district is preparing to launch its first fund-raising drive in the community to raise millions of dollars for school instruction, equipment and maintenance. Are you any good at asking A My focus is to be well-known enough in the community that at least I wont be a stranger to the people I approach. There are an awful lot of things to know and people to know, but I am going to be sure they get to know me. They -will know who Mac Bernd is and what he is about. The community has to feel they are a part of what you are doing. GO FOR THE MARBLE! Why settle for ceramic tile when you con get the look and quality of marble,^granite or limestone, at savings up to *40% below retail? 1 Marmol Export is a group of iT^e firms specializing in Crema Marfil, Crema Europa Limestone and Granites. UPTO 40% It has more than 20 years of experience in this business and brought a new conception of quality and service to the U.S.A. Get an additional 5% off your purchase when you bring in this ad. RESIDENTIAL  COMMERCIAL  IMPORT  EXPORT HPO/ir, It THE EXPERTS IN MARBLE In the Heart of the Mile of Tile 1550 South State College Blvd., Anaheim CA (714) 939-0697 While supplies last- This ofjer expires 8/31/93. R/SUNDAY, JULY 11, 1993 B5 THE COMPLETE PLAYER BASKHBALL CAMP ^^5THYEAR August 9th thru 13th At Golden West College Huntington Beach W Boys \u0026amp; Girls, Grades 3-12 Jack Haley With The For Information Call fSOO\n532-8255 ASXETlAtt CAM7 Buying direct from over 15 countries around the world. Marmol Export can assure you the best selection and the best price. Come and see the experts. We are open Mondays to Fridays 8 am to 5 pm and Saturdays 10 am to 5 pm. -JI  ^^UfMt wUygk kg\nt    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Superintendent Mac Bernd appears to be the front-runner for a job with a California public school district. He was interviewed by the Newport-Mesa School board Thursday night in closed session. I I MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1993  Golden parachutes let superintendents bail out in style BY DANNY SHAMEER Democral-Gazene Education Writer pocketed an extra $9,166.60 of taxpayers Rock School District payroll one day past the end of the fiscal spent in Cali- Thats one of the perks school superintendents and city man' agers get under contracts that state law would forbid for others, such as the governors Cabinet appointees. Its a reflection of the mar- pff Karl Plath Of Plath, Nielsen, Rodgers Associates, an executive search firm based in Northbrook Ill its of salaries and benefits. The challenge of fl nncifirvM o-.z4 *L. __ ..T* the quality of life will entice someone to from one end of the country to and ben- move efits have to be there.' Of school districts and managers of municipal governments can reach pockets through special clauses in contracts. t fdttle Rocks new superin- Honry P. Williams, claimed $77,734 from the Syracuse, N Y school district, where he worked until Sept. 30. Williams claim is for 212 used sick days and vacation days he accrued during the 4/i years he worked there. Williams terms of his contract Syracuses school board, stunned by that bill, is considering whether to stop its long- Standing practice of allo wine administrators to save unused time off that can be cashed in later. In Arkansas, the state Legis- iature has put controls on that sort of thing for agency depart- nient employees. Those controls attect even the governors Cabinet-level appointees. But school districts or city governments have no such across-the-board controls in ^Kansas. Its a community de- Thats the same situation in states surrounding Arkansas Whether the situation in Syracuse can happen in Arkansas will depend on how long a superintendent or city manager stays on the job at a particular city. School board members and city boards of directors say the types of contracts they give their superintendents and city managers are market-sensitive. Superintendents and city managers are roving professional administrators who apply for positions across the country, and the boards have to use extra incentives to attract them. n un- np 'dee president rLittle Rock s school board, said he thinks a school superintendent or city manager has a tougher job than, say, a Cabinetlevel officer under the governor. School superintendents and city managers must deal with specific problems than IndT Higgs said, h Higgs said local boards nave to be more accountable to the public. i aPerks  Continued from Page 1A There is a lot more pressure on the local level to hire the very best, Riggs said. Scott Trotter  executive director of Common Cause of Arkansas, a citizens lobby group that promotes governmental reform  said there is no perfect solution for communities. He suggested that local boards spell out contract terms before anyone is hired so the public will not be surprised. I can see that cities have some market pressures, but it seems like contracts need to be scrutinized publicly because they may have a time-bomb factor in the end, Trotter said. When a person leaves, there could be the potential for an incredible amount of money involved. In state government, there is a running debate about whether governors can affor.d to hire high-quality people, he said. Trotter said the Legislature has opted for some system of control by setting certain guidelines in Arkansas, such as:  Deciding on the highest salaries that can be offered.  Not allowing Cabinet-level officials to be paid for unused sick time.  Capping the amount of vacation time Cabinet-level officials can be paid for upon retirement or resignation. Grainger Ledbetter, president of the Arkansas Education Association, said the situation presents a double standard. School boards will hold down salaries and benefits for teachers but not make a comparable effort on salaries and benefits for administrators. I think any initiative to cut administrative costs would benefit teachers and kids, who are the folks in the classroom, Ledbetter said. The situation in Arkansas can best be illustrated by the almost simultaneous departures of two high-profile Little Rock education officials. Burton Elliott stepped down as the states education chief last summer about the same time as Bernd left. Elliott, whose perks are governed by state law, lost eight vacation days as director of the state Department of Education, general education division. He started in 1989. When he left, he was earning $83,578 for the 1992-93 school year. He resigned effective June 30. In his four years on the job, Elliott had built up 38 vacation days. But state law treats Cabinet-level officials such as Elliott the same way as lower-paid, state agency employees: They can accrue and get paid for no more than 30 days of vacation. As a result, when Elliott resigned, he got a check for $9,643.61  30 days worth of vacation time. He lost out on eight other days. Bernd negotiated an employee contract with the Little Rock School Board. ... It seems like contracts need to be scrutinized publicly because they may have a time-bomb factor in the end.  Scott Trotter The Little Rock School District followed the terms of Bernds contract by paying him for 20 instantly accrued days of vacation time at the start of the new fiscal year, plus nine carried over from the 1992-93 academic year. When he left Little Rock, he was paid $13,291.57 for unused vacation  $9,166.60 for the 20 days, and $4,124.97 for nine unused days he earned during the last year he actually worked as the districts superintendent. Bernd, who served as Little Rock superintendent for the 1992-93 academic year, earned a base salary of $110,000. His contract called for him to be awarded 20 vacation days on July 1. District officials have said Bernd vacated his office June 30. But he remained on the payroll for two more days  through the end of the work week. Dorsey Jackson, Little Rock School Board president, said that clause should not have been part of the contract and that vacation time should have been awarded on a prorated basis. Unfortunately, I think we made a mistake to allow a whole year of vacation time to be awarded July 1, he said. Jackson added that the board understood that by keeping School District, gets 15 days of Bernd on the payroll through July 2, which fell on a Friday, he would get extra money. But he said the board had to let Bernd leave when he wanted. Otherwise, the board would have had to set a date for Bernds departure, which would have been like termination  a more costly scenario for the district under the contracts terms. Also, Jackson said, the district had several unresolved matters that needed attention, and the board decided in June that it would rely on Bernd if it could not find an interim superintendent by July 1. By then, the board had named Estelle Matthis as interim superintendent. But the departure date for Bernd had already been set. Williams, the new superintendent, has a contract that allows him 20 days per year of vacation, which he can accrue. Un- Bernds agreement, like Williams contract does not specifically state that he gets all 20 days awarded on July 1. There is no cap on the number of accrued vacation days Williams can build up and get compensated for, as there is for other administrators in the district. Williams contract does not state whether he can get compensated for unused sick time, as he was able to do in Syracuse, but some board members said they interpret the contract as not allowing compensation for unused sick time. Other contracts show:  Tom Dalton, director of the Department of Human Services, now has the potential to build up to 30 days of vacation as a state agency employee. But as a former city manager of Little Rock he had the potential to accrue an unlimited number of unused vacation days, and get paid for them upon leaving.  Charles Nickerson, city manager for Little Rock and Daltons successor, may accrue up to six months of vacation hours. On the end of his tenure, he can get paid for any accrued and unpaid vacation leave.  Bobby Lester, superintendent of the Pulaski County Special School District, is treated like other long-time district employees when it comes to vacation: He can accrue and get compensated for up to 30 days.  James Smith, superintendent of the North Little Rock vacation a year, and they are not cumulative.I J. ORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES TIMES | | j. CHRrSTINE COTTER / Loe Angeles Times Supt. Mac Bernd \"Is pretty intense when it comes to work, says one Newport-Mesa school trustee. Turnaround Maestro Superintendent Breatlies New Life Into Newport District B3 By ROB ELSTON SPECIAL TO THE TIMES NEWPORT BEACHWhen Mac Bernd moved his belongings into the superln- I tendents office last summer, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District was a house divided. A chorus of parents and teachers were unrelentingly criticizing school officials, who had failed to prevent the district's budget chief, Stephen A. Wagner, from stealing $4 million from various district accounts. In the fallout of that 1992 scandal, the largest embezzlement In California school history, Siipt. John W. Nicoll had resigned, citing poor health. Bernd was hired six months later to begin repairing the damage. The embezzlement \"was really a calamitous event. I think there was a lot of sadness in the district, Bernd said. By the time the new superintendent moved in, \"there was an intense desire to move forward, to start having fun again. Bernd, 50, who was brought In last summer from Arkansas, has given the 17,0(X)-studenl district a lift this year with a series of swift, high-profile moves not seen in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa educational circles in a long time. In that past 12 months, he has presided over an administrative shake-up, hired new principals at all four district high schools, helped repair the district's finances, which were depleted by the embezzlement, and orchestrated a series of successful community meetings that have brought an alienated community back Into the fold. 'T think we have accomplished all those things In one year,\" said Forrest K. Werner, school board member. \"It has been an outstanding turnaround, and Mac was not bashful about taking the ball and running with It. Board President Edward 11. Decker said: \"People here have Profile: Mac Bernd Born\nLincoln, Neb. Lives: Costa Mesa Age: 50 Occupation: Superintendent, Newport-Mesa Unified School District Family\nWife, Shelley, and 27-year-old daughter by another marriage Education\nDoctorale in education, 1975, University of Colorado\nmasters degree, political science/sociology, 1970, University of Colorado\nbachelor's degree social science/psychology, 1967, University of Northern Colorado______ Profasalonal: 1992-93. superintendent of schools. Little Rock School District, Lillie Rock, Ark.: 1986-92, superintendent of schools, San Marcos Unified School District, San Marcos, Calif.__________________ Hobby\nRiding hi.s Harley-Davidson motorcycle____________________ How he'll fix things: \"We want to clear the way for teachers to do their jobs. I think there is always going to be conflict and problems, but it must not disrupt our focus on teaching and learning. Source: Newport Wesa UnMed School Ohirtet memories of a time when people In Ihe district were not returning their phone calls. . . . Our previous superintendent was somewhat invisible. But Mac's accessibility has overwhelmed people, after more than 20 years of not having that.\" Bernd immediately established a reputation for openness. He asked people to call him \"Mac. Before the start of the school year, 2,000 district employees, teachers and intendent is. . . . You don't (ordi-administrators assembled in the Edwards theater at Fashion Island Newport Beach for a one-hour pep rally. Bernd considers that his best performance of the year. eah, we filled the whole room. Obviously, people didn't know me at all, he said. \"We all got together and talked about leaching and learning. Il was importantI think there was a degree of acceptance there. The first day of school, the superintendent rode the bus with a groggy kindergartner. Later in the year, to the amazement of students allending a pep rally at Corona del Mar High School, Bernd drove his beloved Harley-Davidson motorcycle onto the floor of the gymnasium. He stole the show at a Costa Mesa High Schoo! student rally as well. \"He walked right out there and screamed Into the microphone, 'Are you ready to rock, Costa Mesa High School?  said Clay Stockton, a graduating senior. \"Students now cilltles will Include at least 11 con* actually know who the new super-narllyl see kids get excited about seeing an administrator. To get parents Involved, Bernd held a series of community meetings known as \"An Evening With Mac, which culminated in a much-hyped Education Summ\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eOffice of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"ndd_bsams_01007","title":"Box 1, Folder 7: Beyond the Dream Symposium, 1992","collection_id":"ndd_bsams","collection_title":"Black Student Alliance records, 1969-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862"],"dcterms_creator":["Duke University. Black Student Alliance"],"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Black Student Alliance Records, 1996-2006, Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American college students--North Carolina--Durham","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--History","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Political activity","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social conditions","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social life and customs","African Americans--North Carolina--History--Archival resources","African Americans--North Carolina--Political activity","Duke University. Black Student Alliance","Duke University--Students--Social conditions","Duke University--Students--Societies, etc.","Duke University--Students--Political activity","Student participation in administration","Congresses and conventions--North Carolina--Durham"],"dcterms_title":["Box 1, Folder 7: Beyond the Dream Symposium, 1992"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/uabsa/#bsams01007"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["[Identification of item], Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["biographies (literary works)","reading lists"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_267","title":"Budget, court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Western District)"],"dc_date":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"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/267"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["prints (visual works)"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER filed 1993 OARL fl, Sy.-. / clerk oep. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS During a hearing on July 8, 1993, the Court asked the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide an update on the status of the district's desegregation plan audit. The Court has repeatedly l expressed concern about this audit because of its crucial relationship to the district's planning and budgeting processes. The audit. which is an inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court orders, is to serve as a basis for the district's long-term program and budget planning. It will enable the district to determine not only what it is required to do, but also to ascertain the status of progress toward implementing each requirement. In response to the Court's inquiry at the July hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of the LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that he is in charge of conducting the desegregation audit. a task which was assigned him by the superintendent in March 1993. He stated that he expected the desegregation audit to be ready by August 1993. At the hearing, the Court once again stressed the importance of the audit and expressed  9 -1 J concern that it would be as late as August before the audit's completion. The Court directed the LRSD to provide the audit as soon as possible to the Court, the LRSD Board of Directors, and the other parties. The Court also directed Mr. Ingram to meet immediately with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, Mr. Bill Mooney, to discuss information that would expedite audit completion. Again, at a hearing to consider the LRSD budget on August 12, 1993, the Court inquired about the status of the district's desegregation audit. In response. the district offered a memo (Exhibit 164), dated August 3, 1993, documenting that the meeting with Mr. Mooney had taken place. The LRSD also submitted a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report (Exhibit 162) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular monthly meeting on July 22, 1993. The progress report indicates that the audit was not yet complete at the time of the board meeting. Mr. Ingram, whom council identified as the district's lead planner. testified that the plan audit was still not complete as of the hearing date, but that he expected to finalize it soon. This important audit process is taking far too long to conclude and is, thereby, impeding the progress of other critical program and budget planning processes. Superintendent Mac Bernd told the Court on February 1, 1993 that the audit was underway. although later evidence revealed that Dr. Bernd did not even commission the audit until March 1993. Now, almost six months later, the audit still is not complete despite assurances from the district in both July and August 1993 that its conclusion was imminent. Even though the Court -2-recognizes that certain follow-up aspects of the audit will be ongoing, the initial audit must be complete before other aspects of program and budget planning can be developed. During the August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court praised the LRSD for beginning to make planning headway, all the while stressing that the district had only made a beginning and that diligent follow- through and continuous execution would be necessary. The LRSD does not appear to have take that admonition to heart. The Court hereby reguires the district to submit immediately the desegregation audit it has promised for so long. If the audit is still incomplete at this time, then by 5:00 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of this Order, the district must file the following: (1) a complete and succinct list of the audit process steps that are complete and those that remain to be completed\n(2) the precise timeline for completing each of those unfinished steps\n(3) the person(s) responsible for each of those steps\nand (4) firm a completion and submission date for the audit. The Court reminds the LRSD that it and the other parties are reguired to provide simultaneously to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring a copy of any submission to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of September 1993. ^ITED STATES DlSTRICO\nt judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- ON BY_Vreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coOfeG 3 ^993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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 LRSD BOARD INVOLVEMENT The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or District\"), for its Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, the order of this Court, states: pursuant to 1. On November 16, 1993, an order was issued and filed directing the Board of Directors of the LRSD to file a report outlining how the Board was being involved in the LRSD budgeting process, how the Board was preparing itself to make specific budget decisions, how the Board's approval was being sought and received, and outlining which specific line item budget transfers the Board had approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. This filing is intended to be responsive to that order. 2. As an attachment to the order. the Court included excerpts from the transcript of a July 8, 1993 budget hearing. In the order, this Court specifically referred to comments by a Board member that he hoped the Board would know by Christmas 1993 what Irsdpul.notbudget cuts to make in order to address the anticipated deficit for the 1994-95 school year. However, by virtue of the manner in which personal and real property taxes are assessed, collected and paid in the State of Arkansas, and the manner in which Pulaski County administrators notify school districts of the funds which will be available to them from those tax collections, District administrators are not in position to provide the initial a financial forecast until after that information has been obtained from the County administration. assessed and analyzed. The information from the State of Arkansas regarding minimum foundation program aid to the respective Districts will not be available until even later in the 1993-94 school year. It is also necessary to place the referenced comments by the Board member into the proper context. Mainly, by order dated June 15, 1993, this Court required the LRSD to begin the development of a planning process that would be used by the District to develop its 1994-95 budget. Prior to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD had been required to submit certain information responsive to that order. The June 15, 1993, order also required the LRSD to develop a written action plan to demonstrate how it would develop a long- range planning and budget process. That action plan had to be filed on or before June 28, 1993. The action plan was timely filed and the LRSD was in the process of developing a written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process at the time of the July 8 hearing. The Court had required that written plan to be Iradpul.iKX 2filed by July 30, 1993. Accordingly, at the time of the July 8, 1993, hearing the LRSD had neither developed, analyzed, adopted nor submitted its written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. Subsequent to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD continued its efforts to develop a written program planning and budgeting process. 3. In developing the planning and budgeting process, representatives of the LRSD conferred with the budget specialists which had been appointed by the Court to assist the LRSD in budgetary matters. Those conferences took place in early July, 1993. At that time. the LRSD was advised that the budget specialists had reviewed the order of this Court and developed a draft paper detailing how many of the requirements of the order could be satisfied. Working from that draft paper. and in conjunction with the budget specialist, the LRSD developed the program budgeting and planning document eventually filed by it on July 29, 1993 . During hearings on August 12 and 13, 1993, regarding the LRSD budget, the LRSD presented testimony outlining the process used to develop the long-range program planning and budget document. Additional background on this process can be found in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed November 3, 1993. on 4. The program planning and budgeting document filed on July 29 constituted the LRSD's response to the June 15, 1993 order of this Court requiring a detailed written action plan for the Indpul.mM 3long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. That order specifically required the LRSD to \"clearly describe the roles in the planning and budgeting process of the School Board, the superintendent, the superintendent's cabinet, and any other key participants. 11 Prior to the document being filed, the LRSD Board of Directors met on Wednesday, July 28, 1993, for the purpose of assessing, analyzing and adopting the process as developed from the budget specialists' draft paper. 5. Since adopting the program planning and budgeting document, and explaining its workings to this Court during the August 12 and 13 budget hearings, the LRSD has endeavored to utilize that process to develop the 1994-95 budget. In fact. pursuant to the order of this Court, the LRSD has now worked with the Court-appointed budget specialists to identify and purchase software and put in place a project management tool to guide. monitor and control the development and implementation of its planning and budgeting process. The District has filed monthly reports with this Court for the months ending August 31, September 30, October 31 and November 30. To its knowledge, the LRSD is on target with the timelines established in the program planning and budget document as further refined by the project management tool. 6. In assessing Board involvement in the budgetary process, the LRSD would submit that the Board has been involved in accordance with the process outlined in the program planning and budget document as well as in accordance with the refinements made 4 IrtdpuJuK*through the project management tool. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is true and accurate copy of a report submitted by the a superintendent of the LRSD on behalf of the Board of Directors. The response attempts to address each guestion posed by this Court as well as provide listing of the Board's activities and involvement in the planning and budgeting process, is incorporated herein by reference. That document 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum reflecting the budget activities which occurred immediately after the July 8, 1993 hearing. As reflected in that memorandum, the Board of Directors met at 7:00 a.m. on Friday, July 9, 1993, for purposes of providing the administration with a direction and guidance for budgetary revisions to be presented by the administration to the Board. That document is also incorporated herein by reference. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum to the LRSD Board of Directors dated July 28, 1993, giving notice of certain matters regarding the budgetary process. This memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Of significance to this filing. please note that in the second paragraph, it is reported that the LRSD Board of Directors decided to meet each Thursday during the month of July for purposes of budgetary matters. This is merely illustrative of the commitment this Board has demonstrated during the budgetary process. In fact. the Board has continued to devote a substantial number of hours to the District and its operation. lndpul.oo( 59. It is anticipated that the Board of Directors will continue to be involved in the budgetary process as outlined in the program training and budget document, the project management tool and as circumstances otherwise permit or require. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of LRSD Board Involvement has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3^ day of December, 1993. --- Jerry L. Malone 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 Irsdpul.not 6 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 (hand delivered) Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IradpuJ.oM 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 30, 1993 TO: Jerry L^J^lnne FROM\n1. tarns, perintendeni SUBJECT: Response to Recent Court Order The Board of Directors remains committed to quality implementation of the Court- approved Desegregation Plans, Monitoring Reports, and other Court Orders which include our July 30, 1993, filing. The July 30, 1993, filing presented the districts long- range planning and budgeting process. The Board thoroughly reviewed and examined this document prior to the filing. District staff were questioned extensively by Board mernbers to ensure staff had outlined a planning and budgeting process that would the Board to be involved on ........ .................................... an allow ongoing basis in developing the 1994-95 budget, as well as future district budgets. The document was basically an adoption of a process suggested by Bill Mooney, the Court-appointed budget specialist. Questions Posed by the Court 1. 2. Report on how the Board is being more involved in the budget process. The Board is following the process as adopted in the July 30, 1993, Court filing (see Attachment A for specific activities). Report on how the Board is preparing itself to make specific budget decisions. Board members have requested specific reports and information from the Superintendent and staff in order to stay fully informed and involved. A special report is to be provided during our December Board meeting. Staff has been asked to review the planning and budgeting process that is outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing (see specific activities in Attachment A).Response to Recent Court Order Page 2 3. 4. Report on how the Boards approval is being sought and received. The Superintendent keeps the Board informed of all major activities that have implications for the existing budget and the projected 1994-95 budget. The Superintendent and Board President either meet or confer on a regular basis to address desegregation and budgetary issues, as well as the routine day-to-day activities of the district. Staff provide assistance and information to various Board members through routine written and/or oral requests. Identify which specific line item budget transfers the Board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. Three specific line item budget transfers will be considered for approval by the Board during a special meeting on December 2, 1993. Business cases have been developed for review and approval by the Board to allow the budget transfers for the following programs to be implemented: Program/Project Amount Transferred Truancy Reduction Program Special Assistant to the Superintendent Garland Multimedia Technology Theme - $ 58,943.00 $ 60,000.00 Phase One S 75,000.00 These programs will be funded as follows: Truancy Reduction Program: The police resource officer program was not fully implemented. The projected increase in students attendance will have a positive impact on funds received by the district from the state through an increase of student average daily membership. (Students will benefit academically and socially by attending school on a regular basis.)Response to Recent Court Order Page 3 Special Assistant to the Superintendent: Funds currently budgeted for positions not filled will be used pay for this position. A projected increase in federal funds to the district will pay the future salary of this employee. Indirect costs generated by the acquisition of federal funds should allow the district to expand the grant writing team. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme: Garlands staff has been advised to develop a proposal for the expansion of this project that can be presented during the budgeting process for the 1994-95 school year. Funds were generated from a one-time only carryover, plus existing funds in Garlands incentive school budget. Future phases of this program will follow the process outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing to the Court. The Board remains committed to living up to its obligations as identified in the planning and budgeting document.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS DATE July 8, 1993 7 a.m. July 27, 1993 ______ activities/INVOLVEMENT Discussed with Cabinet, Bob Morgan and Bill Mooney (Office of Desegregation Monitoring) in order to givedirections to staff for reduction of three million dollars from 1993-94 budget. Designated the lead planner from Planning Research, and Evaluation ' Discussed/reviewed approved July 30 uxscusseu/reviewed approved July 30, 1993, Court submission and \"Program Planning and Budget Document, II including the budget calendar RESPONSIBILITY Board of Directors Board of Directors Board of Directors August, 1993 Appointed two Board members to participate in work sessions to establish Mission Statement and tentative goals I Dorsey Jackson August 31, 1993 Participated in the work session Board of Directors Developed Mission Statement and tentative goals Dorsey Jackson/ Katherine Mitchell September 9, 1993 Participated in work session - Board Agenda Approved Mission Statement/tentative Meeting. Board of Directors goals.  Reviewed: issues related to needs assessment Desegregation Program Inventory Report Mission Statement/Goals Established guidelines for determining written priorities for the annual budget (1994-95)  Reviewed and provided guidance related to proportional allocation formulaLittle Rock School District Board of Directors Program Planning and Budgeting Process Page 2 September 9, 1993 cont'd Considered strategies for funding shortfall  Identified/approved program for \"fast track evaluation\" Provided input regarding public forums September 15, 1993 September 23, 1993 November 18, 1993 October 11 October 26 November 10 November 16 November 30 Participated in planning and budgeting activities: support I Little Rock School District/City of Little Collaborative Effort Rock Raised issues/gave additional direction to staff regarding Desegregation Update (School Operations section of Program Budget Document) to staff Raised issues regarding the resolution of financihq projects with Office of Deseoreaation Mnniiny-inrr and district staff of Desegregation Monitoring Raised issues regarding a comparison of staffing and staffing patterns for 1992-93 and (numbers, costs) 1993-94 Requested a report for our December 17, meeting on the projections for the as well as deficit shortfalls 1993, Board 1994-95 budget, Requested a review of the Budget Planning Document for December 17, 1993 Board Meeting Attended Public Forums: Cloverdale Elementary School Parkview Magnet High School Bale Elementary School Forest Heights Jr. High School Rockefeller Incentive School I Board of Directors John Riggs Katherine Mitchell Bill Hamilton Board of Directors T. Kevin O'Malley Pat Gee Dorsey Jackson John Riggs John Riggs Board of Directors ITo: From: Subj ect: Date: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR Board of Directors 72201 'Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent LRSD 1993-94 Budget Revisions July 22, 1993 Thursday, July 8, 1993, the United State District Court, instructed the Little Rock School District to revisit the 93-94 LRSD Budget to consider further reductions through adjustments to recurring expenditure budgetary items. The District was also advised to reductions through adjustments to if any. The District was also advised to consider reducing the reliance, if any, placed on non-recurring revenue sources used to achieve the balanced budget submitted to the court by the LRSD. Prior to the Court adjourning on Thursday, July 8, a rccccc was taken to allow all of the parties, in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to meet and confer regarding a schedule for considering and making the requested budget revisions. A timetable was discussed and agreed upon whereby the LRSD (in consultation with representatives from the O.D.M.) could make the necessary budget review and revisions, if any, obtain LRSD final Board members actions and file any revised document with the court by 6 p.m. on Monday, August 2, 1993. a recess was any Hearings on the LRSD budget were set to resume on August 12-13, 1993. announced Still under the impression that the court would meet regarding the LRSD budget on Friday, July 9, as had been previously announced, the LRSD Board of Directors, administrators and representatives of O.D.M. agreed to begin their meetings on Monday, July 12, 1993, at 7 a.m. Upon returning from the recess, the court was advised of the schedule which had been agreed upon by the parties and O.D.M. In consideration of that schedule, the court, thereupon, announced that the hearings which had previously been set for Friday, July 9 would be canceled. Acpordingly, the parties and O.D.M. agreed that the meetings between and among them would begin on Friday, On Friday, July 9, 1993, the Board of Directors met with me and other administrators to provide direction and guidance for the additional budgetary revisions to be presented to It by the administration. Also in attendance were Mr. Bill Mooney, Court-appointed budget specialist for the LRSD, and Mr. Bob Morgan, with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. July 9 at 7 a.m. \u0026lt;2.Board of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 2 with the advice and input of representatives from O.D.M. ----------------------------- v^.r^.ri., the LRSD Board of Directors instructed the administration of the LRSD to consider ways to reduce or eliminate, if possible, the LRSD's need to rely upon the proceeds from the desegregation loan (a recurring revenue source) in the 1993-94 budget. To accomplish this, the Board directed the administration to consider approaching Rock Classroom Teachers Association regarding the possibility of a one percent salary roll back during the 93-94 The administration was also directed to consider whether across-the-board cuts could be made in the areas of materials/services/supplies (i.e. four percent or less). Other the Little school year. could made four percent or less), areas to be considered were identified as follows: - Abacus Program - Staffing Efficiency - Ish Closing - Reinstatements non- Following the two-hour meeting with the Board of Directors, administrators held various other meetings during the day to consider the LRSD budget and various other desegregation related , Particularly, Sterling Ingram and LRSD attorney, Jerry Malone, met with Bill Mooney regarding the LRSD desegregation plan (On Thursday, July 8, the court directed Mr. Ingram and Mr. Jerry Malone to meet with Mr. Mooney to provide a status update From the meeting, it was apparent that Mr. Ingram and Mr. Mooney had already reached agreement on various matters relating to the program inventory needed for proper implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the desegregation plan process. The program inventory will also play a critical roll in the development of the LRSD budgetary process in accordance with the process outlined in the June 15, 1993 order. issues. audit. regarding the audit.) Board General consensus was reached regarding the purposes to be achieved through the audit procedure developed by Mr. Ingram to accomplish those Ingram reported that inquiries have gone out to the purposes. various program managers to establish the status of implementation on the various program elements. This information is now being returned and compiled by the Office of Planning and Evaluation. On Thursday, July 8, ,1993, the court suggested that the LRSD , uLixy o, uiie court suggesrea mat the LRSD now has an opportunity to consider ways to become more efficient in its staffing and, thereby, achieve significant cost savings. Board also the administration to consider staffing efficiency as an element in the budgetary review process. In accordance with those instructions, on Friday, July 9, 1993, the LRSD administrators (along with Bill Mooney) met to finalize the plans which were already in process to fill the Human Resources Director position. directed to The LRSD 1993, the I also announced other efforts being made to ensure that a greater staffing efficiency is achieved during theBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 3 93-94 school year. . - Particularly, I have enlisted the services of Victor Anderson, principal of Hall High School, to address staffing issues at the secondary level, an expertise in this area. Dr. Dr. Anderson has exhibited Brady Gadberry, our current Human Resources/Labor Director, will continue his efforts to obtain the current Relations continue his efforts to obtain maximum benefit from transfers, reassignments, and new hire process. Your were to make every effort to staff based on This will be particularly critical in meeting the s affing needs of the new King Interdistrict Magnet School. Hopefully, this process will become somewhat instructions enrollment. 4.-  , - , , --------- ---more clear now that District knows that Ish Incentive School will be closed during trie 93-Qd cnbnnl mu-\u0026gt;4- ______t j ____ ___ _ _ _ the 93-94 school year. process. That could play an important roll in this Later on Friday, July 9, Mr. Malone and I met with Mrs. in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. i:__ in agreement that the LRSD could not and would Ann Brown Mrs. Brown and I were 1 could not and would not seek to delay Its efforts regarding the Desegregation Plan during the interim I Superintendent. In fact, due to my long-term tenure with the LRSD and my administrative background with the District . . obtain the level of team support necessary to implement the process for opening schools. In addition, my familiarity with the Desegregation Plan, will serve to ensure that no loss of momentum occurs. Mrs. Brown and I also discussed matters such as: - Incentive Schools - Staff Organization - Attendance Zones - Position Control - Magnet Schools - Staff Development - Curriculum - Monitoring/Reporting Procedures ' 1553, I convened the LRSD Council to continue revision process. I gave instructions to those in assigned tasks to be accomplished in accordance with the schedule imposed by agreement of the parties and O.D.M. process. Based on the foregoing, it appears that we consider whether any further budget reductions\nthat we are on target to ensure that a revised document, along with any necessary business it are on target to It also appears that are possible for the cases, willBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 4. be filed by Monday, August 2, 1993. Since being appointed Interim, I have also held conferences with various program managers, Directors, and other administrators including, not limited to. Director of Plant Services Procurement Directors, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation' Desegregation Facilitator, Director of Planning, Research, ' Evaluation, Director of Transportation, I__ Director of Human Resources/Labor Relations\" u..i We all understand the immediate, critical needs of the District and are working together to move us forward. I have also had a meeting with representatives of the LRCTA and the Joshua Intervenors. Services, Controller. but Director Director Plant of Planning, \u0026amp; Director of Information and LRSD I have also initial principals' meeting was held on Monday, July 19, ___ Attached you will find an agenda from that meeting. We are off to a good start. 1993. On Wednesday, July 21, 1993, an extended work session was held for the purpose of further refining the elementary school staffing needs for 1993-94. We are hooeful that thp nmrpqq n-i-i i i i i result resources. available. We ere hopeful that the process utilized will  efficiency and utilization of our limited More information will be provided as it becomes in greater of as c: Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen Marie Parker Brady Gadberry Chris Heller Fred Ursery Jerry L. MaloneTo: From: Subject: Date: Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School Board of Directors Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. July 28, 1993 This memo is to notify you that the hearings before Judge Susan Wright regarding the 1993-94 LRSD budget was recessed on Thursday, July 8, 1993. Pursuant to the agreement reached and accepted by the Court, the hearing will resume on Thursday, August 12, 1993 and Friday, August 13, 1993. calendars. Please place these dates on your If anyone has a conflict with these dates, we must know immediately so that requests can be made for excused absences. Judge Wright has given word that she will no longer tolerate untimely requests to be excused. A' ccordingly, i' t is my request that each of you give immediate consideration to this matter. As instructed by the Court, a meeting was held with board members and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Friday, July 9, 1993. The meeting opened at approximately administration building. 7:00 a.m. at the LRSD As a result of the time constraints within which we are working, the board members decided to meet each Thursday for the rest of this month. Accordingly, the Board will meet at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 15\nThursday, July 22\nand Thursday, July 29. The Court has indicated that although the budget for 93-94 is balanced on paper, she fears that the use of non-recurring revenue sources (i.e., the desegregation settlement loan, desegregation settlement proceeds, transfers and other funds, etc.) to cover recurring expenditures (i.e., teacher's salaries, utilities, etc.) will create an iimmppoossssiibbllee situation when the 94-95 budget is prepared. Pursuant to the board's instructions, the administration is now pursuing various options to present to the Board. The Court has instructed the LRSD to file a revised budget by Monday, August 2, 1993. It is imperative that this deadline be met, as the Court has indicated that no variance whatsoever will be allowed. To meet this schedule, it is our hope that final board action can occur on Wednesday, July 28, 1993 . Should there be no drastic changes from the proposals as submitted by the administration to Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 2 the Board, we are hopeful that the necessary revisions and updates can be made to allow the budget to be timely filed on August 2. Judge Wright indicated that she is pleased that the District has begun using business cases. Although we have submitted business those cases for the budget documents currently before the Court, iluse business cases may or may not support the revised budget document to be filed on August 2. Accordingly, it is my request that the administration review the business cases already submitted and provide appropriate revised business cases or new business cases to support the recommendations to be made to you. *      Again, please review your schedules to determine whether the August 12 and 13 hearing dates pose a conflict. If so, please notify me immediately. Should any conflicts arise later, each of you must notify us immediately so that a determination can be made whether Should later to request an excused absence from the Court. Please recall that Judge Wright has become very impatient with what she perceives an efforts to flaunt the authority of the Court in attendance requirement. imposing the Let's make an effort to establish a tract record of cooperation and good-faith attention to the requirements of the Court-approved desegregation plan. By doing so, we will be able to develop a factual trail to overcome the conclusory statements placed on record regarding receivership.Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 3 Thank each of you for your kind attention Hopefully, future correspondence will not be to this remember that Z am a lawyer.) as verbose. matter. (However, JLM:nr Mrs. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterling Ingram Mrs. Marie Parker Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Brady Gadberry Mr. Mark Milhollen c:cews O'lhts o' OeseQ'\"\"- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: February 25, 1994\nApril 6 and 7, 1994\nand May 25 and 26, 1994. These hearing dates coincide I I J with the schedule embodied in the LRSD's latest Project Management Tool filed November 30, 1993. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the information required for each hearing may follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December 1993. NITED STATES JUDGE 'HiS DOCI n -'OMPLIANf nr' CM CCCXuT SHEET IN B'/ n :D/OR 7S(a) F.'iCP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER rled'OUfiT 'fiKANSAS By: plaintiff'^ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the time in which the LRSD must file its proposed 1994-95 budget is hereby extended to and including April 15, 1994. The hearings on the W4R 1 8 J594 vs. budget originally scheduled for April 6-7, 1994, will be continued to a date after April 15, 1994. The Court will reschedule these hearings by separate order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March 1994. UNITED SPATES 'DISTRICT .JUDGE FHIS DOCUMENT ENTEAED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 50 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 1/1 tr- 1 -Xw-fe. V J MP?r2:-\u0026gt;9'4 MON 9:36 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C' eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COURT t, Hi 1 f. } LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. J./ 'PLAINTIFF NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL district no. 1, et al. SCHOOL MRS. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS notion TO EXTEND TIME AND,TO RESCHEDULE HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District 1. (LRSD) states: The court has established deadlines which a schedule of hearings and development corresponds with key dates in LRSD-s budget process. LRSD is budget to the presently scheduled to submit a Court on March 24, IS scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 and a hearing on the budget 2. Several 1994. important components of LRSD's uncertain at this time for budget are various reasons. in the process of For example, LRSD is with the Little negotiating a professional negotiations agreement Rock Classroom Teachers reluctant to Association and is the project a budget for teachers' salaries thia early in negotiating process. - LRSD is also in the determining process of whether to outsource certain Finally, LRSD support functions. expenses. is continuing to look for ways to reduce its On the revenue side of the budget. funding and the amount the method of state LRSD will likely receive under a new fundingi M??-21-P4 HON 9:37 SUSAN M WRIGHT fomiula remains uncertain. time within which to FAX NO, 5013246576 LRSD must therefore present to the court budget for the 1994-95 school year. 3. LRSD must make decisions certified personnel P. 02 request additional a Complete and balanced concerning the contracts of no later than May 1, 1994. the court sufficient time to In order to provide ot that date, lrsd requests an extension review its proposed budget in advance it must submit its of the time within which proposed budget to and including April lrsd also 15, 1994. be rescheduled to requests that the hearings scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 a date after April 15, I994. 4. counsel for PCSSD, NLRSD, the Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors have been they do not oppose it. contacted and the concerning this motion and WHEREFORE, for the order extending the time reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an within which it must 1994-95 budget to and including April 15, file its proposed hearing on the 1994 and rescheduling the proposed budget to a date after April 15, 1994 . Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg 400 West Capitol Street Little Rocky AR 72201 Christofer Heli Bar No. 81083 2MAR-23-94 WED 9:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 us DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAR 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT m,cqRMACK,CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The hearings previously scheduled for April 6 and 7, review the Little Rock School District (LRSD) proposed 1994 to 1994-95 budget are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9.00 a.m. on Friday, April 22, 1994. By April 15, 1994, the LRSD must submit to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring the district's proposed 1994-95 budget, along with business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions. and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction Strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March 1994. 'ATES .-4/^ CT JUDGE RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 5 1994 Office ol Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD 1994-95 BUDGET STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. The LRSD, pursuant to the order of this Court, developed and adopted a program, planning and budgeting process to guide the development of the District's 1994-95 budget. Also in accordance with the orders of this Court, the LRSD developed and adopted a Project Management Tool process to set out the respective tasks necessary to develop a budget and impose timelines on those persons responsible for the various tasks identified. Both the comprehensive budgeting process and the management tool process were developed and implemented at or near the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. The LRSD has been operating in accordance with both the planning document as well as the management tool throughout this 1993-94 school year. Further, the LRSD has provided the Court with quarterly status reports as well as monthly management tool reports.LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 2 2. The Program Budget and Planning Document came into being as outlined in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed herein on November 3, 1993. That filing is incorporated herein by reference. Further, the Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, filed on December 3, 1993, touches and concerns this development. It too is incorporated herein by reference. 3. The LRSD submitted project management tools, as ordered by the Court, for the months ending August 31, 1993, and September 30, 1993. However, beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on October 29, 1993, the LRSD used a format which more closely resembled the format desired by the Court. For each month thereafter, the LRSD has submitted its Project Management Tool to the Court. The tool, among other things, identified the various tasks necessary to plan, prepare and present a budget on behalf of the LRSD. The tool also identified the responsible persons for the various tasks. the percentages of completion and the proposed completion dates. Recognizing the newness of this effort to it, the LRSD placed the Court and the parties on notice that it would continue to fine-tune the process so that the monthly reports would become more accurate, timely and informative. 4. Among the many categories of tasks to be completed was that of \"Budgeting. Beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on November 30, 1993, the budgeting category of the tool outlined those steps necessary to build the budget document theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 3 District is obligated to submit to the State of Arkansas. As indicated by the November filing, the proposed budget would be submitted to the Board of Directors of the District on March 24, 1994, revisions would be made, the budget would be submitted to the Board for adoption at its July 28, 1994, meeting and would be submitted to the State of Arkansas on or before August 26, 1994. The time frame outlined was developed based upon the District's knowledge and awareness of the infonnation and steps necessary to arrive at the various components of the budget as well as in recognition of the time when various pieces of information become available to it. For instance. certain steps and procedures necessary submitted before a final balanced budget can be prepared and are not determined until accounts can be reconciled. certain information is received from the State of Arkansas, accounts properly closed out and an ending fund balance determined. 5. The District continued to refine and revise dates it found to be out of sync with the facts and circumstances as they were being developed or less reliable based upon knowledge acquired through the planning and development process. However, the projections regarding the submission of a proposed budget to the Board, the revision process. Board adoption and submission to the State remained in tact. This is so for the Project Management Tools filed on December 28, 1993, January 31, 1994, February 28, 1994, and March 31, 1994. Based on reasonable information and belief, theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 4 LRSD has remained on schedule as reflected in those documents. 6. The Project Management Tools, as suggested by and developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, has consistently contained the District's best estimates of when the various tasks and activities outlined would occur. However, realizing that the District had embarked upon a process vastly different from and more expansive than the process that had been used by the District in prior years, the LRSD continued to notify the Court, as matters became more apparent to it, when and where refinements to the process had to be made. As evident from the recitals above, the critical tasks in the budgeting component remained as established in November, 1993. 7. The LRSD submits that it is still on schedule to present the final budget to the Board of Directors for adoption by the July Board meeting and to submit a balanced budget to the State of Arkansas by August 26, 1994. However, as evident from the Project Management Tool filed on March 31, 1994, the LRSD has further defined those constraints (both internal and external) with which the District is faced and which must be overcome in order for the District to meet these goals. In particular, the Court will note that the tasks between ID #193 and ID #220 of the March \"tool\" contain greater detail on the items which must come together prior to completion of the process. Notwithstanding, this expanded list is not fully exhaustive of those tasks which must be undertaken andLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 5 completed. Rather, they represent most. if not all, of the substantive events along the way. 8. On March 24, 1994, the LRSD administration submitted to its Board of Directors the proposed annual budget for the 1994-95 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of that budget. Similar to the 1993-94 budget filed herein on December 17, 1993, this budget reflects the financial structure of the LRSD by school and department and shows detail through function codes. object codes and FTE's. The document also reflects the actual revenues and expenditures for 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. It also includes the projected budget for 1993-94 and the proposed budget for 1994-95. The Board conducted a work session on this document on March 29, 1994. 9. Under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1, a budget summary appears which identifies proposed revenues and expenditures for the 1994-95 school year. Based upon the proposals identified, the District would experience a deficit in the amount of $7,099,292 at year end. 10. By order dated March 22, 1994, entered on March 23, 1994, this Court directed the LRSD to submit its proposed 1994-95 budget by April 15, 1994. Exhibit 1 is submitted in compliance with that directive. 11. The Order also required the District to make additional submissions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a Court submission dated April 15, 1994, which contains theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 6 required business cases for programmatic additions, deletions or modifications reflected in the proposed budget, a schedule of major budget adjustments (including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions and proposed deficit reduction measures). Further, the document contains various appendices which provide the rationale for the assumptions underlying each deficit reduction strategy and the steps and timelines the District will follow in implementing the various strategies. Both Exhibits 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference as fully as if set out word-for- word herein. 12. The budget summary contained under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1 is repeated on pages 204-205 of Exhibit 2. Although a deficit is reflected, the LRSD hastens to point out that the proposed deficit reduction measures identified on page 208 of Exhibit 2 exceed the proposed deficit contained in the budget summary. Accordingly, full implementation of the proposed deficit reduction measures causes the deficit to be eliminated and a positive ending fund balance to be realized. Given the foregoing, the LRSD provides the documents and information submitted herewith in accordance with the directives imposed upon it by the Court to this date. The LRSD is continuing its pace to ensure that the timelines identified by it through the project management tools are maintained. In fact, the Board of Directors continued to guide and direct the budget developmentLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 7 process through a special Board meeting on Thursday, April 14, 1994. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District does hereby submit this filing in accordance with the order of this Court\nit prays that it be granted any and all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled either now or as influenced by future circumstances. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on April 15, 1994, upon the following, except as othervise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET 1994 - 1995 DRAFT 1 MARCH 24, 1994 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY budget summary line item summary (Object) PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (Function) program budget (Object Within Functions) DEPARTMENT BUDGET DESEGREGATION X c Vi c 2 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT u COURT SUBMISSION April 15, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page No, Executive Summary 1 Review Process For Program Development 2 Business Cases: Category I - Incentive Schools 4 Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation Rockefeller Incentive School Alternative Room Specialist Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher) Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher 6 16 22 25 30 43 46 60 64 70 80 Business Cases: Category II - Desegregation Plan/ADE 82 English As A Second Language (ESL) Program Language Arts and Mathematics Applied Biology and Chemistry Science Cumcuium Revision Foreign Language Program Science Program 84 97 106 113 118 126 Business Cases: Category III - Related Desegregation/ADE 134 Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation Social Studies Department Secretarial Position Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Student Assignment Office Reorganization 136 144 150 156 160 165 174 1990-95 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 1) 204 Schedule of Major Budget Adjustments 206 Proposed Deficit Reduction Measures 208 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F 209 210 211 212 213 214-f./tj /i'n FILED K. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTg^g^gjfifJ^A^jTS^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 8 1994 JAMES W. MCCORMACK. CLERK Cy. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD^S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing, states: 1. By Order dated May 9, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to submit all written information and exhibits (including business cases) which the LRSD expects to discuss at the hearing set by this Court for May 25, 1994 (to be continued on May 26, 1994, if necessary). 2. Attached hereto as Attachment 1 is a true and accurate copy of the 1994-95 budget information required by Order of this Court. 3. The information submitted herein reflects the LRSD's progress toward meeting its desegregation obligations through the Program Planning and Budgeting Process developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist.LRSD'S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING May 18, 1994 Page 2 WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District sxibmits its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing in accordance with the Order of this Court and prays that it be awarded any and all legal and equitable relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on May 18, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JW I 0 1594 JAMES By.-. 5W.McGURMACK,CLERK AZ-v  OCP ClRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court has previously scheduled hearings on June 28 and 29, 1994 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) 1994-95 budget development process. Listed below is the information which the Court will review at that time. The parties must submit all requested information. along with any other submissions they expect to introduce during the hearing, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by the end of the workday on Monday June 20, 1994. 1, Latest revision of the projected LRSD 1994-95 budget. including revenues and expenditures by department and line item category. 1993-94 budgeted expenses. and projected year-end actual 1993-94 expenses. 2. Identification of any budget revisions, which have been made since the last Court submission, that the district has based upon subsequent re-examination of projected enrollment, the employee Reduction In Force, the early retirement program. ? 2 2 16transportation outsourcing, and school closings. 3 . Updates on the status of specific budget-balancing measures which the district has previously identified in submitted documents, such as the Early Retirement Program, salary freezes, use of settlement loan monies, etc. 4. Status of employee salary negotiations and Reduction In Force. 5. Identification and explanation of any new budget-balancing measures introduced since the last submissions. The explanation must include a rationale for the assumptions underlying the measure, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing it. 6. Revised five year revenue and spending projections and anticipated budget balances or deficits by each of the next five fiscal years. 7 . Any new business cases or revisions of earlier business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The business cases must clearly show the budget impact including department. function, and object assignment. 8 . Update on the timeline for budgeting decisions and actions. The timeline must reflect the July 1994 hearing dates and deadlines for submitting the final budget to the school board, the parties, the Court, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Additionally by the same date, the district must provide the -2-following information which is listed in the LRSD May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, and which comprise tasks which will have been completed by June 20, 1994: 1. Copy of the Facilities Study (per Tasks 62-66 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 2 . Copy of the completed Needs Assessment listing (per Task 77 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 3 . Copy of the Program Inventory Report for 1993-1994 (per Task 97 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 4. A list of the Desegregation and Non-Desegregation related programs (as shown in the Third Quarter Program Budget Document) which were actually evaluated, annotating those selected for downsizing, deletion. or modification (per Tasks 184 and 329 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 5. A copy of the Board-approved tentative budget for 1994-1995 (per Task 207 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 6. Copy of the Incentive School program modifications (per Task 228 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). According to Task 5 in the district's May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, the LRSD began in July 1993 to reassess its planning organization and structure. That reassessment is scheduled to be complete on June 30, 1994. Also on that date, the district is scheduled to complete Task 6, which is any necessary restructuring and modification of the planning organization and structure. Along with the Project Management Tool items listed -3-above, the district must submit documentation of Tasks 5 and g to the extent to which they are complete on June 20, 1994. Through the ODM, counsel for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) has conveyed a request, and the Court has agreed, to review the NLRSD budget at the June hearing instead of the July hearing as originally scheduled. The NLRSD must submit its revenue and expense projection for the 1994-95 budget cycle and a five year projection of revenues and expenses. The district must also submit business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The parties should also be prepared to discuss any other items not specifically listed in this order but which were itemized in the May 9, 1994 order that scheduled a budget hearing on May 25, 1994.* IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June 1994. UNITED STATE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ___Ot 1 / * That hearing was subsequently cancelled by the Court. -4-CC- / FILED O'STI^'CTAR'i^^lSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 06 1994 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMESCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT \u0026lt;Z OEP clerk PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court is charged with monitoring the districts' compliance with their Settlement Agreement and making sure that they don't waste desegregation funds. In order to fulfill this charge, the Court keeps a close watch on the districts' budgets. Accurate and complete budgets are important to making sure that the parties keep their desegregation commitments. In this regard, the Court has vs. held hearings on February 25, April 22 and June 28 and 29, 1994 to determine progress being made by the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD on developing their 1994-95 budgets. During the June 28-29, 1994 hearings, the districts told the Court that, in order to complete their 1994-95 budgets in balance. they need to know the level of state support to anticipate through Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). Until the districts know the amount of MFPA for 1994-95, they will not know what additional expense restrictions to implement for next year. The parties have told the Court that the State has been vacillating for some months on the amount which it may place in theMFPA fund, citing amounts that have varied from $50 million down to $0. The Court hereby requests the State to submit the following information: A. Whether the State intends to put additional (new) money into MFPA. B. The amount of any additional monies it intends to place in the MFPA fund. C. The date it will notify the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD of their total individual MFPA allocations for 1994-95. D. The steps the State will take in making the decisions to determine its contribution to MFPA and the accompanying timeline for each step. The Court will hold hearings on July 27-29, 1994 to review the parties' final, balanced budgets for 1994-95. Anticipating those dates, the Court has required the parties to submit their budgets and related information to the Court and ODM by noon on July 18, 1994. Therefore, the Court and the parties must have the above requested information from the State no later than 5:00 p.m., July 13, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of July 1994. UNTTED STATES DISTRI .IT JUDGE rnIS CXXUM9\u0026lt;r EWTlfO 0 tXJCRET SWEET IN COMPUTE MTH_RUL 58 AND/OR 75(a) FRCP ON 7- 6- -RECEIVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 8 1994 Office ol Desegregation Monitoring 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 the following documents required by the courts July 6, 1994 order. 1. LRSD's current 1994-95 budget document is attached. The budget document includes current revenue and expenditure projections, a line item summary, a program summary by function, a program summary by function and object, department budgets by function and object, a Magnet School budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service. capital projects. and desegregation. 2. Also attached are documents showing LRSD's actual expenditures for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years. and the budgeted expenditures for the 1993-94 school year. LRSD's books are not entirely closed for the 1993-94 school year and the attached list of 1993-94 actual expenditures is not a completely final tally of actual 1993-94 expenditures. kathy^'Heaiwg.Budget3. LRSD has separated and identified funds according to their intended use. State reimbursement for Workers' Compensation and Magnet indirect costs are listed as separate revenue items. LRSD is continuing the process of adding necessary function and object codes to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. 4. LRSD has attached revised five year revenue and spending projection with the anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. 5. LRSD has attached business cases for outsourcing of transportation, academic progress incentive grants, the Incentive School Spanish program, and a modification of the business case for desegregation facilitator. Each business case shows its impact on the budget. 6. Because LRSD's books for 1993-94 school year are not yet closed. because some budget issues for the 1994-95 school year remain unresolved (e.g. outsourcing of transportation), and because posting of budget revisions (e.g. early retirement, reduction in force) is not yet complete at the detail level, LRSD is unable to provide a final program summary by function and object and a final department budget by function and object. LRSD has provided a 1994-95 budget for food service, but cannot provide final 1993-94 actual expenditures. Finally, LRSD cannot provide final 1994-95 budgets for federal programs and for desegregation. LRSD's planning documents show a July 21, 1994 deadline for preparation of a final 1994-95 budget, which is scheduled for presentation to the kad^XP-Hcarii^.Budgel a 2board of directors on July 25, 1994 and for approval on July 28, 1994. LRSD expects to have each of the required documents in final form before the scheduled budget hearing begins on July 27, 1994 and will provide those documents to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as soon as they have been completed. 7. The attached budget reflects a reduction in Incentive School expenditures of $2,000,000.00. The amount budgeted for Incentive Schools for the 1994-95 school year is the amount necessary to provide double funding at each Incentive School. LRSD is in the process of preparing a business case which will show whether or not the Incentive School budget can actually be reduced to the double funding level. Because of the need to meet with each Incentive School principal and the Joshua Intervenors as a part of this process, the business case will be submitted to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Thursday, July 21, 1994. 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 efiristopher Hell Bar No. 81083 lathy \\P-K6anng.Bud get 3CERTIFICATE 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 18th 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 ristopher Helleg^^ kalfayXP-Hcanng.Budg^ 4FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS FEB 0 7 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER Informational hearings on the Little JAMES By:_ W. McCOiRflNMACK, CLERK AX BtP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 24, 1995\nJune 8 and 9, 1995\nand August 1 and 2, 1995. These hearing dates coincide with the schedule for budget development which appears in the LRSD's most recent Project Management Tool, filed on January 31, 1995. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the t information required for each hearing may follow. DATED this day of February 1995. TED\nt judge rws DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FCP ON BY l/r^^ 2 3 5 0 si IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED B* Ji:5-O'STR'CT court eastern district ar Kansas FEB 2 4 1995 JAMES Vl/. ,McCMMACK. CLERK -i u 0 \\ OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) filed February 21, 1995 for a continuance of the budget hearing set for March 24, 1995 by Court Order dated February 7, 1995. The LRSD states that several of its administrators, whose participation is necessary at the hearing, have made travel plans during that week, which is the LRSD spring break. In order to avoid placing a hardship on those administrators, the LRSD asks that the hearing be rescheduled. The Court has carefully considered its own calendar as well as that of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in an attempt to accommodate the LRSD's request for continuance. Unfortunately, the Court is unable to come up with a new date that will fit its calendar and that also will be timely as far as the budgeting process is concerned. It regrets that the motion for continuance 2 must be denied. DATED this 24th day of February 1995. -N CM- WlTEly^ATES DISTRICT JUD JUDGE 6 DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ILE 58 AND/O^9(aj FRCP -BYI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED STRICTCOURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAfi - 3 1995 JAMES 'Rmack. clerk llA OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER By previous Order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 24, 1995 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") in developing its budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year. No later than March 14, 1995 at 5:00 p.m.. the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties, all of the documents, budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least: the district's proposed 1995-96 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual (August 1994)\nand business cases for programmatic additions. deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. Also, the district must identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases. projected revenue reductions. projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the t assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. The Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has thoroughly constructed in the context of the desegregation plans and related court orders. For example, if the LRSD were to consider changing the McClellan Community School Program, the district would have to do so in light of the desegregation plan and this Court's orders regarding McClellan. In orders of December 30, 1992 and August 26, 1993, the Court cautioned the LRSD against changes that would negatively affect the district's ability to desegregate McClellan. The Court directed that the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council \"must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment, because the Council is a means for promoting community input so that any changes proposed for McClellan reflect the community's needs and wishes. As another example, if the district were to consider proposing to eliminate the seven period day in its junior high schools, it would have to build a strong business case that takes into account this Court's December 30, 1992 order regarding the seven period day, especially in relation to magnet programs. The Court will expect the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are \"as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible.\" (See Order of December 30, 1992.) SO ORDERED this \u0026lt;3 day of March 1995. U^r^TED ST DISTRICT (JUDGE rHJS DOCUW.i\u0026lt;. UH , .r: -- Ut CVCKET SHEET HM COMPLIANCE With RUlE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP Ji 1 \u0026lt; Tv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION mar 2 V 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER ey.jZ ^inCK, CLcSK 1. iC OEP CLcftK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The hearing to review the progress of the Little Rock School District in developing its budget for the 1995-96 school year. which began on Friday, March 24, 1995, will resume at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 10, 1995. Any revisions in business cases or other new information must be submitted to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties by noon, April 3, 1995. DATED this 29th day of March 1995. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE . 58 AND/OR79(a) Ff^P BY 79(a 3 u 3\n3 M N 2 3 9 1c , HA MOn \"10^45   'SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FILED us fiSTOiCT CO'J.'I' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN,SA5 WESTERN DIVISION I 1995 JAMfS W. WcUUHMACK, CLERK By\n-d..i20uV..rn_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OsfCiEMX , PLAINTIFF V. KO, LR-C82-86e PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFEN DAI^TS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIOHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS OR PER Through an earlier Order, the Court has scheduled hearings to begin at 9:00 a.m, on June 8 and 9, 1995. The purpose of these I ,.\n6f-.\u0026lt; i.  L  hearings is to review the progress of the Little RocR School District (LRSD) in relation to its 1995-96 budget, and to determine 4 the extent to which the district has fulfilled certain orders of the Court. 1 By 5:00 p.n. on Friday, May 26, 1995 the district must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the !\u0026gt; parties all documents, budget material, business cases, and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. As at the last budget hearings, f -f these submissions must include at least: the district's tentative budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual of August 1994\nand any new or revised business cases for programmatic or position additions, deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify 11 71 any major adjustments it has made in the budget since submitting A? V. . otilMiK 7, .y MfeFEB-15-96 THU 9:51 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FsLED u s DISTRICT COURT EASTc.RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 JAMES! p//J.. McckkuuhkmmAaCcKK,, ccllerk DE? CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-a6b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER , Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to 2y.__i VS . the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. I '^\"UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ,D Oi . DOCKEr SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RU' ON -- BY_2 D/OR 79(a) FRCP rH'S DOC'J^'^T SNi u : L- FiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS j\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 OffiCS 0\u0026gt; Dece^-iya\njiiHG JAMES By\n_4 !J IVIc^HMACK. CLERK OE? CLERK  little rock school district PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA.. ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski 1 District. Subsequen Oxders pcrtaj.ning 3 I J vs. the information required for each hearing will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1996. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CHS POCL'J/EN COMPLIANCE WITH RL'L ON 5 ON DOCKET SHEET IN C AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY 77? -______ Ai f ?. 01 FEE-15-36 THU 9:51 SUSAN N NRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 FsLED U3 Oia',\"ICT COURT\nTE.R,J CISTRICTA.RKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF .ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1596 u'Al'ES Mc^UnMACK. GLt.HK ViC^UnMACK. G OEr CLSnK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-S2-a66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD 3oard of Directors are required to artend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the Norrh Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to vs. / the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. .) U.,'/ '\"^'UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE rH!S DQC!JV.E\u0026gt;T NT COMPLIANCE Y/iTH PCI' DON DOCKET SHEET IN .AND/OR 73(a) FRCP BY ________ 2 6 2ia ^3. JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol FILED CAS-JiS DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTj^j^^gg EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sy\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER 2, JUL I 3 1995 McCormack, clerk OEP CLEW PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously scheduled hearings for August 1 and 1995 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1995-96. On those dates, the Court will also review the 1995-96 budgets of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Listed below is the information the court will review during the hearings. The parties must submit the requested information, along with any other submissions they will introduce during the hearings, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by 12:00 P.M. (noon) on Monday, July 24, 1995. I. A. LRSD must furnish its final 1995-96 balanced budget document, including final revenues and expenditures projections. line item summary, program summary by function, program summary by function object, department budget by function and object. magnet school budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service, capital projects, and desegregation.JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 S. In each of these categories above, include actual expenditures for 1992-93 and 1993-94, and budget and actual expenditures for 1994-95. C. Add function codes and object codes as necessary to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. Commingling of disparate funds will not satisfy the Court's need for budgeting information that is specifically identified D. E. A. according to its planned use. Also, identify all revenue items as revenue items and all expenditures as expenditures to provide an accurate representation of each item. Submit a revised five year revenue and spending projection and anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget, the Each business case must clearly show its impact on budget including department. assignment. II. function. and object The NLRSD and PCSSD must furnish their respective final 1995-96 balanced budget documents. including final revenues and expenditures projections. salaries and wages by object within function, other expenditures by -2-JUL-13-95 THU 11:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 B. C. object within function, federal programs, and other supporting information the districts may provide. Submit a revised five year revenue and projection and anticipated budget balances for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases spending or deficits for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget. Each business case must clearly show its impact on the budget including department, function, and object assignment. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1995. ISTRICT JUDGE -3- FaLD U S OISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER MAR 1 2 1996 3 W. McQUHMAGK, CLEi RK OeP CLhRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By previous order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 26, 1996 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) in developing its budget for the 1996- 97 fiscal year. No later than noon on March 18, 1996, the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties. all of the documents. budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least the following: 1. The district's proposed 1996-97 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual\n2. Business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications\nAn identification of each major budget adjustment. including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions, projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures, be accompanied by expenses. Each deficit reduction strategy must rationale for the assumptions 3 . a 2 6 4 1 underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy\n4. An itemization of year-to-date expenditures by object code through the end of January 1996, along with a forecast of expenditures by object code for the balance of the 1995-96 fiscal year. In earlier hearings, the Court has admonished the LRSD to abandon its old practice of basing new budgets on the amounts the district has allotted within discrete categories in preceding annual budgets. (The Court has referred to this procedure as \"budgeting on budget.\") Instead, the Court has advised the district to build its new budgets on the actual expenditures incurred within the various budget categories during the previous year. (The Court has referred to this practice as II budgeting on expenditures\" or \"budgeting on actuals.\") During the hearing, the Court will ask the district to explain how it is working to construct its 1996-97 budget on actual expenditures, rather than on previous budgets. Further, the Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has carefully constructed in the context of the desegregation plans, related court orders, and the realities of the district's financial condition. For example. the Court will require the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are \"as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible. It (See Order of December 30, 1992.) The Court will also expect that any proposed new expenditures will be counterbalanced by similar reductions elsewhere in the budget. For example. it the district were to propose adding an -2-administrative position in one area, the Court would expect to see reductions in another area of the administrative budget to accommodate the proposed change. IT IS SO ORDERED this - /o\u0026lt; aay of March 1996. UNITED STATES^IST] 'RJCT JUDGE rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITy RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP ON IPUANCE WITH RL BY -3-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING ei\u0026lt;u '-97 MiR 1 8 J^^^ntiff JAMES w McCormack, By\nCLERK DEP. CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In accordance with this court's order of March 12, 1996, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District 1996-97 Proposed Budget and Little Rock School District Business Cases For Proposed Budget FY 1996-97. The budget documents reflect the following significant changes in state funding: 1. twelve Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay a percent (12%) teacher retirement matching contribution. previously paid by the state. which results in an increase to I fringe benefit costs (object 0220 in the line item budget) of $8,371,294.00\n2. Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay what was previously the state's share of health insurance costs which results in a $3,501,056.00 increase in LRSD's fringe benefit costs (object 0240 in the line item budget)\nk\u0026gt;ihy\\MoU*Fil.3183 . Some of the increased costs described above are offset by an increase in state aid, but based on the most current information the impact of the change in state funding will be a net loss to LRSD in the amount of $226,804.00. A chart comparing state aid for the 1995-96 fiscal year and projected state aid for the 1996-97 fiscal year is attached to this Notice of Filing\n4 . LRSD will pay twelve percent (12%) retirement a contribution plus additional health care costs for its food service workers in the amount of $486,000.00\n5. The changes described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above result in a net loss to the operating fund of $712,804.00\nand 6. LRSD will receive its final fixed settlement payment in the amount of $683,125.00. 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 By:7^__ Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 lathy \\Nou*Fil.318 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of March, 1995: 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 HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hell^ knhy\\^ou-FU.318 3 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MEPA^*S^?.3HfK LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STATE AID COMPARISON 3-14-96 BUDGET 1995-96 REVISED 1995-96 DRAFT 4 1996-97 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS___________________ SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________________________ ORPHAN CHILDRENMMiiP8B@SS)Wt^1%\n^^ TRANSPORTATION -REGULAR TRANSPORTATION -M TO M COMPENSATORY,EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVEEDUCATIONMB818BS3jmS 27.023.348 3.829,942 2.500,000 0 1.100,000 1,444,499 233,992 7,000 3.850,000 AT RISK FUNDING SUMMER'SCHOOlBatiOfeWiaBa^iiSS^ WORKER'S COMPENSATION TOTAL 285,000 2,800,000 790,466 0 0 399.350 430.542 44.694.139 STATE FORMULA AID TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING CONTRIBUTION HEALTH INSURANCE MATCHING CONTRIBUTION 27,012,642. 3,829.942 500.000 0 1.100.000 1.444.499 233.992 ?yS3,066/ ^1,656\n540i 2.195.910 --9246,030 2.607.195 808.523 . 222\n134\n5{3a 67,044' 399.350\n501.193 42.828.059 29.606.806 s-29.606,806\n39,595,812\n683,125 0 0 900.000 1,444.499 245.000 m1\n656,540 2.500.000 .19ss.a.O' 3.641.000 810.000 FORMUIA\" FORMULA^ FORMULA?\n? FORMULA - TORMU13V FORMULA'^ 405.275 51.881.251 41.252.352 (8,371.294) (3.501.056) a29.380,a02i FORMULAE ^1226,804)\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eUnited States. District Court (Arkansas: Western District)\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_280","title":"Budget, court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"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/280"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\"'''^'- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION y: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS i MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On November 14, 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the cause to the Court to review the parties' proposed modifications [May submissions] to the 1989 plans. 1 Little Rock School District, et al., Nos. 91-2640EA, 91- 2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA, slip op. (8 th Cir. November 14, 1991) . In response to the order of the Eighth Circuit, the Court scheduled a hearing to begin on December 18, 1991. It informed the parties involved that. prior to reviewing their proposed modif ications, it would ask. the Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD] to report on its financial situation and hear a ^The three school districts involved. Little Rock School District [LRSD], Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD], and North Little Rock School District [NLRSD], and the Joshua Intervenors submitted proposed modifications to the settlement plan approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990).report from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budgetary processes for desegregation expenditures which are employed by the three school districts involved in the matter. The Court determined that before it could consider proposed modifications to the settlement plans, it needed to learn whether there are district budgetary processes in place which will enable the Court to monitor the implementation of the plans. At the conclusion of the second day of the hearing, the Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect the three school districts' intentions. goals, and priorities regarding their desegregation efforts. The Court specifically mentioned the state of the Little Rock School District's [LRSD] budgetary process. In its opinion approving the settlement plans of the three districts, the Eighth Circuit noted the parties have committed to \"solemn undertakings\" and stated: We accept these undertakings, again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit further directed the Court to \"monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and agreement. -2-and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" Id. at 1394. The Court monitors the use of settlement monies through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM]. In October 1991, the ODM informed the LRSD that it must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. a [Document # 1517] Pursuant to the directives from and the considerable latitude and discretion given the Court by the Eighth Circuit, the Court finds that the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites and that it is necessary for the LRSD to submit revised cost figures to the Court. 2 Therefore, (1) The LRSD must submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan and which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 2 In a note to its May submissions, the LRSD indicated that the cost figures originally submitted with its desegregation plan were outdated and it would provide revised cost figures in a separate desegregation budget. To date, the Court is unaware of any such revised figures having been submitted or filed. -3-a (2) The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on per annum basis which covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (3) The LRSD must submit.a long-range revenue projection covering the same period of time, which includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. This long-term projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. (4) The LRSD has maintained that a significant portion of desegregation expenditures are \"start up.\" The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are \"start up\" and when these start up costs will terminate. (5) The revised budget shall be prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and shall be submitted to the Court within thirty (30) days after the Court rules either from the bench or in a written order on the proposed modifications. - By this Order, the Court confirms its oral approval of the construction of the interdistrict school at the Crystal Hill site. Further, the Court confirms oral instructions made to the parties to explore alternative sites for the construction of King -4-Interdistrict School along the 1-630 corridor. DATED this ^/^^dav of January, 1992. '1^. trNlTED STATES DISTRICT J JUDGE r : OtJ ,PL!A\n2V...,^. - -- .. 1-,3-h '1?^ BHEET IN i) FRCP -5-4- oirsidTSSaSBAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT may -1 199\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER 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. This Order addresses those proposed changes. In its order approving the individual settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that ''[i]t may be necessary. in order to make a smooth transition. for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court rejected the parties' May submissions. finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991).4 The parties' motion for reconsideration was denied. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schools District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1491 (E.D. Ark. 1991). remanded the case and stated: On appeal, the Eighth Circuit The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case. The parties are not authorized to modify it at will Further, we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak, wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction i.. commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan . . . The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. in particular, the We an in their The If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation. District Court has the authority to consider it. such changes, for example, as the District Court noted? may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. they the Some Even changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows. (1) double fundinc for stuHont'c: arronH-i-nrr retreat should be approved. They are as . funding students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\nincentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the a^eed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of i^terdist.-ict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools\nand (7) appropriate involvement of parents. Appeal of Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special -2-School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, cLnd Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255-56 (Sth Cir, 1991) , In remanding the case to the District Court, Circuit further stated: the Eighth The parties' agreement should be upheld if 1^ constitutional, workable, and fair to class members, vu the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. if it is On case. xue xaay Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, that constant change creates. ' even chaos, , - The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or aeserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into when such changes are proposed and considered. goal. account We recognize that the language somewhat general. of this opinion is It leaves a considerable degree of latitude District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. 7^ --_ _i__ ____ its own best judgment, what changes should be~approved\"\" notwithstanding their going beyond the level of detail* because they would advance desegregation or for other- sound reasons. The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. . . .[W]e will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. to the That It must also determine, in Id. at 257. With this background in mind, the Court addresses the parties' proposed modifications. The changes that the Court approves will not be enumerated or addressed, for the most part. The Court comments on changes it approves subject to certain conditions and discusses in detail the substantive changes it will not approve, generally following the order of the provisions and their section -3-headings as they are found in the plans. are attached to the Order. INTERDISTRICT PLAN Baker and Harris Elementary Schools The 1989 plans require the Pulaski The plans as approved County Special School District (PCSSD) to establish interdistrict schools at Baker Elementary School and Harris Elementary School. The PCSSD now proposes to modify the settlement plan and eliminate Baker Elementary as thematic interdistrict school with expanded seating. According to the proposed modifications, the 200 a additional seats originally planned for Baker the new interdistrict school at Crystal Hill. would be placed at The PCSSD proposes to eliminate Harris Elementary as an interdistrict school and establish a new interdistrict school to be built along the Highway 67/167 corridor. The PCSSD claims that Baker has been desegregated without having to convert it into an interdistrict school,  the reason for its becoming an interdistrict school. thus obviating However, the Court finds that Baker's designation as an interdistrict school was intended not only to desegregate that school but also to aid in the desegregation of three additional elementary schools: Romine in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Lawson and 1, Other changes such as historical background and context, timelines, changes to correct language discrepancies and inconsistencies, and other changes which contribute to clarity or support intent, are not discussed. language discrepancies -4-Robinson in the PCSSD. Testimony and figures presented at the bearings indicate that failure to designate and promote Baker as an interdistrict school as originally planned may be impacting desegregation negatively in schools having difficulty achieving or maintaining compliance with the minimum required racial balance of their student enrollment. Because of the Court's concern about difficulties with racial balance at Baker, Romine, Lawson, and Robinson, and in the interest of adherence to the agreed number of interdistrict schools, the Court finds that Baker should interdistrict school. remain an The Court requires the district to look carefully at the quality of the programs at Baker, particularly the extended day program which was intended to attract students who would promote desegregation of the school. The extended day program must be expanded as necessary to accommodate additional students, particularly those transferring from the Romine area as emphasized in the plan. As promised in the original language of the plan. the PCSSD shall continue to provide its full compensatory education program at Baker so long as 35 or more black students have transferred from LRSD to Baker. The Court approves that portion of the modification that deletes the required addition of 200 seats at Baker. regard to Harris, testimony at the hearings convinced the Court that deleting the designation of Harris Elementary as an 2 PCSSD Superintendent Mr. Bobby Lester stated at the hearings that Baker is considered to be an interdistrict school. -5-interdistrict school and establishing instead a new interdistrict school in an easily accessible location is wise decision. a Because the Court finds that this proposed change will likely advance desegregation, it adopts the modification but delays until a later date ruling the PCSSD ^s motion to postpone for five years the construction of the new interdistrict school. The Eighth Circuit ordered in November 1991 that the agreed number of interdistrict schools be operated according to the agreed timetable. However, in a number of instances it was impossible to adhere to that order. For example, under the 198 9 plan. Crystal Hill was scheduled to open in 1990-91. It is now scheduled to be ready for the 1992-93 school year. Romine did not meet the original date but it is now open. As with the new interdistrict school to take the place of Harris, the dates for the establishment of Stephens and King are the subject of a pending motion and will be determined at a later date. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT As with the interdistrict plan, the Court determines that the ^^jority of the modifications proposed by the PCSSD are concerned with details and. therefore. are approved. However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive of two of the primary goals of the and student achievement. case. and unsupported in light i.e. racial integration PATWICK The PCSSD proposes to eliminate PATWICK, a program established -6-to enable parents to meet and work activities designed to aid their cooperatively with teachers in children's progress in school. Dr. Bobby Altom, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, testified that other parental involvement programs are being planned but are not identifiable at this time, of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement. In light the Court determines that PATWICK should remain in the plan until the district has designed, and the Court has parental involvement program that holds approved, a comparable promise of meeting the goals PATWICK was expected to achieve. Special Education The parties propose to delete certain language in the plan regarding the reduction of disparity between black and white students and the elimination of disproportionality within races in special education. While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between disproportionality in special education. social deprivation and the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. In the plan section dealing with special education screening and internal monitoring. changes have been proposed that would eliminate the requirement for a central office review committee. thereby reducing from three to two the levels in a screening process intended to prevent black students from being referred for -7-special education indiscriminately. At the hearing, a PCSSD witness testified that meaningful changes in the referral process should come from involvement at the local school level and that building practitioners should bear the burden of responsibility and accountability for the initial special education screening and review. The witness stated that the district will require those schools with over representation of black special education students to submit plan for correcting the placement disproportion. The Court is reluctant to condone alteration of a process which should prevent special education placement problems and obviate the need for process to correct such problems after they have materialized. However, the Court agrees that site-based decision-making may encourage accountability and responsibility at the local school level by increasing the involvement of those closest to the children. The Court approves the change in the number of review levels from three to two with the may require the district to restore the third\ncaution that it review level if monitoring reveals ineffective efforts to eliminate special education placements. disparity in Information/Special Services The parties propose to strike references to each school having programs which include school volunteers. parent advisory committee. parent/teacher/student discipline committee. a a a a a school/community partnership arrangement, and \"any other organized structures which the principals and their respective communities feel necessary for positive schoolcommunity relations. Because -8-the Eighth Circuit considers parental involvement crucial to the success of the desegregation plan, the Court does not allow the change. Parent and community involvement in education must be enthusiastically invited and carefully managed throughout the district to sustain the interest and continued activities of parents, business people, retirees, and others in the schools. The district must strive to maintain positive relations with the public, supporting those efforts through such organized groups and programs as school/community partnerships. school volunteers. parent advisory committees, Biracial Committees, in the plan. and others named Secondary School Curriculum Coordinators The parties propose a modification that reduces the number of PCSSD secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six.^ The 1989 plan promised that an instructional coordinator would be provided to support every discipline and that every teacher would have a coordinator to provide materials, demonstration teaching. instructional supervision, moral support, of each school's program effectiveness. and an annual assessment The Court is concerned that testimony regarding the curriculum coordinators indicated that the figure of thirteen was placed in the plan even though the PCSSD failed to consult with the district's assistant superintendent for instruction. In addition. Dr. Altom testified that the PCSSD did not believe that by was Testimony at the hearing was that seven and one-half curriculum coordinators presently were employed by the PCSSD. -9-describing thirteen positions in the plan it was committing to always having thirteen coordinators in place, testimony is combined with that heard during\nWhen Dr. Altom's a hearing on August 7, 1991, on the parties' joint motion for partial stay pending appeal, the Court is particularly disturbed. In August 1991, the PCSSD lawyer stated that the PCSSD did not intend for the number of curriculum coordinators to be a component of the settlement plan and that the district was merely \"loading\" its plan. In spite of the discrepancy between the plan language and subsequent testimony, the Court approves the reduction in the number of secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six in light of Dr. Altom's testimony that the reduction was made in the firm belief that removal of the positions would not result in substantial change in student performance as measured by the district's standardized tests. the exit exams at the secondary a level, and the MPT exams at the third. sixth, and eighth grade levels. However, the Court recognizes the significant role of curriculum coordinators in providing important services to teachers and in the development, implementation, and maintenance of quality academic programs. When a reduction in the number of coordinators results in shifting many duties to a smaller group of employees. there is a danger that the increased administrative and supervisory responsibilities will yield inadequate support for personnel and programs that directly impact student performance. If disparity in student achievement does not improve or if test scores decline. the Court may require that the full number of curriculum -10-coordinator positions be restored. The Court also notes that the parties propose to delete in the Compensatory Education section the full time instructional specialist at the elementary level and assign the specialist duties to the assistant principal or Chapter 1 coordinator at schools where black student enrollment exceeds 40%. ] the instructional specialist position at each Elsewhere in the plan, elementary school has been deleted and the assistant principal is referred to as assistant principal/Chapter coordinator or assistant principal/instructional specialist, Once again, the parties seek 1 to saddle one individual with multiple duties and accept the risk that all duties will not get done. While the Court approves the modifications, it will carefully monitor student achievement and the district may be required to restore the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program deleted positions. The PCSSD also proposes to change certain features of the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program, a program designed to recruit black teachers as facilitators in the district's Talented and Gifted Program. As the Court understands it, the proposed changes concern that portion of the program which offers tuition assistance for black teachers who work for the district and who are interested in completing graduate courses which will qualify them to teach gifted and talented students (TAG and ALPHA programs). The program provides that for every one year that the teacher works for the school district. the PCSSD will fund six hours of coursework. If the teacher does not maintain a certain grade point -11-average, he or she must refund the money. Also, if the teacher does not complete the program, the debt must be repaid. The PCSSD proposes to lower the grade point average (GPA) these black teachers must maintain from a 3.0 to a 2.8 on a four-point scale and to forgive the debt for black teachers who are fired. The Court is troubled by these proposed modifications and declines to approve them. Lowering the GP.z^ requirement for black teachers receiving district-subsidized tuition for the gifted education courses they take sets a separate and inferior standard of performance for black teachers. The proposed change suggests that minority teachers either will be unable to maintain a 3.0 grade average or will be attracted to the program by a substandard achievement requirement. In addition, at a time when national and local emphasis is focused on higher expectations for student performance and the importance of educators as role models responsible for leading children to meet those increased expectations, it is inappropriate to lower the achievement standard for any group of teachers. of debt for teachers who Furtheirmore, the proposed forgiveness fired is illogical and inconsistent with the requirement that the tuition money be repaid the district by any teacher who chooses not to continue the program or who fails to fulfill the obligation to work in the district for one year for every six hours of coursework funded by the district. Air Force ROTC Program The parties proposed in the 1989 settlement plans to move the PCSSD's Air Force ROTC program from Jacksonville High School to -12-North Pulaski High School. In its modifications, the PCSSD deleted the proposed transfer and stated in hearings that the Air Force refused to grant pemission to move the program. In this Court's Stay Order of August 22, 1991, transfer of the ROTC program was \"stayed pending appeal, effective upon receipt by the Court of documentation of the PCSSD's efforts to move the program and the Air Force's denial of that move.\" To date, the Court has not received the information requested last August, obligated to furnish the required documentation Early Prevention of School Failure Program The parties remain to the Court. The Court approves the modification of language concerning measurement of the effectiveness of the Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) program and agrees that the Biracial Committee may have the opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of such programs. Any decision regarding the effectiveness of the EPSF program is a curriculum issue, however. and not one within the exclusive province of the Biracial Committee. Furthermore, the Court understands that EPSF is a nationally validated program which is based upon young children's developmental stages. Any program which might replace EPSF, in whole or in part. must be comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding. Biracial Committee The Court notes that the parties have included a new plan subsection describing in some detail the composition and role of the PCSSD Biracial Committee. The Committee is to have 14 members -13-who are representatives of the district 's population and geography with each election zone to have two representatives, one black and one \"other member. The parties have agreed that the Joshua Intervenors will appoint half (seven) of the Committee members, four of whom will be black. In another area of the plan, new language regarding the Biracial Committee has been introduced. providing for a 30 day period for the \"advise and consent\" of the Biracial Committee regarding unresolved desegregation grievances. While the Court approves the changes concerning the Biracial Committee, it understands that the primary role of this volunteer group is to monitor the progress of the district toward the goals of the desegregation plan. If the Committee is asked to take on additional duties. the members must be recruited with full knowledge of the scope of their responsibilities and the time required to fulfill them. the Biracial Committee with new duties and allowing a 30 day period for the group's action must not be allowed to detract from the basic monitoring function of the Committee. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan Under the terms of the 1989 plan, all schools in the LRSD were to implement a four-year-old program by the 1993-94 school year. The May submission deletes that commitment and proposes to replace it with provisions contained in a long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991, and discussed -14-in the February 6 hearing. During the hearing the Court expressed specific concerns with certain of the modifications proposed in the LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan (Long-Term Plan) and questioned the impact upon the implementation of early childhood education programs, a provision of the desegregation plan which the Eighth Circuit has identified as a crucial feature. The Court agrees with the parties that four-year-old programs are both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better kindergarten and also act to attract white preparing children for children to the public schools. The parties have convinced the Court that, as a desegregation tool, it is wise to place four-year-old programs in those schools or areas which have Therefore, the LRSD will not be proved difficult to desegregate, required to place four-year-old programs in every elementary school. However, the parties have made solemn promises regarding early childhood education. The Court views the four-year-old program as a substantive component of the settlement plan which holds achievement disparity between black promote racial balance in the schools. great promise to reduce and white children and to The Long-Term Plan does not satisfy the original intent of the parties regarding the scope of the four-year-old program. The Court will not release the parties from serving the number of children who would have been served had every school offered a four-year-old program as agreed in the 1989 plan. Also, the Long-Tenn Plan contemplates converting Ish incentive school to an early childhood center. The Eighth Circuit -15-has said that the incentive schools are crucial and stressed the importance of a period of stability. Closing an incentive school altering the function of such a school is a highly disruptive event which the Court would be reluctant to approve absent compelling evidence that such a change would better of desegregation. serve the goals The LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan is not approved. The parties are required to refine the provisions of the Long-Term Plan and again petition the Court for approval within 30 days of this Order. The revised Long-Tera Plan must: 1) identify the precise number of children to be served by the LRSD using the standard of 18 classroom, as agreed by the parties\nstudents per 2) 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\n3) place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance\n4) eliminate the closing of an incentive school\n5) follow a time schedule in which implementation of four-year-old programs is completed by 1994-95, completion date identified in the Long-Term Plan\nthe and 6) limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through agencies, such as Head Start, which the -16-district does not control 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 cooperative relationship with agencies such as Head Start and the Cii.y of Little Rock Day Care Center, the parties may not shift to such programs the obligation the parties themselves assumed when they wrote the Special Programs 1989 plan. The LRSD proposes to eliminate Little Rock Job Corps Alternative Program from the settlement plan. Mr. James Jennings, LRSD Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services, testified that the Job Corps Center no longer offers the Alternative Program and that there are other programs in place that deal with high school students who are at risk of dropping out of school: the LRSD Alternative Learning Center in the old Carver building, the JTPA Summer Learning Program, and a Changing Directions program. Additionally, Mr. Jennings and Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs for the LRSD, mentioned programs such as New Futures for Little Rock Youth and the Cornerstone Project with which the district collaborates to provide various services which promote student success. The district also proposes to delete the Homework Telephone Hotline for English, math. establishment of a science, and social studies. (This phone service is not the same homework hotline -17-which the district is required to provide for incentive school students.) Mr. Jennings testified that the funding for this Hotline, which was to be provided by the business community, had not materialized. Instead, some students who attend the four LRSD junior highs involved in the New Futures program can phone a recorded homework assignment message and can participate in an after school tutorial program. There is also a corporate-sponsored state telephone homework line which Little Rock students The Court approves the changes regarding the Little may use. Rock Job Corps Alternative Program since Job Corps no longer offers the program. However, the district must continue to provide students who are experiencing attendance or disciplinary problems with other programs similar to the Job Corps Alternative Program, such as this may wax and wane but the district remains Programs obligated to assure that there are ongoing comprehensive and effective services for students needing specialized support. The district is expected to make wise use of all available community resources. to maintain strong coalitions with such organizations as Job Corps, New Futures, and Cornerstone, and to seek new resources to take the place of those no longer available. The Court will carefully monitor the district's use of community resources and the LRSD's programs, policies, and practices which are designed to enable students to remain in school, promote their academic success, alleviate behavior problems. and The requirement for the Homework Telephone Hotline, other than the homework phone line which serves incentive school students. may -18-be removed from the plan because similar services are being provided by other organizations. However, the Court may restore the requirement for the district to implement a homework hotline if comparable services become unavailable elsewhere and students are not receiving adequate help with homework through hotlines other means. or New Futures The 1989 plan contains certain references to operations of the New Futures program which largely have been deleted in the May submission. The Court understands that the program as originally described in the plan is now outdated, operations of the program have changed. as certain features and At the hearings, several references were made to New Futures by two district witnesses. This testimony indicated that the district continues to depend upon New Futures, especially in four junior high schools, to provide such services as after-school tutoring centers, phone recordings of homework assignments, and extended day programs. Also, LRSD financial statements contain New Futures budget allotments and debits which attest to the district's ongoing relationship with the program. It IS incongruous to remove plan references to New Futures while continuing to rely heavily upon New Futures as a partner. The Court will not approve deleting from the plan language which describes New Futures' functions in LRSD schools at the time the plan was written until the parties provide the Court updated information which will replace the obsolete description of New Futures and its role in the LRSD schools. -19-Academic Support Programs In the 1989 plan, the LRSD approach to academic remediation was largely embodied within a program known as Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL). When PAL was incorporated into the plan, there was general understanding among the parties as to what the program entailed because the LRSD had developed an extensive written description of PAL and had begun widespread inservice training on its implementation. Mrs. Matthis testified at the January 23, 1992 hearing that there has been dissatisfaction with the results of PAL as it has existed and that the district desires to modify PAL and change the district's overall approach to remediation. The parties proposed to delete PAL from the language of the plan, replacing it with generic reference to an a unspecified number of unnamed \"LRSD academic support (remediation) programs.\" The Court is convinced that PAL as it has been implemented is an inadequate approach to remediation and does not wish the district to continue investing resources in an ineffective program\nyet the Court cannot sanction a complete abandonment of PAL or deletion of all references to it in the plan until the parties are able to replace it with an interrelated, programmatic approach to remediation that is sufficiently detailed for the Court to monitor. Therefore, the parties must submit within 60 days a written plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to replace PAL. The plan must include the following\n1) the name and location of each academic support program\n-20-2) Clearly stated goals and objectives for each program\n3) a comprehensive description of each program's components and activities, including those which may be \"extended day\" in nature\n4) an overview of how all the individual academic support programs will be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources\n5) the number of students targeted for participation in each program by school and grade level\n6) the number of teachers or other staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering each of the academic support programs\n7) 8) implementation time lines\nanticipated costs\n9) an overview of the necessary staff training by content, by year, and by number of training participants\n10) evaluation criteria that will indicate how effectively teachers are implementing new instructional approaches. an element termed \"critical\" by the LRSD witness at the hearings\nand 11) evaluation criteria that will measure the degree to which each academic support program is successful in meeting its particular programmatic goals and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction -21-of disparity between black and white students/ According to LRSD financial data, materials and personnel for PAL have been underwritten by millions of dollars in settlement money. The district must salvage to the extent possible what has been invested in the PAL remediation approach. Staff positions, computer hardware, software programs. and other equipment and materials previously devoted to PAL should be properly reallocated toward the new approach to remediation. Additionally, in the LRSD remediation programs designed to address students' learning deficiencies, the parties propose to delete science and social studies as \"core areas\" through which requisite skills are maintained and reinforced at the secondary level. In their joint motion for partial stay pending appeal and during the hearing on the motion. the parties contended that science and social studies were deleted from the list of discrete academic support programs in order to emphasize remediation in the areas of English, reading, and math rather than \"diluting\" the program by including science and social studies.- At the hearing in January 1992, Mrs. Matthis indicated that removing students from class for remediation in social studies and science as well as for reading and math would result in increasing the isolation of students from the regular classroom, decreasing the cooperative *If it appears that the Court is being too particular in setting forth required components of proposed programs such as the academic support programs and the Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan, it is because the parties have failed to provide the Court with well thought out, comprehensive program plans which can be closely monitored. -22-learning interaction among regular students and those participating in remediation programs, and decreasing the ability of these students to complete the number of courses required for graduation. (See Exhibit 19A, attached.) Mrs. Matthis also testified that remediation in math and reading would benefit student achievement in both science and social studies since math and reading skills are prerequisites to success in other curricular areas. She stressed that it is \"critical\" that the district provide the staff development necessary to ensure that teachers are able to assume greater responsibility for the total educational experience of students rather than only specific subject-oriented content. The Court allows the change regarding science and social studies as proposed and requires the district to provide all teachers with ongoing training to meet students' need for academic remediation in the most inclusive setting and comprehensive manner possible. The Court will closely monitor student progress on test scores in social studies and science. If students fail to progress in these areas or if improvement is not made in reducing overall achievement disparity between black and white students, the Court may require changes in the plan. The parties propose to modify the plan by adding language that gives the LRSD an option of merely informing parents rather than actively involving them in each identified phase of the remediation programs in which their children participate: individual assessment, individual improvement planning, formative assessments. -23-workshops, and. summative evaluations. Given the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement, the Court denies the modification. Focused Activities Testimony indicated that approximately 8 0% of the black elementary students in Little Rock do not attend an incentive or magnet school but are educated instead in area schools. In order to advance desegregation and reduce achievement disparity among the large number of students served by area schools, the plan gives each area school the option of developing a program of focused activities which may center around a theme. The goals of focused activities are to promote a community of learning among parents, staff and students\nto provide enrichment opportunities at the schools\nand to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the area schools. The parties also wish to continue a related program. the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program for the area schools. The Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program provides up to $75,000 for each area school over a three year period to fund programs which will improve the education of all students and reduce student achievement disparity. The Court approves continuing the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, which the district will evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognizes the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of. the original focused activities feature of the plan. Focused activities will -24-continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme, and will operate according to the original plan which provides for community and parental involvement and allocation of funds. an annual Junior High Schools The parties propose to eliminate from language concerning the possible construction the settlement plan of a new junior high school, leaving only \"planning\" for additional junior high capacity. Evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the LRSD is experiencing serious capacity problems at its junior high schools, with four of the district's eight junior highs at or above 100% capacity. (See Exh. # 27, attached). When this case began. there were three junior high schools located in the eastern or central sections of Little Rock: Booker, Dunbar, and Mann. Within the last few years, all of these schools have been converted to magnet schools. Dunbar and Mann have remained junior highs and Booker is an elementary magnet. Consequently, those children (most of whom are black) living in the east and central city have been largely displaced from that area's junior highs and must bear an unequitable burden of transportation to attend high schools in the western sections of town. nonmagnet junior Moreover, when capacity of the junior high schools is inadequate for the number of children eligible to attend them and the buildings become overcrowded, these schools are rendered unattractive to parents who hesitate to place their children in an environment that offers less than optimal learning conditions. -25-The Court does not approve the modification. The language of the plan does not require the LRSD to build immediately a new junior high school but it does obligate the parties to conduct careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to- M needs, If results of the study, based on current and complete information, indicate that construction of a new LRSD junior high school is necessary, the Court will require the district construction timGlinss and. procGdurss  Incentive Schools to submit Reserved Seating and Parent Recruitment - The parties propose change in the plan that would allow the district to place black children in vacant seats which had been reserved for white children at the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten levels in the incentive schools. Mr. James Jennings testified that the district now fills a a any unclaimed reserved seats after the first week of school. The Court is concerned about the impact of this change. When seats intended for white children are instead filled with black children, desegregation at the incentive schools is seriously impeded. No matter how successful subsequent recruitment might be, once seats at a particular grade level are filled with a racially imbalanced enrollment, the imbalance tends to persist at that grade level as those students matriculate from one year to the next. The parties have pledged to desegregate the incentive schools with aggressive and sustained recruitment of white children, including the strategy of targeting geographic neighborhoods for recruitment -26-to a specific incentive school and stressing group preference as an assignment option. In order for this type of group recruitment plan to work, there must be seats available at the incentive schools. In their June 1990 Joint Brief for Appellants, the parties explained to the Eighth Circuit that the incentive schools would be desegregated in phases \"through combination of white recruitment into the Incentive Schools. and by reserving a a ^.siqnated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. Joint Brief for Appellants at 36, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89- 2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 90-1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90- 1580) (emphasis original). First of all, the number of black students identifiable schools will be reduced in racially automatically through the plan. Our target is to reserve fifty percent of the seats in the incentive schools for white students each year, beginning with next year's kindergarten class. A certain number of those seats will be reserved whether or not the white students show up. And that number, we have discussed in the past with the Joshua Intervenors. The fifty percent target will work if all of our schools are allowed to go forward with the construction schedule of inter-district schools. If not we would still retain, at least, the district average of whi\u0026lt;.e students who would reserve, at least, that many seats throughout the entire six years, so that if, three or four years from now, a group of white students decided to go to the fourth grade at Rockefeller School, would be available for that purpose. That is our target. show up. If not. seats Id. at n.64. Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance of the various types of LRSD schools: interdistrict schools -27-at 50 percent black/white with a variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race\nmagnet schools at between 50 and 55 percent black\nand area schools at an enrollment of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. While the plan does not identify a specific target racial balance in the incentive schools, the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit require that a racial balance at the incentive schools be 50 percent of each race, at least in the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten levels. This proportion is to guide the district in the number of seats which are initially reserved for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. The Court will reluctantly allow seats reserved for white students to be released after a reasonable period only if timely. vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts to fill the seats with white children are unsuccessful. These recruitment efforts must be thoroughly documented by the districts to the extent that the Court can determine that--the parties are diligently trying to recruit white students to the incentive schools before any reserved seats. releasing The parties also propose to modify their plan language so as to limit the LRSD's incentive school recruitment efforts to potential kindergarten students. Such a change would allow the _ ^The Court, recognizes that the Eighth Circuit has defined racially identifiable black elementary school in LRSD as\nelementary school that is 81% or more black (rounded in LRSD \"a any uuc is ex-5 or more black (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number) .\" _ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 339 f 2d 1296 1988) . ' 1307 (Sth Cir. -28-LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's \"automatic\" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court is mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-schools ultimately can be achieved or at least significantly increased. The Court encourages the district to analyze the success factors that are contributing to the desegregation of these two schools to enhance desegregation of the remaining incentive schools. Pupil-teacher ratio and classroom aides ~ The plan describes in detail a wide range of special features which are unique to the incentive schools. These enhanced programs, activities, support systems, and funding levels are compensatory and remedial in that they are intended to help children overcome past discrimination and boost student achievement. They also are designed to promote racial desegregation by attracting white children to these predominately black schools. The Eighth Circuit has underscored the importance of the many special incentive is important for the settlement plans to be school aspects: \"It scrupulously adhered to and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools...\" 921 F.2d at 1386. Among the distinctive incentive school features is a pupilteacher ratio that is lower than that of other LRSD schools. In the 1989 plan, the parties promised that the incentive schools would have a maximum pupil-teacher ratio of 20 to one. This ratio is consistent with the February 9, 1988 opinion of the Eighth Circuit which states that \"the most important element of the compensatory and remedial programs should be the reduction of class size in the racially identifiable black elementary schools to 20 -30-pupils per teacher,\" Little Rock School District v- Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, The low incentive school pupilteacher ratio 1307 (Sth Cir. 1988) . was again stressed by the Eighth Circuit in its order of December 12, 1990: \"A salient feature of these [incentive schools] would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one.  921 F.2d at 1379. The school district has used this reduced ratio in marketing the incentive schools, promising a \"low pupil/teacher ratio: small classes of 20:1 which provide more time for teacher interaction with students\" in a LRSD recruitment brochure which was used to attract new students to the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year. The LRSD's Incentive School Strategic Marketing Plan for 1992-1997, published in May 1991, enumerates the many strengths and benefits of the incentive schools, listing among them smaller class sizes, lower student-adult ratios. and an instructional aide for every classroom. Clearly the LRSD has represented to the courts and to the community that incentive school students. teachers, principals, and parents could expect that the children would be taught in smaller classes with pupil to teacher ratios lower than that of other schools, indeed lower than that by state accreditation standards. required Yet language in the plan creates confusion about the twenty to one ratio and the number of students that actually will be seated in a classroom. The 1989 plan states that \"there may be more than 20 students per classroom. however, there will be certified aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those -31- aclasses.\" (LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan, May 1, 1991, p. 256) In their June 1990 Joint Brief to the Eighth Circuit, the parties reaffirm their commitment to a \"specific and detailed\" plan for the incentive schools and state that \"Incentive Schools would have a maximum effective pupil/teacher ratio of 20:1 by placing a second teacher or certified instructional aide in each class with more than 20 pupils (where classes of that size were permitted by state law).\" Joint Brief for Appellants at 43, n.76. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- Earlier, in its Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the Special Master, filed with the district court in May 1989 and included in the Joint Designated Record on Appeal, the LRSD had addressed the ambiguity of the plan that promised a 20 to 1 pupilteacher ratio but also allowed more than 20 students to a classroom: The Special Master expressed concern at an off-the- record conference that the pupil/teacher ratio was beina rnanrrorl 4_____ . _ . . changed to twenty-five to though the maximum class one. LRSD explained that even size would be twenty-five students, the pupil/teacher ratio would remain at twenty to one. LRSD provided the example of four classrooms with twenty-five students and one full-time teacher in each classroom. A full-time language arts teacher would be assigned to work with those four classrooms, overall ratio of one hundred students to five teachers or twenty to one. The Special Master indicated that such an arrangement would be acceptable provided that teachers and not certified aides were used to achieve the to one ratio. for an twenty Joint Designated Record, Vol. II at 2767, Little Rock School -32-District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- At the January 1992 hearings on proposed 1989 plan revisions, this Court noted Eighth Circuit orders which specifically refer to the twenty to one ratio. Responding to this Court's concern about what the parties had represented to the Eighth Circuit regarding the incentive school pupil-teacher ratio, the LRSD lawyer indicated that the Eighth Circuit's order of December 1990 was based in part upon oral arguments made before the judges in June 1990 when the parties explained the difference between a class with a maximxim of 25 students and a pupil-teacher ratio of twenty to one. The lawyer stated that \"Judge Arnold is not a judge to waste words in an opinion, and the issue was before him concerning the difference between class size and pupil-teacher ratio. And we explained that we would have a class size with a maximxim of 25 students but an effective pupil-teacher ratio based on a total staff devoted to those students of 20 to one.\" However, this Court's review of the Eighth Circuit's own audio tapes of those oral arguments reveal that. while there was discussion of double funding and other aspects of the incentive schools, there was no reference whatever to the size of incentive school classes nor the pupil-teacher ratio. The numerous extraordinary features of the incentive schools have been represented to the Court and the of substance and not of mere semantics. community as a matter This Court finds that -33-sBBsasiQ^sssEaEgB^e^s^E Si providing a smaller-than-usual class size in the incentive schools was intended in the settlement agreement as a means to promote both academic achievement and racial balance in the schools. The Court notes that to have anticipated placing up to 25 students in each incentive classroom would have been a violation of Arkansas accreditation standards which permit an average of 25 students per elementary classroom only in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Recognizing that language in the settlement plan allows for more than twenty children in a classroom. the Court orders that the maximum individual classroom enrollment at incentive schools will be as follows: 18 students in four-year-old classes. as agreed by the parties\n20 students in kindergarten, 23 students in grades one through three. and 25 students in grades four through six. class sizes which are consistent with certain of the state's accreditation standards. fi This Court is mindful of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on the reduction of class size in the incentive schools to 20 pupils per teacher and that Court's caution about reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools without significant justification. In order to effect a low pupilteacher ratio as provided in the settlement plan, the Court orders that there be at least one full time instructional aide per incentive school classroom in those schools where any classroom contains more than 6 The table on page 254 of the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan concerning capacity at incentive schools is being modified in accordance with this Order. -34-20 students. the district should choose to reduce class size to a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten through sixth grade classroom in an entire incentive school, the Court will allow that school to have two instructional aides for every three K-6 classrooms. In any case, an appropriate number of supervision aides will be provided at each incentive school, regardless of whether there is one instructional aide per classroom or, in those schools which elect to have no more than 20 children per K-6 classroom, two instructional aides per every three K-6 classrooms. Infomnation presented at the hearings indicated that over half of all incentive school classrooms presently have more than 20 students. The Court is sensitive to the tremendous disruption that changing schools causes for children and their parents. In adjusting to reduced class size for the 1992-93 school year. the Court will not require that students currently enrolled in the incentive schools be transferred mandatorily to some other school. Children attending an incentive school during the 1991-92 school year may remain at that school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to another school. No new student shall be enrolled in an incentive school if that student's enrollment would cause the ordered class size limits to be exceeded. However, the Court is willing to permit an exception if the new student's enrollment would improve racial balance. Academic Programs - Given the importance of parental involvement. the Court does not approve a change that would remove the requirement for the district to develop a parent component model -35-and incorporate it into the district's four-year-old program. The Court will approve a proposed change in the four-year-old program content model from the designated High/Scope Curriculum only if the shift is to comparable developmentally appropriate curriculum model which continues to foster the active and independent of each child. learning The Court is not convinced that school themes at the incentive schools should be deleted from the 1989 plan and does not approve their elimination. The Eighth Circuit has stressed the importance of parental involvement. School themes, developed at the local level by parents and staff, provide an important avenue for community participation. Themes have proven their value in magnet schools as successful desegregation tools which offer a focus for enrichment activities. help give schools an identity and individuality, and provide parents with more options for their children's education. Moveover, considerable money, materials, and personnel already have been invested in thematic development at the incentive schools\nit will be a wise use of resources to continue to build on the thematic foundation which has already been laid. The parties propose to modify the plan to allow science laboratories to be either mobile or permanent. The modification would release the district from the requirement to have traditional laboratory in separate room reserved for that purpose. The district has cited lack of adequate space for housing permanent laboratories in some of the incentive schools as the basis of this proposed change. The Court is reluctant to approve a a a -36-modifications in the plan that stem from lack of planning foresight on the part of the parties, as is evident with the science laboratories, but will allow mobile science laboratories in those incentive schools where adequate space for a full size permanent science lab is not available. The mobile labs must be fully equipped so that students using them receive the same range and high quality of experience as students who are taught in permanent labs. At the August 1991 hearing on the motion for partial stay. LRSD Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele stated that preparation of Parent Home Study Guides was linked to the completion of the district's new Computer Managed Instructional Technology and related cxirriculum reform. The Court allows the modification to delay development of Parent Home Study Guides. However, the guides must be completed and ready for parental use at or before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the date the district has indicated it will complete the guides. The LRSD seeks to eliminate its commitment to establish foreign language laboratories at each incentive school. Because children cannot be expected to achieve a degree of foreign language proficiency without the practice and reinforcement afforded by a language laboratory, the modification is not allowed. The Court notes language contained in the parties' joint brief filed in June 1990, enumerating the wide array of activities, enhanced programs, and support mechanisms that would be available at the incentive schools. The Eighth Circuit has emphasized the importance of the -37-incentive schools and this Court will not allow the district to diminish the scope and quality of the schools' instructional programs and enrichment activities. Year Round School The 1989 agreement offered year round school and summer school at all incentive schools. The parties propose to modify the settlement plan by replacing year round school with an extended-year program and providing summer school at possibly only one site. The Court approves the change but notes that there is a significant difference between a traditional summer school which emphasizes academic remediation and an extended-year program which may include remediation but also adds a variety of enrichment opportunities that enhance and extend children's learning beyond the regular school year. The parties remain obligated to provide incentive school children with summer learning experiences that go beyond the customary basic curriculxim of an ordinary summer remedial school. The extendedyear program for incentive school students must be located in a facility or facilities with \u0026lt; sufficient to accommodate all of the eligible students who attend the program. capacity wish to Washington Attendance Zone - The parties propose to add language offering certain incentive school educational services, such as extended day activities, extended year activities. and a scholarship program, to students who reside in the Washington attendance zone but cannot attend that school. The parties' July 25, 1991 stipulation indicates that these services are available to students who are enrolled in Washington. The parties' positions -38-are unclear. Before the Court will approve the modification, the parties must provide more details, such as: 1) the status of the LRSD's plan to include these newly- eligible children in the incentive school extended-year, and scholarship programs\nextended day, 2) whether the LRSD has budgeted the money to underwrite incentive school services for additional students. e.g., transportation. after-school snacks. materials and supplies, additional personnel to satisfy the staffing requirement for Homework Centers, and so forth\nand 3) how communication will be coordinated among the staff at Washington, staff at the incentive schools. and parents in order to develop individual Student Education Plans and otherwise assure continuity of services for the Washington students who elect to take advantage of proposed provision. this The Court will not approve the modification until details are forthcoming. Camp Pfeifer - Provisions throughout the parties' plans obligate , them to make use of community resources (such as New Futures and the Cornerstone Project, discussed above) which aid overall progress toward desegregation goals. Camp Pfeifer is a type of residential alternative program for children needing additional assistance in order to be successful students. The parties propose to add wording to the effect that district students will participate provided the funding of the Camp Pfeifer continues and -39-the program meets the needs of the students. The Court allows the new language with the understanding that the change does not relieve the parties from their obligation to manage their relationship with community agencies in all good faith with careful attention to maintaining ongoing communication, cooperative teamwork, and complementary support. The parties are wise to join with the community in strong working partnerships to build a solid support network for children. The Court will monitor changes which the parties may wish to make in their relationship with such community resources as Camp Pfeifer, New Futures, Cornerstone, and others to determine the impact of those changes on desegregation. In further considering the parties' reliance on various community resources, the Court notes that the parties have added language making the continuation of several programs contingent on the availability of outside funding. For example, in the Interdistrict May submissions (p. 415) and in the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan (pp. 10, 41, 46, 166, 304) , programs and services provided through such agencies as JTPA, HIPPY, Camp Pfeifer, and local cable education access channel are to continue only if other funding is available. The Court allows the modifications but stresses that funding availability refers only to the particular programs. The parties' obligation to provide comparable services is not negated by the unavailability of other funding. -40-Program Specialists and Other Recommended Positions - The parties propose to delete the positions of specialist for alternative classroom and program specialist and to base the position of assistant principal on enrollment. The Court disapproves the deletion of the program specialist in each incentive school as the position is necessary to support the thematic emphasis required in each school. In addition, the Court does not approve the language which would make student enrollment the sole determining factor for including an assistant principal as part of an incentive school's staff as there are other indicators of a school's need for the position. The district must place an assistant principal, or any other staff position which has been recommended in the plan. in accordance with equitably meeting the identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school. For example, an assistant principal may be needed to help with the additional documentation. services. and enhancements that are required at the incentive schools. An assistant principal can serve as a classroom observer and program monitor to assure the sustained quality of the incentive schools. As stated in the plan, positions recommended for each school are not all inclusive since additional or different positions may be identified during the needs assessment process. The district must make decisions regarding recommended staff positions based upon criteria linked to a current needs assessment of an individual school. this vein, the Court does not approve removing an alternative classroom specialist from the list of recommended staff and requires the district to determine the need -41-altsmativs classrooms and establish them where necessary to serve students who will benefit from the specialized alternative setting. staff Development - The parties propose to create at each incentive school a staff development committee composed of Instructional Resource Center specialists, teachers, parents, principals, and other administrators as appropriate. Because there is great value in parents' taking active part in all aspects of the incentive schools, the Court approves the school-based staff development committees. This change will provide an avenue for frequent parent input into the operation of the schools since the plan requires the committees to meet on a monthly basis to plan activities related to meeting the needs of students who are achieving below acceptable levels of mastery. The functioning of these school committees will be supported by the incentive school coordinator and staff development department which must ensure that there is a smooth transition from the LRSD Staff Development Planning Committee as originally provided in the plan to the individual development committees. school staff Incentive School Curriculum - The Court allows the deletion of the requirement to develop curriculum specific to the incentive schools. but if the regular core curriculum is used in the incentive schools, it must be amplified as necessary to properly incorporate and support the thematic emphasis of each incentive school. It will be appropriate for the district to seek parent. teacher. and other school staff input into the development of -42-curriculum that will incorporate individual school themes and serve the specific needs of students attending the incentive schools. Consultant/Monitor The original plan called for the Special Master to appoint a consultant/monitor to make quarterly- evaluations and recommendations to the Special Master. changes replacing the Special Master with The Court approves the the Court. It does not approve the language requiring the Court's Monitor, who directs the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), to make at least quarterly visits to all schools in the three districts nor to report to the Court on a quarterly basis. The ODM is an arm of the Court which is responsible only to the Court. Its schedule and activities are not determined by the parties. None of the language in the plan's Consultant/Monitor section shall be construed as a comprehensive description of the appropriate function of the Monitor nor shall it limit the activities of the ODM. Such determinations are reserved for the Court. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Court determines that the modifications proposed by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) the guidelines set forth by the Eighth are in conformity with Circuit. The changes concern details and adapt the original plan to existing circumstances. The Court notes, however, that the NLRSD plan makes reference to and includes a voluminous appendix. While the Court -43-questions the current significance of some of the documents included in the appendix, the NLRSD plan attached to this Order includes the appendix as presented by the parties modified plan. as part of their SUMMARY The Court hereby approves the revised plans as attached to this Order. The Little Rock School District is ordered to file with the Court, within 3 0 days from the date of entry of this Order, a Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan. It is further ordered to file within 60 days from the date of entry of this Order a plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to take the place of PAL. In addition, as this Court previously ordered on January 21, 1992, the LRSD must submit within 30 days from the date of entry of this Order a revised budget. The parties must file any motions for clarification and/or modification of this Order by May 14, 1992. DATED this 29th day of April, 1992. JNITED STATES DISTRICT JI UNITED JUDGE -44-TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 18, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: Remediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Provided is additional information to suppon our argument for providing remediation within the regular classrooms and reducing pull-out programs 9 . Students educational programs should not be implemented in isolation. . Facilitates the reinstitution of tracking of students by their supposed academic potential as most remedial classes are more than 90% black. . Proposal institutes more cooperative learning among groups of young people with varying abilities. . Allow teachers to team teach in more flexibly-designed curriculum blocks that integrate several disciplines rather than presenting students with disconnected, rapidly separated 50-minute subjects. . Train teachers to acquire a repertoire of teaching strategies that will enable students to acquire skills in learning how to learn, problem solving, and communication skills. . Existing staffing decisions and the program deliver/ model need to be reviewed and revised in accordance with our revised curriculum. . Existing compensatory and remedial programs rarelv teach the development of higher-order skills. . The amount of time recommended in each content area bv ADE and National Association for Accredited Schools is prohibitive to student mobility in completing course requirements for graduation (20 credits) as well as devoting recommended time in each elementary discipline. EXHIBIT 19 ARemediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Page 2 . Students are prevented from benefiting from panicipation in electives. Remediation becomes punitive and is resisted by students and their parents. Remedial and compensatory education services must be provided as additions, otherwise, providing remedial services in lieu of would be considered supplanting by our accrediting agencies (ADE and NCA). SCHEDULES Elementary Level Subject Recommended Time Grades 1-3: Language Arts Mathematics Social Living (science, geography, history, economics, health/safety Creative Recreation (art, music, P.E.) 180 min. daily - 900 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Grades 4-6: Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science Creative Recreation 150 min. daily - 750 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 30 min. daily - 150 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Secondary Level A minimum of 50 minutes per class is required with the exception of some vocational courses. Most of our classes are 55 minutes in length. Students must acquire a minimum of 20 credits to graduate and, by ADE statute, must exit school by age 21. The amount of time allocated to complete course work will not allow pull-out programs in all core areas.TO\nFROM: SUBJECT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 11, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Long Range_Building Planning Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent BradyGadberry, Labor Relations Specialist Sterling Ingram, Director, Chip Jones, Manager of Planning, Support Services Research \u0026amp; Eval : ucng Range Building Planning Coanittee As we have considered the building dis.._c. schools, recommended uses of vacant buildincs. and secondary capacity. of buildings, X . School Sites The District currently owns-- four properties pouentia_ as sites for new or expanded schools, have Deen held with Philander that have fifth site. Smith College for Discussions a possible (a) One site is located at th e present Westside camous. Westsioe property is only a few blocks from 1-630 areas of the City and County acjacent to Arkansas Childrc ' \"   - accessible to all t: ve and o (b) c: ,inc-n\ns\\ already expressed located near them. xs xas en's Hospital (ACK). AC.H r enthusiastic support for a school support for xOr joint use of the prooertv develop a partnership to needs of children. They also would like to develom olans _ sc that LRSD and AC.H  serve educational and health , . P-p-iininary site plans indicate that f a capacity of 656 K-6 students and 40 four-year-olds for a total located on the sit two-story building with e. use of space, but offers exiting facility. w 11 or 696 students can be This plan will require efficient the potential for a unique Rockefeller School is located on a tract well-suited for expansion. and of land that is Ample space is available for P-vide seats for students , school is also easily accessible and has been successful in attracting student Citv. east s from all over the EXHIBIT 27Ruth Steele June 25, Page 2 1S9 1 ! II. (C) (e) The current Stephens site is adequate to support a school for approximately 656 K-6 students and 40 four- students for a total of 696 students. The year-old current Stephens building would be replaced with a new structure. Rebuilding Stephens on the current site enables a site significant number of black students .to attend school without being bussed out of the neighborhood. to The site the former Kinc/Oakhurst physically attractive location situated east of Field . fortner School is a of Curran- Conway Field. The King site is also large enouch to accommodate approximately 840 K-6 students and 40 feur- .year-olds .fo-r a total of S80 students. The King site is also attractive because of its proximity to Curran-Conway Field. The District would seek to enter into a joint-use agreement with the City so that the students will develop interests in a variety of extra-curricular activities. Field. st In order to populate a school on the King site, it be necessary to transport some black students from predominately black will one attendance zone to predominately black attendance zone which would i the burden of busing-for-black students. another ncrease Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training orocram and would like to develop a partnership with the District. They have rejected cur proposal to build a school on their campus, but we should continue to plan to develco cooperative efforts with Philander Smith'. Attendance Zone Data - Elementary Schools This section will address the attendance zone changes that are needed to objectives. First, King phens Schools will be rebuilt in the 1-630 Corridor. \u0026lt;St comply with two First, and schools will become interdist These Ct schools, and they will have a racial balance of 60 percent blac.k and 40 percent white. The white population in these schools will come primarily f^cm PCSSD. Second, bussing the District on zones as possible. is seeking to reduce the burden black students by eliminating as of many satellite The fulfillment of this objective is restricted by the minimum black percentage that is required in tul elementary area schools. As a result, some schools in all west satellite Little Rock must maintain some, if zone blocks in order to comply desegregation requirements. not all, of their with court-ordered c:\\fnemos\\: . wodRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page J two objectives x..ese zwo cojectives are interrelated. The construction projects will make it possible for students who live attendance zone of incentive/interdistric in the --- schools to attend these These projects will also, to some reduce the burden of bussing on black students. schools. extent, A zotal of 2190 students currently reside in the attendance zones of the incentive schools. The total capacity of the seven incentive schools is 2405, r*' of 1:25. Although 215 vacancies will The total 1:25. using a teacher/pupil ratio exist if all azzendance zone students attend the incentive schools, of the vacancies can be filled by students who currently nearby satellite.^ zones.   reside in satellite these zones allow the respective attendance zone A total of 281 students that can be eliminated reside in currently and s i 1 1 0 minimum desegregation schools to comply with This requirements. situation is complicated by the fact that 200 of the 281 satellite students live near the Stephens/Garland area. Ar her se azzendance zone. rious problem involves the Washington Magnet School Washington is the only elementary magnet zone,- This zone was drawn initiallv to accommodate 1050 incentive school students. school with an attendance converted to a Desegregation Plan. magne school The Diszric under the The school^was Tri-Distric,t recently received czu^z oval to continue to operate Washington as a magnet school. T..e attendance zone for Washingzon is too large to accommodat an of e the black students. Washington's capacity is are 892 black students who reside in the Washington The desegregation requirement for Washingt,.. As a result, only 60 percent '(488) of the black- a zendance zone studenzs nay attend Washington. 404 students must reassigned to non-attendance schools.  from eas e Washington's azzendance zone. is 60% black. 404 mus be 814 . ^n to The remaining zone These reassignments usually involve busing students t Little Rock to southwest Little Rock. Most of the 404 students from the Washington attendance (235 studenzs) reside on the northeast edge of the District. The closest elementary schools to these students are Carver- Magnet School, Booker Magnet School, and Rockefeller Incentive School.  zone The magnet shadow preferences for Carver and Booker (25 percent of building capacity) are too small to accommodate these students. percen the are small c: \\fnemos\\blscf\u0026gt;r.2. wpdRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 4 Ill. Attendance Zcne Data Secondary Schools In a separate process, calculate capacities for from' fomnula has a formula been developed secondary schools. to It is apparent .the study that very little capacity exists currently che junior high level and a significant amount of caoac at  , . - -----wt caoacitv exisus the highs. However, the District seems ti n.aye reached the peak of junior high enrollment in 1990-91 and that enrollment will decrease for a couple of years begin to increase again slightly in 1993-94. indicate that senior high enrollment will in the senior highs. However of the Distric and then IV. 'ext five years but not to the extent . The projections increase over the is required. required in 1992-93 that additional capacity However, adjustments to attendance zones mav be iQ-)Lno _'_______ or subsequent years. (See Attachment 1) While educational trends indicate that articulation between seventh grades, eighth to ninth grades, and ninth to sixth o tenth grades is best with a grade s 9-12, appears that the it District ucture of K-6, changing its secondary grade struc secondary capacity problems. should not 7-S, and consider re as a means for solvin Junior high enrollment will range, from 93% without the additional seats for' the juni 90% to 94% rest r to 102% of capacity .------- junior high schoois\"an,d with the proposed construction. Heights is expected to exceed the The enrollment a ... - - -- ----- -- current building capacity in 1993-94 and continue to increase in 1994-95 1995-96. Tne enrollment will range from capacity with the proposed construction. At The 37% to 97% and of Southwest Junior gh iu appears' that replacing 4 portable classrooms, 2 classrooms, . , - - ----------, adding and utilizing 3 classrooms in.the PDC will be the maximum advisable construction and-will provide additional space for attendance zone students. The other junior high school that should be expanded is Mabelvale. - -  Replacing the pori.able c...assrooms and building 4 new classrooms will provide adequate space for Mabelvale and southwes much of the growth is occurring. Little Rock, where 1990 Census The Office of Desegregation is presently involved in analyzing A map overlay has been prepared that black/white population count for each census tract. The 1980 Census data will be added to the facilitate comparisons of data by race and each census tpact. the 1990 Census data. map overlay to tn a total population in Preliminary comparisons the population trends that expected to continue. were evident seem to indicate In particular, in 1930 can be the. population in c: \\memos\\i:l dcomZ. updRuth Steele June 25 Page 5 1991 central and east Little Rock will continue to decline, and the population in portion of southwest and northwest Little Rock will continue to increase. it 1 did was recently announced that the original 1990 census count include 5.3 million ..persons. Our analysis of the no original census data for Little Rock Our analysis seems to confirm that ese figures are too low. We are in the process of obtaining e revised census counts. It should be noted, however, that e revised counts have not been.,approved by the U. Bureau. S. Census Further analysis,\nwill be needed to identify trends in specific geographic areas. each census block. The next step is to analyze the data for several census blocks. (Note: Each census tract is made uo of The census block data report * has approximately 700 pages.) In addition to examining census block data, another map overlay will be drawn for the attendance zones. There will probably be numerous discrepancies between the boundaries for the census tracts and the boundaries for the attendance zones. In such cases, the census block data will be usedto determine the exact number V. of students in a particular attendance zone. T.ne census map for 1990 is not the same as the census 1930 . Most of the changes in map for he boundaries for the census tracts occurred in southwest Little Rock and the western edce of the City. These differences will have to be reconciled in order to be able to make valid comparisons. Professional Development Cente For many years, SU I oort tie the District's instructional specialists and functions have been spread across Little Rock with chance for a coordinated instructional management The Math, Reading, Science, Staff Development, Social and English Departments are currently located in the former Lee School Building, now called the Instructional system. Studies, Resource Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Pupil Services, and the Student Hearing Officer, are located in the District's Annex Building on West Markham, and Library Media Services is currently located at Franklin School. Center (IRC). Health Services, Markham, c: \\mcmos\\blscom2 . upd Ruth Steele June 25, Page 6 1991 For several years, the District has been concerned about the physical condition of the IRC building, but the District has not bad opportunity to provide a satisfactory solution^ Trr Dictritt Desegregation Plan In the Tri-District    i I f d Magnet was proposed for Southwest Junior High. a University Lab -  . . -  As a result of ...IS proposal, the District chose the Southwest site for a new professio.nal development center that would provide state-of- the-art administrators. drawings of instructional space for students, teachers, and An architect for the District has develooed students, VI. provide a two-level 45,000 s\u0026lt;^are foot building which will - uf instructional specialists, a space for all of the multiple purpose auditorium, ctional specialists, . a professional library, wcrk/production r^ooms for teachers, classrooms, instructional classrooms, generous techrtology labs,\"an instructional management - . center, and many Ou.'er functions. The professional development center will be located south of Southwes er functions. Street. facility (PDC) Junior High along Sryant The District considers the construction of critical to improving the potential this new ,  -  r--------- for sLal cevelopment for the District's teachers and administrators. (The PDC has been designed so that it \u0026lt;__ additional junior high seatsif necessary. Dcr-.-icus currently occupies Services School. can be converted three classrooms The relocation of Library Media to Library Media at Franklin Services to the Professional Development Center will'allow Franklin's caoacitv to increase by 75 students.) Other Properties The^ District currently has several buildings that are not suited to meet the instruction goals of .the District, buildings or sites that do not fit several buildings tha The into the long range plans of the  are the former Gillam School, Eastside ' Auditorium, the former King/Oakhurst School, and the fonaeT- Lee School (the current IRC).  he orium, District School, and the (a) Gillam School - The District currently leases of the building to Watershed, Inc. a majority . - - Rental income oavs approximately 66% of the operating cost of the building. The is located on Confederate Boulevard in Little Rock. Preliminary Requests for Proposals being developed to attempt to sell the property to site Preliminary Requests east are profit agency. a non( b) Eastside Auditorium - The auditorium a Eastside has not ysed^ for many years. The other portion of the building is used primarily for Adult Education. The auditorium is in very poor condition and is not been for Adult Education. of without significant and very expensive habitable renovation.Ruth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 7 Eastside Rockefeller. is located near 1-630 and 1-30, not far from (c) Lee School^ (IRC) - The Lee School Building is in very condition, and the District should find new the staff housed there as soon as The site would not be appropriate for a school because of traffic congestion and its limited poor facilities possible. VII. Recommendations  1) Direc - The Lee School Building is the District housed find soon size. our attorney to prepare stipulations to proceed .with rebuilding Stephens School at its present location and new King school at the old Westside site (14th Marshall Streets). and Stephens will have a capacity of 696 (including 40 four-year old students). addition to the present attendance area of zone blocks 0573, 0441, 0572, 0574, 0583, part of the McDermott lite zone (zone block 0562) will be added Stephens School. During the construction of the students four-year old In 0441, 0574 , 0583 , part 0562) Stephens, the const current students reassigned to the closest schools will to new be available. temporarily The new attendance zone for Stephens will have approximately.. 370 K-6 students. The new King School will have a capacity of 69 6 students (including 40 four-year old students) .* zone for King School will The attendance blocks: consist of the following zone 0442, 0443, 0445, 0446, 0459, 0458, (from the current Mitchell attendance zone). 0444, 0457 0439 (from the current Rightsell attendance zone) 0438 (from the current Jefferson satellite zone) The boundaries for the new King School are 12th, High, 16th, and State attendance zone Streets. The new attendance zone for King School will have approximately 380 K-6 students. In order to comply with the racial balance requirement for interdistrict schools, 40 percent of the seats at the ' r    ..w s, (,.1C new Stephens and the new King Schools have been reserved for white students.. This primary responsibility for recn at each school. means that PCSSD will have ting 40% of PCSSD will have he stude recruitment efforts to meet t' to s goa 1 . implement In addition s ma] or toRuth Steele June 25, Page 8 1991 recruitment to interdistrict schools, PC serious attention to the recruitment of PCSSD needs to give 2) the elementary magnet ipulation allows PCSSD to fill current s schools. more students to The magnet elementary magnet seats. 33.7 percent of the During the 1990-91 school year, PCSSD represented 23 percent of the total elementary magnet population. students percent the If PCSSD is unsuccessful the District will Garland school(s). in fulfilling its obligation, recomme^id closing Rightsell afford to reseirve seats The Distric will and/or not be able to for more than a year once the new _sc..ools .are* constructed. The number of seats to be reserved is approximately 500. The number of If PCSSD sends 500 M to M students to LRSD, approximately $2.0 million of will be generated to pay for school coeraticns. tesezrved seats are not filled by MtoM students. District will not be able to schools when school. seats are revenue If the the afford operating separate available to absorb an entire When the new King School is close Ish School and Mitchell and Rightsell. revise available for occupancy, the attendance. zones_^for The new attendance zones for Mitchell will be the following zone blocks: 0472, 0485 0451, 0452, 0453, 0476, 0477, 0479 , 0430, The boundaries' for 'the new Mitchell School attendance zone are 28th, Wolfe, 37th, and State Streets. Also, small area bounced by Roosevelt Road, Battery, 29th, High Streets, and a small area bounded by 22nd Street, a and Howard Street, Roosevelt Road, and High Street. ' attendance zone for Mitchell School will approximately 340 K-6 students. The new have The new attendance following zone blocks: zone for Rightsell will be the 0448, 0450, 0449, 0454, 0464, 0473 The boundaries of the new Rightsell 16th, High, 28th, and State Streets. a zone students. for Rightsell will have ttendance zone are The new attendance approximately 282 .X-6 Assign zone block 0553 to Jefferson and zone block 0552 to Forest Park.Ruth Steele June 25, Page 9 1591 4) Add approximately 270 seats to Rockefeller classroom addition. Move zone blocks 0210, and 0121 from the Washington with an 11 5) 6) 7) 8). 9) . Rockefeller attendance attendance 0111, zone 1 to 0112, the zone. The boundaries for this area are the Arkansas River, Interstate 30, part of East 13 Street, and part of East 6th Street. This area has approximately 135 K-6 students. ill be districts. filled by white The remaining 135 seats students from the three During the construction of the new Stephens, the curre students will be temporarily reassigned to the closest ,available.schools . For the schools that are vacated or for sites no longer utilized by the district, we will issue offering circulars to established non-profit organizations to seek we issue competitive proposals for the buildings. tr.d intended use -  Offering price 2nd of the property will be among the evaluation factors. The sites that should be offered immediately _ for sale or lease are Gillam School, Lee School (subject to court ^approval for building the FDC) and Pankey. * ors.  among the Direct attorney to prepare stipulations approval for a building replacement at Forest Junior High (as previously submitted to the Court) with a net increase of 6 classrooms, a 6 classroom addition to Southwest Junior High to replace 4 portable classrooms :or a net increase of 2, and a classroom addition, with a net increase of 4 classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High. our prepare seeking Heights ted to the Court) wi Direct attorney to prepare a stipulation approval the construction of a professional development center near Southwest Junior High. our for a a seeking LRSD, the other parties, and the Magnet Review Committee will study the of shadow preference for Booker, Carver, Consideration will be given to reducing the number of neighborhood students who are displaced by the current assignment process used for use and Gibbs. will be given students who these schools. assignment process usedMann jr.it i\u0026gt;iaoN4\u0026gt; P-.a*K K\u0026gt;\nnt6 Ss-iiwes\nM am Cemal UsCella.') r aif\\-e* Cent! al Fair Kall McC)i:an Parkvt* Aeiossaae Cioacify 733 959 59* 692 702 *50 S.656 67 653 959 i,7\u0026lt; 692 603 751 *50 6.C39 1.691 934 1.218 1.085 5.5*6 1.891 90* 1.216 1.065 450 400 5.9*6 LRSO long-Sange Ar.encance Zone Pi Conaifwo^n 0\u0026lt; Nw Seal* 1W2-93 1993*M 795 74 9 1.C21 M9 702 631 764 0 5.SS1 795 7*9 1.C21 6t9 7Z2 -/A 831 764 0 5,551 1.751 918 1.088 1.221 0 *.966 1.751 918 1.066 0 4.966 1 C2 1 CJ 1 0 1 ifi 1 01 1.C2 0.00 0.96 0.93 0.56 1.06 1.C2 1.01 1.03 1.02 0.39 0.92 74 7*2 977 641 679 BM 605 0 5.5*9  Cl , Cl 1 02 ns 0.96 1.2 1.07 0.00 0.96 f? 799 1 C?3 Ml MS 914 627 0 5.701 CcMiucJier Ne* Statt 781 7*2 977 681 679 66* ks 0 5.\u0026lt;37 0.91 0.67 1.02 1.01 0.96 1.10 1.07 c.oo 0.90 612 799 1.023 661 665 91* 627 0 - 5.701 VAihout Conciruetion ot A\u0026gt;o*eact Snio( H^h Sctiooit C.93 1.C2 0.69 1.13 e.c: 0.90 0.93 1.02 0.89 1.13 0.00 0.90 1.825 1.C2 1.916 985 1.09 1.C26 1.069 1.339 5.338 5.90 1.23 5.00 0.96 1.0*3 l.*C2 0 5.38* Win Conatrueiion ol Aiopaee Snor Hifh Senoo)* 1.925 1.02 1.916 965 1.09 1.C26 1.389 1.339 0 5.338 - Sai.o on cu.i.nt ntoUm.nn 0. an.noanc. ion. (so,, noi \u0026gt;.ll.ct .nioUmani, Oy icnool). - S.ai, lo\u0026gt; Im.ioiatnot Uagn.i Scnoo at. count.d in io\u0026lt;al caoacily. Out no .luo.nt. at. .non lot in, - No .iio.anc. Ka, o..n mao. lo. u-io-u iiancl.i, a iniiaamtnci o.\u0026lt;.g..gatK\u0026gt;n i.an.l.... =age 1 0.90 1.23 0.00 0.96 1.0*0 1.402 0 0 5.36* 'jec'.icns  09 1 C7 C.9 1.30 0.00 1.01 5.95 1.07 0.96 0.9 1.10 c.oo 0.94 1.01 1.13 0.5S 1.29 c.oc 0.97 1.01 1.13 0.86 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.C35 *53 697 919 634 0 5.759 634 1.C35 653 657 919 0 5.759 1.530 1.439 0 5.451 1.561 1.030 1.021 1.439 0 0 5.451 995-S t C3  .C 1.0* 1.13 1 Cl 0.00 1.02 C.96 1 06 0.97 1.01 c.oo 0.95 1.C4. C.F* 1.33 5.03 0.98 1.0* 1.1* 0.6* 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.X7 1 35 6*3 7C3 6*9 612 0 5.M9 626 1.0C7 5*3 703 6*9 612 0 5.\u0026amp;9 1.973 1.03* 1.573 1.034 1.001 0 0 5.4*9 1 Zt 1 Z2 0.00 1.00 C '^7 0.95 1 22 1.38 C.9* 0 2 0.58 0.62 0 00 0 05 ) achooi* \u0026amp;cau they n* nc aiienaance\none.XiX. Timeiifies Litiie Hock School District Building Plan Timeline Court AppfcvaJ qI Building Plan AMtgn arehiiectc RockalatUr Stephan* King Fores Haighla Southwest Mabalvala POC Working Drawings Prepared Aockelaiiar r Stepheng Xing Forest Heiphts Southwest MaOeiviJa POC Cpoiracts Awarded Rockaiallar Sephans King ....... Fores\nHeights Southwest Mabalvaia Relocation of Saphang' Sudanis Consinjclioo Phaea Rockelailar Saphans King Forest Haights Southwest MaPalvaia POC Occupancy Rockefeller Saphans King Forest Heights Souihwast Mabaivilia POC Spring Fail Winiw XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 1M1 XXX XXX XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Spring 1602 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Summer 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX Fll 1002 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX \\Vinier 1003 XXX XXX XXX Spring 1003 XXX XXX XXX Sommor 1003 XXX XXX . Fall XXX XXXIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 93 JU 30 PH 5: IP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPL : HTS.CL.\n: PLAINTIFF V. BY_ _ _ _ LR-C-82866 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 the following budget documents required by the Court's June 15, 1993 Order: 1. An updated 1993-94 tentative LRSD budget document which includes: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that incudes any changes from the 1992-93 budget as to additions. deletions. and i reinstatements\nB. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses. the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses. and the 1993-94 budget\nC. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 2. A LRSD budget summary projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years which reflects annual incoming settlement monies (and any settlement loan funds the district anticipates drawing). The summary must also include anticipated yearly M-to-M revenues. 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 Bar No. 8108 .ristopher 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 30th day of June, 1993: 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 ristopher Hell . -X ' * .it'- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Offics of Qessgi yui !n Mor:'ior-t'} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING On January 21, 1992, this court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit certain information concerning its desegregation budget. The required budget information was filed on June 1, 1992. The budget projections which were previously submitted have now been revised based on current information. The revised budget projections are attached to this Notice of Filing. 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 By: Christopher Helfer Bar No. 81083 kaihyiNoticB of FilialCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: 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 #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He knihy'Noikx of Filing 2 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Revised 7-30-92 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation Monitoring (ODM). with the Office of Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD committed to the programs of Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed is 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. the as precise commitments of funds. it is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more costeffective ways. It The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be Consequently done with certainty. For the purpose of these projections, it is assumed that annual step and experience increases will be provided to all employees. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. The LRSD Board of Directors adopted a balanced budget for 1992-93 on July 23, 1992. None of the budget reductions will prevent LRSD from implementing its Desegregation Plan. modifications to the Desegregation Plan proposed by LRSD and The approved by the Court for Henderson and McClellan, however, will have to be adjusted in order to implement the proposed budget reductions at those schools. At this time, the LRSD takes no position as to the necessity for a millage increase. The reasons for taking this position are as follows: A) B) C) It is not practical to rely on a millage increase in the near future to balance the budget. The LRSD's ability to fund long-range capital improvement projects is linked to the issue of extended millage. The LRSD Board of Directors must set its priorities and develop a long-range plan priorities. and budget around these It is assumed that capacity for the incentive schools will be limited to a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher. The projections show in summary the revenue and expense of the most significant federal programs.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. covered with second-lien issues possible extended millage. Any additional improvements will be or from bonds secured by 10. The 1993-94 reduction 11. 12. 13. Programs, equipment. reflects in program Some funding the completion #10, Academic Support is maintenance of this equipment. added of payments for PAL for replacement and The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not provided separate accounting codes at this time. This means that cost information for implementation must be extracted from other budget line items. The opening dates of the new King and Stephens Schools shown as approved by the Court. are The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code desegregation expenses. will be used for identifying The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified, known \"start up\" costs are as follows: The A. Academic Support Program $1.0 million ends in 1992-93 B. Data Processing $.25 million in 1992-93 and $.50 million in 1993-94 through 1996-97 C. Four-Year Old Programs $34,500 for five new programs and $30,000 for playground equipment No other significant \"start up\" costs are projected. 15. Because of the new reporting codes used for 1992-93, reconciliation between 1991-92 and 1992-93 program budgets is The District will provide any specific answers which may arise because of the change in accounting coding imperfect. structure.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. Each budget manager will submit a proposal for spending allotted funds. These proposals will be conjunction with the Desegregation Plan audit. reviewed in Once specific plans for spending have been proposed, the Superintendent will prepare a proposal for Board approval. In addition the Superintendent will prepare a process for requiring Board approval for changes in planned expenditures above a to-be determined spending authority. Once the types of expenditures have been programmed, the Purchasing Department will not be authorized to issue a purchase order except for those items programmed and approved. D. The Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. E. The Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a proposals. Desegregation Plan audit and related budgetLITTLE FIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 40,093,227 22.453,744 4,577,692 144,200 309,000 226,914 484,050 309,000 102,874 41,416,117 23,196,645 4,615,022 148,526 318,270 229,183 508,253 318,270 104,932 42,786,512 23,966,307 4,753,473 152,982 327,818 231,475 533,665 327,818 107,030 44,206,276 24,718,335 4,896,077 157,571 337,653 233,789 560,348 337,653 109,171 TOTAL 64,998,181 66,559,408 68,700,700 70,855,217 73,187,080 75,556,873 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 15,350 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 88,769 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 28,394,849 8,094,112 73,419 1,500,000 903,594 240,873 3,000 3,300,000 575,436 3,600,000 718,517 29,814,591 6,042,591 73,419 1,545,000 993,953 252,917 3,000 3,564,000 604,207 5,200,000 740,072 31,305,321 3,829,942 73,419 1,591,350 1,093,349 265,563 3,000 3,849,120 634,418 5,460,000 762,274 32,870,587 683,125 73,419 1,639,091 1,202,683 278,841 3,000 4,157,050 666,139 5,733,000 785,143 TOTAL 48,670,683 46,367,563 47,403,799 48,833,751 48,867,755 48,092,076 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 9,385 129,428 394,675 40,000 262,000 600,000 35,000 272,480 400,000 30,000 283,379 300,000 25,000 294,714 200,000 20,000 306,503 100,000 TOTAL 533,488 902.000 707,480 613,379 519,714 426,503 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,291,121 113,913,390 116,896,398 120,386,766 122,658,968 124,159,872UTTLEFIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-37 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER 3,272,693 224,423 558,810 1,076,226 4,474,288 215,020 569,986 1,097,751 4,563,774 219,320 581,386 1,119,706 4,655,049 223,707 593,014 1,142,100 4,748,150 228,181 604,874 1,164.942 4,843,113 232,745 616,971 1,188,240 TOTAL 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL REVENUE 119.423.273 120.270.435 123.380.584 127.000.636 129.405.115 131.040.941LITTLE KICK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 072992 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995 - 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, EQUIP. DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 66,364,271 9,208,546 19,148,407 14,972,774 9,090,123 600,000 67,691,557 9,254,588 22,515,161 15,421,957 8,845,248 700,000 69,045,388 9,300,861 23,246,037 15,884,616 8,258,921 800,000 70,426,296 9,347,366 23,732,324 16,361,155 8,041,468 900,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 112.604,098 115,872,561 119,384,121 124,428,511 126,535,823 128,808,608 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL EXPENSES 131,624,091 136,395,260 140,317,274 145,780,327 148,314,675 151,023,037 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 (1,959,171) (2,487,723) (4,041,745) (3,876,855) (4,648,736) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,321,865 362,694 (2,125,029) (6,166,774) (10,043,629) ENDING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 (2.125.0291 (6.166.7741 (10.043.6291 (14.692.3651 FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 3.874.971 5,833.226 6.956.371 INCREASE(DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE RECORD LOAN REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTIONS (1.959.171) (2.487,723) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (4,041,745) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (3,876,855) 2,000,000 3,000,000 (4.648.736) 3.000.000 ENDING FUND BALANCE 362.694 3.874.971 5.833.226 6.956.371 5.307.635 * $1.5CX3.OOO recorded as revenue in 1992-931105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S 4000 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 138,077.08 2,760,904.00 28,381,519.29 3,989,261.59 4,023,283.53 1,013,772.90 1,143,799.80 2,570,622.02 2,667,369.46 198,491.86 3,895,984.12 287,255.96 COMMUNITY SERVICES NON PROGRAMMED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 79,415.14 347,089.07 6,024,779.24 1,354,685.45 1,158,370.16 697,588.87 253,127.76 183,211.79 1,174,153.77 1,631,966.93 446,175.31 1,983,094.66 19,318,518.35 2,161,066.34 740,723.24 32,450.45 7,950,100.01 DESEG 94,937.48 6,072,099.95 10,538.70 107,559.18 35,631.06 1,589,524.16 309,073.21 1,479,959.60 441,244.35 107,262.02 1,041,101.85 465,561.53 504,079.83 3,738,667.07 TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 302,717.88 338,788.30 130,394.89 3,123,267.62 55,541.49 371,072.25 301,061.72 88,318.56 429,905.44 8,567,902.51 276,198.03 592,044.13 5,333.69 181,901.87 658,847.84 414,539.17 4,792.23 302,192.60 114,004.58 1,207,390.15 1,050,413.66 503,364.75 51,070,341.61 45,536,516.54 15,997,239.99 5,132,152.12 13,887,841.24 312,429.70 3,537,898.51 49,046,300.99 5,933,401.65 6,220,045.30 863,614.82 5,985,026.13 1,564,454.95 5,083,769.09 6,494,896.88 1,174,230.08 7,193,730.95 21,414,826.09 2,913,883.83 1,546,995.67 7,950,100.01 131,624,091.50Prg # Pa# Description 1 5 2 5 5 28 6 28 7 39 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation Extra-Curricular 8 44 Teacher Recruiter 9 46 10 48 12 63 13 82 Staff Development Academic Support Multicultral Programs Incentive Grants 14 86 15 114 16 129 17 129 18 143 19 148 21 148 22 224 24 227 25 1-9 Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M-to-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transp Romine Theme 26 93 27 34 28 35 Community School In-School Suspension Job Fair 29 28 32 106 33 1-56 34 131 35 125 Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Services 49 00 To Be Allocated Incentive Schools: 51 149 Office of Incentive Schools 52 152 53 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 54 153 55 153 56 153 57 154 59 158 61 171 64 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 65 172 Extended Year 66 176 72 190 73 193 74 194 75 153 Incentive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development TeK:her Stipends Other Academic Programs SUB-TOTAL INCENTIVES GRAND TOTAL SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 214,295 278,772 284,347 290,034 295,835 301,751 811,591 88,332 452,998 31,072 45,924 400,069 2,846,490 164,490 658,575 3,738,667 56,291 703,830 200,727 354,920 0 0 373,686 0 17,267 295,276 914,101 4,063 0 588,441 22,367 62,714 0 268,247 0 13,314,433 261,482 1,096,193 1,325,132 2,682,807 15,997,240 1,202,033 1,238,094 1,520,236 1,810,843 1,847,060 99,087 101,069 103,090 105,152 107,255 433,133 441,796 450,632 459,644 468,837 0 0 0 0 0 42,204 43,048 43,909 44,787 45,683 447,446 456,395 465,523 474,833 484,330 2,785,221 1,840,925 1,877,744 1,915,298 1,953,604 240,315 320,000 3,800,000 110,307 617,038 411,583 721,442 0 0 391,495 10,000 85,816 115,000 748,258 1,500 11,350 716,504 27,000 65,863 5,000 200,000 13,886,365 63,147 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,500 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,664 17,013,029 245,121 320,000 3,876,000 112,513 629,379 773,930 543,085 2,603,300 0 399,325 10,200 87,532 115,000 763,223 1,530 11,577 730,834 27,540 67,180 5,000 200,000 15,927,943 65,041 15,450 15,450 15,450 7,725 5,150 868,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 3,220,464 19,148,407 250,024 255,024 260,125 320,000 320,000 320,000 3,953,520 4,032,590 4,113,242 114,763 117,058 119,400 641,967 654,806 667,902 789,409 805,197 821,301 553,947 565,026 576,326 2,655,366 2,707,000 407,311 10,404 89,283 115,000 778,487 1,561 11,809 745,451 28,091 68,524 5,000 200,000 19,198,082 66,993 15,914 15,914 15,914 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124 238,703 58,350 3,317,078 22,515,161 2,708,473 2,761,140 415,457 10,612 91,068 115,000 794,057 1,592 12,045 760,360 28,653 69,894 5,000 200,000 19,829,446 69,002 16,391 16,391 16,391 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,591 23,246,037 2,762,643 2,816,363 423,767 10,824 92,890 115,000 809,938 1,624 12,286 775,567 29,226 71,292 5,000 200,000 20,213,235 71,072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088 23,732,3243 NOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION filed NOV 0 51992 0iiiC3 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK By.. DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 school yeeir for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal at Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet ElementarySchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the par\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_284","title":"Budget cuts","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":["1992/2002"],"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":["Budget cuts"],"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/284"],"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\nGibbs Magnet School PTA 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 324-2490 'Working Together for a Better Future received May 25, 1993 JUN 3 '3 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Federal Court P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Arkansas OliiCS of Desegregation Moiwcnng 72203 Dear Judge Wright: The patrons of the Gibbs International Magnet School very concerned about the proposed elimination of the computer lab attendant position from our school. are Since our teachers do not have time to assume the responsibilities of the computer lab, this decision could result in an inferior program in which our children might not receive the full benefits of the lab. The computer lab attendant is the heart of our computer progreun. Therefore, we strongly urge you to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position. At a recent meeting, several of our patrons wanted to show their support by signing a petition urging the Little Rock School Board to reject the proposal, your information. A copy is attached for Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Willie J. les Co-Pres iaent Attachment Annette Thomas-Jones Co-President Wright 7993 judge Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs Intenaationat Magw\u0026lt; urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districts proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. , / // -^d-kjLay\u0026lt; JMWk C^C^C lat the pe / -7/'. tk / d c, I Sil ?\\ 1aj~^ r (X\\aA$s.4jrCi ^2Zz2 L/'7\\J.^'k ' dub/ ,- ut^ ahA^ j2p2DE54 'J^^g-TUr Cdcbczl7\u0026gt; -XH-Jk-\" -- A-k fe Ax' / Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of 6ibb lateniational MagneC Schaol, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. c :iCi. .4- I ,1 r C' /\u0026lt; t A- 1 fX / MJU, -\"P-' F 2. ~n.Lj^^ ( \"r fzt,46^S\u0026lt;(y nK:: 'i ,7 Petition to the Little Rock School Board SI y\\/e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs In^ai'natiawai Magnet School, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly tr without-a computer lab attendant. i n 64\u0026lt;.z^ \u0026lt;1 O/iAPetition to the Little Rock School Board y^/Q, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs International Magnet Scbool, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districr's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. .I f.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States Oistrict Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LftHe Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 June 16, 1993 Mr. Willie Jones and Ms. Annette Thomas-Jones, Co-Presidents Gibbs PTA Gibbs Magnet School 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Annette and Willie, I hope you both remember me. I taught kindergarten at Franklin when your older daughter was in Louise Carpenters room, about ten years ago. Of course, I also remember Annette from the AEA, during years I was active in the LRCTA. I recently received a copy of the letter you sent Ann Brown and she asked me to respond to your concerns regarding the elimination of the computer lab attendant position at Gibbs. I realize this response may not reach you until the opening of school, since the above is the school address. I sincerely regret the delay. Any budget cuts the district recommends for the magnet schools must be made in consultation with the Magnet Review Committee (MRC). Im sure you remember the attempt to eliminate Gibbs music teacher last year, and the later reversal of that decision. This years proposed budget reduction will also be given close scrutiny by the court and. Im sure, the MRC. A budget hearing is scheduled for early July and the eliminated positions will be discussed. We appreciate receiving your input and the attached petition from other concerned patrons. Thank you for taking the time to speak out. Sincerely, Melissa Ripling Guldin Associate Monitor122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO\nFROM: SUBJEC July 29, 1993 A Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD ^m\u0026lt;ala :T.^- 93-9 Daggett, Community Education 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community As I explained over the phone, we Education 93-94 budget. have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, X wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut programs if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalSeptember 28, 1993 SUSAN JRBCEIVso SEP 3 0 1933 Judge Susan Webber Wright Federal Building Fifth and Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 us. district judge Dear Judge Wright: This letter expresses the sentiments of nurrierous LRSD employees..Even'though'we feel it would be unwise to sign our names, please do not let the lack of signatures lessen the attention that you give to the matter. We are aware that you conducted budget hearings and directed the LRSD Board of Directors to review its proposal and determine if additional cuts could be made, which indeed was possible. However, we are not aware if you have given your approval to a final budget for 1993-94, thus the basis for this letter. In the spring of 1993, teachers and all administrators except 12 month administrators, were given three percent raises. package: 1, Twelve month administrators received the following 2. 3, 4. 5. Contract days per year extended from 240 days to 250 days Pay raise set at 1 1/2% instead of 3% Paid vacation days granted on the basis of: 0-7 years experience - 15 paid vacation days per year 8-14 years experience - 20 paid vacation days per year 15+ years experience - 25 paid vacation days per year Sick leave days may be accumulated equivalent to the total number of contract days. When/if the 12 month administrator leaves the district, he/she will be compensated for any accumulated vacation days. We think that you should know that by granting the above package to 12 month administrators, they become the only employee group in the LRSD to receive even one paid hoiiday/vacation. Every other group is paid solely on the basis of days worked - NO PAID HOLIDAYS, NO PAID VACATION DAYS. Furthermore, the fact that they received a 1 1/2% raise instead of a 3% raise was almost immediately made up for by the provision for paid vacation days\nbecause, with the high salaries they receive, it will only take three or- TUE 11'27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX in luiyyibbib four days onehalf percent. for most of them to recoup the other one and we strongly feel^ administrators LRSD employees and bears a copletely district, costly granted to 12 month  . __4 ^,4 of that the package unfair to the 1 total lack of equity. . for the _ district, m good remainder of the It is also wellbeing -- conscience, grant such a , monetarily speaking -  How can this benefit to these financial administrators. investigate this package Please . fAirfip.^s and finfinc J:ilS S indebted to you for your i.l intel and question pubHcly the a rtftr.ision, of such decision. this matter.  Sincerely, A CONCERNED GROUP OF EMPLOYEESRECEIVED FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 8 ^993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 1 S1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION CARL H. BRENTS, CLERK By: CEPTeLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER During a budget hearing on July 8, 1993, representations were made by certain members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to the effect that they understood the financial peril of the district. specifically an anticipated $11,000,000 deficit despite a budget that was technically balanced, and that the board would take steps to deal with the problem. It was suggested by one member that the board would need to know by Christmas 199 3 what budget cuts to make in order to address this problem. In addition. there was a discussion concerning the board having to approve $25,000 line item budget transfers before such transfers were made. A partial transcript of the budget hearing during which these representations were made is attached hereto. Because it is not clear if the board has begun to consider specific budget cuts or if it is in fact approving $25,000 line item budget transfers, the Court hereby orders the board to file with the Court a report on how they are being more involved in the 3 0 2 0budgeting process, how they are preparing themselves to make specific budget decisions, how their approval is being sought and received, and which specific line item budget transfers the board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August 1993. This report must be filed with the Court on or before December 3, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED this /6 day of November 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR^zCT J JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79/a) FRCP ON lANCE Wl WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP BY -2-NOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 p.02 but I just wanted to point out that what was submitted, and, of course, it s not July 30th yet - THE WITNESS\nI understand. a THE COURT\n- what was submitted was not what the Court had in mind, and I do think that it would be very beneficial if you talk to the monitors, specifically to Mr. Mooney, and flesh this out  MR. MALONE: Right. THE COURT: - as to what we meant. MR. MALONE: And - and, your Honor, but we have, in fact, had some of those conversations and well continue to have those, and thats what were planning to do when we meet with them and talk with them next week is to continue that dialogue regarding an action plan and the budgetary process and what it should be. THE COURT\nI know that Dr. Bernd also indicated last summer that he was going to include the board in these budget decisions to a greater extent than they had been. In other words, in the budget process to a greater extent than the board had been included previously. What action has been taken on that front? Is there now a policy in place so that the board considers certain budgetary actions as part of this process other than just approving the whole document? MR. MALONE: Your Honor, I wouldnt say that there is a policy. leant speak to that, but I do know that the outline contains certain things that will occur or proposals about what will occur in terms of cabinet work session and board work sestons and how that will be worked Into the process. And, also, in the discussions weve had regarding the budgetary process in general, theres some ideas about how that process ought to work. Some of these things as the Court noted that there are some stipulations at one of the board meetings about certain things being on hold until certain business cases were presented to the board. I think that is the start of  of the board involvement in the entire process, and I think thats some - all of what will be worked out in March, THE COURT: All right. MR. MALONE: Mr. Milhollen had some comment. THE WITNESS: There - there was one policy that was  was instituted recently, and I - I cant quote it exactly, but it has to do witli when budget managers want to have funds transferred between budgets, and there is now a dollar limit thats been set that exceeds that dollar limit, and I believe it's $25,000. It must come before the board and be approved before the transfer can be effected. So, that is one policy change that - that has been made, THE COURT\nAll right. I dont have any of the board members on tlic stand right now, but Mr. Jackson has been very kind about offering what he remembers. And 1 know that Mr. Jackson Is an accountant. Mr. Jackson, how do you see this problem of the current budget being balanced with funds that are nonrencwable and with having expenses that are recurring? Do you have any professional opinion on that or a particular concern? MR. JACKSON: I - Ive got a lot of concerns and I think Ive expressed diose concerns publicly and privately in our meetings. And Mr. Riggs has continually pointed out that the budget that we have this next year whereas it reflects a balanced budget, inNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 truth, is $11 million worth of deficit spending. And I think these programs going forward  you asked him, Mr. MilhoUcn, what would you do if you put - I believe no mills but with cuts. If you look at his five mills with cuts, he simply adds position program cuts and starting in 94-95 of 4 million, and it increases up to 10 million in 98-99. Essentially, what 1 think with no mills and cuts for 1990 - for 1994-95, you have to have $15 million in cuts. In *95-96, another 16 or $17 million in cuts. But I think  I think my position is that there has to be cuts and - and substantial cuts, made and, you know, we can we can spend the next three weeks in court here talking about each of these little 100,000, $200,000 line item cuts that have been made or that are proposed to be made if you want to establish a record, but it  it, quite frankly, is not going to solve the problem. THE COURT: Right. MR. JACKSON: And - and so, you know, what - what I think is a better use of our time and a better use of this staffs time is that they be over at 810 West Markham figuring out what these programs are and where we can make these cuts. I think one of the things - one of the actions we took at our last board meeting, and that had to do with the labor contracts in terms of getting board involvement, is that that the board insisted that those persons responsible for the labor contract get witli the board, that we have both private as well as - as a group sessions looking at what we see in those contracts that needs to be changed, and there has to be some changes made. You cannot continue under the status quo. Now, having said all that, I -1 think it is unrealistic for the district to think - and this is my personal opinion - unrealistic for the district to think that we will be able to accomplish all of this simply with cuts. We will have to ask for a millage increase. But I dont think that the district or this commun  the district and the people that support this district are capable of selling that millage increase until we, in fact, make some cuts and some serious cuts and establish some degree of accountability. THE COURT: Thank you, I appreciate everything youve said. I do wish that I could recess this and send you all away to make your own budget cut decisions. I feel that under the mandate from the Eighth Circuit I have to monitor what you are doing. Another problem I have is that Dr. Bernd did promise a year ago that he was going to do these things, and they have not been done, and, meanwhile, you have been receiving the desegregation money from the state, the settlement money, and it is being spent. And as a result, I feel that I cannot give you any slack any more. He was a new superintendent and he made these representations and I gave him time to what he said he was going to do, and he was not able or did not or some otherwise just didnt accomplish it. And so, now, here we are a year later, and without a permanent superintendent. And I appreciate the boards concern and tlte recognition of the seriousness of this problem. And I do hope that you are able to get together and I hope you will listen to the advice that Mr. Mooney gives you. I hope the board would be willing to sit down wth him and listen to some of his constructive suggestions to get you out of this hole. Il will take some working together, j^d I know that if the board does it on its own, the community will be much more receptive to it than if the Court has to do it. And thats what ought to happen.NOV- 5-93 fRI 14:50 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 04 1 regret that were tn this lawsuit. I wish we didnt have to have it, but the constitution requires that these schools be desegregated and the Eighth Circuit has said that they are not. Theyre not up to constitutional standards yet and the Plan will make them that way if you follow it. , And so, thats why were here. And, of course, the ultimate beneficiaries are the school children, I hope. Thats what we want, quality educational for all of our children. And so, we will make every effort to comply with this Plan and to squeeze this budget where it can be. But I appreciate your remarks. And, Mr. Riggs, do you have any that you might like to make to the Court at this time? MR. RIGGS: Well, I - the question, your Honor, and the whole issue is going to come down to this is  is really political courage. The board knows it  you know, I mean, by state law, we got to cut unless we go into receivership. Either you take us in or we go in through one of the chapters. I tliink Mr, Milhollens analysis is fairly accurate from what - what Ive seen today and what Mr. Mooney and Mr. Morgan and I have discussed at length. So, it  it really is going to come down to a - you know, this year, theres a paper balance, but its $11 million deficit. Next year, theres going to be an actual deficit. The question is does the board have the political courage to do something about it. If they dont, well, we could close the schools early, you take us over, we go into receivership. That's really what It comes down to. Now, along those lines where  where Mr. Mooney is going to be of great value is - is the process. Were going to have to have this process developed over - and - and implemented, like, as quickly as we can so that by - in my opinion, by December, by Christmas, wc know what budget cuts that have to be made next year and have to be made over the next two or three years, and whether - as Mr. Jackson says, whether were going to have to have a millage increase, which I believe hes right. We re going to have to do it. And hes right about  were not going to be able to sell them unless we can get our house in order. So, thats where  where Mx. Mooney and Mr. Morgan both are going to, in my opinion, help the district to get the process and the procedures on line and going. Now, its up to the board co hold the administrators accountable for that process. If anything where weve been lax, we havent done a good job. Obviously, youre up here talking about what Dr. Bernd has promised over the last year and, you know, in my opinion, one of the reasons ho aint here today in that chair is because he made promises and didnt do anything about it. He decided to leave on his own, but he could easily have left because of some other reasons, some of them being that - that he was making promises wc knew he wasnt going to keep to the Court and to us. So, if we - if we get the process developed, if we implement that process and if we have the political courage to to take the bullet  to bite the bullet and do those things, cut the programs that may be programs that patrons like but dont have anything to do with desegregation, thats going to be up to us. And if we cant do it, then Im sure as Ive said before, were going to have to put the keys on the table and somebody else is going to have to lock up and turn off the lights. THE COURT: Well, I might add, once you have a superintendent in place andNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:51 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 05 once you have thia budget process ongoing and the Desegregation Plan audit in place and working and administrators in place who are answerable to the board, then the Court will not require the presence of the board at these hearings. But I have felt that there has been a vacuum in this district as to who's accountable and whos responsible, a leadership vacuum, and that is why the ult^ate people - you are ultimately responsible, the board members, and thats why youve had to be here and thats why you will continue to have to come until this thing gets in order. But I do appreciate your attention to this and your wilhngness to face up to these hard decisions that must be made, and I do hope the board does have that poll deal courage you refer to because that is what the community will accept is your political courage. A community is very reluctant to accept whatever a federal judge does, and 1 know that. But I will do it. It is my job. And if necessary, I will do it. I dont want to. MR. RIGGS: Well, I guess a lot of it - THE COURT: And- , . MR. RIGGS: - your Honor, too. gets back to the community putting pressure on the board to have the courage to do the right thing, and - and Its my opinion is that the community needs to put that pressure on this board to get our house in order or the community loses the right to  to guide their ship and  THE COURT: Thats correct, MR. RIGGS: - then thats when you have to step in and - and guide the ship. THE COURT: That is correct. And the community did not elect me and they cant take me out of office and I am answerable to the constitution and to this country. But federal judges are never popular. They are always resented. I understand why, and I dont want to play that role of running your district. I want you to run it and I want you to make these veiy difficult decisions that you must make, and I dont want to tell you precisely each one. Those are your decisions, but theyre going to be very hard ones. MR. RIG GS: Y oure right. THE COURT: And I appreciate your being here today. I only wanted to ask him one more question. Are you going to be the planner for this? I havent looked at this. Is he the chief planner at this point, Mr. Milhollen? THE WITNESS'. Im not sure thats been determined yet. THE COURT\nOh. MR. MALONE: No, and thats - and thats - THE COURT: All right. , MR, MALONE: And thats what we were saying, with the state we re in, there were going to be - once those cabinet discussions are held and - and t^e place, some decisions can be made at that point as to who the  the go-to person will be. THE COURT: All right. MR. HAMILTON: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Mr. Hamilton. Im sorry. You and Ms. Gee are both welcome to say anything you - MR. HAMILTON: Right. I thought maybe one of us would be next. I certainly wanted to have some comments. THE COURT: Well, those two have been more eager to talk, and so that s the reason. I didnt want to pick on people. So, go ahead, Mr. Hamilton.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 3, 1993 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last Augusts hearing on the LRSD 1993-94 budget, the Court reviewed the budget and numerous related business cases. The Court closely questioned LRSD about the business case that reduced the districts Communication Assistant to a part-time position. Judge Wright advised the district that the Court would particularly watch this staff reduction because it appeared to be a retreat from the Interdistrict Plan which requires the districts to search for ways to increase the number of staff responsible for public relations programs. In its August 26, 1993 order, the Court expressed strong concerns about the Communications staffing change because it represented a reduction that created the potential for negatively affecting desegregation progress: \"The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the districts ability to meet its plan obligations.\" I understand that, although it was approved by both your Board of Directors and Judge Wright several months ago, the Communications Assistant position still remains open. Even though you have been in the process of reorganizing your staff, leaving this half-time position vacant for so long a time (the fiscal year is now half gone) is particularly troubling in light of the Courts pointed concern that a part-time position may not be enough to help the district meet its desegregation obligations. 1 also understand that the Communications director recently has been charged with coordinating the districts recruitment efforts, a new responsibility that inevitably leaves her less time to spend on regular communication duties and creates yet another void in the Communications office. Please let me know the date by which the Court can expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled. Also, will this position still be part-time or will it be full-time in light of the directors increased responsibilities? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown LRSD Junior High Budgets, Enrollments and Per Pupil Expenditure Dunbar Jr High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure Actual Expenditures 1991-1992 2,177,871.82 691 3,151.77 Actual Expenditures 1992-1993 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,375,356.69 701 3,388.53 Budget 1994-1995 Dated 8/08/94 2,215,349.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloverdale Jr High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,012,575.56 745 2,701.44 2,162,862.55 775 2,790.79 2,197,345.54 701 3,134.59 2,072,735.61 Forest Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | ~~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,320,122.47 765 3,032.84 2,365,925.57 787 3,006.26 2,424,252.56 788 3,076.46 2,494,614.11 Henderson Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,464,130.70 859 2,868.60 2,836,387.32 914 3,103.27 3,049,192.92 915 3,332.45 2,961,683.42 Mablevale Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 1,918,244.33 665 2,884.58 2,047,442.02 667 3,069.63 2,097,826.14 654 3,207.69 2,053,420.97 Pulaski Hts. Jr. High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure 2,337,373.84 761 3,071.45 2,484,029.31 774 3,209.34 2,493,182.82 790 3,155.93 2,391,960.24 I I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Southwest Jr. High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,124,034.56 704 3,017.09 2,299,448.03 695 3,308.56 2,150,663.98 679 3,167.40 2,068,377.82 Mann Magnet Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 3,055,026.00 872 3,503.47 2,896,401.00 849 3,411.54 3,157,632.00 851 3,710.50 3,195,685.00 I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Totals Avg. Per Pupil Expenditure 18,409,379.28 6062 3,036.85 19,326,231.91 6166 3,134.32 19,945,452.65 6079 3,281.04 19,453,826.48 $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 (J i-* if I Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin, 1, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.Lntite 3Scfe PTA Comcill D 0 FF5 2 A 1995 February 20, 1995 iJiciGiOi.nq Dear Dr. Williams and Little Rock School District Board of Directors: The Little Rock PTA Council is gravely concerned about the administrations proposed budget cuts pertaining to the school nurses. The decision to eliminate 19 registered nurses is quite shocking in view of the 1994-95 Little Rock School Board Priorities compiled just last September. 1994. in which Quality Nursing Services ranked third highest in priority. The PTA Council feels that the level and quality of nursing health care and services received by all students would be greatly diminished under this proposal and in the area schools would be virtually non-existent. Although it appears that most magnet and incentive schools would retain their school nurse positions, in reality these nurses probably would frequently be pulled to work at other schools that have no nurses. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that, ultimately, all our schools are at risk of losing the professional health care and services currently rendered to our children by the school registered nurses. The PTA Council is also extremely concerned about possible future plans to consider replacing the RNs (registered nurses) with LPNs (licensed practical nurses) and/or health aides. The knowledge and skills base of a registered nurse is significantly more appropriate in the school based setting in comparison to a licensed practical nurse. Neither an LPN nor a health aide possesses the specialized skills, judgment or knowledge necessary in providing the types of nursing care and services needed in our schools for our children. No parent wants his child to suffer the consequences or risks of mismanaged care given by inadequately trained personnel. During the process of identifying student health needs and intervening however necessary to meet those needs, school nurses provide innumerable types of professional services. In many cases, registered nurses are the only persons legally authorized under state public health regulations to complete the myriad of referral and evaluation forms for students needing special services. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that replacing RNs with LPNs and/or health aides would be comparable, theoretically, to replacing our classroom teachers with instructional aides. Many parents are greatly concerned about the continued assurance of basic nursing services received daily by their children such as administering medications and making pertinent observations, giving specific medical treatments, providing mental health observation and intervention, and providing observation and care for acute and chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and head or other traumatic injuries. Every student has the right to a physically safe and emotionally secure environment in our schools, but will this right be severely compromised or. at worst, denied under this proposal? It must be noted that children in the lower socio-economic strata of our student population will undoubtedly stand to suffer greatly under this plan, because the school nurse is their only source of medical care for their health needs. The number of children in this category ranges from 100 to 150 per day. Currently, there are 1260 students in the LRSD served each day for acute illnesses and injuries, and over 1200 individual doses of medication are given daily. School nurses serve an extremely important function as health educators and advocates. As positive role models in developing permanent healthy lifestyles, they promote good health habits and illness prevention, carry out many health education programs, and work closely with students, parents and teachers regarding special health needs. Oftentimes the school nurse is the first and foremost person in whom a student will confide concerning personal problems and needs. Therefore, the nurses play a key role in providing support and intervention and handling the daily crises that arise. Therefore, the PTA Council strongly holds that in order for students to function at their highest learning ability and to have a successful educational experience, they must have access to the health services and education necessary to promote optimal levels of wellness. The PTA Council firmly takes the stand for maintaining health services as they are presently delivered and preserving the school nurse positions that we currently have. Thirty schools are covered daily with nurses while twenty schools are not covered\ntherefore, it would appear that the LRSD should consider adding school nurse positions rather than eliminating them. We also feel strongly that budget cuts should be made further away from the children, because school nurses directly serve 100% of the students in our district. At the last PTA Council meeting the members voted to make known to the LRSD Administration and the School Board of Directors our position on the proposed budget cuts affecting school nurses. Attached is a list of those members in attendance and the schools they represent. These individuals represent more than 13,000 PTA members in the LRSD. At a time when we are striving for safe schools, this situation certainly acquires a chilling perspective if we are to lose our school nurses and, as parents, suddenly feel that our children are truly in an unsafe environment The Little Rock PTA Council sincerely hopes that you will give strong consideration to our viewpoints regarding this issue and will not make any changes in the current school nurse program in the proposed budget cuts. Sincerely, MU Debbie Glasgi Glasgow, President(y Barbara Mills and Debbie Velez, Council Representatives Little Rock PTA Council cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, ODM LRSD Administrators Gwen Efird and School Nurses PTA PresidentsName - A L y/iU/ Little Rock PTA Council DATE\nliM '^5' School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone /-^ryf A^AUsyPh {^20 '^nrck'^iAr/ I'i'iz ? cQ. / K 2. TU ao r 1 : \u0026gt; c r i' 1 y \u0026lt;1, !\\.lli-: T I3l( /Csa rl rk '1 \u0026lt;)/.. OTu^az-- A? -VA^ S , 3L ICv1UL4/l l\\ ft X ^f. n /UcC\\^U C6Ur,c3 po.y 77 -'lA,.. i /\\ I f 21 6 (3 }yidjc ) 'I I J 3 0 ') '\u0026gt; C-  'h\nflCOName CjLivv/yixZ ~Wy\u0026gt;d^ 1 't Little Rock PTA Council DATE=_a^^/y^,//7, /ggs School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone id ^'fWiV^ki S^'AfNS____ ______ V\\a5\u0026gt; '(1 CL^r^l Q'Dgc^ m^- lx ^A^CA I jL.^ \\ .d (^1 /I A W-^P -----Vc^A -^\"/u b I xt V. 9dzxi C ~7 \u0026lt;9 3^0 Kuh b/Q- L. r2 6 (Muisl (1/- 2i^ L^r- I \u0026lt; I7^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1390-96 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION {DRAFT 2} 02:-22-35 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 BUDGET 1995-96 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 [depository INTEREST iREVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES IMISC. AND RENTS !interest on INVESTMENTS [ATHLETIC RECEIPTS I L TOTALl ' REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES [county GENERAL ! SEVERANCE TAX I [ REVENUE - ST A TE SOURCES iMFPA______________________ jSETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION WORKERS COMPENSATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND TOTAL [TOTAL REVENUEQPgflATHHe: 118,998 I 317,646 I 120,412 I 317,978 I 141,376 I 91,322 ?5,823,6S6 73,971 I 16,232 [ 90,203 j ! 22.037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 46,472,6I 28,585 95,588 613,166 737.339 103,123,807 38,196,979 21,081,833 ' 4,250,186 ' 140,858 241,476 224,667 I 406,878 ! 354,446 I 100,857 64,998,180 73,419 i 15,350 [ 88,769 39,701,855 22,220,949 4,293,380 145,690 360,734 245,162 574,918 208,519 37,005 67,838 212 73,428 18,031 91,459 27,264,460 i 25,275,221 8.637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 0 8,926,606 1,500,000 72,694 1,261,451 1,139,235 234,403 3,540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799,544 0 48,670,884 45,101,764. 9,385 129,428 394,675 503,365 1,036,853 114,794,488 40,866 171,006 ______0 458,905 670,777 113,702,212 39,625,387 22,011,928 5,666,289 146,379 333,970 182,353 I 194,465 I 265,622 j 38,600,327 21,420,949 4,802,692 145,000 325,000 ' 180,000 ' 220,892 ' 322,232 I 40,330,355 I 41,330,355 21,420,949 i 21,742,264 i 4,802,692 ! 4,700,000 i 154,473 i 368,6527 157,385 220,892 335,000 74,416 102,005 80,000 I 155,000 ' 385,000\n139,000 ' 230,000 [ 375,000 : 85,000 : 68\nSQ3\n809 66,119\nO97 67,870-398 63\nT41\n619 I I 73,210 I 17,749 I 90,959 73,419 18,000 91.419 24,710,980 I 26,162,235 8,094,112 I 6,042,591 ________0 i 1,600,000 0 ! 1,382,418 1,282,804 263,992 3,198 3,553,095 517,260 2,720,581 792,081 0 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,198 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 797,893 367.319 43,320,521 45,252,162 108,747 18,000 -126,747 100,000 i 18,000 i I 26,156,074 i 26,526,188 , 6,042,591 i 1,600,000 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 6,984 3,788,805 543,922 2,764,143 790,466 367.319 44,958,795 29,969 1,228,696 _______0 348,725 1,607,390 38,000 500,000 900,000 716,116 2.154,116^ 113,519,679 jl 13,616,794 38,000 500,000 900,000 685.103 2,123,103 115,079,043 3,829,942 0 i 0 j 1,100,000 I 1,444,499 i 235,000 j 7,000 I 3,850,000 ! 580,435 [ 2,800,000 I 808,523 j 375,000 I 41,556.587 30,000 500,000 250,000 685,103 i 1,465,103 1 jl2iS3^r i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1^-96 REVENUE ANO expenditure PROJ ECTION (DR AFT 2) O2-22-9S ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 /REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS BUDGET 1995-96 I CHAPTER I jCHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER I TOTAL i revenue-magnet SCHOOLS ISTATE'LOCAL I TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE I EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS ^PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE [contingency RESERVE FOR ENCUMBRANCES total OPERAT)NGXPa\u0026lt;SESiS EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS total expenses INCREASE (DECREASE) IN fund BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL :  2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4,557,572 12,571,785 12,571,786 120.253.16* 3,275,099 ' 224 423 558.810 I 1,164,511 i 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,221,200 4,286,192 122,666 624,024 ' 1,230,084 I 4,299,095 177,262 628.560 1.003.005 I 5,222,843 6,313,98 6,262,966 6,107,922 I j i 13,887,841 13.887,841 133.905,170 65,192,947 I 73,191,21-3 8,032,967 10,457,140 3,613,450 3.628,473 5,036,791 6,646,769 0 iia2iSQ8.537-\n4,190.920 12.571.785 119,371,242 881,922 185,838 119,574 552,490 634,844 13,089,529 I 13,301.449 13.0^.629 13.301,449 i33\ni{^^' 133iog4\na94^ 14.236.418 14.236.418 133.961.134 11S.Q79.043 i 112,281,309 : 71,912,128\n75,079,647 1 73 .341,-179 8,992,742 i 9,908,175 _________________ 9,305,313 I 10,338.888 jj00,718 I 9,534,751 I 11,369.363 i I.3i7nqn.3 4.010.761 2.973,788 3,959,731 I 2,954.394 5,402,198 7,950,100 0 5,076,338 9,554,535 T13\n:J07i46ai _________0 714,896 TT2\nS29\nQ0iS?:\u0026lt; 3,420,371 1,704,608 ' 4,537,917 ' 8,903,285 0 I T14.320,SO4i 5.132.152 5,922.798 6.688.267 13.887,841 1,777,714 552,490 634,844 643,181 2,321,867 13.089.529 131,641,33g 1,464,395 643.181 2,321,867 1,034,369 3,395,074 TTg^SS*^ 2,9^,0481- 4,429,443 13.301.449 134.310,220 (1,226,126) 1.034,369 4.985,188 609,068 4,184,363 4,793.431 74.566,029 76,619.818 i 3,273,118 2,644,992 5,504,406 8,533,631 0 10,422,322 12,000,000 3,000,000 2,600,000 I 10,361,349 12,300,000 . 3,300,000 j 2.900,000 i 5,200,000 I 5,900.000 ' 8,533,631 0 8,532,296 1,000,000 116i807.3J7 :\n116i^1,982 121,413,465 ( 6.711.620 14.236.418 137.755^55^ 116,321,982 121,413,465 (3.794,221) (1,242,939) (9,132,156) I i 609.068 4.184.363 609,068 609,068 4,184,363 I 2,941,424 5.370 993,840 i ^210T^ 609.068 2.941,424 609,068 ! (6,190,732)1B5022802 MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures As a result of my phone conversation this morning with you and Ms. Brown, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you some information on the list of ideas entitled Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiative through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people 1 regularly work with in the district are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the district does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives\ninformation I find useful in planning for the fijture. With the submission of the districts final budget in August, 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. In the joint LRSD/ODM staff meeting on November 22, 1994, we discussed the budget cycle and specifically shortfall strategies. During the discussion of shortfall strategies, I mentioned I had a long list of ideas. Since no one responded, I detected no interest. On December 20, 1994, Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves and offer our assistance. During that meeting, I mentioned the list of ideas, and Fred said he would like to see it. Attachment A is a copy of the document I sent Fred on January 6, 1995. During small talk at the beginning of a budget meeting on February 3, 1995, Fred acknowledged he had received the list, and said the district had already thought of some of the items. The district had the list. Another thing of importance. The list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I, were I in your shoes, would seriously research as a possible strategy. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize the point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. If you read Attachment A, you will note that statement on each and every page. If you ask, I am confident Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness will confirm I made essentially the same qualifier when they asked for the list. Keeping ideas secret has no value to me. I will share my thoughts with anyone willing to listen. Fred asked, and I shared them. Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness asked, and I shared them. Had you asked, I would have shared them with you. I have been trying to share my ideas with the LRSD for two years\nsome have listened and some have not. However, getting people to listen gets harder with each passing month. If you want any of my ideas, ask and I will share them with you. If you want me to give them to you first, hire me. Copy to: Ann BrownB4112803 1/5/95 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. * School Closings. \\ Outsourcing transportation. \\ 11/7 Board Work Session. CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 11/7 Board Work Session. * Outsourcing other. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Delivery of Nursing Services. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staff Development. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Clerical Support. * 11/7 Board Work Session. IRC - Staffing/Use. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Federal Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. * 11/7 Board Work Session. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Facilities Usage. * Academic Incentive Grants. * 11/7 Board Work Session. I i 11/7 Board Work Session. ATTAtHHeMT 13. Student Assessment. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 14. Vocational Education Delivery.  11/7 Board Work Session. 15. Four-Year Old Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 16. HIPPY. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 17. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 18. Contract Lengths. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 19. Community Education. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 20. Millagoe Election. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 21. Spending Freeze. * 11/7 Board Work Session. MOONEYS ADDITIONAL LIST OF POSSIBLE SAVINGS * Performance based pay * * * * * * * * * * Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes J * * * * * * Car allowance. Cellular phones. Vacation days policy revision. Review sick leave policy. Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM Initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance. * Incentive program for accident free driving. * Six period day. * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization. Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoff/RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, all support services in bundle. Serious program evaluation. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PCs. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Building rentals. 9 * Sell vacant properties. * Trash compactor\nCOMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the A APT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * * Ask Union to give some contract back. Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. S~ 4-'  l!JLi^ !? *7^^ n *  : \" '*r   TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS MAR 8 1995 OKlcs ot Desegrsgalicn Mon\nMarch 6,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons collected approximately 430 signatures (in less than a 24-hour period) protesting the proposed 1995-96 Budget Cuts by the LRSD Administration. Area School Parents and Patrons feel that most of these cuts were addressed in the March 1993 petition to the Court, which was accepted into the Court record. We simply feel outraged and betrayed by this Administration's blatant disregard of the primary needs of the children in the majority of the LRSD'S schools, which were addressed in that March 1993 petition. And AGAIN, we ask the Administration and the Court not only to listen to our concerns, but also to act responsibly by making cuts which DO NOT AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHIT DRFN 'T / / fjB5030602 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney fiM Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List As you requested, I am sending you a copy of the latest revision to the brainstorming list. The attached copy is up to date as of today, March 6, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of the week. Copy to: Ann Brown-7-- SSGEsV 'iQ-. LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MAR 5 1995 FR: A CONCERNED PARENT WHO HAS TALKED WITH MANY P.ARESjTS O^segregaKca March 8,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons are dazed at the prospect of the Administration's attempt to cut the Area Schools' Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the Focused Areas of Activities allotted monies, especially in light of the the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's report of December, 1994. This Administration's latest Business Case on these monies is so poorly yvritten and difficult to understand( besides the fact that it is filled vith inaccurate and incomplete information) that it simply should be rejected by the Court. The Court should demand that the LRSD give these monies to the AREA SCHOOLS in a timely and efficient manner, and should hold The LRSD accountable for its lack of concern for the Area Schools. It is difficult to try to figure out if this Administration deliberately writes such incredulously vague reports to confuse the people, or if this Administration is simply too incompetent to write clear, concise informational reports. Area School Parents and Patrons are adamantly opposed to cutting nurses in the Area Schools. It is this type of cut which makes the patrons of LRSD reel with feelings of rage, lack of trust, and abandonement. We demand MORE NURSES, NOT FEWER, IN OUR AREA SCHOOLS. Area School Parents and Patrons demand that the LRSD have a logical, workable plan of action in order to consider the closing of any schools. We believe that the LRSD has no workable plan for children who would be left without a school. The suggestions previously made by this district are illogical and unworkable. How dare the district ^^g^st that students be placed in already filled-up, overcrowded and underserved Area Schools. We do NOT support the closings of Fair Park and Badgett. Area School Parents and Patrons are fervently opposed to cutting any Counseling or Music services to our Children. AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CUTS WHICH DIRECTY AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. J a'MOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run costhenefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over S35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 20* * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofE'RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approvach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. 21* Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA fonnula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 22B5030702 MEMORANDUM Date: March 7, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is the most recent version of a spreadsheet which I developed to help track budget actions. I am just now working the bugs out of it, so let me know if you have any recommendations. This tracking tool will be updated only when actions occur. Copy to: Ann BrownSheet! Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction In Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC___ BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A A M M M Y M D M M M M M M GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSheetl $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 $ $ Y YY N NY 170,000.00 669,900.00 Y Y ! 1  Y N Page 3 Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 182,783.90 Y Y I 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 607,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 52,117.00 30,000.00 36,500.00 13,200.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 750,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N $ 849,282.00 $ 11,027,350.08 $ $ $ 10,178,068.08 $ Page 4B5031301 MEMORANDUM Date: March 13, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of March 10, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of this week or first of next week. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost^enefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over $35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 21* * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofEZRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. 22* Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 23BO3I5O3 Date: March 15, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which I have been keeping. It is up to date as of March 13, 1995. I have yet to include the Proposed Budget information, but will do so late next week. When I get that done, I will send you an update. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to\nAnn BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School_________________ Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park______ Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC iBC ^BC BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M M M A, M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NINCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl ' 9 DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 Y Y Y $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 Y y I $ $ $ 125,268.00 185,828.18 N $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 I N N Y Y N Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ $ 798,696.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 $ 10,652,976.18 $ 9,854,280.18 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,449,656.18 6,970,960.18 Page 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NB5032301 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney li^ Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of March 23, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl LRSD PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY FNAME: LREEBC01 REVISED: 3/22/95 ITEM SEQ# PROGRAM NAME METHOD PLAN MOD INCR COST DECR COST B/C REC A/D/M PLAN MOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 14 3 227 23 233 24 230 33 Academic Progress Inc Grants 231 Family Life/New Futures 2 [^FourVea r^3ldProgmm 2Q1 213 Guidance Services 215 Health Services/Nursing Services 1 HIPPY 15 McClellan Community School 13 New Futures 226 222 223 224 ____79 ____78 251225 5 203 21 EE/BC EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE EE___ EE EE___ EE EE EE iEE jEE EE___ SEE Y N Y N Y Y N Page 1 $ 445,000.00 $ 28,943.00 $ 175,000.00 Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y D Y M M N Y Y Y Y Kzi: X Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Y M M M D M N N Y Y NSheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)_________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park___________ Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SBC___ [bc tec BC tec BC SS SS SS SS SS SS o o o N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943,00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSr INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl * DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y j $ $ $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 130,000.00 626,848.00 Page 3 N I N N Y Y NSheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y 1 $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,447,597.00 6,968,901.00 Page 4 N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 DATE : ^/cl7S TO: PAT Cree' TAK it FROM: Bit-L HgPAfgy NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET MESSAGE: AS pec\u0026gt;cf^sTeD. iS Tf/e- LAresr i/siIs/oaP, TT X CAA Se- At/Y AeiJ\u0026gt;. FeeL FP.ee To cacl.. X X Kt k: X X Kt Kt P.Ol DATE START RECEIVER APR- 6 13:35 5692476 TRANSACTION REPORT APR- 6-95 THU 13:38 TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE 2'28\" 4 SEND OK X X X X X X X XMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cosPbenefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over $35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 24* * * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. 25* Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 26MAY- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 C.'-6 CF 335 03 , Dear Sir\nI am writing as a concerned citizen of the Little Rock area, the personnel matters that have faced LRSD in the last months, have been taxing to me, and the friends who are employed in the district. The tremendous amount of stress and uncertainty imposed upon the districts employees is absolutely ridiculous. Listed below you will find some additional factors to consider for budget cuts: 1. 2. 3. Why do they project budget cuts just before the students take the test? (the teachers, supervisors, and directors are usually stressed and the FEELINGS carry over to the students in the classroom.) They want to pay Worthen Bank the money instead of bring the TEST SCORES UP. Did the Superintendent, Special Asst, to the Supt,, Assoc. Superintendent of Desegregation, Director of Human Resources, and Planning Research and Evaluation Directors take a cut in days, or give the district 5 or 10 thousand dollars from their salaries to balance the budget? The reason the Incentive Schools are not operation effectively is because of the incompetent,insensitive,unqualified instructional leaders who are trying to educate the urban Afro-American student, the principals are at Mitchell, Franklin, and Rockefeller Incentive Schools. Don't allow them to continue to DAMAGE the Afro-American students, place them in a west Little Rock school,my- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 SO they won't corrupt the inner city students in the Little Rock Area. 4. 5. The GANGS are infested in the schools because of the tremendous amount of HATE exhibited by the teachers who are only in the teaching profession in the LRSD area to obtain a pay check. So much hate is exhibited from the principals and teachers that the students join gangs, to feel human and the ability to have some self worth.(a lot of teachers come from small town outside of Little Rock, but stay in the system to obtain the monetary benefits.) Why are the Afro-American directors and supervisors the first ones to be eliminated, or to cut the extra personnel in their departments\nwhile the European-Americans maintain their departments, and are allowed to add additional personnel QUIETLY. These are some important factors to consider when you go to court concerning the LRSD Desegregation Case, and why so many of the ideas in the case have not worked. The LRSD Administration office is INFESTED with Institutional Racism, until this FACTOR is eliminated LRSD will never integrate, or effectively educate the students in the Little Rock area. ^aa ^^acx d . 3 MAY 3 1995 Oifice of Desegregaiioii Moniioring PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE CUTS Legal Services (Staff Attorney and Secretary) Deputy Superintendent $ 88,520 VACANT (2) $ 93,969 E, Matthis Associate to the Deputy Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Coordinator $ 12,\u0026gt;1,33 S. Ingram $ 52,671 D, Rynders HIPPY Coordinators (2) Plant Services (EPA or Construction Mgr.) Instructional Technology (was D. Omfleet 1993-94) $ 48,118 A. Roper J. Richardson $ 49,127 $ 42,056 VACANT Supervisor of Math (was J. Trowell 1993-94) $ 55,942 VACANT Displaced Principals (2) $125,288 $628,130 POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE ADDITIONS Administrative Program Supervision $228,130 Net Administrative Savings $400,000 Plant Services current^has these two positions funded, but one recently became vacant, and the other may become vacant The two positions will bo combined and the rcsponsifciliiieswili be employee. met by one CTrrcntJy has three schools with acting principals (King, Carver, Henderson), be filled nArmAnntIv fk,* 1Qe Q_1__1 permanently for the 1995-96 school year. which will A We have five principals who are considered'displaced,\" Three of these individuals will be reassigned as butldmeonnanak in IQOS-OA anri ____.-ii v. , ... *u uo i cjssignea as building principal in 1995-96 and two positions will be eliminated, which two people will be eliminated as principals at this time. It has not been determined THE BOARD DID NOT VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUALS OR ON THE POSITIONS LISTED ABOVE, BUT ONLY ON THE ELIMINATION OF 5400,000 IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES,B5O5O5O1 MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of May 5, 1995. The next revision is dependent on district budget action. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * * * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. Negotiate with the union. Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes Purge all vacant positions from the budget * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary 28* Incentive program for accident free driving, both monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * *  Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Implement the Finance Analysis Model immediately, and try to retro-fit for the last two years for possible cut analysis * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H., use Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Begin phased chartering of existing schools that volunteer. * Strong phased effort to site-based management 29* Building rentals. * Lease existing available building space rather than build new school buildings. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/S350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 30B5O5O5O2 Date: May 8, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of May 5, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 3^ 35 36 37~ 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 \"59 60 61 Substitute Teacher 204 Voc Ed (non-deseg) 8 Voc Ed (deseg) Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport_____ Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education___________ Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center__________ Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency_____ Eliminate increments _____ Shorten year by 2 days EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC__ BC___ BC BC BC BC___ BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SS SS SS SS fes Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen |SS Reduction in Administrators O O O GROSS TOTALS NET POSITION N N $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 Page 2 N N Y Y A M N N I D D M M jy A M M A A M a M M Y M D M M pMMMD Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N NN Sheetl $ : ft  \"  S  INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 261,000.00 Y Y ACT $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y N N $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 Y N PB N N Y N N ACT $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626848.o6 Y PB N ACT Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 18,500.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 228,130.00 $ 688,326 00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 211,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 699,546.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 6,964,143.00 6,275,817.00 Page 4 N N Y Y I Y PB Y H N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N ACT N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N NB5080701 Date: August 7, 1995 To: Ann Brown From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures After the LRSD budget hearings on August 1-2, 1995, you requested that I put together information concerning the times I had contact with LRSD concerning the list known as the Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This memo contains the occasions on which I have some record. In addition to this listing, there were several other instances where staff or board members requested another copy which I provided without note. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiatives through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people I regularly work with in the LRSD are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the LRSD does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives, information I find useful in planning for the future. The brainstorming list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I have gathered from many sources. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize that point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. Also, keeping ideas secret has no value to me. The list is no good unless decision-makers think about it, and this memo will show they had ample opportunity to use these ideas. With the submission of the LRSDs final budget in August 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. I am about to close out the 94-95 fiscal year by adding the final budget information to the list. The brainstorming list is contained as the last section of the comprehensive document\nLRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY. This document was updated numerous times during the fiscal year, mainly after some significant budget action by the LRSD Board. Attachment A is the most recent version, dated 6/30/95. It will be updated one final time. NOTE: the items in bold print represent the two times I got direct feedback on the shortfall strategies. 8/4/94 I had lunch with John Riggs, and we discussed the budget and several shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. 8/16/94 11/22/94 12/20/95 1/6/95 2/3/95 2/3/95 2/24/95 2/24/95 2/28/95 2/28/95 3/6/95 3/7/95 3/13/95 I provided Mark Milhollen with the latest revision to my lists. In a joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting, I mentioned the brainstorming list which I was maintaining. I noted some research had already been done on some of the items, and that the list was pretty long. No one from LRSD responded\nHank Williams was present. Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves. During the meeting 1 mentioned the list of shortfall strategies, and volunteered a copy to Fred Smith. I sent Fred Smith an annotated copy of the brainstorming list, explaining the material. During a meeting with Mark Milhollen and Fred Smith, we discussed the shortfall strategies on the list. During a casual conversation at the beginning of a budget meeting, Fred Smith and I discussed the list. Fred Smith said the district had already thought of some of the items. I had breakfast with John Riggs. We discussed the budget and some of the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list, specifically health services. I provided him an updated copy of the brainstorming list. Ann Brown and I met with Judy Magness and Russ Mayo. We discussed budget matters, and specifically shortfall strategies and health services. I provided Magness an updated copy of the shortfall strategies. I was brought in on a phone call between Hank Williams and Ann Brown. Hank Williams was complaining that he was not given any of the shortfall strategy information. I pointed out the 11/22/94 staff meeting and the 1/6/95 copy provided Fred Smith. I said I would send him personal copies in the future. I sent a memorandum to Hank Williams providing him a copy of the brainstorming list, and explaining its history and purpose. This was in response to the phone call of 2/28/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/6/95. 1 sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which 1 used to track all shortfall strategies actually acted upon by LRSD. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/10/95.3/15/95 3/22/95 3/23/95 4/6/95 5/5/95 5/8/95 7/14/95 8/2/95 I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/13/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/22/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/23/95. I sent a facsimile copy of the brainstorming list, updated 4/3/95, to Pat Gee. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 5/595. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 5/5/95. Fred Smith, Mark Milhollen, and I met to discuss the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. Fred Smith had prepared a matrix showing some of the strategies down the left side, and obstacles across the top. Fred Smith did most of the talking, and I got the impression the purpose of the meeting was to show Bill Mooney why strategies were not undertaken. I hand delivered a copy of the brainstorming list, update 6/30/95, to Linda Pondexter in court.B4112802 06/30/1400 LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY FY 95-96 This document is an ODM staff working paper which contains the following material: 1. Chart of Business Cases. This is a listing of all business cases known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those business cases. 2. Chart of Shortfall Strategies. This is a listing of all shortfall strategies known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those strategies. If a shortfall strategy had a business case prepared, then the strategy was moved into the Chart of Business Cases. 3. Chart of Budget Issues. This is a listing of budget related issues that should be addressed somewhere in the LRSD budget. 4 Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. NOTE: Please help keep this paper updated by letting Mooney know of budget actions or suggested changes. 1LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Academic Progress Incentive Grant. * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 14, Academic Incentive. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 14 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Gremillion and Mitchell. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Academic Incentive, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. APIG and Focused Activities deletions. * * * * * * Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $445,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why the district can cut this program in light of the Court Order. Williams says a plan modification will be required. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $445,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $445,000. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced the savings from $455,00 down to $290,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of revised business case. No action taken. * * * 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved continuing APIGS/FA and funded it at $20 per student for each area elementary school. The approved cost is now approximately $171,000, making the savings approximately $274,000. LRSD estimates savings as $261,000 on the summary table from the Board meeting. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the program 2modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 2. Academic Support Program. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 03, Academic Support. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 03 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Glasgow, Parker, and Adams. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 03, Academic Support, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. 3. Data Processing. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23 and 24, Data Processing. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates he wants to give Beason some time on the job before considering Outsourcing data processing services. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 24 and 230, will be prepared by Beason. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 33. 4. District Wide Facilities Study (School Closings). * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 33, Facilities. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows District wide Facilities Study (program sequence # in error) will have a business case. It will be prepared by Mayo. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett of discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 22 and # 23. 5. Pupil Transportation Services. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 223, Pupil Transport. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 3* 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 25. 6. Family Life Education/New Futures. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #231 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young and Carson. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors and science teachers, modification. Savings of $77,000. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $77,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $77,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $77,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a savings of $77,000. 7. New Futures. * * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 13, New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #13 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 13 New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6 period day. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $669,900. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board deleted the Learning Foundations course in the New Futures Junior Highs. This seems to lay the foundation for elimination of the 7 period day. Savings of $669,900. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted amount of savings dropped to $626,848. Difference is that this amount is based on actual salaries vice averages. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 4* 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $626,848. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3I22I9S Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * * of $626,848. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Young concerning the business case. Mainly centered on cutting the 7th period. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to accept the business case as submitted by the superintendent failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. In response to the failed business case. New Futures funding of $626,848 added back into the Tentative Budget Document. No savings now reflected. 8. Four-Year-Old-Program. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 02 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Price. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old, for modification or deletion. 2/1/95 flyer to parents. The pre-registration material sent to parents around the first week of February contained a flyer on the 4-year-old program. The flyer said that due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in many of the schools. The final decision will be made by the Board in the near future. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate program except at the Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $1,321,520. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness states that the Board does not want to cut the 4 year old program, and the administration should look elsewhere. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $1,321,520. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $1,321,520. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving the program in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services. 5* * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 213, Guidance Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #213 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Elston. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 213, Guidance Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas * * Public School Accreditation Standards, modification. Savings of $125,268. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * *  2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $125,268. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$125,268. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and the savings of $125,268. 10. Health Services. * *  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 215, Health Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #215 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Efird. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 215, Health Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services. Cut 19 nurses from area schools. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $560,000. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. * 2/24/95 Mooney meets with Riggs to discuss alternatives in health services. * 2/24/95 Brown/Morgan/Mooney meet with Magness/Mayo to discuss alternatives in health * * * services. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $560,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program 6* * cost of $560,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving health services in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. Williams indicates the district is now working with the Dept of Health on some new ideas for health services. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 11. HIPPY. * * * * * * * * * * *  11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 01, HIPPY. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 01 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Shead. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 01, HIPPY, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $185,828.18. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested some service numbers, asked about duplication of services, and possibilities of combining with other programs. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness, Mitchell, and Pondexter voiced concerns about cutting this item. If cut, savings have been increased to $223,769. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $223,769. Also included an action deadline of 5/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $223,769. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says they are recommending the cut in the HIPPY program because of the deficit. The proposed cut is not final at this time, since the Board has not voted. Other programs can deliver this service. Matthis says HIPPY will remain in the incentive schools and schools in southwest Little Rock. Cuts will remove about 50% of the kids served. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. A number of Board motions failed. No action taken. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the HIPPY expenditures added back at $223, 769, and now shows no savings. Removed from the actual list. 12. McClellan Community School.  * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 7* * * * * * * *  * * * * 15, McClellan Community School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 15 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Carter. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 15, McClellan Community School, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $170,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about advisory board involvement. Williams directed Carter to go back to the advisory board for more input. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion concerning involvement of the Advisory Council. Board wants more input from Advisory Council and additional information from the staff. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $130,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $130,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. Administration considering counter-proposal (business case) by the McClellan Advisory Board. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. The Community School will be funded at $40,000 (plus earnings of about $50,000), for a total savings of $130,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on the business case developed by the Advisory Committee\nthe committee did what they were supposed to do. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still at $130,000. 13. Staff Development.  * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 21 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Woods. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 21, Staff Development, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 814. Substitute Teachers. * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Gadberry and Hurley. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Substitute Teachers, for modification or deletion. This item did not appear on the 1/5/95 Extended Evaluation List, but was on the 1/17/95 tentative business case list. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Place a cap on professional leave. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $50,000. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $50,000. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * of $50,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $50,000 savings. 15. Vocational Education. * * * * * * * *  * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 08 and 204, Vocational Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 08 and 204 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Green. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 08/204, Vocational Education, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology education programs at two junior high schools\neliminate low demand courses. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $182,783.90. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings had been reduced to $98,462. Smith says this is the result of fine tuning. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $98,462. Also included an action deadline of ASAP. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $98,462. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 9 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut and savings. 16. Safety and Security. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 25 and 225, Safety and Security Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 25 and 225 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Jones. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 25/225, Safety and Security, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes a feeder for # 31. 17. Discipline Management. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Mitchell, Robertson, Marshaleck. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 18. Alternative Education. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Elston, Anderson, and Glenn. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pilot program of alternative classrooms at Southwest Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $34,965. * 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $34,965. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was added to the budget for an additional cost of $34,965. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $34,965. 19. Incentive School Program Modification. * * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 217. Develop business case for incentive schools program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $607,250. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 10* * * * * * *  * * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested more numbers and better justification. More general discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings amount had been reduced to $608,250. The difference is cutting 38 vice 45 positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $608,250. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $608,250. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced savings from $608,250 down to $211,250. Personnel cuts not as severe, from 45 FTE down to 10.5 FTE. 4/7/95 Court Submission. LRSD submits corrections to the revised business case. No change to the bottom line savings of $211,250. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Ingram on the business case. Detailed testimony by Brooks, Donovan, and Buchanan. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $211,250. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still set at $211,250. 20. Middle School Concept. * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 218. Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. However, the 1/30/95 Project Management Tool indicates the district is 100% complete on exploring, gathering, and assessing data relative to such a transition. 21. Beacon School Concept.  * * * * 11/11/94 letter from Williams to Brown. Letter indicates that planning has been completed and the district is moving ahead without the benefit of a business case. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Beacon School concept at Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $12,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. The $12,000 is for custodial costs. Program would run year round. Gee suggests looking for a grant. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Budget cost still shows $37,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $37,000. 11* * * * * * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $37,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion on proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95. LRSD Budget Hearing. Brief discussion about the Beacon School concept in relation to the McClellan Community School business case and recommended cuts. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says the amount can be lowered to $18,500 additional. The board tabled the addition. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Since only about $20,000, Riggs suggests waiting on this issue until later in the year when the programs are about ready to start up\naround 12/95. No action taken by the Board. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $18,500. 22. Badgett School Relocation. * * * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Badgett School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $523,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about keeping all the students together in any move. Riggs supported the idea. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $523,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * * cost of $523,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Badgett failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school still open, with no savings in the budget. * 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote * on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. 12* * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Fair Park School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $637,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested the amount of money to repair Fair Park * if it were kept open. Figures were not available. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed * * * * * * budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $637,000. Included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $637,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Fair Park failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school remaining open, with no budget savings. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 24. Elementary Music Teacher Staffing. * * * * * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $161,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $161,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $161,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and savings of $161,000. 1325. Improving Student Transportation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See feeder item #5. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the LRSD is coming back with a recommendation to outsource transportation. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 223 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Cheatham. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Pupil Transportation, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Outsourcing transportation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":350,"next_page":351,"prev_page":349,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4188,"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}}]}}