{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_253","title":"Board of Education members","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":["1991/2006"],"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 board members","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Board of Education members"],"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/253"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence","clippings (information artifacts)"],"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\nB5032302 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Fred Smith From: Bill Mooney Subject: Finance Analysis Model We both know that the financial situation of the district makes sound decision-making critical to the future. .As resources become increasingly strained, decision-makers operate with less margin for error. The chance of making a good decision is increased by having useful information readily available. The main purpose of the Program Budget Document is to link program accomplishments with program expenditures so we would have better information to guide the district. We must always seek better ways of collecting data and analyzing it into useful information. One of the better ways might be the Finance Analysis Model. I want to share the attached pamphlet with you, and get your thoughts into further investigation of this model. Since the model is PC-based, it could probably run in our existing environment. Such a tool might assist the administration. Board, and community in making better decisions. The model has something of a history around Little Rock. Last year, Ann Brown and I encouraged Gene Wilhoit to look into using the models forerunner, the Micro-Finance Model, statewide. Additionally, one of the authors of the model, Sheree Speakman, was the lead person on the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand study conducted for the district. I would bet she used some of her experience from that project as material for the model. Please read the pamphlet, then let me know what you think. I will be glad to help you in any way I can. Copy to: Ann Brown Hank Williams*! fu*:\nAPR 1 0 1995 Officu cf IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS . WESTERN DIVISION r AnAiAriSAo 95iPR-5 PM t*: L3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 8Y. PLAINTIFF Ot^LST\nlRa 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 MOTION TO EXCUSE BOARD MEMBER FROM HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The court has scheduled hearings in this case for April 10, 1995 and June 8-9, 1995. The members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. 2. LRSD board member John Riggs has previously made I arrangements to host a trade association meeting on April 10, 1995 and to attend a National Security Seminar in Pennsylvania during the week of June 5-9, 1995. Documents reflecting these commitments are attached. LRSD requests that Mr. Riggs . b^ excused fr ths hearings. Mr. Riggs understands that he may be required to attend review sessions. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, LRSD requests that board member John Riggs be excused from the court's order which requires his attendance April 10, 1995 and June 8-9, 1995. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTFRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B Christopher He Bar No. 81083 er CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Excuse has been served on the following on this 6th day of April, 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 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 opher Heller c 2 APR-03-1995 11 = 55 FROn RIGGS ENG I Nt Di'-'. I u 50 f ^1595 x?SPRINGS!^ SOUTHEASTERN CATERPILLAR DEALERS PRODUCT SUPPORT ASSOCIATION March 31, 1995 PO BOX 1399 LITTLE ROCK. AR 72203 (501) 570-3100 J. A. Riggs Tractor Company Mr. John Riggs IV P. 0. Box 1399 Little Rock. AR 72203 Dear Mr. Riggs\nJ. A. Riggs Tractor Company is pleased to be hosting the 1995 Southeastern Caterpillar Dealers Product Support Association Meeting. This meeting is being held in Hot Springs, Arkansas beginning Sunday evening, April 9th and ending at noon on Tuesday, April 11th. You have been pre-registered for this meeting. Hotel reservations have been made for you, for Sunday night 4/9 and Mondiy-^/lO. The meeting will conclude Tuesday at noon. Please plan to be in Little Rock by 9:30 a.m. on Sunday at our store. We have a total of 120 people involved in this meeting and will require assistance from all Riggs personnel. We will have someone in charge of various responsibilities, transporting personnel from the Airport to Hot Springs, transporting personnel to the various activities and etc. You may be notified prior to the Sunday meeting for any assistance or assignment of responsibilities. If you are interested in attending the horse races at Oaklawn, contact Keith Riggs ASAP at extension 3536. Advance arrangements must be made. Wc want to be a good host and make our counterparts stay in our great state a pleasant experience. I know wc can count on you for whatever assistance is needed. We have an excellent meeting planned and should be very informative. See you Sunday morning April 9. Sincerely, PRESIDENT John Bennett I.A. Kisgs Ttjuoi Co. VICE PRESIDENT Sob McCarthy Stowers Mjirhinery Corp. John Bennett President Southeastern Caterpillar Dealer Product Support Association secretary/ TREASURER Bill Gregory Ubnehdrd Machinery Co. Winning Combinations 1x^00 TKun KlUUO ClNuiHC. Vi I u 30 fo^x^ r r. RfiPLVTO ATTeNTIONOF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNITEO STATES ARMY WAR COLLEGE CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-5050 March 9, 1995 (if 50* B Iq '^1 Office of the Commandant Mr. John A. Riggs, IV 3600 Foxcroft Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Dear T4r. Riggs: We are delighted to invite you to participate in the 41st Annual National Security Seminar at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, from June 5-9, 1995. Each year we cap our academic program by inviting leading citizens from throughout the United States to discuss national security issues with our students in a week-long seminar. The focus for these discussions is provided by four nationally prominent speakers who will address international, domestic, defense, and economic/environmental issues as they relate to the welfare and security of the United States. The enclosed Prospectus outlines the objectives and organization of the Seminar and provides basic information on our College, its students, and the faculty. Briefly, the purpose of the Anny War College is to prepare a select group of officers to assume positions of great responsibility in the Army and throughout the defense community. A major portion of this preparation focuses on developing a deeper understanding of the society they serve, and the interests, issues, and trends that influence the formulation of national security policy. Over the years, the National Security Seminar has been an outstanding academic exercise. The participation of leading citizens from across the country has made that possible. You will be our guest ft^r die period of tlie National Security Seminar. You will have a student escort and we will provide all meals, lodging, and transportation at the Seminar site. Unfortunately, we are not able to pay for your travel to and from Carlisle. You may obtain additional information on these arrangements by writing to us at the above address, or calling the National Security Seminar Office at 717/245-3321. Pnmed onRecycietf Papv . RPR-03-1995 11 = 56 FROM RIGGS ENGlNt Diti. 30 rox.x\u0026lt; I I u -2- We have enclosed several forms which we ask you to complete. The first is a postcard acknowledging your commitment to attend. Please respond by the date indicated. If you are able to join us in June, we also ask that you complete a biographical form (Mail or FAX-717/245-3530) so that our students and other guests will know who you are. We will consider the returned biographical form as consent to maintain your name on the National Security Seminar Guest List file. Applicable Privacy Act data arc on the reverse of that form. We hope you will be able to join us. Il is important to our Army that our students have an opportunity to know your views on issues that impact on the welfare and security of our country. They need to understand your priorities and concerns. While we are not unmindful of the travel costs, you will find the Seminar very interesting and Carlisle Barracks and south-central Pennsylvania strikingly beautiful in June. Please join us for the experience. Sinccrely, Richard A. Ctiilcoat Major General, U.S. Anny Conunandant Enclosures i TOTAL P.04FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AP 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 JAMESjy^^RMACK CLERK -a PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is a motion to excuse John Riggs, a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, from the budget hearings scheduled for April 10, 1995 and June 8-9, 1995. For good cause, the motion is granted. so ORDERED this 'day of April 1995. TRICT/JJUUDD(GE 7^ !_ _ c docket sneer in RULE 58 ANOOR 79(aj SJi.' a 2 3 9 7 ( /rye\u0026lt;/ LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 718 P01 AUG 10 95 15:54 Little Rock School District 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LnTLEROCK,AR 72201 r SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE FAX (501) 324-2146 I 1. DATE TO /a '3xZ4 3s \"1] FROM SENDERS PHONE # SUBJECT SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: /U ,  \u0026lt; No. of pages (including cover page) Fax Phone No. 3*7/\"^ Speed Dial 1 1^'  -Ui LPSD SLPTS OFFICE 718 P07 AUG 10 35 15:56 I ?5r COMSli^eD^TATeM^NT OFsRVtflU$^lxF^NDITVRfeS ANO IN ^UNJ V X X '%X- \u0026gt;* '\u0026gt; POATrtePEH'lo6sN0e0jDNe,3S J^ANPta^S IN ^UND SALANCE xf.-ZS\u0026gt;X:XjxSx*^x*-.\n. ,. --xftwx - V\nAPPROVED I RECEIPTS 1993/94 06/30/94 COLLECTED iREVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK___________ EXCESS TREASURER S FEE 41,027,982 4,502,692 21,420,949 145,eo x\u0026lt;x DRAFT 7 1994/95 * RECEIPTS 'S8',5S-  ! . 1 06/30/95 COLLECTED ! DEPOSITORY INTEREST !~revenue in lieu of taxes i MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS Bl 3-X-X Si\nrii REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY general SEVERANCE TAX roii'\na:a ( h 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 73,419 is.OOO REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 25,350,138 8,094,112 i SETTLEMENT LOAN I VOCATIONAL________________ ! HANDICAPPED CHILDREN iORPHAN CHILDREN________ J^RLY CHILDHOOD transportation INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION ____ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION SUMMER SCHOOL__________ WORKER S COMPENSATION r is 'X^s'^s i REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES ^PUBLIC LAW 874 [^TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUND i TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT ITRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUN P REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS i MAGNET SCHOOLS 1.341,887 1,210.000 ' 3,540 240,873 ' 2,700,000 2,883,425 ' 768,715 575,435 j 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 6,l88,199j\n13,930.088 ' i 39,625,387 5,666,289 22,011,928 146,379 333,970 182,353 194,465 265.622 74,416 96.58% 125.84% 102.76% 100.47% 110.22% 74.38% 40.17% 75.89% 72.34% 38,600,327 4,802,692 21,420,949 145,000 325,000 180,000 220,892 322,232 ' 102,005 40,330,355 5,030,840 ' 22,372,541 I 154,473! 5^345 'l57.38s' 280.904 I------ 104 48% 104.75% 104 44% 106.53% 162.21 3 !6%x 14^ 87.449 127.17% 487,906 115,^4J 151,41% 113.6736 T fog\u0026lt;gs.% I I 73,210 99.72%i 98.6'l%t 7^419 108,747 18,000 20,299 ! 148.12%! 1 24,710,980 8.094,112 1,382,418 1.282.804 3,198 263,992 3,553,095 2,720,581 792,081 517,260 29,969 1.228,696 6,262.966 13.301,449 97.48% 26.162,235 100.00% 103.02% 106.02% 90.34% 109.60% 131.60% 94.35% 103.04%' 89.89% 6,042,591 1,600,000 ' 1,320,000 1,344 499 3,198 } 233,992 [ 3,700,000 ! 3,100,000 I 797,893 580,435 367,319 26,499,961 6.042,591\n101.29%! 100.00% -------------------- 1,141,688 !__ 1,379,7O4T e,984~l' 233.992 3,786.987 2,831,743 811,822 565,922 428,361 528,051 iissL 86 49% 102,62% 218.39% 100.00% 102 35% 91.35% 101.75% 97.5094 143.76% 74.92%l QU 'anZtT 98.30%! 60.699 + 38.000 500,000 900,000 716.116 23.773 I 511,,561 I t 67.82% 102.31% 735,687 102.7$% jS?,10% 1O1.21! 95.15% -ii 6.107,922 I 6.406.502 14.236,l^ 13,542,343 340 104.89% 95.12%i -.5I sa r. LOCAL COUNTY STATE OTHER TOTAL INCOME BEGINNING BALANCE BUDGETTOTAL EXPENCHTLIRra SALARIES 1 EMPLOYEE benefits ' PURCHASED SERVICES f MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY \"__ ' OTHER objects' DEBT SERVICE TOTAL EXPENDITUBES FUND BALANCE CONTINGENCY UNDESIGNATED ENDING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL FUNO BUDGET SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 euo^\n66,119,097 91,419 45,252,162 2,154,116 113,616,794 4,164.563 117.SO1.157 APPROVED: 73.341,379 10,338,688 13,170,903' 3,273.118 2,644.992 5,504,406 6,533,631' 116,607,317 _____JO 993,840 993,840 117.801,167 69.457,703 129,046 44.257,796 1.273,021 115,117,566 kslj u FORECASTED\nsJRqjEQTW IN(X)M\u0026amp; 69,457.703 _____ 129,046' 44,257.796 _____1,273.021 115.117,'56 pfiOitEijrgp 3,338,606 37,627 (994,366) (831,095) 1,600,772 T) in in ' DISBURSEMENT 74,328,796 10,127.412* 12,285,606 3,200,799 1,934,494 5,592.513 ___ 8,647.933 116,117,553 EH^MBEiANCe FOH^STEO PROJECTED mjieetiaj (T) C-i n n o EXreNawREs tfAX^ 74,326,796 10,127,412 \" 12,285,606 3,200,799 1,934,494 5,592.513 8,647.933 116,117.553 (937,417) 211,476 885.297 72.319 710,498 ' (88,107) (114,302) 689,764 _______0 3,194,376 3,184,376 -J m n o w g 1 \u0026lt;s iX' JI cn in cn IW!JIU!L,,?\u0026lt;2222^ LRSD SUPT'S OFFICE 71R P04 AUG 10 95 15:57 ^ww.w^trOjsTRici^ :ae,y.x*v.\u0026gt;..x-,v.UA\u0026amp;b\u0026gt;xSt ^xyy.xx-\n\u0026lt;*** ?* FORTHePERWSeNOCOJUNeao 1994AJ^OT996 f *  -a '' x*'-i.-* 0^ S* __________________________________________________.:....,,_________ Expenses SALARIES_____________ BENEFITS_____________ PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS 4 SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY i OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY iAPPROVED 1993/94 06/30/94 S!?*\"!-\n 76,127,991 9,240,239 10,855.851 I 4,596,277 j 1,606,2^ 5.258,186 I 8.870,123 1,000,000 I GOtLEG^FEG*\n75,079,647 9,305,313 I 11,369,363 i 3,420,371 1,704,608 4,537,917 8,903,285 'W'WT' DRAFT 7 1994/95 06/30/95 % m\nI .,.49o:j8^ I EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS ~T 7,074.106 \u0026gt;*/(+ \u0026lt; 13.980,088 6,687,447 13,301,449 98.62% 100.70% 104.73% 74.42% 106.1 f 2%^ 86.30% 100.37% T ---------------------1-------------------------J. 73,341,379\n74,328,796' 10,338,888 r 10,127,412\n101.36% t 13,170,903 ! 12,285,606 3,273,118 2,644,992 5,504,406 8,533,631 3,200,799 1,934,494 5,592.513 + 97.95% 93.28% 97 79^ 73.14%) 101.60%! 8,647,933 1 t 101.34% 94.53% 8,711,620 35.15% 14.236.418 6,552,303 13,542,343 97.63% 95.12% 95:?^ INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE i (4,234,335) I (1,225,306) (3,794,221) IBEGINNING FUND BALANCE I I {1,145,788)1 I L I FEDERAL OPERATING I t 964,951 4,109,970\nr 1,034,369 4,985,188 609,068 4,184,363 609,888 4,184,363 I ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING I i 79,044 i * 761,542 I SSi -w *45^:1 609,888 4,184,363 isjssiisss 5,370 993,840 t 'ms y 5S*' 464,087 3,184,376 ILRSD SUPTS OFFICE 718 P05 AUG 10 95 15:56 PROJECT BEG BALANCE 07-01-94 MUOFt BOND ISSUS PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32,467.82 F7,64Ct,(700 BOND ISSUC CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 3,631.66 3,631.66 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1995 INCOME 1994-95 TRANSFERS 1994-96 EXPENDITURES 1994-95 ENCUMBRANCES 1994-95 ENO BALANCE 06-30-96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 0 00 0.00 0.00 3,631.66 3,631.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 I I iS, 1S4.100 BQNO issue. KING FACILITIES STUBY CHICOT CONTINGENCY soarowz fl6,900.000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST ALT LEARNING CENTE BRADY BADGETT BASELINE FAIR PARK WESTERN HILLS DODD PULASKI HGTS El EM OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON EAST SIDE FRANKLIN STEPHENS MITCHELL CLOVERDALE ELEM WILSON CONTINGENCY , SUBTOTAL tis. 100,000 BOND issue BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT DODO FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK 0188$ 469,839.22 37,154.41 506,993.63 729,98 10,541.35 203.26 10,279.42 12,610.03 4,370.30 381,618.93 19,680.93 6,160 02 3,569.07 11.684 73 28,352.62 9.876 16 2.514.28 19,040.60 3,625.09 47,812.10 17X22.54 68.082.96 472.32 3,370,631.05 1,998.17 0.00 0.00 294,135.83 4,325,311,73 24,976.69 11,086.46 10.306.60 235,777.43 48.184.93 25,872.19 27,640.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 (460,373.60) 242,000.00 150,000.00 68,373.60 0.00 24.894,99 (10,541.35) 9,101.79 (4.286.49) (12,194.57) (4,370.30) 453.08 1393.99! 1,131.61 (8,179.73) (13,648.52) (9.876.16) (2,514.28) 41.870.63 (3,625.09) (46,625.07) (7,152.01) 43.286 28 38,941.26 11,497.50 2,287.03 (51.136.61) 0.00 3.914.54 (8.536.80) 15.864.29) 66,146.49 134,127.81 (5.320,78) 730.14 53.684.00 61,080.00 114,764.00 10,368.03 9.305.04 5.992.93 108,763.17 20,034,01 6,766.03 4,700.68 3,505.00 14,704.10 21.695.25 2,287.03 7,983.50 20,644.10 348,321.32 40.939.43 11,497.50 2,287.03 638,694.15 8,070.67 3,427.86 1,770.00 206,984 91 83,331,42 (16,000.00) 22.319.84 730.14 0.00 0.00 9 466.72 188.316.00 150,000.00 44.447.91 392,229.63 15,256 84 0,00 0.00 0.00 415.46 0.00 272,855.76 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,216.88 0.00 0.00 2,287.03 68.082.96 23.084.50 3.022,409.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 242,999.32 3.686,617.58 16,906.02 11,572.14 0.00 22,928.23 20,000.00 175,000.00 0.00 0.00 (fl ... li 1 i. J JLRSD SUPTS OFFICE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1995 1 718 P06 AUG 10 95 15:58 J J J PROJECT GILLUM HALL HENDERSON IRC JEFFERSON KING MABELVALE JR MANN MEAOOWCLIFF MCCLaLAN PARKVIEW PURCHASING RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WATSON ADMINSTRATION PLANT SERVICE WILLIAMS CONTINGENCY susrorxu BEG BALANCE 07-01 94 46,623.40 72,167.34 0.00 10.500.00 665,076.52 677,649.27 779,529.23 10,218.50 128,163.14 0.00 99.566.59 1,678.10 0.00 0.00 18,925.35 92.76 26,050.53 0.00 0.00 353,182.02 897,457.69 4,170,624.36 INCOME 1994-95 o.oo TRANSFERS 1994 95 (66,973.17) 52,915.83 (529.041,77) 32,000.00 110,022.40 (107,795.15) 8,167.46 114,016.06 5.788.16 102,980.51 155,009.18 (14,180.88) (92.76) 40,206.61 12,450.52 36,228.44 1126.888.631 0.00 EXPENDITURES 1994.S6 6,194.17 48,666.83 277,502.71 147,999.30 389,774.96 34,733 76 20,367.99 8,157.45 213.582.66 7,366.25 101,812.28 6.044.18 4,744.47 1,340.22 12,450.52 389,410.46 1,91,77a.O3 ENCUMBRANCES 1994-95 END BALANCE 06-30-96 46,623.40 0.00 4,260.00 10,500.00 387,573.81 608.20 421,764.28 85.507.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,168.23 148.966.00 0.00 0,00 26,050.53 33,866.29 0.00 0.00  i I -1 0.00 770,669.06 2,188,852.33 KEVEWS SALE OF PROP/MI8C PROCEEOS-FIRE LOSS HENDERSON HENDERSON WATER METRO GRANT INTEREST SUBTOTAL GffAND TOTAL 441,340.44 101,741.55 35,864.20 4,100.00 36.998.72 1,268.948.69 1,888.983.60 10.928.012.80 6.680.10 200.60 35,000.00 408,431.25 4)6,011.36 416,011.35 0.00 0.00 35,200.60 2.806.530.26 0.00 447,719.94 101.741.66 854.20 4,100.00 36,998.72 1,677,379.94 2,268,794.35 8.536,49,?, as 1 3 bOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 October 27, 1995 Mr. Michael Daugherty 2101 South Margin Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Michael: Congratulations on your election to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. From what Ive read, your professional and personal experiences give you insights that will be invaluable as the district makes decisions that affect the lives of so many. Im looking forward to getting to know you, and hope well find a time to begin that process soon. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience and lets arrange to get together. 1 hope you will also feel free to drop by ODM at any time to meet my colleagues and tour our offices. Under separate cover to your LRSD mail box. Im sending you some of our recent monitoring reports. 1 know that as a new board member youll be inundated Avith all sorts of paper, and 1 dont want to add too much to the pile. As is our practice, well routinely send you and other members of the board our new reports as we issue them. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep an open door and a pot of coffee on at all times, and well always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. I know youre going to do a fine job. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. 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 October 29, 1995 Ms. Stephanie Johnson 8701 Interstate 30 Apt. 206 Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Stephanie: I should have written this letter to you right after the election. Please forgive me for being slow to tell you how much 1 will miss you as a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Education. Although your tenure on the board was brief, it was nonetheless very significant. You displayed a quick grasp of the issues and a sincere, steadfast concern for the welfare of the children, parents, and employees of the district. You stepped in during a difficult time in the districts history, but you did not flinch when making touch decisions nor did you waver when taking a stand for your convictions. As both the desegregation monitor and a fellow citizen, 1 greatly appreciate the service you gave to our community as a board member. Although this phase of your public service is over for now. I know youll continue to serve in other roles because your heart is full of love and you will always care for others. Thank you for all youve done to make our town a better place for all of us. Your have my sincere best wishes for every success. Please dont ever hesitate to call on me whenever 1 can be of any help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. i -LRSD ADMIN. BULDING 17:45 P. 02/02 (o Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jan 3 '96 \"a  LrrfLE Rock School District Media Advisory Januaiy' 3, 1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 1 i Special Board Meeting t\nI The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has called a special Board meeting for '1 hursday, January 4,1996. The agenda for the meeting will include: I I Dress Code at the Alternative Learning Center Review of LRSD contract with Laidlaw Transit Personnel Item J. !t I The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m, in rhe Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. 3 i t,' 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 73301  (.501)334-8000 -1*.%  gs3a!iamgai\u0026lt;!gajgaB!gMimj^ ss I F!LgD U S OISTaiCT COURT eastern DISTRICTARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 2 1996 JAM^yv. McCormack. CLERK OEP CLERI^- 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS 30, ORDER The Court has previously scheduled hearings for July 29 and 1996 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1996-97. Also on those dates, the Court intended to review the 1996-97 budgets for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Due to scheduling conflicts on the Court's docket (primarily as a result of an ongoing criminal trial), the Court will be unable to hold budget hearings on the dates scheduled. Those hearings are therefore canceled. In lieu of budget hearings. the Court orders the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to submit to the Office of Desegregation monitoring (ODM), on date and time to be a determined by them, any information ODM deems necessary for an adequate review of each district's budget. The Court expects the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to cooperate in good faith with ODMI regarding submission of any requested information so that further orders of the Court are unnecessary. Also before the Court is the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an interim award of attorney's fees and costs [doc.#2565]. * The Court hereby schedules a hearing on this motion to begin at 9:30 a. m. on July 29, 1996, in room #305, 600 West Capitol Avenue, U.S. Courthouse, in Little Rock, Arkansas. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1996. un1tT) states^ di: .TES DlSTJ^ICT JUDGE rws document e.ntfc'- rule 56 '^ND/qh 7^) L I SHEET irj  Al hearing on this motion had previously been scheduled for July 1, 1996, but had to be cancelled due to an ongoing criminal trial. -2- /08 '30 96 12:05 301 324 2023 LRSD COM5IUXICATI --- 0D)I @002 002 1 xons Little Rock School District School Board Candidate Forum August 30,1996 For more information: Suellen Vanm 324-2020 Candidates for the upcoming Little Rock School Board elections wiU answer questions during a televised public forum on Tuesday, September 3, 1996, The forum will provide voters the opportunity to learn more about the Little Rock School Board candidates and their thoughts on educational issues. In Zone 1 the incumbent, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, has filed for re-election. Dr. Mitchell IS challenged by Sarah Facen and Kenyon Lowe, Sr. In Zone 5 only one individual, Larry Berkley, filed for election\nthe incumbent, Linda Pondexter, is not seeking re-election. School board elections are set for September 17. The school board candidate forum is sponsored by the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods and the Little Rock School District. Norns Deajon, KATV reporter, wiU serve as moderator. The forum wiU be broadcast live from the Little Rock School District Administration Building, 810 West Markham, over Comcast Cable Channel 4 at 6\n00 p.m., and wiU be rebroadcast each weekday at 8:30 a.m. and 1\n30 pm, through September 17, 810 West Markham StreetbaA PAGE 01/01 i i. , S\\  p. isms t  '  \u0026lt;J .1. ILittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT received August 4,1998 AUfi ? - '933 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I want to update you on a change in the development of the agenda for Little Rock School District board meetings. The Board voted in July to open the Special Presentations section of the agenda to give more groups who are stakeholders in the District the opportunity to address the Board. We want to hear from representatives of all interested groups. Beginning with the August meeting, we ask that.you notify the Superintendents office if your organization wishes to have a representative address the Board at the regular monthly meeting. Contact Beverly Griffin at 324-2012 by noon on Monday preceding the board meeting and you will be placed on the agenda. Thank you for helping create the very best schools for our students. We look fcr.vard to conti Jing to hear from you at Board meetings. Yours truly, Judy Magness, President Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 ** 1998-99 BOARD MEETING DATES MONTH August September October November December January February March April May June ** ** MEETING DATE * (Notification Date) 08-27-98 *(08-24-98) 09-24-98 *(09-21-98) 10-22-98 *(10-19-98) 11-19-98 *(11-16-98) 12-17-98 *(12-14-98) 01-28-99 *(01-25-99) 02-25-99 *(02-22-99) 03-25-99 *(03-22-99) 04-22-99 *(04-19-99) *(05-24-99) 06-24-99 *(06-21-99) November and December Meetings are scheduled one week earlier than usual to avoid conflict with holidays.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 21, 1998 Mr. Mike Kumpuris 7606 Westwood Avenue Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Mike: Congratulations on your recent appointment to the Board of Directors in the Little Rock School District. Your experiences as an administrator, budget manager, and volunteer give you insights that will be invaluable as the district makes decisions that affect the lives of so many. I'm looking forward to getting to know you, and hope we'll soon be able to spend some time doing just that. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience so we can arrange a time to get together. Id be happy for you to drop by to meet my colleagues and tour our offices. Im enclosing the mission statement of our office so you can get a sense of our values and philosophy. Our intention is always to work positively and cooperatively with the school districts. Were very excited about the possibilities now taking shape in the LRSD and are anxious to support the districts implementation of its new desegregation and education plan. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep the door open and the coffee hot at all times, and we'll always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. Sincerely yours, Brown Enc.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 October 12, 1998 Baker Kurrus 10816 Crestdale Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Baker: Congratulations on your recent election to the Board of Directors in the Little Rock School District. And to think we almost lost you to north Arkansas! Glad you decided to stay here in Little Rock where your experiences and insights will be invaluable as the district makes important decisions that affect the lives of so many. .Although youre no stranger to ODM and I think of you as a friend, its my custom to invite new board members to visit the office to get their bearings on our location and meet the staff. Id love to spend some time catching up with you. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience so we can arrange to get together. Ill be out of state for a while this month, but Polly will be happy to set up a time for us to meet after I return. Youve probably seen it before, but in case not. Im enclosing the ODM mission statement, which encompasses our values and philosophy. As you know, our intention is always to work positively and cooperatively with the school districts. Were very excited about the possibilities now taking shape in the LRSD and are working to support the districts implementation of its new desegregation and education plan. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep the door open and the coffee hot at all times, and we'll always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. Sincerely yours, Auin S. Brown Enc. 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 October 16, 2000 Mr. Tony Rose 8109 Mellwood Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Tony: Congratulations on your election to the Board of Directors in the Little Rock School District! Achieving public office is a significant accomplishment, and aspiring to service on the school board indicates that you care a great deal about children, which makes you a very important person indeed.. Its my custom to invite new board members to come visit us at ODM to get a bearing on our location, tour our offices, and meet the staff. Wed love to spend some time getting to know you and answering any questions you might have about our office and how we work. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience so we can arrange to get together. Im enclosing the ODM mission statement, which encompasses our values and philosophy. Our intention is always to work positively and cooperatively with the local school districts. We value our history of working closely with the LRSD and enjoy a congenial and productive relationship with the districts leaders. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep the door open and the coffee hot at all times, and well always be glad to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. ZONE I 2 3 4 5 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS NAME Katherine Mitchell Michael Daugherty Judy Magness re/-ary H. Baker Kuitus Vce. Lairy Berkley Tony Rose 7 Sue Strickland ADDRESS 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 2101 S. Martin Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: mdaugh@virlualhosts.net 708 Hall Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 e-mail: jmagncs@ibm.net 10816 Crestdale Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 e-mail: bkunus@aol.com 14005 St. Charles Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72211 e-mail\nlany@carti.conQ 8I09Mellwood Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: lonyrose@cei.net 19 Peartiee Place Little Rock, AR 72209 e-mail: terrell@anstotle.nel TELEPHONE 375-6957 (li) 370-5255 (o) 664-3143 (h) 370-3580 (vm) 666-0923 (h) 224-4154 (h) 376-3300 (w) 225-7377 (h) 296-3254(w) 568-7587 (h) 569-3122 (w) 455-1843(h) TERM 2002 q CS) s? hO (S CS o (S co 2001 Cd K) A KO KO 2003 2001 2002 2003 2003 Q-aq-co a o I C5 N110/18/2000 08:48 3242032 LRSD PAGE 02/02 2000-2001 BOARD MEETING DATES MONTH AGENDA MF-KTING * (Items Due) REGULAR MEETING * * (Items Due) July 07-13-\u0026lt;X) (07-11-00) (n-n-OKi **(07-24-00) 08-10-00 * (00-00-00) 08-24-00 **\u0026lt;0-22-00\u0026gt; SqAember 09-14-00 (09-12-00) October 10-12-00 09-23-00 **(09-25M)0) 10.36300 **\u0026lt;20-25-00\nNovember 11-02-00 (10-31-00) 1146-00 **fJJ-J3-Wj December 12-07-00 *fJ2-O5-fl0 12-14-00 (12^11^0) laawxy 01-11-01 *f02-09-02\u0026gt; 01-25-01 **\u0026lt;02-22-02\nFebruary 02-08-01 *(02-06-01) 02-22-01 March 03-08-01 *\u0026lt;05-06-00 JJ 03-22-01 **(03-19-01) Afoil 0442:5.1 *(04-10-01) 04-26-01 May 05-10-01 *\u0026lt;05-0-02\u0026gt; 05-24-01 **rO5^2J-OZ\u0026gt; June 06-14-01 06-28-01 **(0^25-01) * Proposed agenda items due in the Superintendent's office by noon on Tuesday prior to meeting. (For publication and distribution to the Doard two diQis prior to the meeting.) fuudi^enda items due in tite Superintendents office BY NOON onMonday, (For publication in tiie monthly board agenda.)CM S) \\ CM O LU CL little rock school oistrict superintendent of schools Roy S. Brooks, Ed.D. BIO West Markhom Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (SOI) 447-1005 board of DDtECTORS ZONE 1 LU o Ll U. o (n q: LU cn a co a 2 3 4 cn in 5 __________NAME Kotherine Mitchell MichfleJ bflugheTty Bryon bay H. Baker Krrus t-arry Berkley I Y rH (S in 6 Tony ftase cn CM in 7 - Sue Strrcklond (S ID CM cn ADDRESS 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 e-mail: KPMITCHELL@PHILANDER.EDU 2101 S. Mortin Little Rack, AR 72204 e moil: rmdaughertyearistotle.net 337 Crystol Court Little Rock, AR 72205 e-moil: Bday@little\u0026lt;ock.state.arus 10816 Crestdale Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 _e-^il\nbkurrus@aol com 14005 St. Charles Blvd. ' Little Rock, AR 72211 e-tnail: iarry@corti.com 8109 Melfwood Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: tonyrosel@comca$t.net 13600 Otter Creek Parkway 4pt, 147, LR.AR 72219 e-mail: tstrickland33@conicosf.net tclephone 375-6957 (h) 370-5255(0) 664-3143 (h) 664-5776 (fi) 371-4770 (w) 224-4154 (h) 376-3300 (w) (h) 296-3254(i) 568-7587 (h) 569-8122 (w) 455-1843 term 2005 2004  2006 2004 2005 2006 2006ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS NAME Katherine Mitchell Michael Daugherty Bryan Day H. Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Tony Rose Sue Strickland ADDRESS 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 e-mail: KPMITCHELL@PHlLANDER.Fni) 2101 S. Martin Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: rmdaugherty@aristotle.net 337 Crystal Court Little Rock, AR 72205 e-mail\nBdav@littlei'ock.sta(e.ar.us 10816 Crestdale Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 e-mail\nbkurrus@aol.com T4OO5 St. Charles Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72211 e-mail: laiTv@carti.com 8109 Mellwood Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: tonvrosef^ei.net 19 Peartree Place Little Rock, AR 72209 suestrickl and200Q@yah oo.com TELEPHONE 315-695'1 (h) 370-5255 (o) 664-3143(h) 664-5776 (h) 371-4770 (w) 224-4154 (h) 376-3300 (w) 225-7377 (h) 296-3254(w) 568-7587 (h) 569-8122 (w) 455-1843 (h) TERM 2005 2004 2006 2004 2005 2006 2006,LRSD Board of Directors Page 1 of2 Little School [ Mom I Info [ parents | Schools | gjoard of E.d ) Adiitn VipS 5tu\u0026lt;lnt3 JoiS C.on*ac* (J Si* LK5D OKG Board Members Board Members Board Meeting Dates Board Meeting Minutes Board Policies Board Elections Policy Search ''1 .\"i i I I Katherine Mitchell Zone 1 R. Micheal Daughei Zone 2 President 7 Bryan C Zone : Secreta IfiBUf\nJ H. Baker Kurrus Zone 4 Vice President Larry Berkley Zone 5 Tony Rt Zone I http ://www. lrsd.org/Gen_Info/boardindex. cfrn?id=3 7 11/10/2005 .LRSD Board of Directors Page 2 of 2 aggwi ''v J -C-Msi*' Sue Strickland Zone 7 Home I Info | Schools | Board of Ed | Admin | News | Students Employees | Jobs | Contact Us | Site Guide Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock AR 72201 Ph. 501.4 http://www.lrsd.org/Gen Info/boardindex.cfm?id=37 11/10/2005 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1992 Armstrong, 86 newcomer to LR School Board, resigns CYNTI-114 uniA/ci I r ....______________________ BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Robin Armstrong, a Little Rock School Board member since 1986. resigned the position Thursday, citing job duties that would keep her from devoting enough time to the selection of a new superintendent and making other district- related decisions. I  w % a frequent Armstrong ally a knowledgeable board member who brought realism and common Armstrong, 39,' said her job LuJS as community affairs coordina- o t Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute s sense to an out-of-touch educational bureaucracy. Armstrong was president of the board in 1989 when Steele was hired and when the settlement to the desegregation lawsuit was negotiated among the three Pulaski County school districts. has expanded. She UM expanaea. bhe promotes he three CARTI centers in Little Rock, Mountain Home and Searcy, and IS a major organizer of the annual Festival of Trees fundraiser. -a I Armstrongs three-year term as the school board member ------= .he board Applicants should live hi the zone. The board will interview applicants March 19. Zone 4 encompasses an north of Rodney Parham --------  Hinson roads and r -   successor, who Arkansas River. The west re- boundary is the city limits Zih\"/ members, while the east boundary   would serve until the Sept. 15 aong North UniverLt? school election and be eligible AA._-...^.\"'''.Csity a three-vear term. the school board must make some critical decisions in the next few months including the selection of a superintendent to succeed Ruth Steele, who is retiring June 30. will be appointed by the remembers 1 Robin Armstrong an area and south of the runs nueandMissis.-ippfs^re^t.^''\" Rutherford, a former met school board member who was In her letter of resignation to board President O.G. Jaco- velli, Armstrong said the last six years had been a unique experience. She called her term a period of extreme highs and the lowest of lows. The lows included the loss school families in 1987 because of the controlled- choice student assignment plan, Armstrong said. Other lows included the financial problems that almost closed the district in 1990, The highs included the at- tainment of a court-approved settlement  at- . - in the desegregation lawsuit, she said. ~ uun Other highs included increasing en- T*- cooperation among cnh  ftilaski County school districts, the reinstatement of junior high athletic programs, passage of an 8-mill tax increase in 1990 and the employment of elementary school counselors. I iI 1 ) t -4 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1992 Pulaski Ex-LR schools chief gets Zone 4 position  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-Gazette Staff Writer\nFormer Little Rock Superintendent George D. Cannon was selected Thursday by iLittle Rock .School Board\nto fill the va- ' cancy created by the resig- .nation of Robin Arm. strong March 5, on / Cannon, mow a faculty\nmember I  Related article 3B the a t George Cannon Ihe University of Arkansas at\nLittle Rock, was one of seven ?applicants interviewed by the '.board for the Zone 4 position. The board interviewed each -applicant and then met in a closed session for about an hour before voting 4-0 in favor iisr Cannon. Board members present Thursday were O.G. jacovelli, W.D. Bill Hamilton. Pat Gee and Dorsey Jackson. iDr. Katherine Mitchell and 'John Moore were absent.\n Cannon. 50, will serve until the Sept, 15 school election, at which time he will be eligible '.to run for election to the\nboard. He said he will focus on the duties the board now faces and did not say whether he would seek election in Sep-\ntember. Cannon, who lives at 34 Inverness Circle, was superin- ffendent of the school district from October 1987 until he resigned in August 1989. He formerly was superintendent of schools in Meridian, Miss. He teaches school finance, school law, and board and superintendent relations at UALR, In his interview. Cannon said he has an understanding of many of the issues that make the Little Rock district more difficult to manage than 75 percent to 80 percent of other districts in the country. He said his top priority would be to clearly establish goals for the district so that all employees can articulate and work toward them. In response to questions from the board. Cannon said that he supported the health clinic at Central High School and that one of the most serious issues facing the district is the possible financial collapse of the Pulaski County Special School District, He said other concerns were the disparities in academic achievement of black and white students, and the districts financial stability. Cannon and his wife, Peggy, a sixth-grade teacher at Otter Creek Elementary, have three sons, the youngest of whom attends Carver Elementary School. The older sons have graduated. t j f 1Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1992 LRSD board member proposes contracting for support services BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Little Rock School Board member Dorsey Jackson asked the board Thursday to authorize a feasibility st 'n hiring private companies 'a provide the district with janitorial, transportation or other support services. Jackson said his discussions with district administrators and a private firm indicated the district could save as much as $1 million a year by contracting for the services rather than continuing to employ its own workers. Jackson said *hf districts mission is to provide a quality education. In :o doing, we should explore ,-a-\n.ous alternatives to providing such education in the most effective, cost-efficient manner as possible. Not only do I believe the cost savings would be substantial, Jackson said, but I think the amount of time devoted to these services by Dr. (Ruth) Steele and her administration could be much better spent on curriculum management and improving the educational performance of the students. He said the study would not commit the district to contracting services. But should 'he savings be substantial, he said, it would be difficult to justify not proceeding with implementation. The board took no action Thursday, but could do so at a meeting March 26. The proposal generated immediate reactions from board member W.D. Bill Hamilton and Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association. Hamilton said private firms do not always treat their employees well and frequently when the employees and dishire part-time workers, who are ineligible for insurance benefits that district employees receive. 7 think the amount of time devoted to these services by Dr. (Ruth) Steele and her administration could be much better spent on curriculum management and improving the educational performance of the students.  Many of our support service employees are parents of children in our district, he said. By contracting services, we may be hurting our children as well as our employees. Martin said the CTA, which represents almost 1,000 of the support employees, will oppose any plans for contracting services. The district explored contracting for custodial services in 1986. but turned it down trict officials agreed to find other ways to cut costs. In other district business, James Ivey, the districts manager for support services since last summer, has submitted his resignation from the school district, effective June 30. Steele said steps will be taken immediately to fill the position so the new employee will be able to work with Ivey before he leaves. Ivey is the third top district administrator to announce plans to retire or resign this year. Steele and Deputy Superintendent Tony Wood also are leaving at the end of June. James Jennings, associate superintendent for desegregation. said a year ago that he may take a position at Hendrix College at Conway next year, although he has not yet taken any formal action.Arkcinscis Democrat-Gozette SATURDAY, JUNE 13 , 1992 Cannon makes finals for job in Louisiana by CYNTHIA wnvuci . V. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrai-Gazetto Siad Writer lu Dr. George Cannon h Cannon, a member of the Little Rock School Board and a former district superintendent, is one of six finalists for the job of superin- Monroe, La., City School District.  Brass, a member of the Monroe School Board and chairman of the superintendent search committee, said Friday that Cannon is one of the leading contenders for the job. The names of finalists were announced Thursday night. Brass said the school board plans to decide on a new superintendent on June 29. Cannon will be interviewed by the board Thursday. The advertised salary range for the position is $75,000 to $85,000 plus benefits that are negotiable. The district has about 11,000 students and an annual budget of $34 million . The current superintendent IS James L. Pughsley, who is resigning after serving two years of his four-year contract. Besides Cannon, finalists are Dr. H.P. Bell, an assistant superintendent in Dallas, Texas: Dr. Maxine Pijeau superintendent of the East Orange County, N.J., School District\nDr. Terry Terril, superintendent of the Caddo Parish La.. School District\nRichard Miles, an assistant superintendent in Monroe\nand Abe Pierce, an assistant superintendent in Ouachita Parish, La., School District. Cannon was superintendent of the Little Rock district from 1987 until August 1989. He IS a faculty member in the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. has unex- Since March, Cannon L been a Little Rock School Board member. He was appointed to fulfill the unex- Pired term of Robin Armstrong. who resigned. The term will end Sept. 15, at t'n'e Cannon would be elootion to the board from Zone 4. Arkansas Democrat Established 1871 Arkansas (gazette Established 1819 Arkansas Democrat gazette An Independent Daily and Sunday Newspaper   MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 Teacher contract on boards agenda The Little Rock School Board will hold a special meeting at 5 p.m. today to vote on the 1992- 93 teacher contract. In other business, the board will decide what process to use to fill the board vacancy created by the recent resignation oi ur. George Cannon. Cannon represented Zone 4, which encompasses northwest Little Rock. Also on the agenda will be a discussion on the feasibility of changing some of the districts Friday night high school football games to Saturday mornings.Arkansas Democrat THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 -- I School board hears proposal to rewrite policy on complaints BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Anonymous complainers to the Little Rock School District may find their future complaints unheeded if the school board next week approves a policy change on the matter. Superintendent Mac Bernd recommended during a board committee meeting Wednesday that the existing complaint policy be altered to say anonymous complaints will not be checked out. However, after board members objected to a blanket rejection of all anonymous calls and letters, the superintendent said he would rephrase the proposal to say that if facts in the anonymous complaint are verifiable, the complaint will not be ignored. We think it is important to have a statement in policy about handling anonymous complaints, Bernd said in introducing the proposal. We suggest they be disregarded. He said people should identify themselves so problems can be fully investigated. During an investigation, the person making the complaint may need to provide additional information. Bernd said no particular incident prompted the proposed policy change. Sometimes people have legitimate reasons for not identifying themselves, said board member Katherine Mitchell. Employees may be afraid to say something about a problem. Mitchell said writing a policy on anonymous complaints was a waste of time, and people should use common sense to determine whether a complaint is worth considering. The proposed policy also says the district welcomes constructive criticism when it is motivated by a sincere desire to improve the quality of the educational process. The policy proposal also states that employees will treat patrons courteously at all times. However, teachers or other school personnel need not endure insults or abusive treatment from any person pertaining to any complaint, the proposal says. Also on Wednesday, Brady Gadberry, the districts director of human relations, said that approximately 160 certified employees resigned or retired from I k I I 9 h n A 4 If M M w II \u0026lt; ill f r I I I 1 rArkansas Democrat \"^(^azcUc   MONDAY. FEBRUARY 1, 1993 Copyright o 1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. Education briefs LR board names lawyer president John Moore, an attorney with the Huckaby, Munson, Rowlett and Tilley law firm, was elected president of the Little Rock School Board on Thursday night. He replaced O.G. Jacovelli, who remains on the board but is no longer an officer. Dorsey Jackson was elected vice president and Dr. Katherine Mitchell was elected secretary of the seven-member board.Arkansas Democrat .w\u0026gt; (gazette FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 26, 1993 CoDyngnt 5? 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. !nc. School boards must meet after 5 p.m. under bill passed 29-1 by Senate BY RACHEL ONEAL Democrat-Gazette Capitol Bureau An amendment that would allow school boards to meet in special session before 5 p.m. was soundly defeated Thursday by the state Senate. After the amendment failed, the Senate approved Senate Bill 418, which would require all school board meetings to be held after 5 p.m. The lead sponsor of the bill is Sen. James Scott of Warren. The unsuccessful amendment was proposed by Sen. David Malone of Fayetteville. If you call a special meeting and you have it at 2 p.m., then the people who want to come and voice their opinions will be at work, Sen. Mike Everett of Marked Tree, who voted against the amendment, said. But Malone said school districts dont want the Legislature to dictate all their rules and regulations. The bill was approved by a vote of 29-1. Sen. Joe Yates of Bentonville was the only senator who voted against the legislation. Also Thursday, the Senate approved two versions of bills to prohibit stalking. Before approving the bills, the Senate amended Senate Bill 2 to make it identical to House Bill 1201. SB 2 is sponsored by Sen. Eugene Bud Canada of Hot Springs. HB 1201 is sponsored by Rep. Judy Smith of Camden. Both bills would classify a stalker as a person who purposefully engages in a course of conduct that harasses another person and makes a terroristic threat with the intent of placing that person in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury. Under both bills, the acts of stalking must be separated by at least 36 hours and occur within one year. Second-degree stalking would carry a three- to 10-year prison term and a $10,000 fine. Under first-degree stalking, the convicted person must have been convicted of second-degree stalking within 10 years of the crime or must have been armed with a deadly weapon. SB 2 was approved unanimously. SB 1201 was approved 34-1.Arkansas Democrat SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1993 ' Copyright C 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Legislative digest Sponsor delays bill on school boards The House sponsor of a bill that would require school boards to meet after 5 p.m. delayed consideration of the proposal by the House on Friday after several members objected. . The debate over Senate Bill 418 by Sen. James Scott of Warren was about the only discussion on a day when legislators were anxious to head home before expected bad weather hit  and catch the Razorback basketball game on TV. What it (SB 418) is doing is requiring them to meet when the public can meet with them, said Rep. Jimmie Don McKis- sack of Star City, who was handling the bill in the House. Rep. Pat Flanagin of Forrest City called it an honest and good government bill. But McKissack asked for the delay after Reps. Jimmie Wilson . of Lakeview and Roger Rorie of Clinton said the bill would take away local power from school boards.Arkansas Democrat (Bazcttc Arkansas Democrat Qpazette FRIDAY, MARCH 26,1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. LRSD board commits to court plan I I I I BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer In response to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wrights stern lecture last week to the Little Rock School Board, board members said Thursday that they believe the district must be committed to implementing the court-approved desegregation plan. Board members Dorsey Jackson and John A. Riggs IV both read lengthy statements, saying they didnt agree with all parts of the plan adopted by their predecessors, but court orders must be obeyed. In spite of my philosophical differences with this plan, I intend to use my influence as a board member to see it is implemented, Jackson read. Jackson, whom the judge called on to stop reading a magazine during the court hearing, apologized for his courtroom behavior and said he had no intention to resign despite pressure to do so. He went on to say that demands made on the district by the black Joshua intervenors were unreasonable. He asked that John Walker, the intervenors attorney, restrain his hostilities and enable the district to educate all children. Walker, who attended the meeting, questioned Jacksons sincerity and said he was begging the board to drop its adversary role and be cooperative in the school case. Riggs said in his six-page statement that he would attend all future court hearings and report to the board on them if Wright would release other members from attending. District Superintendent Mac Bernd told the board that steps are planned to immediately assess what components of the desegregation plan are being implemented and what remains to be done. In other business, the board approved\n A committee recommendation that a new interdistrict elementary school be built on the site of the Stephens Incentive Elementary School at 3700 W. 18th St.  The assignment of Sadie principal Mitchell, of Cloverdale Elementary School, as principal of the new Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School.Aikansas Democrat gazette FRIDAY, JUNE 11,1993 - 9B LRSD ponders appeal of hearing attendance order BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazene Education Writer The Little Rock School Board will vote June 24 on whether to appeal a federal judges requirement that its members appear at court hearings in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The idea sparked strong opinions from all sides of the table when board member Dorsey Jackson brought it up during a work session Thursday to develop an agenda for the regular monthly board meeting June 24. He also proposed two other items designed to help ensure that the board will know whether the district and its employees are following court guidelines and the desegregation plan. Those proposals would:  Instruct the districts administration and legal staff to prepare a summarized list of timetables of specific desegregation plan items from all the various court orders in effect.  Direct the administration to prepare specific job descriptions for cabinet-level positions. The descriptions would identify specific sections of the desegregation plan for which the employee is responsible. The cabinet-level employee would be required to develop similar job descriptions for staff members. Since March, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright has required school board members to attend federal court hearings involving the district and the desegregation case. If she grants excused absences to any members, they must attend a review session at a later date to go over key points. Jackson said that requiring board members to attend hearings during the work day prevents them from performing their regular jobs and may ultimately limit the number of people who can serve on the school board. Board president John Moore, who was fined $100 for contempt of court after leaving a desegregation hearing Tuesday afternoon without permission because of a job commitment, favored placing Jacksons proposal to appeal on the June 24 agenda. Board members Pat Gee, Dr. Katherine Mitchell and Bill Hamilton spoke against adding the appeal to the agenda. They said the judge wants the board to witness firsthand how she believes the district is mishandling desegregation guidelines.Arkansas Democrat (j^azctte FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1993 . Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. i.' EDITORIALS Emergency coming For the schools John Riggs of the Little Rock School Board got credit for this suggestion: When the board interviews prospects for a new superintendent to replace short-timer Mac Bernd, we want to make sure the next superintendent knows every wart on this school district. We want to talk them out of the job before they take it Good idea. Lets hope the board finds a candidate with staying power this time. But considering the challenge, not even a combination of Horace Mann, John Dewey, Maria Montessori and Booker T. Washington could do the job alone  not without a change in public attitude and public policy. The district is going broke, it faces receivership, the money from the legal settlement is running out, and the only clear prospect ahead is more of the same. Ba li .I. \u0026gt; )| 'I r/ I i l .. ll I 'I 111: Even if you dont care much about the school system in Little Rock, though you should, remember that, as the schools go, so goes the capital city. When young folks with families drift away, they take with them not just their kids but their houses and business and civic activities and spirit. Its time for more than a new superintendent. Its time for leadership  for ail those who are bound by the legal settlement to renegotiate it with the object of reviving public education in Central Arkansas. What good is preserving every metropolitan school districts stake in the settlement if it drags all of them down and chases folks away from the city? In the past, Arkansas has been good at rallying in times of crisis. A small band of women saved Little Rocks schools back in the bad old days. Businessmen have come to the citys rescue more than once, often quietly and almost unnoticed. What about an emergency committee of teachers, parents, public officials and civic leaders to rethink and revive public education in Little Rock before the approaching  emergency strikes full force? The community has the resources, it has the leadership, and it has the pride to make a new start. It need only unite and mobilize them. Here is something j to think about, but not too long. Here is j something that needs doing. Soon. I 'f! Arkansas Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1993 Copyright O 1993. UWe Rock Newspapers. Inc. The responsibilities of a school board I read with interest the article about the citizens committee that is trying to get the Little Rock School District to reconsider hiring John Hickman. They also made a lot of recommendations for other principals and vice principals at various schools in the district. They need to study the duties and responsibilities of a school board in Arkansas. The school board is charged with hiring and firing the superintendent and setting school policy. The superintendent is then charged with the responsibility of recommending the hiring and firing of all other personnel in the district. The school board either approves or disapproves of his recommendations, and other action by the school board should be considered interference with the duties of the superintendent. Everyone who aspires to a professional position must submit an application for that opening based on the qualifications set down by the state of Arkansas.Arkansas Demcxn-at ^(gazette -FRIDAY, FEBRUARY4,1994  School Board to tackle variety of topics The Little Rock School Board will meet today and Saturday for a two-day work session on a variety of topics, including presentation of preliminary information on the districts 1994-95 budget. The work session will begin at 4:30 p.m. today on the fourth floor of Worthen Bank, 200 W. Capitol Ave. 'The session will resume at 8 a.m. Saturday at the same location. Tentative agenda items include a report on the advantages and disadvantages of hiring private companies to perform jobs now done by nonteaching district employees, incentive schools and the districts desegregation plan, facilities, transportation, student discipline, board policies, district goals and the appointment of board members to committees.FRIDAY, APRIL 1,1994 LRSD officials present board with wish list worth $193,480 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Despite the need to cut $7.2 million in expenses for next year. Little Rock School District administrators are recommending some more staff and programs for 1994-95. Some of the programs are required by the state and federal governments or the districts own desegregation plan. Programs proposed to the school board this week will cost about $193,480 from revenues that will total $136 million next year. The board hasnt approved the proposals or decided how expenses will be cut. The budget additions include:  $75,000 to expand district services to serve a minimum of 100 students with limited or no English skills.  $38,000 for revising math, language arts, foreign language and science courses to comply with state directives and for training teachers in those changes.  $25,000 for science equipment.  $18,000 for a secretary in the social studies department.  $3,000 for development of a Spanish immersion pilot program where virtually all instruction in a first-grade incentive school class would be in Spanish. The school that would hold the program hasnt been chosen.  $15,000 to revise the foreign language curriculum to accommodate students who have extensive instruction in elementary schools and those who dont. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock will assist with the project.  $18,000 for supplies and graduate course hours for math teachers in grades kindergarten through four. Two teachers in each of the 36 elementary schools will participate in the program. Another $377,000 would be spent on four Spanish teachers for the incentive elementary schools and equipment purchases to support the high-technology themes at Franklin, Rockefeller, Rightsell and Garland incentive schools. Those costs can be absorbed by doubling the funding those schools receive per student under the districts desegregation plan.Arkansas Democrat \"8? azcttc  K FRIDAY, MAY 27, 1 MJ LRSD board chief placed on probation for illegal duck hunt Ducks BY PATRICIA MANSON Democrat-Gazette Federal Reporter Little Rock School Board President Dorsey Jackson was placed on probation Thursday after pleading guilty to violating federal regulations during a January duck hunt. Jacksons conviction on six nnsdemeanor counts wont disqualify him from remaining on the school board, said the boards attorney. Christopher Heller. Five other defendants in the case also pleaded guilty Thursday to misdemeanors and were sentenced in federal court in Little Rock. Jacksons son and three other men admitted they shot more than their limit of ducks and Illegally tagged the birds to conceal the identity of the hunter who killed them. A sixth defendant admitted he had possessed illegally tagged ducks. J L I Federal officials said five of the defendants were responsible for shooting 23 ducks more than the limit dur- ing three days. The sixth defendant took the birds to a commercial picking operation officials said. Officers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investi- Dorsey Jackson gated the case. In federal court Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerry W. Cavaneau said duck hunters who violate regulations are cheating all the rest of us. When people in positions of trust and authority ignore the law, disrespect the law, we cant expect other people to respect it, Cavaneau told the defendants. The magistrate followed See DUCKS, Page 5B  Continued from Page 1B Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth F. Stolls sentencing recommendations, ordering all the defendants to pay restitution and placing five of them on probation. The men had faced a six-month jail term and a $5,000 fine on each count. Stoll told the magistrate that the investigation in the case began Jan. 8. Thal was the day three of the defendants returned to the Circle S Duck Club in Arkansas County with their limit of ducks and then went out hunting again, Stoll said. He said five of the defendants repealed the same procedure the next day, bringing in a limit of ducks and then going out again for more game. After being confronted by wildlife officers, the Jacksons admitted they also had killed more than their limit of ducks and illegally tagged the birds Jan. 7, the day before the investigation began, Stoll said. Defense attorney Jim Rhodes didnt challenge Stolls account, .saying the Jacksons and the other defendants had acknowledged their guilt from Day One. But in a February 3 interview with the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, Jackson denied having been questioned by authorities about the incident. Five of the defendants were placed on one year of unsupervised probation, barred from hunting during that time and ordered to pay restitution. Those defendants were: Jackson, 50. He pleaded guilty to three counts of killing more than the three-duck daily limit and three counts of improperly tagging the excess. Cavaneau ordered Jackson to pay $2,500 in restitution.  Dorsey Jackson Jr., 22, of Little Rock. The school board presidents son also pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor counts. He was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution.  CharlesE. Kalb, 31, of Memphis. He pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts and was ordered to pay $2,100 in restitution.  E.F. Lord Jr., 50, of Little Rock. He pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts and was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution.  Robert C. Lord, 49, E.F Lord's brother, of Little Rock. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts and was ordered to pay $1,200 in restitution. Wayne C. Sexton, 44, of Gillett, was the only defendant not placed on probation. He pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of having custody of 16 improperly tagged ducks and was ordered to pay $750 in restitution. Outside the courtroom. Special Agent Ron Parker of the federal wildlife service said tagging the hunters name and address the number and species of the birds and the date the birds were killed. The tag must be signed by the hunter, he said Parker said the tagging requirements are designed to make hunters accountable for the birds they kill and to prevent hunters from bagging more than the limit. violations and ''double trinnini\n\" --nr Irillinn \u0026lt;1____. or killing more than one limit  IS .q big problem among hunters. Federal regulations require hunters to lag the migratory game birds they have bagged if they leave the birds outside their homes or in someone elses possession, Parker said. He said the tag must includeSATURDAY. JUNE 4, 1994  Dorsey Jackson should resign Dorsey Jackson should resign from the Little Rock School Board. The board, patrons, community and children attending the Little Rock School District would be served positively by his departure. Jackson was ordered to pay $2,500 for exceeding his daily limitation of duck kills. Jackson allegedly admitted killing his daily limit, disposing of the ducks at a duck club, then returned to kill more ducks. Jackson broke the law six times. Jacksons son was also ordered to pay restitution for the same offense. Jackson, as president of the School Board, is in a position of trust and leadership in the community. He violated his position of trust and leadership. The example Jackson sets for his children is his business, but the example he sets for the community, and more importantly, the children attending the Little Rock School District, is all of our business and concern. How can the community expect Jack- son to credibly carry out the laws which govern our school district and the desegregation orders he is responsible for implementing when he has such disrespect for the law? If he does not resign, the board should pass a no-confidence resolution pertaining to his position as a board member. JOHN ROLLANS Little RockArkansas Democrat 'w (gazette  WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1994 Ducks unlimited When hunters are caught ow embarrassing for Dorsey Jackson, president of Little Rocks school board  and for the rest of us. Shooting only one duck too many would be a dubious examp le to set for the next generation. Mr. Jackson and four others now have pled guilty to bagging twenty-three over the legal limit back in January. Its also reported that they illegally tagged the carcasses to conceal who had killed the ducks. In February, Mr. Jackson denied that he had been questioned by authorities about the hunting incident when a reporter asked about it. Now this. Others on the hunt were Mr. Jacksons son, Dorsey Jackson Jr.\nCharles E. Kalb of Memphis\nand the brothers Lord  E.F. Jr. and Robert C. Another man, Wayne Sexton of Gillett, was arrested for possessing the  ducks. The game warden seems to have bagged quite a few. At least Mr. Jackson wont lose his seat as president of the school board. A federal magistrate could have sent all of the defendants to jail for six months and fined them $5,000. In ad- - dition to making restitution in amounts ranging from $1,200 to $2,500  Mr. Jackson paid the most  all the defendants were placed on probation. Lucky for them the magistrate didnt turn them all over to Ducks Unlimited. Those folks are not fond of people who violate the game laws. The Jacksons and their friends werent the first duck hunters to get caught thinking with their trigger fingers. Temptation has a way of clouding common sense  and legal bag limits. When hunters find themselves in marshlands frequented by swarms of quackers, something strange seems to overtake some of them. Like a spell. Back in the Senseless Sixties, for example, a hi^ official with the states Game and Fish Commission got into hot water over wild ducks. Seems that wildlife officers heard shooting in the woods near Pine Bluff and came upon a trail of duck carcasses with the breasts carved out. The trail led to the state official and another man, who ended up shouldering the blame. The official was suspended pending an investigation, but resigned before a hearing. When hunters disregard the legal limits, theyre cheating the legal hunters, as the judge in this case pointed out. As any school disciplinarian might add, lets hope theyve all learned their lesson by now. Arkansas Demcxaat ^azcttc TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11.1994 Wflliams, board member to host meeting on schools The Little Rock School District will hold a town hall meeting tonight with hosts Superintendent Henry Williams and Little Rock School Board member John Riggs. The 7 p.m. meeting, one in a series the district has scheduled, will be at Fulbright Elementary School, 300 Pleasant Valley Drive.Arkansas Democrat'  THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1994 LR School Board meets today at Ish The Little Rock School Board will hold its monthly agenda meeting at 5 p.m. today at the old Ish Elementary School building, 3003 S. Pulaski St. The district recently reopened the school to house pupils in pre-kindergarten through third grades who previously attended Chicot Elementary before it was damaged by arson Oct. 13. In addition to setting the agenda for its Nov. 17 meeting, the board will conduct a special meeting to fill an administrative vacancy in the districts data- processing department\ndiscuss a process for selling excess property\nreview the districts budgeting system\nand identify programs to be evaluated this year for their effectiveness.Arkansas Demcx^rat (gazette WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1995 A I iMi* MMz*nanr Inr LRSD decision-makers huddle to hone skills BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School Board members and the superintendent holed up in a hotel conference room most of Tuesday to stren^hen their working relationships and refine their system for making decisions. New Futures for Little Rock Youth sponsored the training for the board and Superintendent Henry Williams at the Little Rock Hilton Inn. Phillip Schlecty and Marty Vowels, educational consultants from Louisville, Ky,, led the training. New Futures is a collaboration of public and private agencies working in Little Rack to prevent teen-age pregnancy, youth violence and student failure in schools. The agency works closely with the Little Rock School District, Five of the seven Little Rock board members participated in the session. The others couldnt take part in most of the session because of illness or job responsibilities, Schlecty, president of the Center for Leadership in School Reform in Louisville, told school board members their roles should differ from those of other elected officials on governing boards. A school board members responsibility goes beyond representing a group of constituents and working for compromise. Schlecty said. Instead. a school board member should work for the common good of all students in a school district. That should include working with other board members to agree on what is important for students and educating constituents about those agreements and goals, Schlecty said. \"Its hard work. Its boring. It takes lots of conversation, he said of working for consensus. Its so much easier to just represent a constituency. and members Board Williams reviewed and discussed how they function and communicate with each other and the public. The session was held at least in part to prepare the board for coming sessions on the 1995-96 budget. Williams has said the district must cut as much as $8 million in expenses for next year.Arkansas Democrat j WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1995 Pulaski district grants teacher paid leave for LRSD board time BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer The Little Rock School Board j president, who teaches in the Pulaski County Special School District. was docked three days pay because she took time oiT to at-  tend board meetings. Classroom Teachers contract states that professional leave may be granted for a school-related or -sponsored activity directly related to professional improvement. Professional leave is granted to improve the instructional program of the district. The contract doesnt limit the But Tuesday night, the Pulaski County Special School Board number of professional days a granted Linda Pondexter paid teacher can use. professional leave. Board mem- Pondexter contended that the bers said Pondexters involve- district didnt apply the professional leave policy fairly. ment in both districts could contribute to solving the desegregation problems that encompass all three districts in the county. If anybody has the opportunity to bridge the gap between the two districts, we need to support them, board member Mildred Im not talking about abusing the leave. Its a day here, a day there, she said. Pondexter said she leaves extensive lesson plans for the days shes absent so her students dont lose important instructional time. My kids are proud of what I do, Pondexter said. Pondexter said she has lost several hundred dollars since she began serving on the Little Rock School Board in 1993. The three days pay the board refused to pay this year would have totaled about $600, Pondexter said. Pulaski County Special Superintendent Bobby Lester said- teachers have served in the past as North Little Rock School Board members but have never been granted professional leave. Instead, those teachers were al\u0026lt; lowed to take unpaid public service leave. I Tatum said. Pondexter, who teachers ninth-grade civics at Fuller Junior High, has asked for three separate days of paid professional leave since being elected board president last fall. The district denied her the pay, and the teachers union has compensated her. My first and foremost job is to educate the children of Pulaski County, Pondexter said. But it is important to extricate ourselves from the desegregation case with interdistrict cooperation. The Pulaski .Association ofArkansas I \u0026gt;ciiKx iat W (bnzclk 7UESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995 O.G. Jacovelli, 49, school board veteran, dies BY SANDRA COX OflfTxwrei-Gftzettfl Staff Wrtlef O.G. Jacovelli. a vocal sevenyear member of the Little Rock School Board who wasn't afraid to take unpopular stances, died early Monday morning of cancer. She was 49. \"She never worried about public opinion, said Linda Pondexter, Little Rock School Board president. \"But she worried about being right\" Jacovelli served on the board since her election in December 1987. She served as board president from September 1991 to January 1993 and as vice president from September 1990 to August 1991. \"We're all saddened, said Dr. Henry Williams, superintendent of Little Rock schools. \"It's an unfortunate and untimely death for a person that has worked so hard to do so much for so many. Oma Glynn Jacovelli was not afraid to make bold moves. For example, she spoke out in 1989 against the appointment of Buffalo. N.Y.. Superintendent Eugene Keville as a Little Rock school desegregation monitor. Angry because the school board voted against appealing U.S. District .Judge Henry Woods order rejecting a proposed desegregation settlement and empowering Keville as the monitor, she made a motion that Southwest Little Kock be de-an-nexed from the district. That motion failed. \"She was a spirited and courageous woman who was a real supporter of education and who, as a school board member, not only was well prepared, but had enormous influences on others. said Skip Kutherford, former Little Kock School Board member and president. Pondexter said it was at Ja-covelli's urging that she ran for board president. Andi Jacovelli was deeply dedicated to the district. Southwest Little Rock in particular, said her sister, Mary Beth Ross of Little Rock. \"This phone rang off the wall the whole time she was on the board until she became sick, Ross said in a telephone interview at her sisters house. \"Calls from parents, calls from teachers, calls from students. She would always call them back. ' Jacovelli was a founder of the McClellan Community School, located at McClellan High School, which serves as a community center and offers various 1 See JACOVELLI, Pago 3B O.G. Jacovelli --------- ------------- OMA GLYNN JACOVELLI, 49, ol Utile Rock, died March 13, 1995. She was a homemaker, a member ol the Little Rock School Board and a Baptist. Survivors Include her husband, Paul Jacovelli\nson, Jason Ross Jacovelli, ot Little Rock\nmother, Sarah Elizabeth Teas, Ft. Smith\ntwo brothers, John P. Teas, Jr. Tulsa, Oklahoma, James H. Teas, Little Rock\ntwo sisters, Dorothy McCartt, Ft. Smith, Mary Beth Ross, Little Rock. Memorial service will be 1 p.m., Wednesday, at the Roller-Drummond Funeral Home Southwest Chapel, with Rev. William Fields officiating. Memorials may be made Io Arkansas Cancer Research Center Tree ol Life, U.A.M.S. Jacovelli  Continued from Page 1B classes to Southwest Little Rock residents. She also took a siie-cial interest in band and music programs in the district. Last October, shortly before cancer began taking its toll on her, she visited Chicot Elementary, which was In her district, aRer it was gutted by fire. The visit was one of her last public appearances as board member. \"She was a woman of passion, conviction and tenacity, said Ann Brown, federal desegregation monitor. \"She fought hard for what she believed was right for children. We lost a very Applicants sought to fill vacant seat The Little Kock School Board will solicit applica-tion. s for the Zone 7 Southwest Little Kock seat lell vacant by Monday's death of O.G. .lacovelli. Snellen Vann, district spokesman, said district policy requires the board to appoint someone to finish a vacated term. Jacovcili'.s term ends in 1997. Vann said the board had not discussed any possible appointments. regular audience members at Little Rock School Board meetings aRer the announcement of the district's student assignment plan. In 1987, she became a candidate for the board In a three-way race for Zone 7, which resulted in a runoff that December with Douglas Hardin. Jacovelli won, with 81 percent of the votes. When re-elected last September, Jacovelli wa.s relieved. \"I take thi.s to mean that I am in touch with the public and I should keep on doing what I am doing. Jacovelli said the night of the election. great lady. .lacovelli wa.s born raised in Fayetteville. She was active in the Fayetteville High School band, playing the clarinet and eventually the saxophone. li, who was in the Navy. The two and had a son. Seventeen years ago, when her husband took a job willi AT\u0026amp;T, the familj moved to Pn-laski County, where her son wa.s a student in the Pulaski And she always dreamed of County Special School District, being a nurse, Ross said. Ja- She volunteered in the school coveili attended Sparks Nursing district, serving as a room moth- School in Fort Smith but never gradnated. In recent years, she had a part time job at the Kroger pharmac.v on Shackleford Koad in Little Kock. er and becoming active in the Parent Teacher.s Association. When her school was annexed to Little Kock's district, she became even more active in While in Fayetteville, she education affairs. .lacovelli, her met and married Paul Jacovel- husband and licr sister became Arkansas Democrat  FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1995 SWLR candidates sought to serve on school board The Little Rock School Information on the exact Board is seeking applications boundaries is available at the -   -  Pulaski County Election Com\nfrom Southwest Little Rock residents to fill a board vacancy for six months. Applications for the board seat are available at the school mission office or the Pulaski County Board of Education office, both at the county administration building at 201 S. districts administration build- Broadway. _ ing at 810 W. Markham St. School board members don t To aualifv for the seat, left va- receive salaries. qualify The person the remaining six cant by board member O.G. Ja- ' - - covellis death Monday, appli- board members select to fill the cants must be registered voters position will serve until the next school board election in in Pulaski County and live with- ---------- in the boundaries of Zone 7 of September. At that time, the ap- the school board election zones. The zone encompasses the pointee may choose to run for election to represent Zone 7 for the rest of the term, which ex- southwestern part of Little Rock, including most of the pires in September 1997. The deadline for applying area south of Base Line Road.  It also includes a section south for the board seat will be in ear- of Stagecoach Road and west of ly April, 15 days after a legal n^ Chicot Road, tice of the vacancy is published.Arkansas Democrat . SATURDAY, MARCH 18,1995 CoDWWht O UtB Rock Nwpaofj. Inc. O. G. Jacovelli You didnt have to agree with Oma Glynn Jacovelli to adniire her moxie, her dedication to Little Rocks public schools, and the way she always returned phone calls. Mrs. Jacovelli was the kind of citizen-legislator who explains why America works, or anyway why it used to. Her death at the age of 49 this week came as one more blow to a school district that doesnt need any more problems. Count among the mourners the community. It occurs to us at times like these that if every school district had more 0. G. Jacovellis, there would be a lot fewer problems for leaders like her to raise sand about In the end, the solution to the tangled web that all three of the school districts in Pulaski County have so artfully and so long spun around each other doesnt depend on courts or legislatures, but on citizens themselves. If we all just leave education to somebody else, instead of following Mrs. Jacovellis lead, those problems will never be resolved, certainly not the way they should be. Oma Glynn Jacovellis greatest legacy to public education remains her example.WEDNESDAY. MARCH 29,1995 4 seek to fill seat I I on school board opened in SWLR BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Four Southwest Little Rock residents have applied for the Little Rock School Board vacancy created by the March 13 death of O.G. Jacovelli. So far. the field includes two businessmen, a retired teacher and a community activist. The application deadline is Monday. The school board is advertising, for applicants to fill the position temporarily until the September 1995 school board election. Applicants must be registered voters who live within school board Election Zone 7. which encompasses much of Southwest Little Rock. The present six board members will choose a member from the pool of applicants. The appointment will expire in September when the next regular school board election is held. The appointed member is eligible to run for election then. The four applicants are Douglas Hardin, who ran unsuccessfully for a board position in 1987\nNola Nelms, who retired as a teacher from the Little Rock district three years ago\nDave Cooley, who owns his own lamination supply company\nand Paul Howell,.president of the .Arkansas Council of Vietnam Veterans of America. Hardin, 53, is the credit manager at Jungkind Photo-Graphic. He\nis a 1960 graduate of Central High School and a 1965 graduate of what is now the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He and hisjwife. Sharon, who works for the' Internal Revenue Service, have two children: a son who will grstduate this year from Central Hi^ and a daughter who will griluate this spring from Notre Dame University. Hardin ran for the Zone 7 board position in 1987 and came in second in a three-way race. He lostthe runoff election to Jacov- ellL I'ive always been interested in the school district and have tried to keep up with it, Hardin said Tuesday. He said he is interested in helping the district improve security, manage its budget and bring an end to court supervision of the district in the 12-year-old school desegregation lawsuit Nelms. 63, worked for the Little Rock district for 23 years at Carver, Romine and Stephens elementary schools before retiring. She has worked 40 years as a teacher after beginning her career in Texas. The mother of two adult daughters. Nelms has a bachelor's degree from the University of -Arkansas at Fayetteville and a masters degree from UALR. Much of her experience in Little Rock came in inner-city schools where the focus has been on raising the achievement levels of black children while enticing whites to voluntarily attend the schools to improve their racial balance. Ive seen a lot of changes in 23 years, Nelms said. Weve made some mistakes, but there are a lot of good things too. Like Hardin, she also said she wanted to help the district meet its desegregation obligations and end the lawsuit. Both Nelms and Hardin said they would be interested in running for election in September. Howell and Cooley could not be reached for comment about their candidacies Tuesday. Cooleys son-in-law said Cooley owns his own business in North Little Rock. Howell is best known for his work in the state on behalf of veterans of the Vietnam War. A former U.S. Marine, he is president of the Arkansas Council of Vietnam Veterans of America. He also is vice president of the Chicot Elementary School Parent-Teacher Association, which has worked hard over the past several months to convince the Little Rock School District to rebuild the school, which arson partially destroyed last October. He most recently sought an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Little Rock Board of Directors.Arkansas Democrat '^(Bazcttc TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995 3 more apply for LRSD board seat BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Three more people submitted applications by Mondays deadline to fill a Little Rock School Board vacancy, bringing the number of applicants for the boards Zone 7 position to seven. Zone 7 encompasses much of Southwest Little Rock. The vacancy was created by the March 13 death of Oma O.G. Jacovelli. The remaining six board members will appoint a person from the applicant pool to serve until the September school board election. The three latest candidates to submit applications are Tina Gatson, Claudius Johnson and Stephanie Johnson. Claudius Johnson, 44. is director of the Dunbar Recreation Center and a 20-year Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department employee. He and his wife Anita have two sons and three daughters who attend Booker Elementary, Magnet Arts Cloverdale Junior High, Henderson Junior High and Parkview High School. He graduated from Philander Smith College with a degree in physical education, and has done postgraduate studies at the University of Arkansas. Gatson. 36, is executive director of the George Washington Carver and College Station branches of the YMCA. She has two sons, who attend McClellan High School and Chicot Elementary School. She is past president of the Chicot Parent Teacher Association. Gatson is a graduate of Portland State University in Portland, Ore. She had a double major of psychology and elementary education. She moved to Little Rock in 1982. Stephanie Johnson, an employee at the Arkansas Department of Health, could not be reached Monday.Arkansas Democraf^Q^azcttc | FRIDAY, APRIL 14, 1995 Ol/ KlowcnarKrc Inz* LR School Board names Johnson to fill seat of late Jacovelli BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Education Writer The Little Rock School Board has chosen Stephanie Johnson, a one with tenacity, creativity, objectivity and commitment to service, My desire is to do whatever it takes to make me an effective board member, she said. In response to a question about her views on hiring private project director at the state Department of Health, to temporarily nil the Zone 7 vacancy creat- ----------- _ ed when O.G. Jacovelli died companies to operate the ais- March 13. tricts nonacademic departments. The board voted unanimously Johnson said she was a firm be- Thursday to se- i----- lect Johnson ! after publicly interviewing each of the six applicants for liever in promoting private business. But she also said she would have to know details about the cost of any contract, its feasibility and its impact on einployees, One area I would like to im- uie vacancy, C* prove is the image of the district *hen spending Johnson said, Obviously, there about an hour are a lot of negative images out in a closed ses- j u* there, and people have negative sron, l' 1 perceptions. ' Johnson will Johnson \"This district has so much to serve on the offer. Students who are on the board until the annual school right track truly know the strength of the district and its pro- the Kt election in September. She can run then for election from Zone 7, which encompasses much of Southwest Little Rock. The can- grams. Others interviewed included Tina Gatson, director of the didate elected in September will George Washington Carver YMCA\nserve until September 1997. Dave Cooley, owner of a lamina- Johnson, who has a psychology tion business\nClaudius Johnson, degree from the University of Ar- director of Dunbar Recreational kansas at Little Rock, administers Center\nPaul Howell, a communi- a health promotion project at the ty activist\nand Douglas Hardin, op- Health Department, The project is erations and credit manager for aimed at preventing school jungkind Photo-Graphic, dropouts, substance abuse and teen pregnancy through training in Like Johnson, several of the candidates had experience work- leadership and job skills, ing with youths. Others had finan- Johnsons primaiy duties in- ciai expertise. All but Stephanie elude developing curriculum for Johnson, who is single, have chil- training programs, budgeting, drgn, some of whom are adults, writing grants and monitoring the program. ' Tve been very involved with youth and children here in the city of the Little Rock. Johnson told the board. \"Quite frankly. Ive been on the other side of the fence, meaning that when I meet the children they've already been declared dysfunctional and may already be out of the school system, she sajd. :: -I thought this would be an excellent opportunity to have sorne input on how to keep children in school, to get their test scores up and to present a more positive image of the district.  She described herself as some-4B  FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1995 Teacher hearing halted as LR panel seeks legal opinion BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Board will ask the state attorney general for an opinion on whether each of 99 teachers objecting to salary cuts proposed for next! year is entitled to a separate hearing before the board. Board ponders bid to raise tax The boards decision Thursday \"t to seek the opinion cut lyight snort short a planned combined hear- ing for 48 of the 99 teachers. Representatives of the Classroom Teachers Association objected to the combined hearing, saying there were no legal provisions for such a proceeding and their members hadnt agreed to it. The Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act gives teachers the right to ask for a school board hearing upon being notified by a superintendent that changes in the terms and conditions of their contract will reduce their pay for the next school year. Late last month, the Little Rock district sent certified letters telling 2,500 teachers and administrators that Superintendent Henry Williams had recom- mended that the board cut the work year by two or three days next year, with salaries cut accordingly. Williams is also recommending against incremental pay increases for eligible teachers who traditionally get them for their additional year of experience. The school board has made no final decisions on the recom- mended contract changes. Board members are awaiting the outcome of contract negotiations between district administrators and the Classroom Teachers Association. Brady Gadberry, the districts director of labor relations, argued that the board could hold ar- combined public hearing for the 48 teachers Thursday because each cases circumstances a are identical and no privacy issues are involved. He also said that the contract with teachers and discrimination laws prohibit the board from treating one employee or group of employees differently than any other employee in the same situation. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School Board members remained undecided Thursday about whether to ask voters in September to approve a tax increase. At their agenda meeting, board members asked Superintendent Henry Williams for information on how much money each additional property tax mill would raise for the schools and how many mills would be necessary to keep the district solvent. Williams asked tlie board to think about whether a millage proposal would be feasible, how the money generated by a millage increase should be spent and how a millage campaign might be conducted. District officials are trying to make about $9 million in cuts and adjustments to balance next years budget. At this time last year, the board had to cut about $7 million in expenses to avoid an illegal deficit in the current year. Williams has said similar cuts might have to continue in subsequent years. The district, which last obtained a millage increase in 1990, has a 43.9-mill tax rate. It isn't among the 135 districts in the state that must seek a tax increase this year to avoid a 10 percent income tax surcharge on their patrons in 1996 as the result of a recent legislative act aimed at districts that dont meet minimum millage requirements for support of schools. The Little Rock district will get a small financial boost from the sale of property adjacent to Forest Heights Junior High School. The board Thursday approved the sale of the University Avenue property for $115,000 to the Mark V. Williamson Co. Inc., an insurance and bonds company. Frank Martin, CTA executive Bestir said she wanted an indi- I* Yidual hearing to get answers to naan t had time to consult with questions about whv the hoard its members about a group hearing and couldn't override an em- questions about why the board wont take actions, such as closing schools, that are more permanent solutions to the districts ployees legal right to a hearing. ov.uuuus lo They have a right to a hear- budget problems mg. and we believe it is a right teacher for 16 Bestir, a Iig ana we neiievci it is a right teacher for 18 years, said she to an individual hearing, he hasn't gotten a salary increase in Said. fwn vparc hpranco u 7\n, two years because she is ineligi- .liJh ** I incremental increase. Teacher Jennifer Farley said proposed budget cuts for next teachers didn't get notice of the liearing set for Thursday until . 1  ''' cosThe'ras mucii nev and benefits, ney for the CTA, said that while Once an employee requests a rontrlct''r,?dn'r ^ r ' *\"'\"K. the board is obligated to contract reduction notices, conduct it within five to 10 days teachers niight have iiidividiial unless both the board and the defenses that might cause their employee agree in writing to a contracts to be renewed without delay. Additional employees cnanges. could ask for hearings hetwopn as After the meeting, teacher Jo between now and May 30.I Arkansas Democrat ^(Bazcttc  WEDNESDAY, JULY 26,1995  OMalley chooses not to seek return to LRSD school board T. Kevin OMalley, a member of the Little Rock School Board since 1993, said Tuesday that he will not seek re-election in September to the Zone 2 position. OMalley cited family and job responsibilities as his reasons for not running for another term. A staff attorney for the Arkansas Board of Review, OMalley and his wife have two young sons. As of Tuesday, no one had filed as a candidate from Zone 2, which encompasses central Little Rock, including the Broadmoor and University Park neighborhoods near the campus of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Also, no candidates have filed for the Zones 4 and 7 positions on the board, but the incumbents, John A. Riggs IV and Stephanie Johnson, have announced that they intend to run. Zone 4 encompasses northwest Little Rock and Zone 7 covers Southwest Little Rock, including Otter Creek subdivision. The deadline for filing with the Pulaski County Election Commission as a candidate in the Sept. 19 school board elections is Aug. 4.Arkansas Democrat C^azett^ THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1995 Jty I I W I CoowWitC UB* Rock Nowkokoera. Inc. New board member says wifes job not nepotism emocrat-Gazstte staff 'The Little Rock School Boards newest member says a district policy against nepotism wont affect his family, although his wife is an instructional aide at Henderson Junior High School. The board has a policy against hiring anyone related to a member of the school board, the superintendent or senior-level administrators who report directly to the superintendent. The policy applies to spouses, siblings, grandparents, parents, children. aunts, uncles and even first cousins. Michael Daugherty said his wife, Sherry, has worked for the district for eight years and was a district employee before the nepotism policy was revised and adopted in 1994. He pointed out a policy clause that says the the policy will be applied prospectively and not affect the employment of anyone who was an employee when the policy adopted. was Daugherty said he conferred with several attorneys before entering the school board race. He produced an Aug. 25 letter from Mark Riable, a Little Rock lawyer, who said that after reviewing state laws and district policy he believed that Sherry Daughertys employment was not an issue Uiat would affect Daughertys candidacy. Daugherty was elected to the board 'Tuesday night in a runoff election against the Rev. Robert Willin^am. Daugherty replaces T. Kevin OMalley on the board.Arkansas Democrat ------- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7..1995 EDITORIALS r .1 Illi i\u0026gt; II III ii I II III. I H.iiiiimil HIIiHIHH lU li !iJi I MI J School games in Little Rock A wake-ufj call to tlie school board A patron of Little Rocks scliool districtn. Baker Kurris, wlio has three cliildren in the public schoolspretty well summed up the publics disgust with politics-as-usual on the local school board. We are out here trying to recruit parents to the schools, he said of parents like himself, while members of the school board are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Here the school district is facing bankniptcy as desegregation hinds from the state nin out\na big contract for janitorial services turns out to be legally dubious\nthe school district is still mired in the i web of the law, complete with the usual legal fees\nand yet the board cant find anything better to do tlian play games with its school superintendents contract. Henry Williams, the first superintendent in years who shows promise of hanging around for a good while, now has been denied the conventional third-year extension of his contractby a vote of 4-to-3. Its clear that the school district has problemsand potentialon a large scale. During the last school year, a total of 4,!58O students left the district or 18 percent of enrollment. Yet the school district doesnt conduct exit interviews, and so can't report the reasons families give for leaving little Rocks public schools. Amazing. And sad. After all these years, the district still doesnt conduct the most rudimentary survey to find out why its I losing students. Any private outfit . that kissed off its clientele this way\nwouldnt be in business very long. Its as though the school system still hasn't realized its in a service : business and needs to learn some things about marketing. Many par-\nenis understand tlie problem, which is why theyre organizing a group (Parents in Public Schools) that would let patrons address the board and the bureaucracy with a united voiceand also tell tlie rest of us about the good tilings tliat go on in Little Rocks schools. It should be no surprise by now tliat the school district must attract more students if its going to maintain standards. To quote one finding by a committee of citizens that is drawing up a strategy for the school district: The current trend of declining student enrollment must be reversed, since future State revenue will be based on the number of students in the District Any interested observer can make some good giesses about why the district is losing students, just from reading interviews in the paper. Families are worried about discipline in the schools. Parents dont see enough other parents getting involved. 'The public, especially now, needs to see the superintendent and school board working together to attack the districts problems. Instead, the patrons see the board vote 4-to-3 against extending Dr. Williams contract There is talk about sending him a message, and nimors about some members wanting to replace him, and other fun- andgames. Meanwhile, business piles up. serious No matter how many businesses relocate to Little Rock, or how much construction is approved at the polls, no city can prosper if its public schools dont With the danger signs mounting, and conscientious parents coming together to lobby for the schools, what is the school board doing? Fooling with the superintendents contract Anybody who wants to send Hank Williams a message needs to consider using the U.S. Mails or Southwestern Bell\nvotes at school board meetings should not be conftised with Western Union. Speaking of sending a message, somebody needs to tell this school board to wake up and get serious. Because education is serious business. Not just for students and their families but for the whole community. This is Little Rocks future the public schools are shaping Or misshaping i1 Arkansas Democrat j -------- FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 -------- 90 minutes per class up for study NLR board weighs changing schedule BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Education Writer North Little Rock High School students could have radically different schedules next fall if the school board approve.s a proposal to extend class periods to 90 minutes. Students at both the east and west campuses of the high school now have seven-period day.s with 50 minutes for each class. Under the new plan presented to the school board Thursday, they would have four extended class periods each day. Several board members applauded the proposal, but they did not take a vote. Administrators asked the board to consider Teachers say theyre working harder than ever before, but they would never go back, Chadwick said. ^ost administrators and teachers-at both schools are solidly behind the proposal. Several spoke enthusiastically about how working together on the research had dramatically boosted teacher morale. Some teachers are concerned about scheduling for foreign language classes and athletics, but Chadwick said everything can be worked out Were newcomers to this, but so many others have already waded through these waters and answered these questions. he said. Teachers said students are skeptical about having longer classes, but they may like having room for an extra elective. \"Students are stressed out. They have too much going on at once. said Bryan Duffie. a math teacher at the east campus who helped develop the plan. We think this can relieve some of their daily stress, and if we can alleviate some of that, it would help.\" Student stress could be re- lieved by having only four classes the plan at its January meeting so' instead of seven, some noted. they can put it into effect next fall. There are two possible schedOf the usual 50-minute period, only 27 minutes are considered quality instructional time be- ule plans for this block schedul- cause of interruptions, discipline ing concept. Students either See CLASSES, Page 3B would have the same four classes every day for a semester and then take four different classes at midyear, or they would take a total of eight classes at once, with four each day on alternating days for the entire year. Groups of teachers and administrators from each school spent ! the past two years researching similar programs at other high schools around thecountry.  Educators say the longer class- Classes  Continued from Page 2B and paperwork, said Anita es improve student discipline and j grades as well as teacher creativ- i ily. In the past six to eight years, : the concept has become the latest i thing in secondary education, es- ' Cameron, vice principal at the west campus. In addition to the additional class time, Cameron said, the new schedule would\n Allow teachers more time for planning and preparation because they would get a 90-minute prep period each day.  Provide enough time for teachers to present complete concepts.  Improve students comprehension by immersing them in the subject  Reduce the chaos and disciplinary problems associated with class changes by cutting them from six a day to three.  Foster innovations in teaching and allow more time for extra student participation, experimentation, lab work and guest presentations. pecially in other Southern states. ! In Arkansas, 12 to 15 schools have some version of block sched- I tditig while many others are I studying the idea, said Dana i tliadwick, director of North Little Rock secondary school administration. Chadwick said experts believe block scheduling will , .soon completely replace the tra- i (litional seven-period day.I [End spats FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 LR board 9 A- rr is advised Find solutions or face disaster, patrons say BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Prominent Little Rock School District patrons appealed to school board members Thursday night to quit their political in- lighting and, instead, seek solutions to desegregation and money problems that are threatening to bankrupt the citys education system. r*ir. / 4m*- 'M L4^\\ J ^. ^aZ-s-^ 1? Sj nf? SO .KS .. Mtjf t. -M* In an unusual demonstration of community interest in the health of the public schools, corporate chief executive officers, parents, former school board members, community activists and Gov. Jim Guy Tucker turned .r' 1 'S hi* out for the special meeting Tucker did not speak. Little Rock School District Superintendent Henry Williams We need to transcend the di- members listen Thursday night as visiveness, the bitterness the reversing the racism and the mistrust and de- enrollment their top priority. Shulls and seven vote our full attentionand resources to the essential task of Little Rock School District student to meet the challenges of the 21st centu- ly. Baker Kurrus, a father and lawyer, told the board. Arkansas Democral-Gazelta/DAVID GOTTSCHALK Other speakers expressed concern for the school district and appealed to administrators to resolve the districts financial and desegregation-related problems during a special meeting called in response to parents' petitions. The board called the special meeting in response to petitions from more than 500 district pa- irons. About 125 people attended the orderly session, during u/ninh AirU4- _______I______  which eight speakers  renewed their commitment to the district but also chastised the district J , spelled out what would happen if the system goes bankrupt. Several speakers also asked the board to extend Superintendent Henry Williams two-year contract so he will have the full three-year contract permitted by state law. The board voted 4-3 against the extension Oct. 31. Williams has said repeatedly in recent months that the district IS scheduled to lose $5 million in state desegregation funds next year. The loss of those funds coupled with loss of state aid due to a declining student rollment, means the district i en-  - -UlULtltl can- 'r\"Plemeiit all parts I desegregation 31an, Williams has said. The district has cut about $7 nillion in expenses in each of ---I------- **i cavil UI he past two years but will have 0 close some schools next year See LRSD, Page 16AArkansas Democrat (gazelle FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 LRSD . Continued from Page 1A to save money. .Rhett Tucker, the chairmanelect of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the father of two public school students, announced he will make state takeover. A 1995 statute allows the state to take over systems in distress. Such a takeover been achieved. But he warned that the aging plan is causing resegregation must be modified im- could result in the replacement of mediately. He urged the parties in the 13-year old court case to be the superintendent and staff, a new board election or the annexa- diplomatic, bold, unselfish and tion of the district to another more viable district. He asked district courageous. The five school board mem- ofiicials to make improvement hers at the meeting listened quiplans now before they are direct- etly to the presentation, which support of the public schools his ed to do so by the state. was interrupted six times by loud Surely local control is better applause, but made no comment top priority during his term. , Jhe well-being of the city and its people depend on the health of. the district. Tucker said, recalling a time a few years ago when a Fortune 500 company considered Little Rock as a site for its business. Three days of ap- than yet another external influ- ence, another cook in the kitchen, Argue said. at the conclusion of the session. Later, board member Katherine Mitchell said the unprece- Ben Smith, one of the founders dented meeting lifted her out of of the new Parents for Public Schools, told the board that he is aware of the districts attributes. the despair she often feels about the districts problems. It made me feel really good, pointments between company and city officials were planned. But. after corporate executives which are rarely publicized  she said. I didnt know that such as the scholarships students many people were knowledge- earn and learning programs. He able about the district and its reqd newspaper accounts of said his organization wants to problems. .scjiool district problems, they serve as the messenger to the But board member Michael canceled their appointments and public about the quality of the Daugherty said the group was lefl'town. .The next 18 months are criticalto the future of public educa- tidri in our city, Tucker said. We believe that the time is now schools. preaching to the choir Thursday Steve Shults, a Little Rock night. He said board members lawyer, asked the board to make it a No. 1 priority to stem the enare well aware of the problems. As for administrative stability, he rollment declines and then work said Williams creates that insta- for-bold new action. The business energetically to make prudent bility by looking for other jobs in community stands ready to do budget decisions. He said the board should focus what we can to be of assistance, he said. other cities. Other board members in atten- on what is best for students, not dance were John Riggs IV, presi- on the desires of any special in[ We can supply a lot of volun- in- dent Linda Pondexter and Pat eer help, and business and fi- terest group of parents, employ- Gee. Absent were Judy Magness ancial expertise and experience you will only ask John Steuri, cliairman and chief executive of- licer of Alltel Information Sys- ees or others. Further, it should and Sue Strickland. extend Williams contract, Shults said, citing Williams reputation as an effective leader who has tejns. told the board. made strides in managing the de- i We care and we want to help, segregation plan and budget bijt the bickering and the person- problems. We need Dr. Henry Williams aljattacks and the personal agen- das have got to stop, and everyone has got to work together to with all of his energy, creativeness, diligence and experience to help us resolve this mess were stthve these problems, he said. It is clear that there are highly in, Steuri said. Since JuneJ.982, diisruptive forces in this commu-  '   nijty who are profiting from this mpss and are hurting our schools arid the children whom we are weve had seven superintendents or acting superintendents in this school district. How do we expect parents to stay in our school district when we cannot even provide an environment where superintendents want to stay? Kurrus said: The more than desperately trying to educate. I am concerned that we will spend 1997 observing the 40th anniversary of the Central High Crisis of 1957 by experiencing yet 500 people who petitioned for another embarrassing, damaging this meeting have told you in a arid unnecessary public school very dramatic way that they care about this district, that they care about its students and that they party to that. care about the future of this com- :Rep. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock munity. He told the board that many of crlsis, Steuri said. And I don't think that any of us want to be a aftd the father of two public school students, warned the board the components of the districts th^t financial ruin could lead to a complex desegregation plan haveAricansas Democrat gazette FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1995  The choir is out of tune In response to Little Rock School Board member Michael Daughertys remark that me group was preaching to the choir at the 7 meeting, let me say to Daugherty that the choir is singing out of tune, and it is the congregation that must listen and the congregation that must suffer. What a pity that sitting in the congregation are our children M.W.SMYLY Little Rock2B  THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1996 Pulaski Arkansas Democrat ngr (gazette LRSD to halt televising special school board meetings oemocrawiazBite Edurata^iwter members conferred with and students ns nart nf  tcicH.  , __ n. I uTT superintendent over an  R^k School Di^ict dent where he threatened a news- 1. ., paper photographer. Sueilen Vann, the districts di- plans to stop televising the school boards special meetings and agenda meetings because of a lack of money. conferred with and students as part of a televi- nt production course at Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center, Vann said. inci- thou^t that broadcasting the dis- rector of communications, said this week that the district will I^e change generated a hand- continue to televise the regiiiar fill of complaints to the distnct board meetings held the fourth last week when a special school Thursday of each month. There is bo^ meetingthe first meeting no direct cost to the district for meetings because broadcast During that meeting, they are produced by a teacher The district has televised the regular monthly meetings for several years on Comcast Cable Television Channel 4. Almost a year ago, the district started broadcasting its special and agenda board meetings because board members were trying to cut the districts budget and tnougnt Up until now, broadcasts of the cussioM would be important to special meetings and agenda j . meetings were produced by said the special meeting Bruce Miles. Miles is a district broadcasts were not budgeted for teacher, but he has his own video school year. She took money production company from other p^ of her communi- He produced the meetings cations department bu^et to pay through a business arrangement for broadcaste dunng the first se- between the district and his com- mester. Tom^ts 5 p.m. agenda pany at about $50 an hour, Vann meeting will be televised, but it said. will be the last such broadcast, Vann said. agenda It's not practical to expect the teacher and his students to pro- I I duce all the meetings, Vann said. Many of the students have afterschool jobs and the special meetings are ftequently scheduled by the board with less than a days notice. Additionally, students have transportation problems getting to and from the meetings, which are held in the districts downtown administration building. The meetings often run late into the evening'\"A^sasPemocrat^i^^g^  MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5,1996  Uniforms and the fight against TASS ,  Michael Daugherty called the other day with an update on hijand now the presidentsidea to require that students in public schools wear uniforms. The still-new member of Little Rocks school board wants everybody to know that hes making good on his campaign pledge. He proudly reports that, as of February 1st uniforms were to be required for students in Little Rocks alternative schools. These are the kids most at risk to be^n with, he says. Its a big test case for getting (uniforms) districtwide. Will it work? Who knows? But if it means schools will be safer, lets give it a whirl Besides, some of us remember uniforms as a way to eliminate one more distraction when kids are on the lookout for any at all. When battling TASSTeenage Attention Span Syndrome-teachers need all the help they can get (A note to critics\nUniforms dont give the false impression that all students are the same, just that theyre all in the same boat) We cant wait to see how the new classroom attire works in the alters native schools. Congratulations, Mr. Daugherty, on accomplishing the extraordinary\nYou ve kept a campaign promise. Talk about brazen. ( i 1Arkansas Democrat W (gazette THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1996 New school board needed ' Seven superintendents in the Little Rock school system in the past nine years. It should be quite apparent to any and all thinking people that what is needed is a new school board, not a new superintendent ' That is a shameful record. DAVID W. HANSON - - Fairfield BayARKANSAS TIMES  APRIL 5. 1996  T1 le Insider In transit The question isnt if, but when and under what terms Henry Williaiiis will depart as Little Rock school superintendent. The Insider has learned that a lawyer for the School Board (or should we say a lawyer See page 3 796756 0 6 Coniiniied from page I dispatched for the Board by President Linda Pondexter) and a lawyer for Williams met for the first time Tuesday to hammer out details of a buyout. .Jerry Malone of the Friday firm and James Penick reponedly tu e handling the chores for the Board and Wil- liams.respectively. Williams$115.(XX) contract runs through the 1996-97 school year. What's next Will the Little Rock School Board (or Czarina Pondexter) be ready with a replacement superintendent to spring on an unsuspecting public when they spring the Williams settlement? No. look for appointment of an interim management committee to run the district until a replacement is chosen. Names mentioned as possible participants on such a committee\nAssociate Superintendent Vic Anderson\nMann Magnet Principal Marian Lacey, and ad man Skip Rutherford, who helped write the current desegregation plan while a member of the School Board. Power mad Add School Board Member Mike Daugherty to the list of of public officials who believe their position exempts them from rule.s of common courtesy. After Pulaski Heights Junior High Principal Mona Briggs wrote Daugherty to object to the School Boards decision to reject janitorial schedule changes meant to improve efficiency, Daugherty responded: You asked why I didnt ask for input from you prior to voting for the change. If the truth be known, I neither desire nor\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":"ndd_bsams_01015","title":"Box 1, Folder 15: Contact lists, 1991-1998","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":["1991/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Black Student Alliance Records, 1996-2006, Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American college students--North Carolina--Durham","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--History","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Political activity","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social conditions","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social life and customs","African Americans--North Carolina--History--Archival resources","African Americans--North Carolina--Political activity","Duke University. Black Student Alliance","Duke University--Students--Social conditions","Duke University--Students--Societies, etc.","Duke University--Students--Political activity","Student participation in administration"],"dcterms_title":["Box 1, Folder 15: Contact lists, 1991-1998"],"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/#bsams01015"],"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":["rosters"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69150709","title":"A broken trust : the Hawaiian homelands program : seventy years of failure of the federal and state governments to protect the civil rights of native Hawaiians","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Hawaii, 20.78785, -156.38612"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Hawaii Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Homestead law--Hawaii","Hawaiians--Land tenure","Public lands--Hawaii","Hawaiian Homes Commission"],"dcterms_title":["A broken trust : the Hawaiian homelands program : seventy years of failure of the federal and state governments to protect the civil rights of native Hawaiians"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12h313z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_69150709"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["84 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_287","title":"Care Program Staff manual and other documents","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":["1991/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School-age child care","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Care Program Staff manual and other documents"],"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/287"],"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*-M 1 CA\u0026gt; CARE Program Rockefeller School 700 E. 17 Little Rock, AR 72206 Child's Name Child's Doctor or Clinic - Doctor or ClinicAddress- Hospital Preference Phone ------------------ Describe medical conditions, physical or mental problems, etc. the CARE staff should know about your child: In case of emergency, I auorize the C ARE Program to arrange for medical/dental care and transportation to the hospital or doctor of my choice or the hospital nearest to the school. CARE cannot assume financial liability for injuries, student accident insurance is available through the school office. I have read and understand the Care Program Discipline Plan. I accept responsibility for paying tuition charges according to CARE policies and procedures. Date Signature of Parent or Guardianf y CARE Program F Little Rock School District The CARE Program is anon-profit, self-supporting program of child care provided for elementary-age students and parents of the Little Rock School District. The program operates before and after school and all day on most school holidays. The CARE Program provides a structured program of creative activities and recreation in a nurturing environment. Varied group and independent activities are planned according to the students' ages and interests. The goals of the CARE PROGRAM are:  to provide a safe environment for students before and after school  to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities  to help create a positive school attitude  to encourage acceptable social and play skills - to help each child develop a positive self image LOCATIONS A CARE Program is located in LRSD elementary schools where there are a minimum of 15 participants between the ages of 5 -12 years and at selected schools for 4 year olds. received in the CARE Office on or before the 15th of each month for the upcoming month. example: October payment is due September 15th ilications are available for reduced rates at Incentive Schools HOURS Each program operates from 7:00 A.M. until school opens and from the close of school until 5:30 P.M. (6:(X) P.M. at Incentive School\u0026lt;J (y\u0026gt;^^^nklin, Garland, Ish,Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens), requirements are based on family size and income. on regular school days. During most school lol 's, from 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. at specified schools. The CARE Program is also open at several accessible schools when LRSD schools are closed due to severe weather. When school is closed for any reason before the normal dismissal time, CARE begins operation at the earlier time. FOOD SERVICES CARE provides a nuiritous breakfast and snack prepared by the LRSD Food Services Department Registration Fee J Full-time (5 days @ wk.) Part-time (4 days @ wk.) Part time (3 days \u0026lt; wk.) Part time (2 days @ wk.) Part time (1 day @ week) 3 Day Drop-in @$4.50 @day Holiday (reservations required) \"Snow\" Day 6.00 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ month 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 14.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 @ day SUPERVISION The CARE Program is supervised by a certified leacher/supervisor. A ratio of one adult instructor to every 18 children is maintained at each site. COST Monthly payments for regular school days, not including holidays, are averaged over nine equal payments. These payments must be REGISTRATION To register, return the completed registration form to the CARE Program Office with the $6.00 registraticn fee and 1st month tuition. The program will be available at schools with a minimum of 15 children participating on a monthly basis. If CARE is not offered due to an insufficient number of participants at a school, fees will be refunded. For further information, please call the CARE Program Office at 324-2395. $ CARE PROGRAM REGISTRATION TO REGISTER for 1991-92, mail $6.00 registration fee, 1st month tuition and completed form (front and back) to: ATTENDANCE AND FEES (Check one): Full-time and part-time fees are due two weeks in advance. example: October payment is due September 15 CARE Program 700 E. 17th Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone: 324-2395  Full-time (5 days @ wk.)  Part-time (4 days @ wk.) . Part-time (3 days @ wk.) - Part-time (2 days @ wk.) - Part-time (1 day @ week) -3 Day Drop-in @ 4.50 @ day -Holiday (reservations required) -Snow\" Day $ 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ month 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 14.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 @ day Child's Name. Date Of Birth School Grade Date To Enter Care Mothers Name Fathers Name. Address- Zip Address Zip Phone (Home). (Woric) .Work Hours. Phone (Home) (Worit). .Work Hours_____ Emergency Information: Name, address and telq)hoDe numbers of persons to contact other than parent/guardian (2 required). Name. Address Plione (Home) (Work) Name Address Phone (Home) (Work) Persons Authorized to Pick Up Child: How/where did you first hear about the CARE Program? (check one) school friend/relative previously enrolled other COMPLETE AND SIGN OTHER SIDE OF FORM4 [Arkansas Democrat  SUNDAY, APRIL 18, 1999 { LR district tests waters on program The Little Rock School District will offer a before-school and afterschool care program at its eight new middle schools beginning next fall if there is sufficient parent interest District officials this week mailed notices asking parents of pupils in grades five through seven to preregister their children for the senice by Friday, A minimum of 15 full-time participants will be needed to open and operate the care program at each of the schools. To preregister, parents must complete a form and pay a $50 nonre- fundable deposit The district offers child care at its elementary schools but not at the ju- The care program fees include a $20 registration and charges ranging from $20 a month for one day of care a week to $100 a month for five days a week. nior highs for students in grades seven through nine. As part of plans to convert the junior highs into middle schools for sixth-, seventh- and eighthgraders, some parents had asked for an e.xpansion of the care program. The program is to provide creative and recreational time for students. The cai-e program fees include a S20 registration and charges ranging from J20 a month for one day of care a week to $100 a month for five days a week. The program hours will be 7 a JU. until the start of classes and from school dismissal until 6 p.m. More information or a preregistration form is available at the districts C.ARE progi'am office at 100 S. Arch Si or from the office at 324-2395. The schools planning to offer the program include Cloverdale. Dunbar. Forest Heights, Henderson, Mabel- vale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest schools\nall will be middle schools next year.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: To: From: Re: April 20, 1999 Junious Babbs, Brady Gadberry, Bonnie Lesley, Sadie Mitchell Ann Bro,wnlk(4^___^ Request ror Information Im sending this memo to all of you hoping that it will increase the odds that I can get a small but critical bit of information. Does anyone know for sure what hours Dunbar Middle School will operate next year' Heres an overview of my plight: As the parent of an elementary school child who will be a 7' grader at Dunbar Middle School next year, I recently received in the mail a brochure for the new CARE Program in the middle schools, including a pre-registration form (copy enclosed). The literature explains that CARE will be available from 7 a.m. until school startup and from school dismissal until 6 p.m.\" and invites me to send a non-refundable $50 deposit to secure a place for my child. Ive used CARE for my children since its inception almost 20 years ago, so Im very familiar with the program. I know that my familys need for CARE depends on the time that school starts in the morning and lets out in the afternoon. Moms got the morning covered, and if school is over late, like 3:50 p.m.. Dad can pick up child and we dont need CARE. But if schools over early, say 2:30 p.m., thats another story and we need CARE. What a simple criterion: to determine whether or not to sign up for CARE, all I have to know is what hours middle school classes will operate. But guess what: no one can tell me! Not only do the school startup and school dismissal hours not appear on the CARE brochure, my phone calls to several offices (including that of CARE, Student Registration, Dunbar, and an associate superintendent) uncovered no one who could tell me with certainty what hours the middle schools will operate. How can the district expect parents to plunk down a non-refundable $50 and sign up tor a program four months in advance without having such a basic piece of information? Not only is a non-refundable $50 deposit outrageous (its way out of line with the programs price history, it isnt clear if it covers or is in addition to the $20 pre-registration fee, and is it still non- refundable if the minimum 15 students dont sign up?), its just plain bad business to expect parents to make a hefty non-refundable down payment on a service they may or may not need depending on school hours that no one can disclose at the time parents are being asked to pre-register. Given these circumstances, it wont be surprising if CARE isnt overwhelmed with sign-ups for its maiden venture into the middle schools. But will any dearth of pre-registration indicate a lack of need or rather parents unwillingness to risk losing fifty bucks on a service that may prove to be unneeded depending on the elusive school hours?Paoe Two April 20, 1999 In asking for your help in learning what hours Dunbar Middle School will operate next year, Im also asking that you carefully examine the scope, quality, and consistency of the customer service processes that need to be in place to effectively support those who are most directly affected by the transition to middle schools, namely parents, students, and teachers. As a parent. Ive already had very unhappy, frustrating experiences trying to navigate the shoals of a decidedly customer-unfriendly course selection process for middle schools. Now Im exasperated by the unsolved mystery of the middle school hours. And Ill bet Im not the only one. Enc.TO\nFROM: fJECHVIED MAY 1339 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATiONMOfllTOfii^'G Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring T\"^Martha Rogers, CARE Program Supervisor DATE: April 26, 1999 RE: Middle School Hours Ann, I received a copy of your memo and I can understand your frustration. I apologize if our office was partly responsible. The response from the parent survey regarding CARE for middle schools, did not indicate a need for CARE. In order to try to pursue the concept. The Little Rock School District felt that we could better determine a need if parents were asked to make a commitment by requiring a non- refundable deposit. The intention was that if it was determined that there was a need, and a CARE site opened, the deposit would be used for the registration fee and pan of the tuition fee. If CARE did not open at a particular school, the money would be refunded. If a site opened and based on the number of students interested, the staff would be hired and supplies and equipment would be purchased, those parents who withdrew from those programs would not be refunded the deposit. We stated in the middle school brochure that CARE hours would be from 7:00 a.m. until the start of school and from school dismissal until 6:00. Again I apologize that I was unable to confirm the middle school hours for you. If 1 can be of help in the future, please dont hesitate to call me.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PUPIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Hay 3, 1999 TO: Ann Brown, Fed^al Honitor, ODH FROM: Jo Fvalyn Blstoity Director ot Pupil services SUBJECT: Follow-up: \"Reguest for information\" 1999 Junious forwarded to me a copy of your memo dated April 20, 1999, regarding guestions and concerns you have about opening and closing times for district middle schools for 1999-2000 and the CARE program deposit for middle school students. First, let me respond to your comments regarding the hours of CARE alluded to in the CARE Middle School registration information that was sent out. Since no information regarding a change in the opening and closing times for junior high/middle schools had been distributed from the District, we made the assumption that the hours would be the same or with only a slight modification. Consequently, we thought it would be safe to indicate that the CARE hours from \"7:00 a.m. until school start-up and from school dismissal until 6\n00 p.m. would PeJR. n capture any minor deviations from the current school schedule if changes in school opening and closing times were subsequently made. If we are to be The reason we made the decision to require a deposit for CARE at Middle Schools is because of our need to determine staffing requirements for 19992000 based on the number of students registered for CARE at specific school locations. _______________ ready to open CARE in new sites in August, staff will have to be recruited and trained, as well as furnishings and equipment purchases made before school starts. This deadline really forces us to have firm participation intentions, early on before this school year ends because of the front-end start-up expenses that would have to be obligated. The In our view, a deposit would indicate a firm intent on the part of parents to participate in the CARE program. The deposit would be credited toward the first months tuition, so it would not be lost. However, if we do not receive the minimum of twelve students to open a CARE site, the deposit would be refunded to the parent. The deposit would only be \"non refundable\" if the parent failed to fill his/her reserved slot. Conditions for a refundable or non refundable deposit were not addressed in the CARE registration information that was distributed. Me apologize tor any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused. Please feel free to call ae if we need to discuss further.STAFF MANUAL REVISED 1991-92 RECEIVED CARE PROGRAM STAFF MANUAL OCT 2 8 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Office of Desegregation Monitoring I . Introduction 1 II . III. A. B. Program Description Program Goals...... Personnel Policies A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I . J. K. L. M. N. 0. Employee Dual ifications..... Organizational Relationships Selection of Personnel...... Performance Responsibilities Staff Training and Support.. Licensing Requirements...... Conditions of Employment.... Terminations and Due Process Grievances................... Compensation.................. Hours of Work....... Fringe Benefits.............. Service Records.............. Change of Address........... Guidelines for Site Staff... Program Policies 1 1 .4 .4 .4 . 5 .6 .6 .6 .7 .9 .9 .9 10 10 10 10 13 A. B. C. D. E. F. 6. H. I . J . K. L. M. N. 0. Office Check-in...................... Payrol 1 Time Sheets........... Attendance............................. Tuition........................ Late Fees................................ Field Trips. ......................... Parent Sign-Out Sheets.............. Injuries and Accidents............... Medications............................ Inventory and Supply Requests....... Food Service Requirements............ Building Pass. . ........................ Confidentiality. ............. Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect.... Fire, Tornado, and Earthquake Drills 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 IV. Daily Site Procedures 19 A. B. C. D. Staff Arrival....... Check-In of Children Snack Time........... Active Play......... 20 20 21 22E. P . 6. H. Activity Time H ree P1ay . . . Sign Cut of Children........... Close Down and Staff Departure V. Discipline A. B. C. D. E. Philosophy of CARE Discipline Plan... Discipline Plan........................ Guidelines for Staff................... How to Communicate with CARE Children Handling Common Behavior Problems.... 26 27 29 29 29 VI . Programming with Children A. B. C. D. E. F. Activities....................................... Daily Schedule................................... Time Schedule for Regular School Days....... Time Schedule for Long Days/Holidays........ Activity Ideas...............................   Procedures for Inclement Weather Conditions. 34 34 35 36 36 371 CARE PROGRAM I . INTRODUCTION A. Program Description As a school-age child care service, the CARE Program B. provides an informal and unique environment for children of different, ages to live and learn together. maintains CARE structured environment to insure order and safety, yet provides children with opportunities to make choices and activities. become involved in both group and independent The program includes a wide range of social. recreational, and creative opportunities. Program Goals a The CARE Program staff strives to achieve the following goals: -to provide a safe environment for students before and after school, -to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities, -to help children feel good about themselves and develop positive attitudes toward school, growth in -to encourage relationships and social skills.! ! b ''r\u0026gt;'^0^ I : P HOITOUaORlk!! . I no J. J-q XI3 590 (nftipo'-i-i -A 'Ti/\nipo-i'H HflAO sr!?- .ejxvias ns T ta I: X ri 3HA3 jTismno'tx vnti biis . 3gfi J 9po3 3op.iri(j bi!\u0026gt;. !:\u0026gt; I x d r\u0026gt; 9jjw-1 ijijri 7 i \u0026amp;i'\nr'!c\u0026gt;+ni ri\u0026amp; isb3o STu^nx ot in as? b fife  3 \u0026amp; aA 3bxvoiq I znsiTn-io'i 4 S.iaiT! ul 2sxt xnjjJ loqqq I n jn .tnsbnsqsbnx bos quo-e n.tc-d . Xsxnoa to. gpctsTi abii'j fs S'- tl oj- s-spfi .J-ns-'isttib to I s b s 'i).''t ,-j \\i ' J- e i'4stbi.x.\u0026gt;l.:i nX bSVJOxri..\nssox vo'-iq smopsd s api st nifim J SV .,y-tstB'a b(ia esboi onx . esx 4 xri4jd-ioqqc svx\niTifc-irJ'... 'iq scl S3.f..i-1'^ si.\") fi a3.j bn\u0026amp; . : iKnaxJ\u0026amp;s-iqs^ S.(so8 l!iS-ip.~J-)S Q I* o Qnxwgllot Slid ovsxriq?:- ot .egviita tsda fnanpo-i*^' 3\u0026gt;1AO srlT :aXsop tana, slotsd adnsbuda 101 .tnsi'nno'^.xvn\"' sta.a sbxvoiq a:J - I siio.xdssT 39-1 bnfe S'\u0026lt; X j6S\"13 to Yd'3 iiav qo/svsb tans as'x Isamsrid xuods bopp isst H loorioxi staxw 6 isdtfe istirj od , .as'xd xvxdoe- .all .h-de Xsxpoa iaort.oa b36(/i{p.:J nai b I X d 3 q I sd od-. asbudxdda bns aq cd.anaxd-s X S'l svld xapq :ix dfwaip spa-dijoona od- . .iij.^.i.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i mil III II ..-iL_iL.LII.I.II. Jinn, III II |i I.iiiiiilll|^|^ . n.im 1 iiiimnriioiiMnGTjiOT I I4 II. PERSONNEL POLICIES A, Employee Qualification The following minimum qualifications are required of CARE Program site staff members: 1. High school diplofpa or GFiD and background of successful, practical experience in groups of children. working with Genuine 1 ove and respect for young children and strong motivation to work with them. Pleasant personality. 4. Minimum age of 13 years. 5. Understands the positive approach to discipline and student behavior management. Willing to learn the policies and procedures of the CARE Program and the Little Rock School District. 7. Desire to work within school philosophy. the framework of a specific 8. Willing to share any special talents and interests with the children. B. Organizational Relationships CARE staff members are employees of the Little Rock School District and: Work under the supervision of the Supervisor of the CARE Program. Work under the cooperating supervision of the building principal. C. Selection of Personnel 6. 1. 1. All applicants for CARE positions must complete and submit a written application form to the Supervisor who will review forms. interview qualified persons. and recommend applicants for employment. Three personal reference and information regarding the application previous employment are required on form. References and previous employment will be checked by telephone or written reference form.5 4 . 5. D. All employee information will be filed in a confidential permanent personnel record maintained in the LRSD Personnel Office. Applicants recommended for employment must be approved by the LRSD Board of Education. Each employee will receive a contract showing salary, contract length. and other pertinent information. Performance Responsibilities of Site Staff 1. Site staff are responsible for planning and implementation of the daily program. a. Plan and implement a weekly schedule of developmentally appropriate experiences for the school-age children attending CARE. 4. 5. b. c . Provide supervision and leadership in a positive manner to children engaged in CARE activities. Participate in activities with children, encouraging them to become increasingly responsible for their behavior and choice of activities. Follow procedures in safeguarding the health and safety of children at all times and in handling emergency situations. Organize and maintain all CARE equipment, and space\nsupplies, order additional material as needed. Communicate appropriate information to parents. teachers, principal, cafeteria manager. and supervisor/coordinator concerning the children and program. (Lead) Perform the administrative functions of the programs a. Complete the time sheet each day and mail to CARE office in time for preparation of payroll. b. Complete and mail all reports and forms to CARE Office when requested (bi-weekly payroll sheets, monthly student attendance, orders, etc.) supply inventory and Di tributer notices to parents as requested by CARE Office staff. d . Keep accurate records of each student's attendancee f . 9- in the roll book and mail the CARE Main tain business cl 6 copy of attendance Office at the end of each month. record of current addresses, phone numbers, numbers for each child. to home and and emergency telephone Provide cafeteria manager with information regarding number of children eating breakfast each day\nupdate afternoon snack count based on number of children attending. Follow instructions for drop-in procedures section D. average p. 14 E. Staff Training and Support CARE employees are required to attend 10 hours of in-service training yearly to increase skills and learn about creative and enrichment activities. The following staff support and training will be provided: 1. Orientation session before school begins each fal 1 . Periodic workshops and resource materials on developmentally appropriate experiences for school-age children. Frequent personal contact with CARE coordinator and supervisor. F . B. 4. Annual written evaluation of performance with continuous oversight and positive suggestions for improvement. Licensing Requirements 1. Annual skin test for tuberculosis is required by Arkansas day care licensing regulations. Ten hours of in-service training or outside workshop attendance regarding child care practices are required each year and will be documented in personnel records. Conditions of Employment 1. For the first year of continuous employment, persons shall be employed on a probationary basis and may be discharged at any time'they are not needed or when their work. unsatisfactory. IS After employees have worked for one year and been4 . 7 contracted for the second year, permanent emp1oyees \u0026gt; they shall become Job performance will be evaluated annually in writinig by the CARE Supervisor- A recommendation will be made for continued employment, dismissal , or reassignment of the employee. Employees will be assigned by the Supervisor to a specific CARE site on the basis of the number of full-time participants and the needs of the program. 5. Permanent employees may be discharged for inefficiency, repeated absence or late arrival on the job, for conduct unbecoming an employee of the LRSD, or other reasons believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the program. A. Permanent employees may be laid off due to a lack of work or financial circumstances of the program. An employee desiring to terminate employment should submit a written resignation at least two S. weeks in advance. Additional regulations regarding termination and due process for permanent employees can be found in the LRSD \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook\" available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources and school offices. H. Terminations and Due Process for Permanent Employees In order to maintain a good working environment, all employees are expected to conform to reasonable standards of performance and conduct. When an employee demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to maintain these standards, the supervisor will take necessary corrective action. This action is directed toward resolving personal and work-related problems which interfere with the employee's effectiveness. When all reasonable efforts to correct employee deficiencies are exhausted, it is necessary that this person be terminated. There are occasions when persons, because of the nature of their misconduct, recommended for immediate termination. must be suspended and 1. Following are examples of offenses for which an employee will be recommended for immediate termination. These offenses may include. but arenot 1imited to: cl n Lonvic tion, felony or m.i a t a t. r i a 1 court 8 level, of I s demeanor which is manifestly inconsistent with the safe and efficient operation of CARE. C. F i g fl t i. n g , threaten ing, bodily injury to an Bodily injury an or attempting to do employee or student. means physical pain, illness 9 or impairment of physical condition. Carrying weapons. A weapon is any object that could cause injury to another person and is not. required to be in the possession of the employee in the normal course of the job. d. Stealing or misappropriation of property of employees of the LRSD. e f . 9  Malicious mischief\nthe abuse, misuse, or deliberate destruction or damaging of property, tools, or employees of the LRSD. equipment of other Altering or tampering with time sheets, sign in/out rosters, or other reporting documents relative to attendance, promptness, departure. or Drinking alcoholic beverages on the job during working hours\nintroduction of, any alcoholic or the possession beverage or of , on or LRSD property at any time. This also includes reporting alcohol. to work while under the influence of h. Use of narcotics and/or the use, possession. or transmitting on school premises of drugs or substances capable of modifying mood and/or behavior. i . Insubordination, including refusal or failure to perform work assigned and/or refusal to obey orders of supervisors. k. Disorder1y, disruptive, school premises. The making of or or ma1ic ious or immoral conduct on publishing of false. vicious, tatements concerning employees j . of the LRSD. 1 . Falsification of personnel or other officialm, n. o. 9 school or insurance records, or making false statements when applying for employment. Falsifying or refusing to give testimony concerning incidents which are being investigated. Harboring a disease which, through carelessness, may endanger .the health of fellow workers. Failure to observe or purposefully disregarding school district or CARE Program policies or procedures. I , Grievances 1. Employees have the right to present grievance and shall be assured of freedom from restraint, interference, discrimination, and reprisal. Employees are encouraged to pursue an informal approach through their immediate supervisor to resolve a grievance. result in a satisfactory solution Should this approach not J the employee should then follow the Grievance Procedure as outlined in the \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources. J . Compensation 1. The CARE Program salary schedule is based on job responsibilities and years of experience. Each employee will receive a contract indicating a specific school assignment and salary level. Overtime work shall be avoided insofar as is possible, but may be required in the interest of efficient and safe operation. Overtime hours causing a LRSD employee to work more than' 40 hours in a regular work, week will be paid at the current overtime rate. K. Hours o'f Work Hours of worker shall be determined by the supervisor and shall be designed to facilitate the most efficient operation o'f the CARE Program on a self-supporting basis. Before-school assignments will be for 1 or 2 hours and after-school assignments will be for no more 3-1/4 hours depending upon the specific school site and program needs.L. Fringe Benefits 10 1 . Permanent CARE Program employees who are regularly employed in the LRSD for- 25 hours or more per week are eligible to receive LRSD employee benefits (health, life, dentcal , and disability insurance) . providing they have worked in the position for one year. Enrollment procedures and information concerning the various policies can in the \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources. M. Service Records A service record is maintained in the LRSD Office of Human Resources for every employee and contains all information pertinent to employment. N. Change of Address Any change of address or telephone number must be reported to the CARE and Human Resources Offices. O. Guidelines for Site Staff 1. BE ON TIME! If you are sick or an emergency arises, call the supervisor to arrange for a substitute. ARRIVING LATE FOR WORK, AND THEREBY LEAVING CHILDREN UNSUPERVISED, IS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. NEVER leave a child or a group of children unsupervised even for a brief time period. Always tell a co-worker if you must leave a group of children briefly. Make sure another person will be temporarily supervising your children. 4, Eat and drink only with the children. 5. Constant and effective supervision of the children is required. while supervising Sitting or standing in one location activities is not a safe or acceptable practice. must move around the area, To effectively supervise, you continuously scan the 6. group, by an adult. and make sure every child is being observed The school telephone may not be used for personal calls during CARE, It may be used only for emergency purposes related to the children or to contact the CARE Office.8. 9, 10. 11. 13. 14. 11 Always handle yourself in a professional manner when dealing with children, parents, and school staff. YOU are a representative of the LRSD! Use good language and correct. English in the presence of the children. Never use paddling. or physical punishment (spanking. sarcastic pinching, hitting, poking, etc.), verbal threats. remarks in CARE. Know what children are capable of at each age level. Hold them to a standard they are capable of achieving. Respect individual differences. Everything should have a special place in the CARE area. Help children learn to return each thing to its place. Care area must be kept clean. Show affection to all children alike\nwith respect. hurt feelings. treat them Never say anything that might cause Children need to experience success most of the time. Guide them appropriately\nplan for success! Dress appropriately for your job in clothes that look neat and clean. are safe for interacting with the children on the playground. and are comfortable in the heat or cold. Remember, all schools have rules for the appearance of their staff. If shorts are worn in very hot weather. the shorts must be \"long\" (no shorter than \" above the knee) and loose fitting.12 I1314 H  Office Cheek I n CARE Program staff members are arrival to check the CARE mail box for messages. required upon This lets the CARE B. C. D. E. teacher receive daily. reports and messages from the CARE office Payroll Time Sheets staff attendance will be mailed A time sheet for recording i.,._= of the time period and will be The lead staff person should record to each school in advane kept in the cabinet. the a.m./p.m. attendance of each person on a daily basis. do not include time Record only time actually worked\nmissed due to arriving late or leaving before the end of the CARE day. At the end of the payroll period, each the time sheet and verify the accuracy to arriving late or person should sign The amount of the payroll checks will of their hours. based on these hours records. Daily Attendance in be and the CARE Office substitute Roll Books\nAttendance records on each child are required for both a.m. and p.m. participation. Specific instructions for recording attendance are of the roll book. Tuition Fees\nlocated on the inside front cover the Parent Handbook are Monthly tuition charges listed in full on the 15th of the preceding month. due in The fee must be paid before the child may continue participation in the program on the 1st of the month. Please call the CARE Office (uncertain about whether a child shoulcT^e'^Tdwfed to continue attending. .1st program is supported completely by parent fees, fees must be paid in advance at the CARE Office. and long days are prepaid, parents purchase drop-in The and the Drop-in or Care teachers will long day cards in the CARE office. record all drop-ins according to instructions and will long day card to equal the value of that punch parent's day. Parents must sign a drop-in or long day attendance form Late Fees\nThe CARE Program concludes at 5 0 p.m. each day (6\n00 at Incentive Schools). the late charge for arriving after closing time late) and an is $ .50 for arriving by 5 5 (1-5 minutes additional $1.00 for each additional five minute period. This charge must be paid directly to the CARE teacher upon picking up the child. Since CAREF. B. H. I . employees and af ter work , school custodian CARE reserves the program when Field Trips\nparents are According to LRSD policy. is required away 15 have other obligations the right to remove a child from late over three times. a signed parent permission form for each child for any trip, from the school. When a field trip copies of this permission form should be the CARE Office and completed in advance Parents should be notified in writing of by foot or car, is planned, requested from b'y the parents, the destination of the field trip and the time of departure and return. In addition, the school secretary and the CARE Office should be advised of your plans. LRSD buses are usually unavailable in the afternoon for CARE Program field trips. possibility of transportation. If you should wish to check the complete the field trip form and mail it to the CARE Office at least three weeks in advance of the field trip date. Parent Sign-Out Sheets\nOn regular school days children come directly from their class to the CARE area. Each parent should be asked to sign his/her name on the computerized Sign-Out Sheet upon picking up a child. It is important to make sure that each child is dismissed only to the parent, specified on the registration card, permission from the parent. On holidays or Teacher Workdays, both sign person or person with written parents are expected to in and out, providing the CARE staff with an emergency telephone number for the day. Inj uries and Accidents\nRecord the occurrence of bumps. received by children in CARE in sc rapes, and scratches the spiral bound injury log. This is to provide information about the injury and its treatment should it be needed at a the instructions on Report more serious later date. Fol low the inside cover of the injury log. injuries to the Supervisor and send her a completed accident form, CARE staff. signed by both parent and Medications CARE staff are to follow the procedures of LRSD Health Services Department regarding medication to be given to chiIdren. On regular school days medicine is given only by the school nurse or principal.16 J . K. L. On long days in CARE, CAKE staff may (jive medicine provided the parent brinijs with directions Keep the in a n d medic\nine in locked cabinet. it in the prescription bottle completes a written permission form, the school office or on a high shelf Inventory and Supply Requests\nAn annual inventory should be completed for each CARE site in the spring. This will indicate which materials need to be replenished before the beginning of school To request supplies or proj ec t, call or send a request in August. items needed for a specific craft Food Service Requirements\nBreakfast\nby our children. CARE is charged for You are asked for the Cafeteria Manager, to the CARE Office. every breakfast consumed to fill out a daily form children eating breakfast that day. indicating the number of Please be accurate, since we will be billed for these breakfasts. Sn ac k\nafternoon The Cafeteria Manager will prepare and leave the nack for CARE based on the number of children and staff regularly attending. Please monitor the leftover snacks carefully and reduce the snack, count when your enrollment or attendance declines. expenses within the budgeted amount, To keep food we have to monitor our snack costs closely and not waste money. Leftover Food\nIf there is extra food, you may divide it among children wanting a second serving. Put remaining food in trash can and return uncut fresh fruit on tray to the kitchen. Do not take left, over food home. The Cafeteria Manager will use several forms each day to exchange information with you. Fill them in daily and leave them on the tray. Use the comments section to adjust the snack number and communicate concerns. Food Not Left\nIf you are unable to find the afternoon snack, call the cafeteria manager at home to see if the snack was prepared. If find it or come to school to locate it, emergency peanut butter and crackers. he is unable to tell you where to you may serve your Let the CARE Office know to send you more emergency food the next day. Buildinq Pass\nA child requesting permission to return to the building to use the restroom must take a CARE \"building pass\". This pass must be returned to the same adult. ' Observe closely the length of time the child is in the building. If the child is away from the playground or CARE area for more than 3 or 4 minutes. an adult needs to check on the child.17 M. Confidentiality\nAlways maintain confidentiality about information related to CARE children. Do not discuss a child or provide written information about him to persons other than his parents or per ons needing the specific information to care for the child. Do not discuss or .give information about a child to the parents of another child. This also includes late charge forms. emergency cards, roll book, and communications from parents or our office. Any requests from other than CARE or school office staff should be referred to the Supervisor. N. Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect: 0. A CARE employee who suspects a child's physical or mental health and/or welfare may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect., shall report these concerns to the school principal. The principal will then contact SCAN. staff is unable to report to the school principal, If CARE she should contact the CARE Supervisor who will contact the appropriate authorities for an investigation. Fire Dri11, Tornado Drill, and Earthquake Drill\nFIRE DRILLS MUST BE HELD MONTHLY! 1. Assign a student to be line leader, if necessary. Announce fire drill in a loud, clear voice. Have the children walk quickly and quietly in a single file to the designated area on the playground. If possible, one adult should be at the front of the line and one at the back. 4. The last adult in line should make sure that all children are out of the building, including restrooms. 5. Take the roll book with you. and check, to make sure every child is out of the building. 6. After accounting for every child, return to the building in an orderly and controlled manner. 7 . Practice and discuss this procedure with your children every month and on all long days in CARE. TORNADO DRILL: Practice monthly Follow steps in fire drill procedure, except go to area in the building specified by the principal. Children shouldface the wall, h?ads to protec t Do riot pract.ice kneel, and place drills on the procedures .18 the.ir arms over the.ir from falling debris. Avoid window areas. fire drill, same day because in the event of tornado drill, and earthquake chiIdren may be confused on a rea 1 emergency. EARTHQUAKE DRILL\nPractice Monthly Be prepared to anticipate and avoid dangers, the following procedures. Prac tice INSIDE\n1. Move away from windows. heavy objects that can fall. brick wal1, shelves and Take cover under table, desk or counter. cover head with elbows clasp hands firmly behind neck. If notebooks or jackets are handy hold over head for added protection from flying debris and glass. Evacuate area as soon as possible away from the building as far as possible and away from power 1ines. OUTSIDE\n1. On playground, move to an open space, away from buildings and overhead power lines. Lie down or crouch close to the ground. looking around for danger movement. that may demand Keep) Remain down until shaking stops! Emergency drill procedures MUST be conducted according to the following schedule. 1. FIRE DRILL First Monday of each month. TORNADO DRILL Second Monday of each month. EARTHQUAKE DRILL Third Monday of each month.19H . TAFF arrival 1. Arrival T imes s_ All CARE Program substitute hould arrive in 20 staff members the CARE area c\\n d 15 minutes before school dismissal. Office Check-In\nCARE mail box in The lead staff member should check the school office to pick up the the mail and for the day (may messages about absences or bookkeeping include supplies or messages procedures). Before the children arrive, Site Check and Set-U\u0026amp;j- staff should complete the following steps: the a. Set up all administrative supplies for book, sign-out form, parent handouts). the day (roll Be organized! b. Set up snack and activity supplies for the day. c . Conduct a d . NOTE\nI B. I I I I to be utilized brief site check of the area cafeteria or gym). by CARE (restrooms, playground. Prepare for the arrival of the children. CARE staff should not disturb any on-going classes. All staff are school personnel or reminded that traffic congestion urrounds every school at dismissal time. inside the CARE area Staff should arrange to arrive time. Strictly follow all regulations regarding patrol guards, and parking Strictly follow traffic flow. areas. on CHECK-IN OF CHILDREN 1. Arrival of Children\nAll children should report to the dismissal from their classroom. CARE area immediately upon During the first week, of school, CARE staff should use list and meet the kindergarten children door. In larger programs, kindergartners met in their wing o* hiiilriino all vear by a CARE staff member. the first week, of school. at their classroom In larger programs. f the building all year by a . Storage of Children's Belgnginas a. b. c . are Each child's personal belongings designated place bookbag or backpack in stool, cubby. locker, a bin ) . Staff should assist children in belongings. After children's belongings should not should be stored in a (cafeteria storing their are stored. the children return to the storage area Without staff approval and supervision.21 C. Roll Call a. b. c. d. e. f . All children must tae seated during roll call. Roll call must be conducted by the CARE staff, usually the lead staff member. Every child must be accounted for within the first 15 minutes after school dismissal (present in CARE, from school today, dismissed early, etc . ) absent When a child does not arrive in CARE as scheduled and cannot be accounted for at the school, the following steps should be taken: 1. 4. Check, with school secretary and teacher to see if the child was absent or dismissed early. Call to inform parent of child's absence in CARE and ask for information concerning the child. Notify the school principal and search the school and school grounds for the missing child. Discontinue the search and inform the parent. principal, located. and CARE Office that the child cannot be When a child not enrolled in CARE arrive on the site, follow these steps: 1. Call the CARE Office for any information. If the child has not been enrolled in CARE, return the child to the school office immediately. Following roll call, daily announcements should be made regarding activities for the day, and rules/procedures that need review. special events. SNACK time The afternoon snack will be left by the cafeteria staff. usually in the refrigerator in or near the kitchen. Fol low these steps for serving snack\n1 . Children should be taken to wash their hands. Upon returning, children should be seated during the serving and eating of snack. All staff should wash their hands before serving snack and use the rubber glove provided on tray.Snack cause should be served the in an efficient manner that does not 1 4 . D. E. F. children to wi^it for a long pt- methods are ef fective s children arrive, use \"iod  Sever 1 put snacks sn ac k. he 1 per s out on to pass table before snack out, or have children walk in table. All children a 1 ine to pick u p snack from cart or should remain seated until snack is finished CARE staff should supervise the clean-up after snacks, helping the children as needed. a. b. c . d . ' NOTE\n6. Have children dispose of uneaten food and paper. Examine paper the floor and clean any spills with broom or towe1s. Wipe tables. Return tray to kitchen. for small group Snack, time is a quiet time should never participate in conversations. Children or move physical activities around the room while eating. ACTIVE PLAY TIME is required every day... Outside play\nraining, below freezing or it is Unless the temperature is should be outside each afternoon for such as the children active play. Four Square, Include both free play and group games. kickbal1, basketba11, etc . Active Play for Bad Weather\nUse the \"Indoor/Outdoor Game Book\" inside in bad weather. for active games to play Use the You may also include group exercising, War Ball, and beachball volleyball. on paper plates to music. \"iceskating\" ... Be creative and in control. include a daily be creative, and be varied. Avoid limiting the activity to crayons or markers and paper day after day. ACTIVITY TIME should be planned in advance, opportunity to be creative, and be varied. or Use aciivi c y LU L.I oy -------------   ' x and weekly and seasonal themes, pecxal_xn-cabinet children, and ideas from your art. resource book, in FREE PLAY should be included in the daily schedule for a specific time. Children should be closely supervised and provided with adequate and varied game Children s/toys/art materials. SIGNOUT 1. Each child must be signed out by a parent/guardian or person listed on tudent registration form or person authorized in writing by parent. to you to show their It is good to require a person not. known driver's 1icense. If an unauthorized person comes to pick, up a child, dismiss the child to them unless you can contact a do not parent to4. H. get verbal permission, identity. Check the driver's license to verify Children authorized by a parent, to leave CARE and walk home or go to a class should have written permission days/time and sign themselves out. Distribute indicating communications from the CARE Office to parents as These communications should be kept they sign out, confidential and may include memos and financial statements. NOTE\nA child may never be checked out by an unauthorized person or allowed to leave on his own without permission from parent. CLOSE DONN AND STAFF DEPARTURE 1. Site Close Downs following steps should be followed: During the last 15 minutes of the day, the a. Return all equipment and supplies neatly to the cabinet. b. Make a final check of areas used by CARE to be sure materials are secured in cabinet, toilets have been flushed. area is clean, and Staff Departure Time a . One staff (Tiember must remain until last child has been picked up, even if parent arrives after closing time. Parent may be charged late fee for arriving past closing b. time. other staff time. hoLild work until their assigned closing c Staff will be paid for working assigned hours. If staff members leave early on any day, they will be paid only for time actually worked. iiM2425V nfSCIPLINE A. Phi 1 ospphv of sc ipline Plan The discipline policy of the CARt rrogram is based on th_ belief that each child is for his own Discipline in CARE should focus teaching, positive reinforcement, rather than punishment, are taught the standards of behavior expected in for misbehavior. of the CARE Program responsible behavior. in CARE on learning, and reinforcement, taught the standards Children CARE and the consequences to handle stressful or They are encouraged to find an acceptable way and to learn from mistakes. difficult situations activity is used to give the child time Time out from group to calm down. reflect on his behavior, consider the consequences, and evaluate alternatives. CARE staff are expected to request parents help with behavior problems that cannot be solved by time out. the right to suspend a We also reserve the right to suspeiiu . child from CARE for a designated amount of time, or to expel a child from the program for an indefinite period of time. or an if all positive i 1 UI U y I CT n I I -u-r. ------- . efforts are made and the child cannot conform required behavior. to the and hitting) of any .child_is Corporal punishment (spankinq never allowed in the CARE Proqram under any------- Threatening, hitting, or spanking a child are immediate suspension and recommendation for termination of employment in the LRSD. Only the means of discipline Ixste ^the CARE discipline plan (time out, behavior documents) permitted in controlling student behavior in CARE. If have followed this plan and a child's behavior continues allowed in circumstances. or and recommendation the LRSD. in the CARE discipline pian (time out, are CARE, you have followed this plan and a child's behavior to be disruptive, you need to request assistance.  ' to redirection t_ children will respond positively activity, discussion of the problem behavior, generous praise for efforts to improve. discussion praise for The aim of discipline is The aim of punishment is NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE! to another time out, and to help children build good habits, to break the child of a bad habit.Il B. Discipline Plan for CARE Program Behavior rules for students! 1. Follow directions of CARE teachers. No cursing, teasing, or 4. 5, 6. Show respect to others\nof all students. Return all materials to Keep hands, threatening. respect the rights and property their proper place. feet and objects to self. Leave assigned area with permission only. Positive consequences may include\nVerbal praise and immediate feedback Positive comments to parents Sood citizen display or individual recognition Ribbons, treats Special group activities, proj ec ts, rewards Negative consequences for breaking the CARE rules\nLevel 1\nFor the first infraction an individual conference between student and staff will be held to discuss the child's behavior, from group activities. Child may receive time out Level Behavioral document or note to parent to be signed and returned. Child will lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 1-2 days. Level Second behavioral document to parent. Conference between student, parent, and staff required to discuss behavior. Child will lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 3-5 days. Level 4\nShort term suspension of 35 days from CARE, refund of money paid for these days. No Level 5\nExpulsion from CARE Program, paid for remainder of month. No refund of money Severe Clause\nendangers the safety of others, suspended from the CARE Program, between parent and staff. If a student is severely disruptive or he/she will be immediately pending a conference Note\nCorporal punishment (paddling) will not be used in disciplining children in the CARE Program.28 C. (3 u i d alines f o r S t a f f .1 . Consistency of discipline is more important than severity. 2. Any penalty imposed should be the natural outcome of the For example^ if a child gets out of hand while misbehavior, I ----, playing Connect Four, he should be removed from the game to area and allowed back when ready to behave he s another appropriately. Correction misbehavior should be made as close to the time of the as possible and with the child s full understanding of why it. is imposed. 4. State expectations for child's behavior in positive terms, what the child can't do breeds rebellion. Emphasis on resentment, and feelings of frustration. as \"no\", \"don't do that\", etc., emphasizes the negative and rather than what Using words such 6, 7. 8. \"no\" , \"don't do that\", teaches the child what should not be done, he should do. Good discipline allows the child to feel that his side of the case has been heard, that his point of view is understood. administering Good discipline also requires that the person it understand what caused the misbehavior and remove the causes if possible. People are always more cooperative if they feel liked. When a child is frustrated, help him accepted and relaxed, understand his feelings and find appropriate ways PUNISHMENT JUST ADDS TO THE CHILD'S with these feelings. FRUSTRATION. to deal Correction of a child should never be made out of a feeling of anger or on a personal basi evident when we say help with snack. Punitive feelings are she doesn't deserve to play a game. etc. \" or \"if he does this to me, then I will do that to her. around.\" for She can't get away with that while I'm Likewise, good behavior should never be bargained Praise for - \"I'll give you a present if you are good.\" than punishment or good behavior is much stronger motivation bribes. Time out from group activities allows the child to consider his unacceptable behavior and how he could have better handled the situation to stay within Total isolation is not necessary or appropriate. Time out should be limited to three to five minutes for less serious the CARE rules. more than five to ten minutes for more offenses and no -- _ offenses (actions that might cause harm to another serious person).29 D. How to Communicate with CARE Children CARE staff should realize the importance of communication in relation to guidance. The fallowing suggestions will be helpful as you work with the children and try to guide them toward acceptable behavior. 1. RECOGNIZE THAT GOOD COMMUNICATION IS.THE KEY TO GETTING COOPERATION. A conscious effort must be made to learn to communicate effectively with children. ACCEPT THE CHILD'S NEED TO CONTROL YET EXPRESS HIS ANGER, natural. One must help children learn that anger is It i feelings in outward. healthy and wise to express these acceptable ways instead of keeping them pent up. being destructive, or hurting others. LEARN TO LISTEN WITHOUT PRECONCEIVED OPINIONS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID. Hear the children out completely. Listen to them from their points of view in order to avoid short-circuiting the lines of communication. 4. STAY TUNED IN WITH THE RIGHT TONE OF VOICE. Sarcasm, preaching, and unpleasant tones of voice turn off communication. LEARN TO SPEAK TO THE CHILD'S FEELING, NOT TO THE WORDS. Strive always to decode the underlying message. He 1 p the child find his own answers by asking questions in return. 6. KEEP PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION CONFIDENTIAL. Do not 7. E. laugh at or belittle the child. Do not discuss the child's concerns with others. LEARN FROM MISTAKES. ALL OVER AGAIN. LEARN TO LAUGH, LOVE, AND BEGIN Handling Common Behavior Problems\nChild is angry Causes: Being told \"no\", \"stop\", or \"don't too often. Prevented from doing something he wanted to do. Demands beyond child's achievement level. Do Not: Become angry yourself. Do: Use time out to calm the child. Try to reason or talk with him after he is calm.0 Ch_i l_d_ Causes\nTreated unfairly or another child. New baby in family. Peer Pressure. Lin f a i r comparison made to Do Not\nShame him. Do: Try to help child improve his self-image. Help him express his feelings. Chi Id demands attention Causes: Is bored. Feels left out, insecure. Do Not\nRidicule or shame. Ignore or isolate. Scold or punish. Do: Try to help child improve his self-image. Help him express his feelings. I I Child uses bad language Causes\nTrying to get attention. Imitating others. Letting off steam I I 1 Do Not: Do\nBet exited or Make an show shock or embarrassment. issue of it. Calmly tell child to stop. Suggest substitutes for the word. healthy outlet for his feelings. Offer Child is destructive Causes: Feels jealous, bored. Wants attention. Desires excitement. Do Not: Tell him he is bad or preach at him. Sco1d, yel1, or shout. Punish, spank, or hit him. Do: Provide an adequate space for wear and tear on equipment. play and expect some Substitute something else destroyed. Provide things to pound. for cut., what is being and tear.Child won't share Causes: Do Not: Do: 31 Needs experience in owning and sharing. Snatch things away from him. Scold him or tell him you do not like him. Be fair in settling children's arguments over things. As much as possible let children settle their own arguments. Child hurts other children Causes\nIs troubled or angry about something. Do Not\nPunish or hurt him. Make him feel Act angry. II bad\" . Insist that child apologize. Do: Quietly separate the children. Divert his attention and take away the hurting object, calmly and firmly. Teach him there are some things we do not do. Help child to feel good about himself. Ask that he try to be more tolerant in the future. Child does not tell the truth Causes: Fear of punishment. Likes to exaggerate, Is seeking attention. imitate. Do Not\nPunish or shame or reject. Make him apologize. Do\nProvide him with opportunities for enriching his imagination. Help him discover the difference between fact and fantasy. Tell him the truth. Give positive strokes when he tells the truth under stress.'I l ! I I I J'\u0026lt;4 VI . PROGRAMMING WITH CHILDREN A. Ac tivities The CARE Program much more than babysitting. 11 is a B. school-age child care program of activities that are: '* Planned! Every day has a written plan. * Exciting and fun. * Varied, not the same thing day after day. * Developmental - ones that challenge children to grow, ones learn and try new things. where staff can interact * Done in a small group with children. not just supervise. To help you plan the program for your CARE site, the CARE ideas for activities supervisor and coordinator will provide and games on a monthly. addition, resources in your this section of the staff manual. CARE cabinet include In addition. resources the Indoor/Outdoor Games Book, LRSD Recreation manual and the Art Book. theme for a Activities can be organized around a specific (Me, Friends, Fall, Thanksgiving, Space, etc.) OR around a special event (September week or a month, Insects, Birds, Thanksgiving, birthdays. Circus Day, Have fun! etc.). Keep spicing up the program! staff meeting should be held to plan the Every week a --- activities for the next week, and supplies must be ordered Remember to have alternate plans for bad in advance. weather days when outdoor play is not possible. Daily Schedule The CARE day is planned around the following times\nSnack Time\nWhat's after-school play without a snack? Outdoor Time\nActive game and free play to use lots of Indoor Time\nClean-Up Time\nphysical energy. Large group. activities card games. games, This small group, and independent including art, construction housekeeping, is a time table games, materia1s, active d rama, homework, etc . to create 3 learn a new sk ill, and just have fun. Time to mess, play game put away materials, clean up with a *5! mall group, any and have contact with individual parents as they arrive.\u0026gt;? C. J i b' 35 rIME SCHEDULE FOR REGULAR SCHOOL DAYS (f z L. C| I..' \\ 'll , J I i i -I , I !'  J.i rk.'s ! j' I- \\ I .. bJ 9 .-J-bH tfJ V I , ':3.i Slum , snifi,-ib 3S i-.. q.'J fifislb 3sx:f-.ivjr.j bs yti 1 q  \u0026lt;3S'if fa rife .'.I (i-j I. .l-'jj iJ-'lJifiC-J '/ \u0026gt;5 ( 1 rl.'-inul ?t\nJ i JbO , :11OO 'I ' bi'.iiT J 9 ) ).)\u0026lt; \"q .:\u0026lt; Ef i up yj f. vi V '1 9 n.) \"t fc I 1 7 fl 1.H ' . s v ri '(O I- i I f-\"Orl .-t 1.1  10 11 'I ul.i LisJ uO -i^Oi.id V'lod ) esii iv j J uA \u0026gt;S ( . b.i'a ,. \"uds + cjS SQiTiiO' quo-iU .1 i e-inS toH\" H b 'Ub'fi 3d+. no Cl u i e i m\ni b b.iif qu nsbIC 'y t bd Ifi X ,i esd.unim LJ' sidd 3 n f. p'iid c.i , fa J\nlaris. Id fed S 3f-!d tu .d.., Vb.i-fl 1 3(d li.(j.ir. . (13 1.f X r!3 X 1'aqij : pn.t I. .3Ufe J 3V ZIAHHU fed X V X .d fl fe ,E3MAa nx loxi.d Xxidqferl .c- d'.i.iuf:\u0026gt; arid noi. fz: -t dag Ct J fa if* r I rife J C-I f\n-i 3au3M0ii! Qd gdfiboi ud x.n.rpi * I.) i s\n.n.( Ci.d 3 I (life vrj'n\n\u0026gt;\"i\ni  O.rP-. \u0026lt;1-: 3rM *7? ID. TIME SCHEDULE OR I ONG DAY /'HOL .[DAY 5N0w DAY NOTE\nU S ? this C\nl!E?Puli' ai:i\u0026gt; a 51 a r t i i'l g poin t E. 36 cArtcJ cAcipL it tcc* meet the 7!00-B 0 needs of your children. 0 ,0-9:00 9:OO-1O:OO 10:00-1.1. ! 15 1.1:15-12:00 12 s 00-1\n00 1:00-2 30\no 00 00-4\n45 4:45-5 0 ACTIVITY IDEAS Activi ties Arrival of children Independent Activitie games, free play) 15 (card games, board Breakfast and clean up Creative Activity (art project, puppet construction Outside Play Restroom, and use. drama, music, etc. ) lunch and clean up Quiet Time -kindergartners -Others rest or must.  n p ** have quiet activities Choice of creative activity ?\u0026lt; free play Snack\nrestroom Outside Play Small Group Games ?\u0026lt; Activities (story book ?\u0026lt; record, \"Hot Potato\", etc.) Clean up and dismissal should be ready to begin immediately upon the arrival of the children. Staff should use the 15 before school is dismissed to get supplies out of cabinet and ready to use for planned activities. GAMES, minutes the Labeling CREATIVE the tables with removable signs (HOMEWORK, AREA, ART PROJECT, etc.) has proven to be a helpful tool in sure to locate the quiet organizing the CARE area. Be activities away from the ones action. encouraging conversation and The following pages have many ideas for active play and creative projects you will want to include in your CARL session plans.37 F. PRCCEDURES FOR EMFRPFNCY OR INCLEMENT NEITHER CONDI TJCjNS\nPLAN A\nEARLY CLOSINC Subject: When schools are dismissed early due to increasingly 'bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION from the time school is dismissed until 5:30 P.M. (6:00 extended day sites). When schools are 0 Time: CARE staff will report at the time school is dismissed and will remain until the last child is picked up (no later than the usual closing time). Parents are urged to pick up their children as soon as announcements are made about hazardous driving conditions, streets that, become dangerous Some of the schools are on and are closed to traffic at an early time. PLAN B\nLRSD SCHOOLS CLOSED Subj ec t\nWhen school is dismissed for the entire day due to bad weather. CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION IN SPECIFIED SCHOOLS from 8s00 A.M. to 5 0 P.M. If CARE has to be closed due to extremely hazardous road conditions, made on radio and TV stations. announcements will be Charge s There is a $7.00 fee for each emergency day to be paid There will be no additional fee upon signing in your child. charged for snow days added to the school calendar in since these days were paid for in a prior month. Child Needs: June, A sack lunch and drink, for the noontime meal. Breakfast and snacks will be provided. Kindergartners and four year olds need to bring a rest mat and time. towels for nap Location\nCARE will be in operation at specified schools. Parents may use any one of these schools. Upon arrival parents must write their name and daytime phone number The CARE office will be closed on these on the signin sheet, days. Special Staff Instructions: Work schedule for days when LRSD schools are closed for emergency or bad weather will be sent to all staff and a copy will be kept at each snow site. When schools are closed early or before school opens for the day this staff schedule goes into effect. ***0FFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ABOUT EARLY DISMISSAL AND/OR CLOSING OF SCHOOLS WILL BE MADE ON KARN RADIO AND TV STATIONS 4, 7, 11***CARE Program CS Little Rock School District CB CARE Program Rockefeller School 700 East 17th St. Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 324-2395 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Introduction 1 Program Description 1 Enrolling Your Child Hours and Days of Operation Payment of Fees Payment of Fees (Drop-In) Fee Schedule Multiple Enrollment Within Family Holiday Attendance Late Pickup Charge 4 Returned Checks 4 Extended Absences 4 Parent Communications 4 Release of Children 4 Food Services 4 Inclement Weather Plans 5 Health Forms 5 Student Accident Insurance 5 Illness in CARE 5 Medication 5 Discipline 6 Parties and Special Occasions 6 Appendix As Inclement Weather Procedures...? Appendix Bs CARE Payment Schedule/Calendar . . 8 Appendix C\nDiscipline Plan 9B EH 1 Introduction The CARE Program is a non-profit. self-supporting program of child care provided for elementary-age students and parents of the Little Rock School District. The LRSD Board of Education authorised the development of the program for the 1980-81 school year. Based on a survey of district needs, CARE was initially offered in thirteen primary schools. The program continues to strive to meet the needs of district patrons by offering CARE in elementary schools with a minimum of fifteen participants. The CARE Program provides a continuation of important elements in the child's educational environment: a well-known, comfortable place. with a friendly staff, and other children they already know. The program eliminates parental concerns about children being transported to 'J another location for child care. This manual explains the CARE policies and operational procedures. suggestions. Parents are encouraged and volunteer to share to observe, make their skills and interests with the CARE children. Program Description As a school-age child care service. the CARE Program provides an informal and unique environment for children of different ages to live and learn together. CARE maintains a structured environment to insure order and safety, yet provides children with opportunities to make choices and become involved in both group and independent activities. The program includes a wide range of social, and creative opportunities. recreational, The CARE Program is based on the following goals: -to provide a safe environment for students before and after school, -to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities, -to help children feel good about themselves and develop positive attitudes toward school. -to encourage growth in skills. relationships and socialE n r Q11 i. n q Y o u r C h i 1 ci A child may be enrolled in the CARE Program on a \"full-time, drop-in, or part-time ( 1 , 1 3, or 4 days per week) basis. To register a child, return with the $6.00 registration the completed registration form fee to the CARE Program Office, Rockefeller School, 700 E. 17th, Little Rock, AR. 06. The first monthly payment must be made before your child' first day of attendance in CARE. (324-2395) / Hours and Days of Operation Each program operates from 7:00 A.M. from the close of school until 5\no P.M. until school opens and (6:00 at Incentive Schools) on regular school days and FROM 7:00 A.M.-5 50 P.M. on most school holidays. 8:00 A.M.-5\n0 P.M. On \"Snow days, CARE is open from at specified schools. When a school site is closed before the normal dismissal time, CARE begins operation at the earlier time. CARE is closed on all legal holidays and other holidays when the school sites are unavailable for use. Payment of Fees Full-time and part-time tuition payments are due in the CARE Program Office on the 15th of the month (two weeks in advance) and must be paid in full by th first of the month in order for your child to participate in the CARE Program. A $5.00 late payment fee will be charged for payments received after the 1st day of the month, payment schedule. See appendix B for Reservations for holiday CARE and payment of the $7.00 per day fee are due in the CARE office prior to the holiday. No refunds can be made in event your child does not attend on the holiday. Payment of Fees (Drop-In) A drop-in card must be purchased at the CARE office for any regular school day. 3 days in a month. the card each time the child attends. The cost is $4.50 per day not to exceed Care teachers will punch out one day on accepted on holidays. Drops-ins are not. refer to Holiday Care page 3. Fee Schedule Monthly fees for regular school days, not holidays, are averaged over nine advance each month. including equal payments and due in There is an additional $7.00 charge per day for CARE at specified sites on holidays. Mail or deliver payments and Rockefeller School, reservations to the CARE Office 700 East 171 h, Little Rock, at '7 06. Ar. /There will be a $7,00 charge per child for attending CARE on a \"Snow Day.\" your child. Snow Day fees must be paid when you sign in Applications are available for free or reduced rates at Incentive Schools (Franklin, Garland, Rightsei 1, Rockefeller, Stephens,). Ish, Mitchel 1, Eligibility requirements are based on family size and income. The following fees are charged for participation: Categories Fees \"Annual Registration Fee Ful1-time Part-time Part-time Part-time (5 days @ week) (4 days @ week) (3 days @ week) (2 days @ week) Drop-In (up to 3 days @ month) Holiday (reservations required) \"Snow\" Day Late Payment Fee Late Pickup Charges (1-5 minutes) (Each additional 5 minutes) 6.00 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ mon t h 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 Q day 5.00 @ month .50 daily 1.00 daily Multiple Enrollment t*lithin Family If one family enrolls three or more children in the CARE Program, the charge for the third child and every child thereafter will be one-half the normal rate. to a one-family unit with all children under the guardianship of the parent making payments. This applies Holiday Attendance Parents will be notified in advance of the schools which will be open for CARE from 7:00 A.M.5 Teacher Workdays and school holidays. 30 P.M. during Reservations for child care at one of these schools and payment of the $7.00 fee for each day must be received in the CARE Office by the reservation deadline in order for your child to attend. Hiring of staff and purchasing of food/supplies for the children must be done in advance on the basis of the paid reservations received by this date. issued to parents upon receipt of payment. A long day card will be No refunds can be made in the event your child does not attend CARE on the hoiiday. $ The CARE Program is closed on all legal holidays and other holidays when chool sites are unavailable for use.4 Late Pickup Charge CARE concludes at 5 O P.M. each day. The late charge for arriving after this time is $.50 for arriving 1-5 minutes late and an additional $1.00 for each additional five minute period. This charge must be paid directly to the CARE teacher upon picking up your child. In addition, you will also be charged for any overtime pay required for the school custodian to remain until your arriva1. A record will be kept of the dismissal time for your child. Since CARE employees and school custodians have other obligations after work, the CARE Program reserves the right to remove a child from the program when parents are late over three times. Returned Checks . A $5 service charge will be assessed for all checks returned due to insufficient funds. In the event a check is returned, future payments must be made in cash. money order, or cashier's check. Extended Absences If your child is out of CARE for 5 or more consecutive days. please notify the CARE Office (324-\n95) upon your child's return and request a credit toward your month. fees for the next Parent Communications Please notify the CARE staff (324-:\np5) of any changes in important information relating to your child (telephone numbers, emergency numbers, address, allergies. etc . ) If your child is sick or will be out of town, would appreciate notification. the CARE staff Release of Children A child will be dismissed from CARE only to his/her parents or persons authorised on the registration form to pick up the child. Each child must be signed out with CARE staff on a daily basis before leaving the CARE site. Food Services CARE students are offered breakfast and snack during the hours of operation. The food is prepared by the LRSD Food Services Department and meets the federal breakfast program guidelines, consideration guide1ines. The snack menu given to IS planned by CARE staff with nu t r i t i ona 1 con ten t and cost.5 inclement weather are explained The CARE Program plans for .in Appendix A. When school .is closed due to inclement Appendix A. weather, CARE will be open at. specified schools unless road conditions are extremely hazardous. This decision will be made by the LRSD Superintendent and based on involved for staff and students to reach the school the safety risk building. CARE will be open from 8\noo A.n.-o\nw r. ri. at. specified schools (Refer to Appendix A). In the event CARE is closed, announcements will be made on radio, Channel 4, and local TV stations. There will be a $/.00 8:00 M.-5:30 P.M. and stations. Cab 1 e This charge per child for attending CARE on a \"Snow day\". '  Breakfast and fee is to be paid upon signing in your child. snack will be furnished by CARE, and each child should bring a sack, lunch and drink. Four year olds and kindergartners need to bring a rest mat and two towels, pick up your children as soon as possible. We urge you to School days missed due to snow will be added to the CARE calendar, and your child may attend CARE on those days with no additional charge. Health Forms section of the Parents must, complete the health information registration form for each child. The form will be on file at the CARE site and should This form for each child. be kept current. information is extremely important in the event your child needs medical or emergency attention. Student Accident Insurance The LRSD CARE Program cannot assume liability for Parents are encouraged to financial injuries received by students. apply for the low-cost student accident insurance offered each year through the school district. Enrollment forms are available in the school office. Illness in CARE ) ill and unable to participate in CARE If your child becomes _____________ a parent will be requested to pick, up the child. Should the staff be unable to reach parents or guardians. activities, emergency persons listed on child's records will be called. Medication to a child must be authorized by Any medication to be given written statement from the physician and/or parent and a given be in by the the school nurse or principal. original container. All medication must with the child's name, type and date of prescribed medication, dosage. amount, and time ofWhen medication nurse for proper is required, storage, completed by the parent. Discipline it is to be given to the school and a medication sheet must be The CARE Program's discipline plan is outlined in Appendix C. In CARE children are expected to be responsible'for their own behavior and respect the rights of others. Time-out from group activities may be used to encourage a child to calm down and reflect on his/her behavior. Parental help will be requested for behavior problems that cannot be solved by time-out. suspend a child for 3-5 days, We reserve the right to or to expel a child from the program, after appropriate efforts to correct the behavior problems have been made and the child is still unable to conform to the required behavior. A child may be immediately suspended for severely disruptive behavior or endangering the safety of others. Parties and Special Occasions Parties may be held throughout the year on special occasions and holidays, appreciated, Although parental help with parties is parents are under no obligation. Parties are organized entirely on a volunteer basis. Arrangements for parties and special celebrations may be made through the CARE staff.7 Appendix A CARE Program INCLEMENT WEATHER PROCEDURES Plan A\nSubj ect: When schools are dismissed early due to increasingly bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION from the time school is dismissed until T ime: Plan B\n5 \u0026lt;) P.M. Staff will report to CARE at the time school is dismissed. We urge you to pick up your children as soon as announcements are made about hazardous driving conditions, since some of the schools are on streets that become dangerous and are blocked to traffic at an early time. Subj ect: When school is dismissed for the entire day due to bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION in selected schools. We urge you to make early pick ups. Time: 8:00 A.M. to 5\no P.M. Charge: $7.00 fee to be paid upon signing in your child. Bring : Sack lunch and a drink for noontime meal. Rest mat ?\u0026lt; two towels for 4 year olds ?\u0026lt; Kinder gartners. (Breakfast ?\u0026lt; snack furnished by CARE) Location: CARE will be open at the following schools which are the most accessible during ice and snow\nBrady Chicot Forest Park Gibbs Magnet 7915 W. Markham (near Mississippi) moo Chicot Rd. 1600 North Tyler (off Cantrell) 1115 W. 16th (near Chester) You may take your child to any of these schools. bring your child each morning, When you telephone number on the sign-in sheet. write your name and daytime This procedure will enable the CARE staff to contact you in an emergency. CARE has to be closed due to extremely hazardous road If conditions, announcements will be made on. Cable Channel 4, local radio and TV stations. ** OFF IC I AL ANNOUNCEMENTS ABOUT EARLY DISMISSAL ?\u0026lt; CLOSING OF SCHOOLS WILL BE MADE ON RADIO AND TV STATIONS**8 Appendix B CARE Payment Schedule TUITION PAYMENTS ARE DUE ON THE FOLLOWINS DATE: August 15, 1991- September 16, 1991 October 15, 1991 November 15, 1991- December 16, January 15, 1991-- 1992---- February 14, 1992 March 16, 1992--- April 15, 1992 Aug/Sept. Tuition - October Tuition November Tuition December Tuition January Tuition February Tuition March Tuition April Tuition May/June Tuition All payments received ten (10) days after the due date will be accessed a $5.00 late charge. CALENDAR August 26, 1991 September 2, 1991 September 23, 1991 September 30, 1991 October 21, 1991 October 31, 1991 November 1, 1991 November 7-8, 1991 November 28-29, 1991 December 23, 1991 January 6, 1992 January 20, 1992 January 23, 1992 January 24, 1992 March 2, 1992 March 26, 1992 March 27, 1992 March 30-April 3, 1992 May 25, 1992 June 5, 1992 First Day for Students Labor Day (School Closed) Staff Development Day Parent Conference Day Staff Development Day End of First Quarter (45 Days) Work Day (Records Day) AEA (Inservice Days) Thanksgiving Holidays Christmas Vacation Classes Resume Martin L. King Holiday End of Second Quarter (44 Days) Work Day (Records Day) Parent Conference Day End of Third Quarter (43 Days) Work Day (Records Day) Spring Break Memorial Day (School Out) Last Day for Students9 CARE Program Discipline Plan Appendix C Eiehavior rules for students: 1. Follow directions of CARE teachers. No cursing, Show respect to others\nteasing, or threatening. respect the rights and 4. 5. 6. property of all students. Return all materials to their proper place. Keep hands, feet and objects to self. Leave assigned area with permission only. Positive consequences may include: Verbal praise and immediate feedback. Positive comments to parents Good citizen display or individual Ribbons, treats recognition Special group activities. proj ec ts, rewards Negative consequences for breaking the CARE rules\nLevel 1\nFor the first infraction an individual conference between student and staff will be held to discuss the child's behavior. Child may receive time-out from group activities to consider his/her actions. Level Behavioral document or note to parent to be signed and returned. Child may lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 1- days. Level Second behavioral document to parent. Conference between student, parent, and staff required to discuss behavior. Child may lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 3-5 days. Level 4\nShort term suspension of 3-5 days from CARE, refund of money paid for these days. No Level 5\nExpulsion from CARE Program, paid for remainder of month. No refund of money Severe Clause: endangers the safety of others. If a student is severely disruptive or he/she will be immediately suspended from the CARE Program, pending a conference between parent and staff. Note\nCorporal punishment (paddling) will not be used in disciplining children in the CARE Program.\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_288","title":"Classroom Teachers Association","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":["1991/2006"],"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","Parents' and teachers' associations","Teachers","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Classroom Teachers Association"],"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/288"],"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\nRECEIVED May 5 1991 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION . Filed us. DISTRICT COURT 'TC^M rMO'^Djr-r Ar!L/AM rr-aM ni*?jr.T ^ckansA^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-86^ fi. E Sy\n----------- MAY 01 1991 PLAINTIFF StNTS, CLEFih i' PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTIONS TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'SPROPOSED DESEGREGATIONPIJ^N Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCTA\"), one of the Knight. Intervenors, presents the following objections to the May 1, 1991 Litrle Rock School District Desegregation Plan: I. PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS 1. In Volume II, Incentive Schools, page 292, Re: 02267, vs. the Support Programs are described. The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCTA\") objects to the section of the plan which denies LRCTA the right to negotiate. Pursuant to the Professional Negotiations Agreement, Article II, Subsection A and the Educational Support Personnel (\"ESP\"), Article III, LRCTA is authorized to negotiate \"salaries. teaching conditions. class size, teacher load and other conditions of employment. II Such authorization includes the extra hour(s) of the school day and Office of Desegregation Monitoringextra day of the school year for Incentive School personnel, certified and uncertified. The Little Rock School District imposed the extra hour and the additional pay for Incentive School personnel during 1990-91 school refusing to negotiate despite the demand from LRCTA. Further, LRCTA demands the right to negotiate the stipend for Homework Centers certified personnel and instructional aides described in Volume II, page 292-E, Re\n02268. II. STAFF RECRUITMENT 2. In Volume II, Incentive Schools Staffing, page 318, Re: 02270, LRCTA objects to the lack of clarity in this section calling for staff recruitment with specific experience showing tl a commitment to working in an urban district.\" Will past teaching experience in the Little Rock School District be sufficient evidence of a commitment to working in an urban district? 3. In Volume II, Incentive School Staffing, Section H, Page 322, Re: No. 02296, 02297, LRCTA objects to the denial of the right to appoint members of the committee although LRCTA represents all staff. Pursuant to the Professional Negotiations Agreement, Article XXXV, LRCTA asserts the right to appoint members to this committee as outlined in that section of the PNA for joint committees.Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL and ROACHELL 1014 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203 01) 378-. By: (da Barr Langford, 89 Attorneys for Knight In' 171 rvenors L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 1, 1991, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following: H, William Allen Allen Law Firm 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M, Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring P. 0. Box 687 No. Little Rock, AR 72115B 09/11/92 18:04 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/003 Little Rogk School District PRESS release Superintendent Bernd Comments on Teacher Contract Agreement Friday, September 11,1992 For more information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff, 324-2020 E\u0026gt;r. Mac Bemd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, today thanked teachers in the District and their leadership for working together toward a contract agreement for the 1992-93 school year. Teachers ratified at a 4:30 p.m. meeting today the tentative agreement reached by the District and the Classroom Teachers Association teams late Thursday. The agreement provides that senior teachers who have reached the last step of their salary schedule by the start of the 1992-93 school year will receive $200 each on August 1, 1993, as a non-recurring payment if at the close of the District's 1992-93 fiscal year, total operating receipts, excluding loans, exceed total operating expenses by no less than $100,000. The new contract will expire August 1,1993. Other than these provisions, the new contract, which now must be ratified by the LRSD Board of Directors, is the same contract as the successor contract that expired Tuesday. The Board will consider the proposal at a special board meeting set for 5 p.m. Monday, September 14. -more-09?'ll/92. 18:05 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003/003 Page 2 LRSD Contract Comments \"I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of District finances and other circumstances. The negotiation process was a fruitful effort overall,\" Bernd added. \"Ultimately, it is most important to underscore that all parties have had the best interests of all the children and all our patrons and staff at heart in reaching the agreement. Dialogue and open communication are paramount if we are to work together to improve teaching and learning. H 'We heard loud and clear the teachers' concerns about classroom discipline and we believe they heard our concerns about the importance of the role supervision plays toward improved safety and security. We know that most teachers volunteer much more than the minimum time proposed for supervision and we believe that they are committed to work cooperatively with us to assure that all schools are equally safe and secure,\" Bernd said. Bemd said he would direct principals to work with their individual staffs to develop building-specific discipline management plans that match need to available supervision time under the contract. \"We know that anytime there is change, there is frustration involved. A lot of things have changed in the District this year. We have a new computer system and a new curriculum supported by a computerized management system to enhance teachers ability to meet individual needs of students. And they are dealing with a new administration. That's a full plate and understandably teachers are concerned and somewhat frustrated with the beginning of a new year. I pledge to work closely with them to make the changes as smooth as possible and to address their concerns,\" Bemd said. -more-Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 5, 1994 To: Frank Martin From: Aj/'Ann Brown Subject: Reassignment of IRC Personnel I enjoyed our chat today and look forward to talking with you further on October 18. Thanks for agreeing to look into the situation regarding Leola Scoggins and Pearl Jackson, two IRC aides whose reassignments have made these two CTA members very unhappy. They met with me before school started and I suggested that they talk with you to determine the status of their complaint. Heres a copy of what I received from Leola, which you may already have in your files. 1 appreciate your looking into e matter and letting Leola and Pearl Icnow what next steps to anticipate. They both feel pretty helpless, but perhaps the situation isnt hopeless. Although theres probably not much I can do, please let me know how I can help. Thanks very much.July 20, 1993 Brady Gadberry Labor Relations Specialist 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: IRC Position Dear Brady: I would like to reiterate my desire to be reinstated to Aides position at the Instructional Resource Center. I understand that some aides position might be restored and I would like one of them. I have worked at IRC for several years and in the Little Rock School District for 19 years. Your positive consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, eoIaTCScog' Leola Scoggins August 6, 1993 QUALIFICATIONS: 1. High school diploma: Monticello Arkansas/College Beebe Junior College (3 accredited hours) 2. Demonstrates creative/artistic ability: I demonstrate creative/artistic ability, been apart of this staff for more than 10 Having years our duties consist of creating and designing activities for class room use for students, teachers, and administrators. 3. Experience in computer/typing: amount o experience in'computer/typing. I have a limited But I am eager to learn and I now have a computer system at home that will allow me to enhance my computer/typing skills. 4. Evidence of strong organizational and positive interpersonal skills: I have strong organizational and positive interpersonal skills. Working at IRC for some ten years I always had an excellent relationship with my co-workers, supervisor, administration, and students. I always have a positive outlook once I know the direction I cun to For three years I have been the supervisor and organizer for Home Health Care. I'm in total go. control of daily operations which include the scheduling of vacations and the keeping of payroll records. 5. Ability to understand and carry out oral and written instructions independently and efficiently: This is a daily requirement. 6. Ability to be flexible with work schedule: able to have a flexible work schedule. I am 7. Evidence of a strong commi'tment to quality desegregated education: I see people as who they I have always had an open mind regarding desegregation. are. student regardless of race. I want only the best for each BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES:1. 2. I have the ability to assist in the creation and preparation of activities that correlate with curriculum objectives, pre-kindergarten - grade 12. I know that together we can develop a system for working with duplicating materials for several departments in order to have the materials ready for workshops or meeting in a timely manner. 3. If given time I will learn the curriculum the area in which I will assist. 4 . content of I have the knowledge to assist with duties such as video distribution, laminating materials, processing resource materials. 5. I can and will participate in inservices and staff meetings. 6. I can and will report to and complete the daily work schedule as assigned 7. I can and will perform other duties best of my ability. as assigned to theOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 9, 1995 To: LRCTA, NLRCTA, and PACT Managers From: Ann Brown Subject: Monitoring Schedules Enclosed is our schedule for upcoming site-monitoring of some schools in all three districts. I realize this is late notice for the dates that are coming up so soon next week, and I apologize for having inadvertently neglected to inform you before now. However, we have already notified the school districts and building principals that we will be in their schools on those days, so our visit won't come as a surprise to them. 1 want to be true to my commitment to keep you posted on our monitoring schedule, and will notify you as we continue to develop our calendar. Unfortunately, I have had very limited success in trying to coordinate monitoring schedules among the various groups. For example, I did not receive ADE's monitoring schedule until after they had almost completed their visits. I have their commitment to notify me before they begin spring monitoring. As for Joshua, counsel has told me that he presently has no monitoring scheduled, although he may decide to do some at the spur-of-the moment. If so, he is to notify me. We have recently discovered that many PCSSD teachers believe that ODM or the Court has required them to color highlight their plan books to indicate such emphasis as multicultural lessons. Neither ODM nor the Court requires or expects any type of color-coding. As a matter of fact, as we discussed last fall, ODM monitors never even look at teacher plan books. The color highlighting is a request from internal PCSSD monitoring teams, who have no relationship to ODM or the Court. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call me. I'll be glad to hear from you.Scheduled ODM Monitoring Visits Date School Monday, February 13, 1995 LRSD Alternative School Tuesday, February 14, 1995 NLRSD Alternative School Thursday, February 16, 1995 PCSSD Alternative School Wednesday, February 22, 1995 Rightsell Incentive School Tuesday, February 28, 1995 Rockefeller Incentive School Thursday, March 2. 1995 Garland Incentive School Friday, March 3, 1995 Franklin Incentive School Tuesday, March 7, 1995 Mitchell Incentive SchoolOffice 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 April 25, 1995 Mrs. Betty L. Mitchell Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 No. Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Betty: Congratulations on your election to the presidency of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association! The post is very challenging and important, and 1 know youll bring energetic leadership to the organization. Id like to invite you to visit my office at your convenience so we can get to know each other better. Tlte ODM staff would love to meet you and answer any questions you may have. Wed be happy to give you a tour of our offices and to explain our monitoring philosophy and approach. We also have a number of monitoring reports on the Uttle Rock School District that wed be pleased to share with you. As you look forward to your presidency, 1 wish you the very best and hope you will not hesitate to let me know whenever 1 may be of assistance. Please let me know when youd like to come by. My colleagues and 1 would welcome the opportunity to visit with you. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Frank Martin 1 AUG 14 1995 August 10, 1995 Office of Desegregdiicn ?\u0026lt;ion'!oriP9 Betty Mitchell Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 1500 West 4th Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: The CTA membership of Metropolitan is appointment of Mr. MMiicchhaaeell Peterson concerned over recommendation of the teacher/parent interview the about the unanimous j-euuuunenaarion or the teacher/parent interview team and the recommendation of the Director of Vocational Education for the Little Rock District. Mr. Peterson interviewed. neither applied for the position. He also has no vocational background. nor was he Because of the unique situation of vocational education we urgently need stronger and more experienced vocational leadership for our facility. We realize that the appointment of Mr. Peterson has not been voted on or approved by the Board. T\" 12 _ __ 1_\n_ ___J_____ _ timely response to our inquiry before such action is taken. We would appreciate an immediate and Respectfully, CTA Membership cc: School Board ODM/Ann Brown Frank Martin Revolutionizing Education in Arkansas .4 one-day workshop for Arkansas citizens who want our state's schools revitalized and our children s educational performance optimized. Friday, January 26th, Excelsior Hotel, Little Rock Presented by the Arkansas Policy Foundation Featured Keynote Comments By: Denis Doyle of the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. Mr. Doyle currently serves as a Senior Fellow in Education at the Heritage Foundation and since 1980 has written e.xtensiveiy on education reform. Among his recently published books are Winning rhe Brain Race, A Bold Plan to .Slake Our Schools Competitive and Reinventing Education: Entrepreneurship in America's Public Schools. His free- markei, competition based ideas concerning schools have captivated leading reformers around the nation. Michael Williams, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Mr. Williams, a prominent black attorney from Fort Worth. Te-xas, served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education under Lamar .Alex.'indcr and Lauro Cavazos. His e.xperience as head of the Department of Education's Civil Rights Division provided him unique knowledge of both school choice reforms and desegregation issues. Fannie Lewis, Cleveland Ohio City Councllwoman/Educatlon Activist Ms. Lewis, a black liberal democrat from Cleveland, Ohio, joined forces with Ohio's white conservative Governor, and together they are revolutionizing Cleveland's schools. Her experiences in school reform should be instructive for Little Rock and any other school districts facing similar challenges. Other special work and information sessions will include... 1. New developments on the legal front that could expedite the lifting of court-monitored desegregation plans...of particular interest to Little Rock School Districts. 2. The dangers of Outcome Sased Education (OBE) and what to do about them. 3. A preview of an innovative new privately funded voucher program in Little Rock. The Children's Educational Opportunity Foundation {CEO program). currently benefiting almost 400 parents and children. 4. A comprehensive overview of bold new education reform initiatives across the states. Also...The Great Debate on School Choice and Voucher Issues! Grainger Ledbetter of the Arkansas Education Association (AEA) vs. Jeanne Allen with the Center for Education Reform SPACE LIMITED...PLAN TO ATTEND NOW!! FRIDAY, JANUARY 26TH, EXCELSIOR HOTEL, LITTLE ROCK 10:00 am until 4:00 PM...($15.00 conference fee includes lunch) I Call Donna Watson at 501-227-4815 by Jan. 19th, 1996. The Arkansas Policy Foundation, 8201 Cantrell Road, #325, Little Rock, Arkansas 72227re: Rnoo . rrsi ra TAI \u0026gt; FEB January 30, 1996 Office of Oesesreaaicn M 5018 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 Betty Mitchell LRCTA 1500 West 4th, Suite 305 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell, I would like to be appointed to the new Desegregation Planning Committee. I talked with Ms. Pondexter about it today. She suggested that I write the request to you. I am qualified to serve for several reason. My son will graduate next year from Central High School. He has attended the Little Rock public schools since he entered kindergarten. I have taught school for the Little Rock School District for twenty-five years. I taught at the Kramer Project for ten years. For the next fifteen years I have worked at the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet/Incentive School. I have taught four-year olds since 19888, I was a member of the Early Childhood Committee that was begun by Mr. Reviile in 1989. Since I have been a strong supporter of the L.R.S.D. and early childhood education, as well as teaching at an incentive school. 1 feel I would be an asset to your committee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Beth Foti cc\nLinda Pendexter I*Ln-TLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO. Bvidrd of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT\nFebruary' 1996 bred L. Smith. Manager of Support Services Henrv^ Superintendent of School.? I SenbeeMaster (jtuestions he toiiowing informatio! is being provided in response to concerns raised by M? Gee (list snacheii\nand .Ms. Pondexte., Section 6.6 of'he ServiceMaster contract is attached. Item s2 of Ms. Gees list - ServiceMaster will receive no more than the contract amount Any additional savings below the 510.8 million budget amo'unt will remam wmh the District Item ot Ms. Gees list - It was agreed that withi.n 40 days no adjustment to the 1995-96 budget would be made since we would only be charged a pro-rated amount for the first year of tiie contract  Item 01 M.\u0026lt;. Gees list - Four (4) payments have oeen made to Se'wiceMaster for the months of October. 1995, tnrough January, 1^96.  Item 45 of Ms. uees h$t - The S'.G.213 per monli: is Lite amount to satisfv the auarantes since ServiceMaster is required to provide actual documentation to support the supplies and equipment cost  Item 46 of Ms. Gees list - Based on actual expenditures for the past several ye.ars, the 1995- 96 budget amount provides a realistic baseline. item ^7 of Ms. Gees list - .^.nached is a schedule that shews the $10 8 million. With respect to the energy savings, the effect of the energy savings orograms has alrcadv be?-, includea m the 1995-96 budget. It is true that a mild winter would have a positive i -noact guarantee compliance. The converse is also true impact on guarantee compliance. on \\ harsh wmter would have a nesatn. 1JC  hem ot Ms. Crees iis' - h is probably not possible to list all potential points of concern However we eo have a detailed budget and Exhibit A is a part of the contract.  Item #9 ol Ms. Gees list - 'fhe OEM system would only enhance, not conflict with, the Districts system. cc. Doug Eaton Jerr/ Compton FLSxa3  Little Rock Schoo! District 1995-So Biidsel Ana'ysis FuncSon ,-tncno.i Jesaiphon 2639 Other Faciiities Acq 3Co 2542 Upkeep or Suildings 2641 Service .Area Oirecuoi 2544 Upkeep of Squipmerii 2545 VePicie Maintenance 26-10 Asbesios rrogra.m \\1agnet SctipoiG Sooeptuies A.^nojn! '$240,213 8.924.431 201.085 12,800 S3.20C 61,338 1.076.370 2'30,000 Tata $10,779,937Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 June 26, 1997 Ms. Betty Mitchell 107 Detonti Drive Little Rock, AR 72113 Dear Betty: As you leave the presidency of the LRCTA and return to the classroom, 1 want to tell you how very much my colleagues at ODM and I have enjoyed working with you during your tenure. You brought your level head and steady hands to the helm during a time when the Little Rock School District was (once again) navigating troubled waters. Despite the turbulence, you never failed to keep your balance, perspective, and on-target grasp of the facts: you could always penetrate the rhetorical fog and see what was really going on. (More than once, your knowing glance inspired me to hang in at yet another tong meeting!) But no matter how great the challenge or vexing the circumstances, you never failed to maintain your congenial, down-to-earth demeanor that has always made me glad to see you. You have earned my respect, gratitude, and affection, Betty, and all of us at ODM will certainly miss you. However, I know where to find you, and Ill look forward to catching up with you at the flea markets. All best wishes for a happy return to the classroom. Sincerely yours, 'Ann S. BrownLRCTA PN UPDATE $$$Big Bucks$$$ for Central Office Chicken Feed for School Employees After months of excuses and delays the District finally presented its salary offer to the Association last night. Rarely have promising negotiations taken so drastic a nose dive. Despite the lavish raises Dr. Camine showered on his favorite administrators, (excluding the superintendent, the highest paid LRSD administrative position jumped 13% from $64,831 to $90,000) there is precious little in the cookie jar for the folks in the trenches. The Districts three year offer is a clear indication of just where teachers and support persoimel figure on the Districts priority list. 1st Year ( 3% of last Years Sth Circuit money) NO NEW MONEY 2nd Year 1.75% 3rd Year 1.75% To sweeten this deal the District threw in a paltry $200 increase in the senior stipend and raised the District contribution on the insurance to $174. To Add Insult To Injury...this so-called offer is withdrawn if\n The property tax amendment passes and the property tax is abolished.  The Sth Circuit money turns out to be less than 7 million for any of the three years.  The Arkansas Legislature changes the funding formula to little Rocks detriment. The question on the mind of every hardworking teacher and ESP should be... Why does the District always find big bucks for top level administrators and only nickels and dimes for the employees who actually work with students? DISCIPLINE: The two teams are at loggerheads on this critical issue. Our priority is safe and orderly classrooms, the Districts seems to be safeguarding the authority of its principals. WERE MILES APART..BUT WERE STILL TALKING.... The Districts proposal on the supplemental salary schedule is a good beginning but a three year deal with little or no money is impossible. The contract has been extended to the day before students arrive and we believe a settlement is still possible. Any real progress depends on Dr. Camine and his Administration understanding that we need more than lip service on discipline and that our salaries are every bit as important as the salaries of his downtown administrators!!! TRANSFERS \u0026amp; VACANCIES..The District has bungled transfers and vacancies this year even more than usual. If you believed you have been unjustly denied a position, moved or surplused without just cause, call the office ASAP. QUOTE OF THE YEAR.. On July 22, in the Arkansas Democrat, Dr. Camine was quoted as saying that he tried to limit administrators pay raises to 10 percent. Needless to say he was not successful.8' i^nrki \"?, I*-- a: 2201 (5GVittle Rock Classroom Teachers Associafioi\u0026gt; Update RECEIVED NOV 2 3 1988 November 17, 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGS3EGAT10N MONITORING As you well know, the Association has ratified an agreement that includes a 4.5% raise, more than $500.00 added to tlie topped - out stipend for those not receiving an annual increment, increases for stipend work and many other new items in the contract. One of tlie more frustrating aspects of the negotiation was trying to fix a date when we could start collecting the new raises (as well as the 3% raise still due under last years contract). Because the money needs to be released by the Federal District Court, everyone it seems has been pointing the finger there as the cause of the problem. However, our inquiries to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has indicated that the blame rests with the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District, who have been ordered to negotiate a settlement between their differences over how much each district is to receive from the court. Well, those negotiations have broken down and the court now is required to conduct a hearing on the matter before rendering a decision. That date is January 4,1999. No one expects the decision from that hearing to be delayed in any way so as soon as a decision is rendered, then our agreement with the Little Rock School District calls for payment under the contract to begin within thirty (30) days. The court decision will not affect the negotiated agreement in any way. But it will result in the payment being postponed until early 1999.AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF LRCTA Lou Ethel Nauden 4400 West 22 nd Street Little Rock, AR 72204 November 19, 1998 Willie Givens, President Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 1500 West 4\nh Street Little Rock, /irkansas 72201 Dear Mr Givens: This letter is written confirmation of my verbal resignation of my membership in the Little Rock Classroom Tt'achers .Association effective for the 1998-99 School 'f ear. I am convinced that the Association vdth its current STAFF and LEADERSHIP is no longer working in the best interest of the tear hets of the Little Rock School l.)istrict. I have spent many years v/orking in the Association with man) different presidents and numerous elected leaders. 1 have agreed and disagreed philosophically with a number of them, however, I was convinced, that all of them v/ere committed to serving in the best interest of the membership. 1 no longer sense that commitment on the part of the current staff and leadership. It saddens me to see how truly self-serving 'the leadership has become. I he lack of staff competence and commitment further troubles me. As I worked 1 dreamed of seeing tfie LRCTA Logo on our owtj building in tine city of Little Rock, and of an organization so strong that we could have a major i mpact ori educational issues in this commiinily. I guess it was just an unrealistic dream. I directed all of my resources toward w\u0026lt;\n-rki ng in the local association, never seeking state or national elective office, because I knew our members were primarily concer ned with issues thiat impacted them in their immediate enviromnent, the Little Rock School Distric t and the state of Arkansas. My tenure as president of the Association, my seivice as a board member, and my many years of w orking with the PN Team as a member and as chairperson were all services rendered unselfishly. There are tho le who hasten to criticize my decision to resign with the\nspurious argument that when the ball game is not played my way, 1 take my ball and go home To those critics I say, You are play ing with my ball - my thirty-two years of service to the organization. And more importantly, yon are not playing the game well. A parapjV'ise of.some advice from the poet, Kipling, expresses my teelings clearly. I CANNOl and WILL NOT be led by a company of fools. Sincerely, Lou Ethel NaadenI I 10B  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SATURDAY, JUNE 13, I I A long way to go as LRSD, CTA open contract negotiations BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazelle Staff Writer In the first teacher contract negotiating session of the year, Little Rock School District representatives Friday pro Elimination of hospital indemnity, short-term disability, long-term disability or life insurance coverage for employees by the district. The district would contribute $17.06 posed cutting the work years employee'per month' for the length next year, freezing teacher salaries and reducing insurance benefits. Representatives of the school district and the Classroom Teachers Association met for about 30 minutes Friday afternoon to exchange economic proposals. state health plan coverage and $13.44 per employee per month for dental insurance. The dis- trict now pays the entire portion of the individual em- The meeting, which was closed to the public, marked the beginning of negotiations on the 1992-93 teachers contract. The three-year contract now in effect is due to expire Sept. 8. Jim Moore, an attorney who represents the school district, and Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, would not disclose the terms of the contract proposals made by their negotiating teams Friday. We have a long way to go, Coleman said. A very long way. A source who asked not to be identified told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the CTA is asking for a 10 percent salary increase for next year. In addition, the source said the district - which is facing a $7.7 million budget deficit next year - is asking for.numerous reductions in employee benefits, including:  A five-day reduction in the work year, which could result in less pay for employees. It was not clear Friday if the reduction would affect all certified employees or just those who have annual contracts for 9'/2 months or longer.  No overall salary raises and no incremental increases for an additional year of experience. District teachers have generally received 3 percent increases for experience along with a general pay raise. ployee health insurance coverage not paid by the state. This year, the state pays $71 per employee and the district pays $122.  An increase in student instruction time for elementary and secondary teachers. Secondary teachers, for example, could eventually be required to teach as much 5% hours a day if the proposal is adopted. That compares with the current limit of 5 hours a day.  A reduction in teacher planning time from 270 minutes to 230 minutes a week.  Teachers may be required to supervise pupils in the lunchroom for an average of one day per week. The current contract gives teachers a duty- free 30-minute lunch period. If the proposal is approved, teachers also could be assigned to supervise children on the playground without extra pay. Now, teachers who volunteer for playground duty are paid $10 an hour. According to the source, the CTA in its proposal has asked for an additional day of personal leave. payment for unused sick leave, a teacher retirement incentive and direct deposit of paychecks. No date was set Friday for the next negotiations session. The negotiations are done by team.s representing the district and the teachers. Any agreement the teams reach must be submitted to the ' school board and the CTA membership for ratification.Aricansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 1992 = I B Tough issues take CTA, LRSD through day of talks Representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association worked for about eight hours Friday on the 1992-93 teachers contract without reaching a settlement. The two negotiating teams will resume their talks at 4:30 p.m. Monday  the day most dis- trict teachers will return to' ered by the terms of the 1991-92 contract, which does not expire until Sept. 8. The negotiating sessions are closed to the public, and spokesmen for both teams have declined to give any specific details about the issues in dispute. Frank Martin, executive director of the CTA, said the teams spent Friday holding long discussions on a couple of issues that have disturbed both teachers and administrators for many years. He called them tough issues and said the districts team is asking for concessions from the teachers that the district cant buy. In June, the CTA asked for 10 percent raises, plus an annual 3 percent incremental raise for -- - V.1 yc3r of experience. The district proposed freezing salaries and increments. Since that time, however, the district included the incremental experience raises in the 1992-93 budget. Teachers who are the most experienced and are at the top of the salary schedule are not eligible for the incremental raises. The negotiating teams met each day this week.LRSD, CTA attain tentative agreement Arkansas Democrat \"CSazettc FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Staff Writer Negotiating teams for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association reached a tentative agreement on the 1992-93 teacher contract about 10:40 p.m. Thursday after five hours of negotiations. A.W. Mille, a mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, said no details of the tentative agreement would be released before a CTA membership meeting set for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High School. Mille said he thought it best not to divulge details so that rumors wouldnt hurt the agreement. He said it was best if all teachers heard the agreement at the same time. We think it is a mutually satisfying agreement, Jim Moore, an attorney for the district, said. Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, said, Weve pushed hard to get a decent settlement. The old contract expired at I midnight Tuesday, Teachers vot-ed earlier this week to take a strike vote Sept. 17 if an agreement was not reached. The big issues in the talks had been the districts request for additional supervision time from teachers and teachers concerns about a lack of enforcement of the student discipline policies. The district team declared an impasse Tuesday, prompting the two teams to call in the mediator. Mille carried proposals back and forth between the teams Wednesday and Thursday nights. 'The teams never met until after the tentative agreement was reached Thursday night. About 1,600 of the districts teachers are expected to get an average 2.8 percent pay raise for their additional year of experience. The remaining teachers are ineligible for an experience increment. The CTA and the Little Rock School Board must ratify the Agreement to make it official. -ARKAN^S DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1992  LR teachers union ratifies contract, keeps contror of workday BY CYNTHIA HOWELL mocrat-Gazdfle Start Wmtr The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association on Friday ratified a 1992-93 teacher con- traclf that virtually is identical to the 1991-92 contract, which e.xpired at midnight Tuesday. The new agreement calls for npuiew teacher supervision duties, no shorter preparation periods or longer workdays, all of which were proposed early in the negotiations by the Little Rock School District. The new agreement does alter the expiration date of the contract so ' that future negotiations wont occur while school is in session. It was moved from Sept. 8 to Aug. I. Host discrict teachers will get an average 2.3 percent pay increase for their additional year of experience. However, about 350 teachers are ineligible for an experience increment The new agreement says that if district revenues exceed expenditures bjf $100,000 this year, senior teachers will get a S200 onetime payment by Aug. 1. \"I feel like an abused senior citizen, one teacher of 20 years quipped after the CT.A. membership meeting at Hall High School. 1 don't know how they can justify not giving raises to those of us who have dedicated our lives to the district\" About 500 of the districts 2,000 teachers attended the meeting. The beginning teacher salary will remain at $19,489. A teacher with 20 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 hours of additional college credit will earn $39,485. See CONTRACT. Page 18A Teachers  Continued from Page 1A We're pleased to have an agreement.\" Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, said. \"Some of the teachers are not totally pleased and that is understandable. We were not able to get what we wanted for our senior teachers. I am one of them. I won't get a single penny more this year.' Coleman said the CT.A will be able to work with administrators to improve student discipline through a standing ad hoc committee that exists in the contract. During the contract negotiations. the CTA members complained that district administrators were lax in enforcing student discipline policies. Most teachers interviewed Friday were philosophical about the status quo contract, the first in many years that did not provide across-the-board raises, Its acceptable. I can live with it, Jake Tidmore, a teacher at Southwest Junior High School, said. We didnt get a raise. That was the bad news. The good news was we didnt give up anything. Its acceptable. I can live with it. We didnt get a raise. That was the bad news. The good news was we didnt give up anything. Im all right about it for one year, Patsy Campbell, a district employee of more than 30 years, said about the lack of a raise. I think the cuts (made in July by the board) were real. The board cut $10.7 million in expenses this year to balance the district budget. We didnt want to go on strike or disrupt the students, Linda Jones, a teacher at Hall High School, said. But she also said she was disappointed with Superintendent Mac Bernd for creating an adversarial relaSTUDYING THE CONTRACT  Sue Buffalo, a counselor at the Alternative Learning Center in the Little Rock School District, examines Friday a copy of the 1992-93 contract negotiated by the district and the Little Rpck Classroom Teachers Association. Teachers ratifiediti agreement Friday afternoon at Hall High School. tionship with teachers and for reducing the number of counselors in the district. Representatives of the CTA and the school district reached a tentative contract agreement late Thursday night with the assistance of A.W. Mille, a mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The terms of the agreement were not released until Fridays meeting. Before the agreement becomes final, the school board must approve it. A special meeting to vote on the pact, as well as to decide the process for filling a vacant board seat and to discuss the feasibility of Saturday morning football games, is set for 5 p.m. Monday at the administration building at 810 W. Markham St. \"I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of district finances and other circumstances, Bernd said at a news conference Friday afternoon. The negotiations process was a fruitful effort overall. He said district administrators heard \"loud and clear Bernd said he would direct principals to work with their staffs to develop discipline management plans at the schools. He also acknowledged the change that teachers face this -4 ZJ Arkansas Oamocrat-Gazena/Oavid GoOschaik teachers concerns about classroom discipline. We believe they heard our concerns about the importance of the role supervision plays toward improved safety and security. We know that most teachers volunteer much more than the minimum time proposed for supervision and we believe they are are committed to work cooperatively with us to assure that all schools are equally safe and secure. 1 year as the result of a new I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of district finances and other circumstances. riculum, a new computer system and a new administration. Thats a full plate and understandably teachers are concerned and somewhat frustrated? ... I pledge to work closely with them to make the changes as smooth as possible and to address their concerns, Bernd said. Bernd said he plans to appoint a joint committee as allowed by the contract to study the feasibility of increasing the instructional day. Increasing instructional time was part of the districts original proposal in the contract negotiations, but was withdrawn. He alio called on teachers to assist district administrators in appealing for help from the state Legislature to curb escalating costs of employee health benefits. j The district pays KW percent of the costs of the benefits for individual employees. The district absorbed a $1.4 million increase in insurance costs this year.Arkansas Democrat Y azcttc FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 12. 1993 Copyright C 1993. Little Rock Newspapers, 1nc. Bernd urged to settle pact with CTA Board members ask about 93-94 budget Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and John Moore urged Superintendent Mac Bernd on Thursday to meet with the Classroom Teachers Association and settle the 1993-94 teacher contract as soon as possible. The topic came up during the boards monthly agenda meeting. The board members asked when the 1993-94 budget would be ready for board action. Bernd has said that expenses would have to be cut for next year by about S5.2 million. Two committees, one made up of district residents and another of employees, are reviewing district expenses and will make a report to Bernd in early March about ways to save money and operate more efficiently- Bernd said he plans to present the proposed budget to the board by late March or early April. Jackson said it would be good to have employee contracts settled by that time, and he recommended that negotiations begin soon so that outdated contract provisions could be discussed and eliminated. Gary Jones, the districts manager of resources and school support, said he has met with eight different employee groups, but only the teachers have a contract for the current year. He said that negotiations are drawing to a close on a two-year contract for district bus drivers and custodians. He estimated that those settlements could be reached within two to four weeks. Were very close, he said.Arkansas Democrat '^(i^azelte SUNDAY, MARCH 14. 1993 Copyright 0 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. M T . Arkansas Democrat ^(fjazette Ledbetter outpolls 2, wins AEA presidency BY JERRY DEAN Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Grainger Ledbetter, 36, an English teacher in the Little Rock School District, was chosen Saturday as president of the Arkansas Education Association. About 9,100 AEA members statewide gave Ledbetter 55.1 percent of the vote over candidates Kay Williams, 50, of Greene County Ledbetter Tech in Paragould and Carolyn Jones, 43, of Watson Education Center in El Dorado. Those results mean a runoff wont be necessary in the AEAs general elections April 19-27. Pat Jones, an AEA spokesman, said the AEA Elections Committee will have to certify results of the election to Sid Johnson, a Fort Smith teacher who is the current AEA president, on Monday. Ledbetter, who begins serving his two-year term Aug. 1, said he had campaigned extensively for the office. He thanked his campaign chairman, Eleanor Coleman, and congratulated his opponents on an issues-oriented race. Im going to try to build a unified association that can face tough issues that arent getting any easier, Ledbetter said. Those issues include re-examining health insurance bidding and costs, educational reforms, and collective bargaining efforts aimed at improving teachers salaries and working conditions statewide, he said. Ledbetter, who most recently taught English at Henderson Junior High, promised to remain an outspoken advocate sonnel. He is now on a leave of absence to complete his masters degree in history. Ledbetter, now serving on the AEA Executive Committee and the executive committee of the National Council of Urban Education Associations, has taught in Little Rock public schools 11 years. Ledbetter has been president of the AEA local organi-zation, the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association,' for four years. ' He is best known for haVing led a districtwide teaghers strike that closed schoojs.for six days, and for having Ipd a strike of the districts school bus drivers. AEA presidents are. restricted to serving no more, than two two-year terms as president. for teachers and support per- I WEDNESDAY, JULY 14,1993  3B CTA will consider renegotiating raises\nBY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District will approach the teachers union Monday to discuss a num- ber of matters  including whether teachers are willing to renegotiate part of their 3 percent raises. Estelle Matthis, interim superintendent, said Tuesday she will bring up the matter of the raises next week when she meets with Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association President Eleanor Coleman and CTA Executive Director Frank Martin. The CTA office is closed until Monday. Matthis meeting with the CTA also will deal with other matters involving the upcoming school year. The federal judge who oversees the desegregation case ordered the Little Rock School Board to pare down its $140 million budget and left it up to the district on how to do it. ! The board met in a workshop session last Friday, when it asked the district administration to look at about $3 million in cuts and outlined four other general areas to consider. The board wants to know if the CTA would be willing to con-' : sider giving up part of the 3 per-: i cent teacher raise for the 1993-: 94 academic year.  ? Other areas the board asked the district to look at included\nreducing expenses in services, supplies and equipment\nstaffing efficiency\nhow to phase in teacher training sessions on a new system to track student learning and the impact of possibly closing Ish Elementary School, a decision that would be made by a federal court. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright has given the district until 6 p.m. Aug. 2 to submit a revised 1993-94budget. Hearings on the revised bud-\nget are set for Aug. 12-13.  :How to kill a city (And how to build one) Neighborhood rivalries, petty jealousies, suspicions and turf wars . . . all can combine to kill a community. One was reminded of that ugly possi- iility just this week, when the director of one museum in Little Rock issued a public statement attacking plans to build a new, large-screen theater in connection with another museum in town. A different and better spirit was shown by a couple of other items in the news:  The union of classroom teachers in Little Rock agreed to reconsider  not give up. mind you, just rethink  part of the 3 percent raise the teachers are due next school year. For a group that got no raise this last school year, thats civic spirit. The union has recognized the bind that the Little Rock School District has got itself into. Its willingness to cooperate with the school board shows a spirit of cooperation. It also shows a warranted respect for the federal judge overseeing the district. The judge, Susan Webber Wright, has told the district it shouldnt be budgeting money thats going to run out for expenses that will keep recurring  like teachers salaries. Thats sound, if obvious, advice. The teachers willingness to think about this shows sound judgment  and good will. You can build a lot on those qualities.  ACORN, whose local chapter would much prefer electing all city directors by ward, nevertheless has come out in favor of the proposal on the ballot Tuesday to elect only seven directors by ward, and elect another three city-wide. Thats the plan proposed by the Future-Little Rock project after long sessions and considerable effort. By supporting the plan on Tuesdays ballot. .ACORN is accepting the popular will\na plan to elect all directors by ward was turned down by the voters just last year. ACORN is is now ready to accept half a loaf. Or rather seventenths of a loaf, since seven of the ten directors would be elected by ward, while all are elected at-large now. To quote .ACORNs spokesman, The Future-Little Rock proposal is not perfect, but we do believe it is better tian the system we have now. Such an approach shows a talent for compromise and a capacity for good will. Both qualities will be needed if Little Rock is to thrive in the years ahead. Little Rock can work if all its people work together. Arkansas Democrar Established 1871 Arkansas azeUe Established 1819 Arkansas Democrat (gazette Arkansas' Newspaper Walter E. Hussman, Jr., Publisher Griffin Smith, jr. Ejcecubve Editor Paul Greenberg Editoriai Page Editor Paul R. Smith V.P. / General Manager Lynn Hamilton V.P. / Operations John Mobbs Advertising Director Larry Graham Circulation Director Estel Jeffery, Jr. Director of Promotions 6B  SATURDAY, JULY 24, 1993   Copyright 9 1993 UWe Rock Newsoaoers. Inc.Arkansas Democrat (gazette\n SATURDAY, APRIL 23,1994 Copyright  tittle Rock Newspapers, Inc. LR teachers seek 6 percent raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat*Gazette Educatkxi Writer The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association wants a 6 percent across-the-board raise next year, although The CTAs initial proposal school officials initial contract proposal would freeze salaries. Negotiating teams for the Little Rock School District and the CTA met for the first time Monday and Tuesday to clarify their proposals for changes in the 1994-95 teachers contract. There are about 60 proposals on the table. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, and Brady Gad- berry, district labor relations director, said they would like to complete negotiations for next year by the end of May, Martin and Gadberry are the chief negotiators for their teams, which are scheduled to meet at least two afternoons a week until May 23. If the teams reach a tentative agreement on a contract, it must be submitted to the school board and the CTA membership for final approval. calls for a 6 percent raise for all teachers, plus an incremental raise of about 3 percent for each eligible employee for experience. Longtime employees who have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the experience increment. The district has proposed reductions of two days in the teacher work year, a reduction in fringe benefits, and a cap on William Broadnax. Besides Martin, the CTA the districts contribution to employees health insurance team includes CTA President coverage. Currently, the state and the district pay the employees insurance, although employees must pay for coverage fortheir spouses and chil- dren. -\n, Also on the table is the experience increment, which is now a $2 million provision in the districts 1994-95 budget j proposal but has been proposed as a cut to balance the budget. Besides Gadberry, Little Rock district negotiating team members include Mark Mil- hoilen, manager of support services\nDr. Richard Hurley, director of human resources\nAssistant Superintendent Lan7 Robertson\nFranklin Incentive School Principal Franklin Davis\nDodd Elementary School Principal Patty McNeil\nand Henderson Junior High School Assistant Principal i 1 I Eleanor Coleman and teachers Katherine Wright Knight Betty Mitchell, Don Williams, Clementine Kelley, Deborah DesJardin and Johnny Gross. The next two sessions are set for 4:30 p.m. Monday and Tuesday. hArkansas Democrat '^(Gazette ' FRIDAY, MAY 13,1994 Rival teacher union to fight job cuts Group says LRSD broke law by not sending letters earlier BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer A small and little-known , group of teachers affiliated with the American Federation of i Teachers and the AFL-CIO will challenge the Little Rock School Districts decision to eliminate 80 teaching positions next year. The Federation of Metropolitan Teachers, which says it has about 200 members, will send a letter to the school district alleging the district violated the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Larry Buck, a teacher at Henderson Junior High School, said 'Thursday the district didnt notify all affected teachers by May 1 of its plans to eliminate their jobs or to discontinue the supplemental pay about 400 teachers get for extra duty. Extra duty includes coaching, sponsoring student activities or supervising students before or after school. The Fair Dismissal Act auto- matically renews the contracts of certified teachers and administrators if the employees arent notified of changes in their working conditions by May 1. May 1 was a Sunday. Buck, chairman of the federations legal services committee, said some of the affected teachers got their letters April 30, a Saturday\nothers didnt get them until the next Monday, May 2. So all affected teachers and supplemental pay contracts should be reinstated. Buck said. He said it would be unfair to employees to only reinstate those teachers who received notices May 2. un- Brady Gadberry, director of labor relations for the district, said all the notices were sent by certified mail April 29, in compliance with the law. He said the significant date is the postmark, not the date the teacher got the letter. Buck said he hopes the dispute can be resolved within the district. Asked if the federation would sue the district, he said that decision would have to be made later. The district is cutting positions as a cost-saving measure. The supplemental pay contracts are being reviewed and many will be reinstated once district officials have determined what extra duty positions are needed based on student enrollment for next year and teacher job signments. as- The federation is affiliated not only with the AFL-CIO but with the Arkansas Federation of Teachers, which has about 2,500 members. Buck said. The AFT and its Arkansas affiliates are rivals of the National Education Association and its affiliates, the Arkansas Education Association and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association.I Arkansas Democrat W^azcttTI TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1994 Copyright  UWe Rock Newspapers, Jnc. LRSD teachers to decide today on new contract\nOK predicted Little Rock School District teachers will vote today on a proposed contract that would give most of them incremental pay raises in the coming school year for experience. The district and the Classroom Teachers Association tentatively agreed to a contract July 18. The contract doesnt include an across-the-board raise for teachers. The Little Rock School Board also must approve the contract. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said he expects the teachers to approve the contract. The CTA, which has about 2,000 members, will vote at 4:30 p.m. at Hall High School. The tentative contract includes the incremental raise traditionally paid to eligible teachers for their extra year of That increment experience. will be $803 per teacher this year. The districts most senior teachers, those with 20 or more years of experience, are ineligible for the increment and wont get a raise.WEDNESDAY, WTTW Copyngnt O UWe Rock Newspapers, inc. LRSD teachers approve new contract BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Start Writer Little Rock School District teachers grudgingly approved a contract for the 1994-95 school year Tuesday that includes a pay increase for teachers with less than 20 years experience, but no across-the-board raise, No ones coming out of here very happy, Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, said after the vote. The teachers are not going to continue to subsidize the districts mismanagement. Martin said the approximate-ly 280 teachers in attendance voted for the contract in a voice  vote. Officials said the turnout teacher at Fair Park Elemen-was low  the district employs tary, said she voted against the about 1,700 teaches  because contract because 20-year veter-many teachers were on vacation ans wont get raises and smok-or at work, ing is now banned on school The contract includes the grounds. raise traditionally paid to eligi Ive been smoking since the ble teachers for their extra year of experience. That increment will be $803 per teacher this year. About 400 of the districts most senior teachers, those with 20 or more years of experience\n, are ineligible for the increment. Gail Delozier, a first-grade eighth grade and I wasnt bothering anybody, Delozier said, Its the only filing I can do to get a release, See TEACHERS, Page 7B BALLOT BROWSING  Little Rock School District schoolteachers Gail Delozier (left) and Malinda Martin look over the ballot before the Little Rock Classroom Teach- Arkansas Defnocrat-Gazstta/DavKl Gottschalk ers Associations vote Tuesday night on the 1994-95 teachers contract. Those present approved the pact reluctantly. Teachers  Continued from Page IB Faye Parker, a teacher at the Little Rock Adult Education Center, said she voted for the contract, We didnt lose any benefits, Parker said. District officials and the Classroom Teachers Association tentatively agreed to the contract July 18, but it required approval by the teachers union and the school board. The school board hasnt voted on the contract. The CTA negotiating team made a plea directly to Superintendent Henry Williams for an increase or bonus for the senior teachers. But Williams said granting that request would deplete the districts pool of reserve money. Other terms of the contract include:  No changes to the 1993-94 salaiy schedule for 1994-95. The starting salary for a beginning teacher will remain at $20,074 for the second straight year.  A new contract expiration date of June 30, 1995, The 1993- 94 contract expired Monday.  Creation of a teacher-administrator committee to clarify ambiguous language in the , contract.  An increase in allowances for travel expenses to conform with changes made for the district administrators and school board members.  Clarification of the longterm leave policies for teachers. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26,1994  7B LRSD board tables motion on teacher bonuses BY SHAREESE HAROLD Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Tenured teachers in the Little Rock School District will have to wait until the next school board meeting to find out if they will receive a salary bonus this school year. The board voted Thursday to table a proposal that would have given at the end of the school year a bonus to teachers at the top of the pay schedule who are not receiving raises this year. Earlier this month, the board ratified teacher contracts for the 1994 1995 school year that did not include salary increases for those who have taught 20 or more years in the district. Board member Linda Pon- dexter, a Little Rock educator for 26 years, said she felt slighted by district administrators who waited until Thursday to explain that her proposal might cause snags in the districts federal desegregation case. Pon- dexter initiated the proposal three weeks ago. But isnt it strange, she said, that a letter from our attorney, dated with todays date, was sent to us explaining the potential legal problems we could have with this motion? Jerry Malone, one of the districts desegregation attorneys, urged the board to consider how the court would view an action to compensate teachers by a method not spelled out in the budget policy handbook it gave the court. Board member Kevin OMalley moved to table the issue until the legal problems are addressed. I can support the philosophy behind this motion, OMalley said, but there are problems with it now. The board voted unanimously to discuss the issue at its next meeting. It also voted to consider Pendexters proposal to use excess state funds the district might receive this year once student enrollment figures are tallied to compensate the teachers. I think this action is necessary to give those who have served this district the longest a shot in the arm, Pondexter said. About 520 teachers and education support staff members could be alTected by the bonus. Pondexlers motion would direct the districts labor negotiators to settle the bonus amount with the teachers union negotiators. In other business, the board rejected on the first reading a revised employee nepotism policy that would have allowed distant relatives of board members and the superintendent to work in the district. It also voted to sell the Eastside Junior High School building at 14th and Scott Streets. Adult education courses now being held at that school will be moved to Forest Heights Junior High School at University Avt enue and Evergreen Street. The 47-year-old structure is in the citys historical district and has not been used as a junior high school since 1964.1 Arkansas Democrat '^(j?azcltg SATURDAY_, APRIL. 22,1995 Special ed teacher to lead association Betty Mitchell, a special education teacher at Pulaski Heights Junior High School, was recently elected president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. She defeated John Gross, CTA vice president and a teacher at Dunbar Magnet Junior High, for the position. Mitchell will take office Aug. 1, following Eleanor Coleman, an elementary school counselor who was the union president for four years. I want to maintain the strength and unity that the CTA has always had and exhibited, Mitchell said when asked about the goals for her two-year term. Its imperative that we continue to have stability at a time when the Little Rock School District is unstable because of its finances and the discipline problems in the schools.Arkansas Democrat ^(j^azette THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995 LR teachers push for mediation BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Dernocrat-Gazette Education Writer Contract negotiators for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association want help  and fast  from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Brady Gadberry, the districts director of labor relations, and Frank Martin, CTA executive director, agreed Friday to ask the mediation service to select an outside fact-finder who can come into the district this month to recommend terms of a settlement on the 1995-96 teachers contract. Recognizing that difficult bargaining was ahead, negotiators for the two organizations agreed weeks ago to use a fact-finder to help them resolve their differences. The fact-finder from Texas selected by the negotiators couldnt come to Little Rock until mid-August. Martin said Friday the teams cant wait that long. The contract expires the first of August. The two teams of administrators and teachers have been meeting regularly to negotiate changes in the contract language, but theyve set aside some potentially explosive salary issues. Officials in the financially strapped school district have recommended a two-day cut in the teacher work year and an accompanying cut in pay to help avoid a budget deficit next year. The district also has recommended freezing all employee salaries and not distributing the annual 3 percent increment that many teachers traditionally get for their additional year of experience. The CTA opposes those proposals.I Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, JUNE3O, 1995 Arbitrator selected to help teachers, LRSD come to terms BY CYNTHIA HOWELL playgrounds and lunchrooms. Democrat-Gazette Educabon Wnter jjjg school district is trying Officials for the Little Rock to cut as much as $9 million in School District and the Classexpenses for the year. The room Teachers Association will school board has already voted turn to a federally appointed to eliminate a deputy superinfact-finder today for help in re- tendents position, close two el- solving disputes in teacher contract negotiations. Francis X. Quinn, an arbitrator based in Tulsa, will listen to arguments by the district and the CTA at a session set for 9 a.m. ementary schools and turn over transportation to a private company. One of the first items to be Most of the contract disputes center on the districts efforts to cut discussed will be an extension of the 1994-95 teachers con- expenses. District tract, Frank Martin, CTA execu- officials have orooosed tive director, said Thursday. proposea The contract for the districts shortening the school more than 1,500 teachers is to expire today, the last day of the districts fiscal year. Most of the contract disputes center on the districts efforts to cut expenses. District officials have proposed shortening year by two days and cutting employee salaries accordingly. The Federal Mediation and the school year by two days and Conciliation Service appointed cutting employee salaries ac- Quinn at the request of Martin cordingly. and Brady Gadberry, the dis- Also, the district has offered tricts director of labor rela- no incremental increases to tions. teachers for their added year of After hearing the presenta- experience. In the past, most tions today, Quinn will have teachers got incremental in- about 20 days to prepare sug- creases of about 3 percent a gestions for resolving the dis- year. Other disagreements con- agreements. The bargaining groups can cern the districts proposals to accept Quinns recommenda- cap health insurance benefits tions, reject them or use them for employees and to require as a basis for further negotia- teachers to handle some supervision of students in such areas tions. Quinn charges $600 a day for outside their classrooms as his arbitration services.Arkansas Democrat TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1995 Copyright O little Rock Newspapers, Inc, Fact finder recommends teacher raise, shorter year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Denxiciat-Gazette Education Writer nonbinding. The district or the CTA can accept reject or modify A fact finder hired to help re- them. solve contract disputes between Its basically a good recommen- the Little Rock School District and dation, said Brady Gadberry, the the teachers union has recommended that most teachers get a districts director of labor rela- tions. As with any arbitrators decision, there are things you like better than others. Frank Martin, executive direc- pay raise this year for their extra year of teaching experience. But Francis X. Quinn of Tulsa ------------ also recommended a two-day re- tor of the CTA, said he was pieced duction in the 192-day teacher that Quinn recommended continu- work year, which could partly off- ing the incremental pay raise that set any raise. teachers traditionally get for an exRepresentatives of the school tra year of experience. He also district and the Classroom Teach- liked toat Quinn recommended ers Association will meet at 1 p.m. $810 stipends for many of the dis- Wednesday to decide whether tricts most senior teachers. Quinns recommendations can be But the reduction of the fyro used to settle the 1995-96 teacher contract Quinns reconunendations are days will give us some trouble, Martin said, questioning whether it See TEACHERS, Page 5B Teachers schedule and are ineligible for an the shorter year. automatic experience increment A teacher at the top of the Little  Continued from Page 1B would be legal. Quinn also recom- experience but less than hours mended reducing the pay rate for of credit above the bachelors deteachers who choose six periods gree. But Quinn omitted from the pool Rock salary schedule earns $41,051 of teachers eligible for the stipend a year. If Quinns recommendation those who have at least 16 years of was adopted, the teacher would per day instead of five. The district earn an $810 stipend but would lose $427.60 if two work days were cut A beginning teacher who earns has paid teachers 20 percent of those teachers could get paid more their daily rate of pay for the sixth by acquiring more education. The class. -Acting on an administrative district traditionally pays teachers Gadberry said Quinn felt that $20,262 would get the $810 incre- ment but would lose $211.06 if the two days were cut The overriding assumptions in proposal, Quinn dropped that pay not only for their years of expert- this fact-finding were that the 1995- rate to 10 percent. Quinn issued his written recommendations Friday after hearing ence, but also for their extra edu- 96 expenditures would not exceed cational hours. Quinn accepted the districts projected 94-95 expenditures, Quinn wrote. However, we con- presentations from district and proposal that the teacher work eluded, based on the evidence subunion representatives June 30. The year be cut by the two days in No- mitted, that a modest salary in- CTA and the district had asked the vember when teachers attend the Federal Mediation and Concilia- Arkansas Education Association tion Service for a fact finder to rec- convention. In the past, schools ficiency. crease was possible and necessary to maintain morale and teacher ef ommend a resolution to their con- were closed to students on those tract disputes. Most of the disputes days, but teachers were paid to center on money and the districts participate in training programs. efforts to cut up to $9 million in expenses for the coming school year. Martin and Gadberry said Monday they would check with Quinn to The teachers who give their life of service of education to this student generation should be re^ warded on a par with others who render valuable service to the com- Specifically, Quinn recommend- make sure he intended that the two munity, he concluded. ed that the teacher salary schedule AEA days be unpaid days, because remain unchanged but that each teacher move one step on the schedule, making teachers eligible for an $810 increment. Last years teacher contract exit was only implied and not written pired June 30, leaving teachers, in the recommendation. who are supposed to return to work _ The district hopes to save about in mid-AugusL without a contracC- $700,000 this year by reducing the The CTA has a policy against' Teachers who have 17 to 20 work year by two days for teachers years of experience and 24 or more hours of college credit beyond a and three days for administrators. teachers working without a coU'' tract Gadberry said the district is Five employee groups, including continuing to honor the terms of bachelors degree should also get bus drivers, aides, custodians, se- the expired contract in hopes of. an $810 stipend, Quinn said. Those curity officers and food service teachers are at the top of the salary workers would be unaffected by quickly reaching a settlement on a new contractArkansas Democrat (j^azdte  FRIDAY, JULY 28, 1995   LR teachers association will meet to discuss contract negotiations several years ago stating that they programs sponsored by the Arkan- _  ._! __TT, At A MM A/tAn Little Rock Classroom Teach- several years ago stating that they prop-ms sponsoreo oy me mi ,'ScE will report .III not work without a contract sak ^Kat.on l''me''HS's?h.!'oDtrTc^^ \"Tb\"o ncgotlntloB teams met yeuby twdays and the admuiis- i  Mmbe? Eip mcS a 5 WeSwSThurrfa, and will mUe i Sn o\" Aug sTn ttie Pa'rkview resume tnte at.a m. today ld save the district about TrK5CT\"ve ad'tt.\"lsS Sd k Ser this month, a tederally director, said Thursday the meet- teams were optimistic that a r SC'i'wOTkdOTbreteed :5tS'rEe::ua^,'?B^^^^ ssasscSte^ErSiucEts ?uSS-Wd.he SsVeS^ S'E:\ns*'%e7cSeS\"bSith: S\nrrlddS. Lfc im?mh?r?SS u2 proposal as their salarms also experience. The ejsenence inc,^ the meeting to decide what to do if would be reduced by two days, there is no contract settlement by proAug 14 the day that most teachers posal are days in November that are scheduled to return to work schools are traditionally closed so for the 1995-96 school year. that teachers can attend profes- CTA members passed a policy s------ --------------- The two negotiating teams met year by two days and the adminis- Wednesday and Thursday and will trative work year by three days resume talks at 10:30 a.m. today. v. c Jd  \"\" Spokesmen for both the CTA $7(W,0(W. ...................... and the school district said the teams were optimistic that a set- The days affected by the pro- ment amounts to $810 per teacher. District officials said they would accept the fact-finders recommendations, but the CTA balked, say- uiai VC. -__________ W that they were being asked to sional conferences and training fund their own salary increases.L Arkansas Democrat C^azcttc SATURDAY, JULY 29 iqqc\nCoDvnm, o Unio Teachers slate contract session The Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association will try to reach a contract settlement Thursday morning, just hours before teachers meet at 5 p.m. to decide whether to return to work without contracts. Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, said after a bargaining session Friday that the negotiating teams appeared close to an agreement and he hopes the talks next week will produce a settlement that the CTA officials can carry to their membership meeting for approval. The teams will present their best and final offers at the Thursday session, Gadberry said. He is optimistic that those proposals will be so similar that a tentative agreement can be reached quickly. The main contention between the teams is a district proposal to discontinue paying teachers for attending two days of professional conferences and training sessions sponsored each November by the Arkansas Education Association. Those two days have been considered work days for teachers in past years, although students do not attend classes on those days. Other unresolved issues include new provisions on enforcing school district discipline policies and an anticipated increase this year in employee insurance premiums.THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000  District, teachers sign tentative pact for coming 3 years LR School Board, union members may OK contract with 7.25% and 5% raises next week BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Most Little Rock School District teachers can expect total pay increases of 7.25 percent this year and more than 5 percent in each of the next two years, according to a tentative contract signed Wednesday by district and teacher leaders. The three-year agreement must be ratified by the Little Rock School Board and the membership of the Classroom Teachers Associ- perience increment traditionally paid eligible teachers for their additional year of work - *** As a result, a majority of teach- ation to become final. That is expected to happen next week. The teachers association has scheduled a membership meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday, the day before most teachers start work for the 200001 school year. The meeting to act on the contract proposal will be at the Arkansas Education Association building, 1500 W. 4th St. As of late Wednesday, the School Board had not scheduled a time to consider the newly inked agreement but has a special meeting set for 530,p.m. Tuesday on a different matter. 'P Brady Gadberry, special assis- tant to die superintendent and the ence will be $50,363, compared districts chief negotiator, said the   * three-year proposal is significant because it will contribute to longterm stability and enable the district and community to concen- trate on attaining release from . crease percentages as nonrestrict- federal court monitoring of the districts desegregation efforts. The districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes procedures for court release by next June. Wednesdays agreement is actually Uie second three-year pact between the district and the teachers union, Gadberry said. But the first agreement, in 1989-90, was concluded after teachers went for almost an entire school year without a contract. As a result, the first year of the three-year contract was retroactive. According to terms of the agreement, all teachers will get a 4.25 percent pay increase this year and a minimum increase of 2.875 percent in each of the next two years, which amounts to a 10 percent raise over three years. The annual raises are coupled with the average 3.03 percent ex- ers should see a 7.25 percent increase this year and well over 5 , percent in the next two years. ' Teachers who have the most experience in the district and have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the 3.03 percent increment. But they do get a $1,500 stipend. -*  TTie salary for a beginning teacher with a bachelors degree will go from $23,135 in 1999-2000, to $24,118 this year. The top salary for a teacher with 20 years of experi- with $48,372 last year. .. The contract proposal establishes a minimum salary increase for the second and third years.but also establishes a procedure'to in- ed revenues to the district increase. Gadberry said there was a strong probability that pay increases will exceed the minimum. The contract language takes into accoimt the possibility of teacher raises enacted by state lawmakers when the Arkansas General Assembly convenes in January. Gov. Mike Huckabee and others have See TEACHERS, Page 5B V s 7: i )* iit' Icn, a __ f Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE Teachers  Continued from Page IB indicated that raising teacher salaries will be a priority during the legislative session. The Little Rock contract proposal includes adjustments in the salaiy schedule, beginning with the 2001-02 school year, as a way to raise beginning salaries and entice new teachers to the district. According to the proposal, salaries paid first-time teachers this year will be eliminated for 2001-02. This years salaries for all second-year teachers will become the first-year salaries in 2001-02 and a new second-year salaiy level has been developed. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. that she felt very positive about the The teams used Francis X. Quinn, a labor relations specialist from Oklahoma, on both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete tlie negotiations. Quinn has been employed by the district and the association at different times in the past as an arbitrator or fact finder in employee and contract disputes. He was in the Little Rock School District this week for matters not related to the contract negotiations when he was called on : to help, Gadberry said. Other changes in the contract for this year include the creation of a sick bank that will enable em-proposal and deferred other com- pigyees to donate unused sick days ments until after next week^s mem-\n    .......... bership meeting. Gadberry released the pro-posed terms to the Arkansas to be used by other critically ill employees. Signing in Heather Passmore stands beside her children, Emily, 4, Eric, 6, and Andrew, 8, at Little Rock's Carver Magnet Elementary School during registration Wednesday. Registration for all Little Rock School District schools will go on3rom 10 a.m.-7 p.m.today. The two older children will be first- and third-graders. Classes start Tuesday at Mabelvale, Woodruff and Stephens. Other Little Jtock schools start classes Aug. 21. and no experience in 2001-02 will, be $25,803. A second-year teacher newspaper submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the with the same degree will earn $26300. A third year teacher will earn $26,796. In the final year of the contract, . information. The states Freedom of Information Act states that all records maintained in public offices or by public employees with-the beginning salary will be $26,835, i n t-j ie sco.p e of their emplo-y me,nt the second-year salary will be ure presunied to be public records. $27351, and the third-year teacher And according to the law, any citi-with a bachelors degree will be ^^n of the state may inspect and paid ^,687. The top salary in the coPV public records. district that year will be $53,777. Gadberry said his reluctance to Players in the contract negotia- release the information was in def-tions, which began in earnest last erence to the union. June, were reluctant Wednesday to The negotiating teams met most reveal the terms of the proposal of Tuesday and for a few hours until after it could be presented to Wednesday to find acceptable lan-the teachers. guage on the restructuring of the Clementine Kelley, president of salary schedule beginning with the teachers association, said only 2001-2002. , Arkansas Democrat | FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 1995 CoDvritfrt O.Uttle Rock Newsoaoera. Inc. Teachers send negotiators back to table with orders to hang tough on contract BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Members of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers .Association sent their officers back to the contract negotiating table Thursday with instructions not to accept less than current benefits and salaries. The CT.A and the Little Rock School District are negotiating a 1995-96 teacher contract. The major remaining hurdle is a proposal to shorten the teacher work year by two days, with an accompanying cut in salaries. We wanted to get a feel from the membership about whether there was room for compromise. We got a resounding no.'  Frank .Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, said after the closed union meeting. Their message to us was that they have given and given and given, and they dont want to give any more. About 300 teachers attended the late-aftemoon meeting at Parkview Magnet High School. Martin said. About 85 percent of the districts almost 2,000 teachers belong to the CTA. The negotiating teams have another week to reach an agreement. Teachers, now without contracts, are scheduled to begin work Aug. 14. Students return Aug. 21. The CTA has a no-contract, no-work policy. Martin said he expects the district and CTA negotiating teams to meet again soon, possibly as early as today. The teams met briefly Thursday morning, when they were scheduled to present their best and final offers. But the CTA team wanted to delay making an offer until it had a chance to confer with the membership. .As a result, the district team decided to withhold its offer until the CTA was prepared. Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, refused to disclose the terms of the districts offer. But he did say the offer represented a significant change from the districts previous positions and should move the parties close to a settlement. A federally appointed factfinder called in by the teams last month recommended giving most teachers an incremental pay increase of $810 for their additional year of teaching experience. But he also recommended the two-day work-year reduction, which would cost teachers $220 to $447. While the district was willing to accept the fact-finders recommendations. the CTA balked, saying that teachers would end up paying their own increases through the two-day loss. Those two days are the ones when teachers attend professional conferences and training sessions sponsored by the .Arkansas Education Association in November. Martin said teachers objected Thursday to having district-paid health insurance premiums capped in exchange for keeping the two workdays. The district and the state pay the premiums, but the district recently was told those costs will increase this year by as much as $250,000.Arkansas Democrat [ TUESDAY, AUGUST 8,1995 Copvrifjht  Little Rock Newspepers. Inc. M I 11111 ! rOll % V? i iiriss? Arkansas Democial-GazeMe/STEVE KEESEE administration office at 810 W. Markham St. while district and union officials tried to negotiate a contract. NEGOTIATIONS STALL  Qordon McIntyre, a teacher al Brady Elementary School, makes his position plain as he and about 30 fellow Little Rock teachers picket outside Flap over picketers cancels contract talks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democfftt-Gazetle EdtJcaHon Writer Contract negotiations between quiet, the Little Rock School District terview in a room off the lobby. Gadberry asked the teachers to be Though the leachers were weland the Classroom Teachers Asso- c--o-m---e- t-o-- -s-i t in the lobby. Gadberi.y. ciation ended before they got said he asked them to take their started Monday, thanks to a confrontation over picketing teachers them, he said. in the Administration Building signs outside. That upset some of Frank Martin. CTA executive lobbv. director, said the organization s The negotiating teams will try again today to bargain, as dead-line. s for reaching a settlement ap proach. The CTA has a member ....... ship meeting at 4:30 p.m. Thursday against continuing the talks lor at Hall High School to ratify a con- -' tract proposal or decide what to do if there is no contract by next Monday  the day most teachers nothing, Martin .said, arc supposed to report to work..................................... . ....... Mondays dispute centered on the picketing teachers. The CTA liad organized about 30 members to picket outside the Administration Building while contract talks took place on the building's third negotiating team became angry about the lobb.v exchange and asked Gadberry to apologize, but he didn't. The C'l'A team decided the day. District administrators overreacted and made a big to-do about If we were going to storm the Bastille, we would do it wiUi more than 30 people.\" Martin said. Despite the dispute and the escalating tensions between the district and the CTA, Gadberry said Boor. Hot, humid weather forced some of the teachers indoors at 2 p.m. for water and a chance to cool off. he is optimistic that the teams can reach an agreement. Martin said the side issue.s arc distracting to the contract talks, but the teams still have time to reach a settlement. Brady Gadberry, the districts The teams arc to meet again at chief negotiator, said the teachers 9 a.iii. today. Teachers are expcct-were noisy and disturbed a job in- eedd ttoo rreessuumee ppiicckkeettiinngg.. 2B  FRIDAY, AUGUST 9. 1996 LR teachers warn district that strike may be imminent BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter With Monday looming as the first day of work for Little Rock teachers, , union leaders warned the school board Thursday that the districts last salary offer in contract negotiations wont be acceptable, This puts us in a very, verj' dangerous position, Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers .Association, told board members Thursday night as he reminded them of the unions longstanding 'no-contract, no-work policy. '.The last best offer that was made to us. in the opinion of my team and my executive board, will be insufficient to get ratified by the membership, Martin told the board. Union leaders are planning a membership meeting this weekend to d^ide exactly how to proceed if there is no contract. Most of the dis- tricSs more than 1,500 teachers are supposed to report to work Monday for.-Jhe new school year. Students are5cheduled to start classes a week later, on Aug. 19. want to remind you that we ar^'not advocating or looking for trouble. Martin said. We have had enOiigh crises in the 12 years that I haydbeen here to last us more than a d^ple of lifetimes. ^iven the good will that has beeji built up in this community, it wouid be an absolute disaster to be priced in a position of having to disrupt the services of the schools to the-students. jtertin asked the board to expand the boundaries in which dis- trietiadministrators are working to seftib the 1996-97 contract. He said it appeared that the districts negotiating team had little authority to bargain over salaries and other money issues. But Dr. \"Vic Anderson, the assistant superintendent overseeing day-to-day district operations in the absence of a superintendent, said administrators are acting appropriately, given district finances, 'Our work force is very impor- , tant to us, Anderson added, We ! value them greatly. We want all our j employees to be satisfied with the i best package that we can provide to i them. We also have a responsibility j to leave the district in a financially j sound condition. We can't give away i that we do not have to revenue give.' Teachers initially sought a 5 percent across-the-board raise, plus cent aLTus5-uie-uu\u0026lt;uu loiac, piuo the incremental raises that some  teachers get for each additional year of experience. Representatives of the two negotiating teams declined Thursday to give any specifics about the districts most recent offer. Skip Rutherford, a public relations company executive who serves with Anderson on the team that is supervising the districL assured the board that administrators are working to resolve the contract disputes. No one in this city wants a work stoppage, Rutherford said. But he said that administrators have to be concerned about the districts future. What we do in August of 1996 may force a school board in August 1997 or August 1998 to make some very painful cuts out of very important programs, Rutherford said.IjVrkansas Democrat THURSDAY, AUGUST 10,1995 \"      IV, .CoovTiffht  Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. LR teachers, district talk into night BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ..... .......................-- AND SANDRA COX Democral-Qazette Staff Writers Negotiating teams representing the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association continued talks late Wednesday in an effort to reach a contract Without disclosing details, Marwithout disclosing details. Mar- .solved. The teams have worked con tin said the association had offered sisteiitly to find ways around the its last proposal. settlement and avert a union vote today on a possible teacher strike. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said he thought the two We think we can make a settlement, he said. The C'JA has set a membership meeting for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High School. Teachers are expected to either vote on a settlement agreement or decide what to do if hurdles, he said. there is no contract by the time they  . . are supposed to report to work groups were \"relatively close to a Monday. settlement. yiie established a no con- Gadberry and Martin refused to reveal the terms of the proposals. The teams have been negotiating for much of the summer. In July, a federally appointed fact finder recommended a settlement that called for the district to pay teachers an extra $810 for their extra year of work experience. He also ei-s attend professional conferences . and training sessions sponsored by' the Arkansas Education Association. The Little Rock School District has about 2,000 teachers. About 85 percent of the teachers belong to the CTA. As of 10:40 p.m., the two groups were still meeting behind closed doors at the district Administration Building. recommended cutting the two workdays  which would mean cuts in salary ranging from .$200 to rp. .. , , MOO -- and reducing the pay for The negotiating teams began teachers who teach six periods a meeting shortly afier 1 p.m............................. Wednesday, prepared to go until midnight or later if needed to reach tract, no-work policy several years ago. But about 9:30 p.m., after the association took a dinner break lasting more than an hour, Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said the group and the district were still beriy, chief negotiator for wrestling over two issues: proposals ....................... to cap employee insurance benefits and eliminate two workdays. a settlement. p.m. Earlier in the day. Brady Gad the school district, said he hoped an agreement would be reached, but stubborn issues remained to be re- day instead of the traditional five. The school district was willing to accept the fact finders report. But the CTA balked, saying that by cutting the two workdays, they were paying for their own incremental raises. The workday.s at issue are the two day-s in November when teach-Arkansas Democrat ((jazeltcJ FRIDAY, AUGUST 11.1995 LR teachers wrap up $810, new contract BY SUSAN ROTH AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writers Little Rock teachers have a new contract, four days before most return to school for the 1995- 96 year. And in a year when the district had to close a $9 million budget gap, they managed to keep all 192 workdays, fully paid health insurance and step increases of $810 for all teachers. The increases are for stepping up a year in employment but normally stop after a number of years. The district had sought to cut the step increases and two days from the teacher contract to save more than $1 million. Administrators also tried to cap the health CTA  Continued from Page 1B Tied the settlement after only 15 minutes behind closed doors. Frank Martin, executive director of the teachers union, said he believed that the teachers quickly approved the pact because they  knew we would make no great progress this year. The teachers initially asked for a 5 percent raise besides the $810 step increment across the board. The school district, meanwhile, proposed no raise.s or increments for the teachers. Instead, the district would have cut tlieir pay by reducing the school year by two days to 190. A federally appointed fact-finder recommended last month that the district pay all teachers the $810 step increase but cut the two work- ' insurance plan: collectively teachers would have had to pay an extra $200,000 for insurance. Union officials saw the settlement as a clear victory. Administrators and school board members viewed it as a mixed bag  some gains but losses on some of big-ticket items. The negotiating teams, which started talks in February, tentatively agreed to the settlement just before midni^t Wednesday, \"rhe new contract is retroactive to July 1. We had a real show of support from the membership, said Betty Mitchell, president of the Classroom Teachers Association, after the teachers voted 'Thursday afternoon. 'The message was clear Dont give an inch. As in any negotiations, both sides got some of what they wanted and left the bargaining table wishing they had gotten a few more things, Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, told school board members Thursday evening as he asked them to approve the agreement By a 54) vote, the board gave it the nod with little discussion. At the teachers meeting in Hall High School auditoriiun, about 350 members of the 1,47^ member CTA unanimously rati- See CTA, Page 5B days. The district liked the recommendation, but the CTA objected. Union officials were particularly pleased that teachers at the top of the salary schedule would also receive the ^10. Top-level teachers earned $41,061 last year. Tliey received no increment or pay raise last year. The teachers did agree to two cuts proposed by the district. Junior and senior high teachers who teach six classes every day instead of the standard five will receive an extra 10 percent stipend, down from 20 percent. Teachers who lose preparation time because they must travel between schools will receive a maximum of $2,000. They used to receive a stipend amounting to 20 percent of their salaries. Those two items wilt save the district $150,000, officials said. Partly as a result of the settle- ment, the district will draw on a $20 million state desegregation loan to cover its expenses this year. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who monitors the districts compliance with its desegregation plan, has objected in the past to using the nonrecurring loan ftinds to finance recurring expenses. IArk,ansas Democrat (gazelle J _ MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1996 LR teachers ro leaders: Keep talking .^ay raises, insurance .\u0026lt;ey sticking points BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazerte tducation Wrner Members of the Little Rock Tlassroom Teachers Association .iirected their representatives Sunday to continue negotiating vith school district officials over a 1996-97 teacher contract and re-oort back to the membership Thursday. About 250 teachers marked heir last day of summer vacation Sunday afternoon by attending the closed Classroom Teachers Association meeting in the Hall High School media center. Most of the districts teachers will return to work today to prepare for the See TEACHERS, Page 3B Teachers I 1 A 4 1^ Forest Heights Junior High School teachers Patricia Wilkerson (right center) and Meny Zakrzewski (left center) discuss contract  Continued from Page 1B start of school Aug. 19. We wanted to give teachers the status of negotiations,\" said Frank Martin, Classroom Teachers Association executive director. They directed us to go back to the table to get the best settlement we can get.\" The teachers also instructed union leaders to establish a crisis committee, which is routinely formed when tensions in the contract negotiations escalate. The committee supports the union negotiating team in ways ranging from painting signs for informational picket lines to communicating with the membership and the public. Negotiating teams for the Classroom Teachers Association and Little Rock School District met almost everj day last week, but broke for the weekend despite union objections. The teams are scheduled to resume talks at 4 p.m. today. We'd like to get this wrapped up by Wednesday, Martin said, adding that the union membership will meet again at 4:30 p.m. Thursday at Hall for another update. Thursday is also the day inter- Robert.s starts work, adding a new player to the negotiations process. The Classroom Teachers Association has a standing no-contract. no-work policy, which is generally interpreted to mean teachers won't work when schools open for students if the employees do not have a contract. Little Rock teachers have gone on strike only once, in 1987, but have teetered on the brink in other years. 5 V I TS, 'tSCY im Superintendent Dr. Don ri ArXansas Democral-Gazene/BENJAMIN KRA demands Sunday pnor to a meeting at Hall High School. Abe 250 teachers from the Little Hock School District pardcipated. assume at least a share of the cost of the premiums for individual insurance coverage, a cost the district has heretofore paid entirely. Teachers said Sunday that they feared any raises they get will be offset by the cost of the insurance. Another issue deals with providing stipends for senior teachers. Last year, because no across-the- board raises were paid and the senior teachers were ineligible for an incremental raise, the Martin said the union team is employees got an $810 stipend, prepared to negotiate until the The district team has proposed start of school next Monday to get paying that same stipend, but a settlement. over two years' time, resulting in The 1995-96 teacher contract the teachers getting only about expired June 30. $400 each year. Union and school district offi- Sundays union meeting was cials have declined to reveal de- primarily informational. Howev-tails of their contract talks. But, teachers who attended the meeting Sunday indicated that the district is offering an across-the-board 2 percent raise plus the incremental increases many teachers traditionally get for their additional year of experience. The increment is between 2 and 3 percent, but as many as 400 of the districts most experienced teachers er, teachers expressed frustration over the lack of a contract and the possibility they will not get satisfactory raises. Weve had more superintendents in the last five years than we have had raises, quipped one teacher as she left the meeting. Once the two teams reach a tentative settlement, the agree-ment must be ratified by both the have reached the top of the pay Classroom Teachers Association scale and are ineligible for the incremental increases. One of the sticking points in the negotiations is insurance. membership and the Little Rock School board. The district has more than 1,500 teachers, the majority of teachers said Sunday. The district whom are Classroom Teachers team is proposing that teachers Association members. Arkaniias Democrat FRIDAY. AUGUST 16, 1996  3B LR school year wont be tardy: Teacher contract talks settled BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter The Little Rock School District and its teachers averted a possible strike next week by agreeing Thursday to a contract that gives teachers a 2.46 percent across-the-board raise plus an $830 increase for each additional year of experience. Bargaining teams representing the district and the Classroom Teachers Association negotiated all night Wednesday. They arrived at a tentative agreement just minutes before an association membership meeting at 4:30 p.m. Thursday at Hall High. Several hundred members quickly ratified the agreement as did Little Rock School Board members a few minutes later. Some teachers will get salary increases of almost $2,000 under the new contract \"This will get the school year off to an excellent start Betty Mitchell, teacher association president said. \"This is the first time in three years that teachers have gotten a raise.' she added, although most teachers did get step increases for their years of experience during that time. All in all. its a very good package. Brady Gadberry, the districts director of labor relations, told the school board Thursday. Negotiations on the contract began last spring but intensified last week as the beginning of school year drew closer. The teacher association has a standing \"no-con- tract, no-work policy that threatened to keep schools closed Monday. The bargaining teams began negotiating Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. ____ and kept at it until 7:30 a.m. Thurs- payment by the district day, when they declared an impasse. After lunch, administrators asked to meet again. The teams ________ reached a one-year, tentative each employee for the next two agreement about 4:15 p.m. years. If the premium is less than The major points in the talks centered on salary increases and insurance. In the past, the district and the state have paid each employees insurance premium for individual coverage  $155 per person this past year. The districts negotiating team initially wanted the employees to assume part of the insurance costs, but the teacher association insisted on 100 percent As a result of Thursdays agreement, the district will apply S164 a month to insurance coverage for the monthly allowance, the employee can apply the excess to coverage for a spouse or dependents. If any employee has insurance from a source other than the district and does not want to participate in any of the school insurance programs, he will get a $550 stipend. Also as part of the agreement the district and the teachers agreed to drop the districts longterm disability insurance coverage. That will save $533,000. which will be returned to the teacher salary fund. The agreement gives all teachers the 2.46 percent general raise. The beginning salary for a teacher-, with a bachelors degree will ba\u0026gt; S20.760 this year. The districts top.' salary will be $42,870 for teachers with a masters degree plus 36 ad-\nditional college hours and 21' - years of experience. Most teachers also will get $830\nfor each additional year of experi-' ence. Teachers at the top of the salaiy schedule and ineligible for that experience increment will get an $810 stipend! -Also, a teacher may get $100 a semester for perfect attendance,-. Teachers with perfect attendance, all vear are eligible for a total of $300.Arkansas Den: ?crat (gazette  TUESDAY, AUGUST 25,1998  ( LR teachers, district narrow differences over pay raises Union, schools may reach tentative accord today, director says BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Differences over salary increases for teachers kept representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association at the bargaining table late Monday. Teams negotiating a 1998-99 teacher contract traded proposals for more than nine hours as they worked into the night to reach a tentative agreement before a union membership meeting at 4:30 p.m. today at the Hall High School auditorium. The teams stood 1.5 percentage points apart on a salary agreement, representatives from the teams confirmed shortly before 11 p.m. Neither side would reveal details about the salary offers. Teachers had asked for a 7 per-  cent raise plus the traditional increment of 2.7 percent to 3 percent for their extra year of teaching experience. District officials have expressed a willingness to raise employee salaries but said they cant pay the increases until a federal court rules on the amount of money that the state must reimburse the district for past teacher retirement and health insurance. Classroom Martin, Frank Teachers Association executive director, said the teachers team will present the membership today with a tentative agreement or the districts final offer. The Classroom Teachers Association membership has rarely approved a district offer that lacks the Classroom Teachers Association negotiating teams stamp of approval. If it has no tentative agreement to present today, the teachers team will likely have to recommend alternatives to the membership. But no decisions about alternatives had come Monday. There has been no threat or discussion of a teacher strike. The teams have reached tentative agreements on parts of the contract. Brady Gadberry, the chief negotiator for the district, said the teams had agreed to insurance and stipend provisions. He said he wont describe the agreements until all negotiations are complete. Martin said the teams also had reached a consensus on contract language that would let a teacher appeal to a building or district committee if he thought a principal had failed to enforce student discipline. The Little Rock district the largest in the state, has about 1,800 teachers\nabout 85 percent belong to the association. Besides Martin, the teachers negotiating team includes Classroom Teachers Association President Grainger Led- I better and district teachers. Gadberrys team included the districts financial managers, principals and administrative representatives. 'The Little Rock School Board and the Classroom Teachers Association members must ratify any tentative agreement between the district and the Classroom Teachers Association.' Atluuisas Ueniocrat T^XlifrazclU' |  WEDNESDAY, AUGUS f 26. 1998 Teachers unhappy with raises send negotiators back to table UY CYN IJ llA HOWELL ARJGXNSAS nE.M(X KAI-GAZErii: Dissatisfied with a proposed 4.5 percent raise contingent on a federal court order, member.$ of the Little Ilock Classroom Teachers administrators in the district got raises of 10 percent or more earlier this Slimmer. 'rherc i.s no money in IkhkI and too many *ifs tied to (Ik* promises. teacher IJcmy Ne.sby said after the meeting. Nesby is a contiaclI l\u0026lt; alIlcIs' wiuthT school d*i.'s..t.r.i.c. t g*ocl*ia\u0026gt;tibnegr otefa tmhe. teachers union ne-icpresenlalives. Despite the lack of a contract agreement in what is teachers h,nue KOCK Association told their negotiating team Tuesday to resume 1998-99 The teachers reviewed the sala^ issue during a l'A-hour ......... vn,uu..,enuu5iaiK \"'^filing at Hall High School. They of any kind has been heanl of a asked their negotiating team to re-  port back to them within HI days. About 400 teachers attended district Uie private late-altemoon meeting. Afterward, several teachers grumbled about having to wait for deferred raises fon the second straiglit year when seven top-level third week of work, no serious talk job action, such as a strike. Representatives of the school and the association worked for almost 11 hours Monday to reach a tentative contract agreement before the teachers upion membership meeting. The Teachers \"Continued from Page 1B teams broke up shortly after midnight with tentative agreements on everything except salary and teacher workload. The teams differed by 1.5 percentage points on a salary increase. At the membership meeting, the teachers union team presented teachers with tlie dislricts and the associations respective final salary offers. The district's offer included: .  A total increase of 7.5 percent, consisting of a 4.5 percent across-the- board raise coupled with an increment of 2.7 percent to 3 percent traditionally paid teachers for their additional year of experience. The 4.5 percent increase, however, would be contingent on finalization of a federal court decision expected to reimburse the district for millions of dollars for teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the slate was supposed to pay.  A $1,180 stipend to the districts most experienced teachers who are no longer eligible for the cx- See TEACHERS, Page 3B I? ft if?: 1 V o I Little Rock sclioolleacliers Eleanor Colotnan (left) and Gait Delozier look over contract proposals before a teachers meeting Tuesday to discuss negotiations between the Afknusns Dcmocrnl-G.izclte.CHniS JOHNSON Classroom Teachers Association and the school district. The teachers voted to send their representatives back to the bargaining table. perience increment. would begin Oct. 1. Payment  An increase in the monthly insurance contribution from $164 to $178. beginning Sept. 15. That  would pay the premiums for two of the least expensive health plans available to individual employees.  An increase in the supplemental pay distributed to coaches and other teachers who take on extra duties, such as supervising tracurricular activities. ex- The amount of the increase, beginning this year, would mirror the percentage increase in the base salary. The teachers union salaiy proposal differs only in that it calls for pajinent of the 4.5 percent across-the-board raise plus an additional 1.5 percent if the reini- ' bursement of state fund.s for 1996- 1 98 exceeds $13.4 million. I All totaled, the teachers union . is seeking 6 percent plus the tra- ! ditional increment, as compared to the districts 4.5 percent plus the increment. In addition to tho salary proposals for this year, teachers employed by the district in 1997-98 will eventually get a retroactive 3 percent raise negotiated last school year but deferred until the district won its court case against the stale. As a result, many teachers could eventually see their nav increase by 10.5 percent this year. A beginning teacher would make $22,625 this year, $2,510 more than a beginning teacher last year, under the districts proposal and with the deferred 3 percent from last year. A teacher with 19 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 hours would make $4,092 more than last year. Frank Marlin, executive director of the teacliers association, said Tuesday that the teachers want a better salary offer and theyre mad because they've had to wait for increases. But, he said, the two negotiating teams agree on the increase in the insurance benefit, the supplemental pay increase and the experience increment. T'he teams also have tentatively agreed on new contract language that makes teachers and principals equally responsible for enforcing student discipline policies. A discipline supcrvisoiy committee will be established with the authority to review disci-plinaiy actions taken by princi-pahs that are inconsistent with a school's discipline plan and district policy. We think weve put an exceptionally good offer on tlie table already, Brady Gadbeny. the districts chief negotiator, said after the association meeting, rm not sure I understand how wo can put anything else on the table, but 1 don't want to foreclose on the possibility of a scUlcincnt agreement. Gadbeny said this years offer of 7.5 percent is belter than last year's package of 725 percent, including the deferred 3 percent, that teachers adopted. Iliis year's benefits offer includes an 8.6 percent increase in the district's contribution to employee Insurance preiniunis, he said. There is no schedule for ob-taining a decision on (he reimbursement of state funds to Uie^ Little Rock district. A federal peals court ruled in July that the-district was entitled to the money. The appeals court directed U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to decide exactly how much money is owed to tlic district. The stale has proposed a formula by which Little Rock would  get about $15 million. At the same time, the stale has asked the 8tb- U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals- to recon.sider its order. :  Arkansas Democrat '^(iS^azcll^  WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2/1^^ Teachers to get word on LR contract talks The Little Rock Classroom teachers Association has scheduled a membership meeting for L30 p.m. Thursday at the Hall High School auditorium to consider the outcome of negotiations over a 1998-99 teachers' contract. Contract negotiations scheduled for Tuesday afternoon between Little Rock School District administrators and the teachers' association were postponed until this afteimoon because a negotiator was ill. Last week, the two bargaining teams tentatively agreed to virtually all provisions of a contract except salarv\nThe teams were 1.5 percentage points apart in talks over salan- increases. Teachers sought a 6 per- cent increase plus the traditional 3 percent given for an additional year of experience. The district offered 4.5 percent plus the experience increment. Both proposals hinged on the district receiving reimbursement 01 millions of dollars in state funds for 1996-98 shortfalls in the states contribution toward teacher re- tiiement and health insurance re- costs. The association has since changed its position and is asking for a 2 percent across-the-board salary- increase by Oct. 1 and a 4 percent increase later, when the district gets the state funding.I Arkansas Democrat T^djirtzclle ]  THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1993 District declares impasse Schools seek mediator to solve salary dispute BY CYNTHIA HOWELL AHKANSAS MCMlMKARiAZI: I! T. Representatives of the Little Rock School District declared an impasse Thursday in salaiy negotiations with the Classroom Teach- Impasse  Continued from Page 1B teacher retirement and health insurance costs for 1996-98. The 0.75 percent brings the possible raise to 5.25 percent. The district asked for the 107 percent reimbursement in federal court last month.  An increase in health insurance contributions, from $164 to $178 a month, and in the stipend paid teachers for extra duty. Coupled with the experience increment and contingent on the court order, the district is offering a total increase of 7.5 percent to 8.25 percent. Gadberiy said that until the impasse is resolved, the district will operate under the terms of last years contract and will proceed , ... , ., ,, with plans to pay teachers the tra- ers Association and said they ditional 2 7 percent to 3 percent in- ,.,i,i ....11 p ii r.  r,...i experience. Teachers at mediator. the top of the salary schedule who Distiict teachers will consider are ineligible for that increment the latest development in tlie 1998- will get a stipend of $980, just as 99 teacher contract tatks at an as- they did last year. sociation membership meeting set The district also will continue for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High last years payment of $164 a month would call for help from a federal School. Frank Martin, executive director of the association, said district olTicials declared an impasse after the association asked for a 1.5 percent across the-board raise by Oct. 1, plus a 4..5 percent raise when the state reimburses the district for shortfalls in state funding. Coupled with the traditional increase for experience, the association is seeking a total pay increase of about 9 percent. Brady Gadberiy, the districts chief negotiator, said he was disappointed by the impasse. But tlie call for a mediator became necessary when the association team retreated from its earlier salary position to a more entrenched position, he said. Gadberiy said the distr ict cannot give teachers an across-the- board raise until the state reimburses it for 199G-98 teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The district is awaiting a federal court order on how the state debt to the district must be calculated. Also contingent on the court order is a 3 percent salaiy increase for teachers defeired from last year. The teniis of the districts last salaiy oiler included:  The traditional 2.7 percent to 3 percent increase for a teachers additional year of experience.  A $1,130 stipend to teachers at the top of the salaiy schedule who are ineligible for the experience increment.  A 4.5 percent across-the-board raise once the district gets the state funding.  An additional 0.75 percent raise if the district is awarded state funding equal to 107 percent of its See IMPASSE,Page 3B tentatively agreed on virtually every aspect of the contract except salary and a question of whether teachers must be paid extra to teach more than five class periods a day. The teams were 1.5 percentage points apart, with teachers seeking 6 percent and the district offering 4.5 percent. Both proposals hinged on receipt of the court-ordered state funding. The teachers team presented the district's offer to the association membership meeting Aug. 25. About 400 of the district's 1,800 | teachers attended and directed their team to resume negotiations. The existing teacher contract calls for a mediator if the two teams reach an impasse in contract talks. Martin and Gadbeny will write to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Seivice for a list of potential mediators. Once a mediator is agreed on. that person will attempt to help the teams settle their disputes. If that fails, the contract provides for a federal fact finder, who would conduct a hearing on the disputed issues and within 20 days prepare a insurance premiums. Last week, the negotiating teams issues. I FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 4, 1998 OB-J I I LR teachers association president resigns BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS UEMOIKAI-UAZE I I E Grainger Ledbetter, a longtime teacher union leader, is resigning as president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association to work for the Labor Education Program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock He announced his resignation, effective today, in a letter to teachers and repeated it at an association membership meeting Thursday during which teachers received a status report on efforts to negotiate a 1998-99 contract witli the Little Rock School District. Willie Givens, association vice president and head custodian at Central High School, will assume the presidents duties as prescribed in the associations constitution. Givens has been employed by the Little Rock School District for more than 23 years and has been active in the teachers association and Arkansas Education Association since 1983. It unclear Thursday was whether Givens would serve the full year remaining in Ledbetters two-year term. He said he expects to fulfill the term, but there was some talk among teachers about possibly calling a special election to select a teacher. That decision will be up to the associations executive board and its representative council. The Classroom Teachers Association has about 1,800 members, said Frank Martin, its executive director. As many as 800 are educational support personnel, including custodians, aides, bus drivers and security guards. Ledbetter, 41, a Little Rock School District employee since 1^1, will be a labor education specialist at UALR. The 25-year-old labor program is a division of the Institute for Economic Advancement and provides research, educational services and training programs for public and private-sector labor organizations and workers. Training sessions cover topics such as collective bargaining, stewardship, arbitration, labor and employment law and workplace safety. Ledbetter said his resignation was in no way the result of anger or frustration with the organization or the prolonged teacher contract negotiations this summer with school district officials. District officials declared an impasse in those contract talks earlier this week. A fed- oral mediator will be called in to assist the teams in reaching a settlement Im not resigning out of pique and Im not upset Ledbetter said. Its just tliat this is an opportunity that will allow me to spend more time with my family, continue union work, and I get to live in Little Rock. I had hoped to have a (teacher] contract signed, sealed and delivered before I took the new position, but that didnt tuni out to be possible. Ledbetter and his wife, Slieny CuiTy, have three young children and are part of a prominent Little Rock family. Uis father. Cal Ledbetter, a fonner state legislator, is a professor emeritus of political science at UALR. His motlier, Brownie Ledbetter, is a longtime community activist with the Arkansas Fairness Council, a tax reform organization. A junior high teacher, Ledbetter first seived as teacher association president in 1987-91. During his tenure, the teachers and bus drivers went on strike against tlie district. He then served two terms as president of the 17,006-member Arkansas Education Association before returning to the teachers association presidency last year. 1' Lcdbetter attended his last membership meeting Thureday afternoon at Hall Higli. He urged tlie approximately 250 teachers pre-, sent to give tlie mediation a chance i 1 to work. And he told them hebe\nlieved teachers will wind up witli' a.',  better financial settlement thaij the ' 7.5 percent- 8.25 percent raise\ntlie  district is offering. More than half.\nof the raise is contingent upon .the'' state paying the district milliops of\ndollars for 1996-98 shortfalls in I 11 teacher retirement and health in--\nsurancepayments.  . Teachers are seeking 9 percent . J increases for tlie year, including an  incremental raise for an additional : year of teaching experience. , i Ledbetter warned against a \" premature strike, saying that the- two negotiating teams are relatively close to an agreement and liave li long agreed to the use of media-  tion and fact finding should talks stall. t He criticized Superintendent': Les Camine for sending teachei's a J, letter earlier Thursday outlining:\nsome of the issues in the negotia- tions. He called tlie letter a clumsy attempt to influence teachers and said it could derail tlie negotiating . process. I' WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16.1998  Arkansas Democrat (Bazcttc LR teachers, district select Tulsa mediator BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Negotiators for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association have tentatively selected a Tulsa-based mediator to assist them in completing negotiations on the 1998-99 teacher contract Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, and Brady Gadberry, special as\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_353","title":"Cost per pupil","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":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Cost per pupil"],"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/353"],"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\nPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1992-1993 Actual School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Expenditure Octi 1992 Octi 1992 92-93 Actual 51 47 46 24 33 48 50 31 52 18 20 38 29 37 22 42 30 45 28 32 40 17 44 19 23 25 36 39 34 26 49 41 Wakefield Terry Mablevale Forest Park Meadowcliff Fullbrig ht Otter Creek Cloverdale Watson Brady McDermott Pulaski Heights Western Hills Geyer Springs Baseline Washington Jefferson Woodruff Chicot Dodd Romine Bale Wilson Badgett Fair Park Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland Ish Stephens $1,080,201.67 $1,201,389.07 $1,206,535.14 $981,517.03 $1,076,269.43 $1,330,115.51 $851,542.87 $934,944.01 $1,131,452.56 $1,041,098.68 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $877,344.34 $707,928.80 $885,849.79 $2,162,216.22 $1,304,570.79 $649,511.89 $1,486,051.76 $849,570.99 $1,103,629.12 $1,013,230.42 $1,111,388.63 $697,035.45 $883,765.97 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,162,902.06 $1,208,845.13 $1,289,211.46 $1,011,279.63 $1,163,545.97 $1,019,654.16 $1,160,444.45 $1,147,518.12 $869,050.69 $1,002,625.92 $1,324,804.26 $802,665.92 $923,339.89 $1,112,392.78 $990,898.05 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $821,912.41 $719,345.29 $808,448.36 $2,223,513.84 $1,274,108.81 $639,833.62 $1,455,057.31 $809,999.85 $1,231,028.03 $1,029,374.87 $1,131,098.45 $641,908.51 $872,728.18 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,284,635.19 $1,280,639.42 $1,317,830.72 $1,160,352.63 $1,274,741.49 $1,041,513.36 $1,175,147.95 $1,127,149.24 $1,009,041.26 $1,051,067.36 $1,317,057.53 $879,354.11 $919,636.35 $1,136,159.29 $1,009,510.96 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $870,983.22 $755,680.79 $915,687.59 $2,242,772.97 $1,340,589.71 $669,017.57 $1,532,460.98 $872,462.96 $1,147,564.73 $1,040,097.06 $1,196,557.69 $724,769.38 $873,357.37 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,238,081.45 $1,319,496.71 $1,384,930.53 $1,021,284.19 $1,255,977.41 500 541 500 444 440 530 353 366 451 398 509 379 335 282 339 822 483 234 535 304 361 321 355 202 243 411 361 249 264 256 187 209 69 44 56 45 66 42 41 80 74 69 54 52 62 63 77 59 42 63 65 60 77 77 75 76 79 86 69 96 88 91 97 97 $2,083.03 $2,172.18 $2,254.30 $2,272.62 $2,388.79 $2,485.01 $2,491.09 $2,512.67 $2,519.20 $2,536.46 $2,537.15 $2,557.21 $2,599.95 $2,679.72 $2,701.14 $2,728.43 $2,775.55 $2,859.05 $2,864.41 $2,869.94 $3,178.85 $3,240.18 $3,370.59 $3,587.97 $3,594.06 $4,216.71 $4,870.81 $4,972.21 $4,998.09 $5,409.88 $5,461.41 $6,009.46 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1993-1994 Budget School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget 93-94 Expenditure Oct 1 1992 Oct 1 1992 92-93 Actual FTE Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Oct 1 1993 Oct 1 1993 93-94 Budgeted 47 24 46 33 51 20 38 50 48 29 30 52 37 18 31 45 35 22 32 28 42 44 23 17 19 40 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Terry Forest Park Uablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield McDermott Pulaski Heights Otter Creek Fullbright Western Hills Jefferson Watson Geyer Springs Brady Cloverdale Woodruff M.L. King Baseline Dodd Chicot Washington Wilson Fair Park Bale Badgett Romine Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $1,201,389.07 $981,517.03 $1,206,535.14 $1,076,269.43 $1,080,201.67 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $851,542.87 $1,330,115.51 $877,344.34 $1,304,570.79 $1,131,452.56 $707,928.80 $1,041,098.68 $934,944.01 $649,511.89 $1,160,444.45 $869,050.69 $1,147,518.12 $1,002,625 92 $1,019,654.16 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $802,665.92 $1,324,804.26 $821,912.41 $1,274,108.81 $1,112,392.78 $719,345.29 $990,898.05 $923,339.89 $639,833.62 $885,849.79 $849,570 99 $1,486,051.76 $2,162,216.22 $1,111,388.63 $883,765.97 $1,013,230.42 $697,035.45 $1,103,629.12 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,208,845.13 $1,162,902.06 $1,289,211.46 $1,163,545.97 $1,011,279.63 $808,448.36 $809,999.85 $1,455,057.31 $2,223,513 84 $1,131,098.45 $872,728.18 $1,029,374 87 $641,908.51 $1,231,028.03 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,280,639.42 $1,284,635.19 $1,317,830.72 $1,274,741.49 $1,160,352.63 $1,175,147.95 $1,009,041.26 $1,127,149.24 $1,051,067.36 $1,041,513.36 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $879,354.11 $1,317,057.53 $870,983.22 $1,340,589.71 $1,136,159.29 $755,680.79 $1,009,510.96 $919,636.35 $669,017.57 $25,501.31 $915,687.59 $872,462.96 $1,532,460.98 $1,196,557.69 $873,357.37 $1,040,097.06 $724,769.38 $1,147,564.73 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,319,496.71 $1,238,081.45 $1,384,930.53 $1,255,977.41 $1,021,284.19 541 444 500 440 500 509 379 353 530 335 483 451 282 398 366 234 339 304 535 822 355 243 321 202 361 411 361 264 249 256 209 187 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses 44 45 56 66 69 54 52 41 42 62 42 74 63 69 80 63 77 60 65 59 75 79 77 76 77 86 69 88 96 91 97 97 $2,172.18 $1,201,978.91 $2,272.62 $1,034,064.02 $2,254.30 $1,149,041.07 $2,388.79 $1,044,336.95 $2,083.03 $1,101,790.19 $2,537.15 $1,314,256.17 $2,557.21 $1,049,040.22 $2,491,09 $911,092.87 $2,485.01 $1,392,965.59 $2,599.95 $894,632.77 $2,775.55 $1,360,887.52 $2,519.20 $1,195,073.02 $2,679.72 $784,275.30 $2,536.46 $1,090,136.40 $2,512.67 $1,091,282.28 $2,859.05 $687,642.24 0 $1,658,864.16 $2,701.14 $1,031,401.85 $2,869.94 $880,215.87 $2,864.41 $1,617,845 51 $2,728.43 $2,369,300.33 $3,370.59 $1,200,696.51 $3,594.06 $918,162.06 $3,240.18 $1,158,843.33 $3,587.97 $737,551.85 $3,178.85 $1,329,911.36 $4,216.71 $1,636,195.14 $4,870.81 $1,877,365.19 $4,998 09 $1,370,625.10 $4,972.21 $1,278,754.99 $5,409.88 $1,444,866.58 $6,009.46 $1,318,562.68 $5,461.41 $70,411.25 45 37 46 33 41 42 40 30 47 34 45 43 34 43 42 27 4 41 35 64 90 40 32 43 28 45 62 72 50 44 50 46 561 458 488 434 447 509 398 341 520 332 504 442 288 397 386 236 553 343 292 509 721 354 263 303 189 334 345 340 230 189 205 145 43 44 64 71 75 51 48 41 45 65 42 80 72 66 79 62 65 77 65 70 63 74 76 74 70 74 87 71 93 97 88 97 $2,142.56 $2,257.78 $2,354.59 $2,406.31 $2,464.86 $2,582.04 $2,635.78 $2,671.83 $2,678.78 $2,694.68 $2,700.17 $2,703.79 $2,723.18 $2,745.94 $2,827.16 $2,913.74 $2,999.75 $3,007.00 $3,014.44 $3,178.48 $3,286.13 $3,391.80 $3,491.11 $3,824.57 $3,902.39 $3,981.77 $4,742.59 $5,521.66 $5,959.24 $6,765.90 $7,048.13 $9,093.54 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedLRSD 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 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 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 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 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 I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 iz i - r Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDPupil/Staff Ratios Highest to Lowest Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Cost Staff Ratio Elementary Schools Terry Pulaski Hts Jefferson McDermott Forest Park West Hills Wakefield Meadowcliff Geyer Springs Fulbright Cloverd Elem Wilson Brady Mablevale Elem Otter Creek Woodruff Watson Baseline Dodd ML King Bale Romine Chicot Fair Park Washington Badgett Garland Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,366,303 1,005,828 1,440,462 1,324,462 1,132,508 927,759 1,180,715 1,146,039 824,349 1,546,660 1,108,921 1,161,523 1,149,456 1,346,068 940,017 736,630 1,204,878 974,549 918,043 1,776,722 1,083,388 1,322,365 1,619,962 925,563 2,262,546 705,781 1,188,474 1,840,649 1,971,799 1,224,438 1,038,383 537 422 506 484 434 320 426 402 278 509 402 366 374 429 332 202 423 284 284 488 307 277 430 242 602 185 237 377 314 243 205 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,544 2,383 2,847 2,736 2,609 2,899 2,772 2,851 2,965 3,039 2,759 3,174 3,073 3,138 2,831 3,647 2,848 3,432 3,233 3,641 3,529 4,774 3,767 3,825 3,758 3,815 5,015 4,882 6,280 5,039 5,065 31 26 32 31 28 21 28 27 19 35 28 26 27 31 24 15 32 22 22 39 26 24 39 22 55 17 22 36 ,34 27 24 17.32 16.23 15.81 15.61 15.50 15.24 15.21 14.89 14.63 14.54 14.36 14.08 13.85 13.84 13.83 13.47 13.22 12.91 12.91 12.51 11.81 11.54 11.03 11.00 10.95 10.88 10.77 10.47 9.24 9.00 8.54 Elementary Totals 38,395,240 11321 $ 3,392 870 13.01 Junior High Schools Dunbar Forest Hts Southwest Pul Hts Henderson Clov Jr Mablevale $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,291,519 2,467,869 2,137,196 2,327,556 3,060,661 1,960,786 2,166,389 732 759 612 781 792 609 491 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,130 3,251 3,492 2,980 3,864 3,220 4,412 52 57 49 63 66 52 52 14.08 13.32 12.49 12.40 12.00 11.71 9.44 Totals $16,411,976 4776 $ 3,436 391 12.21 High Schools Central Hall Fair McClelland $ $ $ $ 5,006,526 3,238,721 3,046,831 3,372,519 1546 889 849 878 $ $ $ $ 3,238 3,643 3,589 3,841 101 71 70 79 15.31 12.52 12.13 11.11 Totals $14,664,597 4162 $ 3,523 321 12.97 Secondary Totals $31,076,573 8938 $ 3,477 712 12.55 Grand Total $69,471,813 20259 $ 3,429 1582 12.81 Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Black Area School Enrollment LRSD Schools u (Q m Maiority Black Area Schoofs Wakefield Clo'rerdale Watson Wilson Badgett Faw Park Chicot M^dowctiff Baseline GeyerSpnngs Bale Mabelvale Woodruff Western Hills Dodd Brady SilsTotai 368 384 353 304 166 211 345 305 247 231 243 318 170 208 190 250 4293 Maiorrty White Ares Schoofs Forest Park Fuibngtit Jefferson McOermott Ferry Otter Creek P'jJeski Heights Sub*Tolal Total For Area Schools 205 255 210 259 239 139 189 1496 5789 4) 5 o n o u CO u (9 (aQ. o o \u0026lt;0O o \u0026amp; O Incentive Schools Frenklin'' Garland'' Mitchell'' RightselF' Rockefeller'' Sub-Total Interdistrict Schoofs Os Romine- Washington- 400 235 250 210 259 1354 A Sub-Total Magnet Schoofs Booker' Carver* Gibbs Williams 289 213 422 924 Sub-Total Special Schools Bementary Sub-Total 316 326 165 264 1071 17 9155 Magnet ** Magnet Program *Incenttve - inlerdistnct 51 64 84 72 44 53 99 93 75 71 85 139 81 106 97 124 1338 222 254 285 213 279 193 207 1653 2991 24 2 7 6 131 170 230 80 210 520 267 290 132 232 921 29 4631 10 5 7 8 0 6 3 2 5 8 19 3 3 1 7 20 112 8 9 6 15 18 7 10 73 185 7 18 0 3 16 44 12 9 24 45 21 13 10 12 56 0 330 429 453 444 384 210 270 452 400 327 310 347 460 254 315 294 394 5743 435 518 501 487 536 339 406 3222 8965 431 255 257 219 406 1568 531 302 656 1489 604 629 307 508 2048 46 14116 85.78% 84 77% 7950% 79.17% 7905% 78.15% 76.33% 76.25% 7554% 74 52% 70.03% 69.13% 86 93% 66.03% 64.63% 63.45% 74.75% 4713% 49.23% 41.92% 53.18% 44.59% 41.00% 46.55% 46 43% 6457% 92.81% 92.16% 97 28% 95.89% 63.79% , 86 35% 54.43% 70.53% 64.33% 52.06% 52.32% 51 83% 53.75% 51 97% 52.29% 36.96% 64.86% 432 492 492 394 257 351 558 465 390 328 401 515 324 328 328 467 6582 399 540 492 517 SIS 351 374 3188 9770 434 298 298 258 469 1757 728 487 836 2051 656 613 353 517 2139 15717 -63 -39 -48 -10 -47 -81 -106 -65 63 -18 -54 -55 -70 -13 -34 73 839 36 22 9 -30 21 -12 32 -64 -903 -3 -43 -41 39 -63 -189 -197 -185 -180 -562 -52 16 -46 -9 107 1761 Distribution Of Black Children By Type of School - Bem \u0026gt; Total 9138 Magnet Schools- 1071 12% Interdlstnct Schools-924 10% Incentive Schools^ 1354 15% Area SchooJs-S789 63% 87% 92% 90% 97% 82% 77% 81% 86% 84% 95% 87% 89% 78% 96% 90% 84% 87% 109% 96% 102% 94% 104% 97% 109% 101% 92% 99% 86% 86% 85% 87% 89% 73% 62% 78% 73% 92% 103% 87% 98% 96% Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Area Schools to Show a Relationship Between Per Pupil Cost, Capacity and Pupil/Staff Ratio January Percent Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Capacity of Capacity Cost Staff Ratio ' Area Schools 23 Fair Park 19 Badgett 28 Chicot 45 Woodruff 17 Bale 22 Baseline 32 Dodd 44 Wilson 46 Mablevale Elem 18 Brady 48 Fulbright 37 Geyer Springs 29 West Hills 33 Meadowcliff 52 Watson 30 Jefferson 50 Otter Creek 51 Wakefield 31 Cloverd Elem 20 McDermott 24 Forest Park 47 Terry 38 Pulaski Hts $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 1,619,962 $ 736,630 $ 1,083,388 $ $ 974,549 918,043 $ 1,161,523 S 1,346,068 $ 1,149,456 S 1,546,660 $ $ 824,349 927,759 $ 1,146,039 $ 1,204,878 $ 1,440,462 $ 940,017 $ 1,180,715 $ 1,108,921 $ 1,324,462 $ 1,132,508 $ 1,366,303 $ 1,005,828 242 185 430 202 307 284 284 366 429 374 509 278 320 402 423 506 332 426 402 484 434 537 422 351 257 558 324 401 390 328 394 515 467 540 328 328 465 492 492 351 492 492 517 399 515 374 69% $ 72% $ 77% $ 62% $ 77% $ 73% $ 87% $ 93% $ 83% $ 80% $ 94% $ 85% $ 98% $ 86% S 86% $ 103% S 95% S 87% $ 82% $ 94% $ 109% $ 104% $ 113% $ 3,825 3,815 3,767 3,647 3,529 3,432 3,233 3,174 3,138 3,073 3,039 2,965 2,899 2,851 2,848 2,847 2,831 2,772 2,759 2,736 2,609 2,544 2,383 22 17 39 15 26 22 22 26 31 27 35 19 21 27 32 32 24 28 28 31 28 31 26 11.00 10.88 11.03 13.47 11.81 12.91 12.91 14.08 13.84 13.85 14.54 14.63 15.24 14.89 13.22 15.81 13.83 15.21 14.36 15.61 15.50 17.32 16.23 Totals Non Area Schools 36 Rockefeller 39 Rightsell 34 Mitchell 26 Garland 25 Franklin 40 Romine 42 Washington 35 ML King $ 25,769,864 8578 9770 88% S 3,004 609 14.09 Totals Grand Totals $ 1,971,799 $ 1,038,383 $ 1,224,438 S 1,188,474 $ 1,840,649 $ 1,322,365 $ 2,262,546 $ 1,776,722 $ 12,625,376 38,395,240 Effect of Adding 46 Students to Baseline 22 Baseline - Before Baseline - After $ $ 974,549 974,549 Effect of Closing Two Schools Totals - Before Fair Park Badgett Totals - After $ 25,769,864 $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 24,138,520 314 205 243 237 377 277 602 488 469 258 298 298 434 487 836 728 67% $ 79% $ 82% $ 80% $ 87% $ 57% $ 72% $ 67% $ 6,280 5,065 5,039 5,015 4,882 4,774 3,758 3,641 34 24 27 22 36 24 55 39 9.24 8.54 9.00 10.77 10.47 11.54 10.95 12.51 2743 3808 72% $ 4,603 261 10.51 11321 13578 83% $ 3,392 870 13.01 Effect of Increasing Staff By One @$40,000 Wakefield - Before Wakefield - After $ 1,180,715 $ 1,220,715 284 330 390 390 73% $ 85% $ 3,432 2,953 22 22 12.91 15.00 8578 8578 9770 351 257 9162 88% $ \\6//$ ^72/$ 94% $ 3,004 3,825 3,815 2,814 609 22 17 570 14.09 11.00 10.88 15.05 426 426 492 87% $ $ 2,772 2,866 28 29 15.21 14.69 Prepared by Bob Morgan UnauditedArea School Per Student Costs Area School Per Student Costs School BADGETT ________ BALE ______ _____ B^aiNE________________ BRADY CENTRAL CHICOT_____________________ CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH________ DODD_____________________ DUNBAR____________________ FAIR FAIR PARK . FOREST HEIGHTS . . _ FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT_________________ GEYER SPRINGS______________ HALL________________________ HENDERSON_________________ JEFFERSON__________________ MABELVALE ELEMENTARY______ MABEL VALE JR HIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT________________ MEADOWCLIFF______________ OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS INT__________ PULASKI HEIGH.TSJR_HIGH Benefits Capital Outlay SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILSON WOODRUFF .5 o A T $331.53 _ $0.90__ Materials Supplies Other Objects ___ $330.82 ___ $311.49 $302.14 $307.58 $386.99 $259.14 $313.39 $340.81 $300.01 $343.41 ____ $33118^ ____$317,94 $268.34 ___ $311.84 $285.96 $342.83 $375.60 $282.11 $315.97 $434.35 ___ $362.48. $275.29 $292.36 $282.38 $248.69 J298W $363.36 $266.11 $285.29 J270.77 $292.22 $309.04 $328.51 $1.60 $0.00 $0.00 $6.16 $1.11 $0.00 $1.69 $3.49 116.15 $7.55 $0.00 142.52.1 $43.97 ____$3.38_____ $3.92 J$3.03 $3.85 $5.19 $56.31 $0.99 $1.51 $5.94 J2B.29___ $2.07 $1.24 $2.32 $0.71 $6.45 $5.11 $4.10 $0.87 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.85 137.33 $57.90 $42.63 $38.63 $52.90 $35.39 $32.73 $51.53 J32.68 $47.40 __ $51.68 $45.66 $34.58 $56.26 $51.31 $53.85 $32.00 .... 170,14 $51.95 $50.80 $56.22 $49.37 $30.95 $32.76 $50.26 $48.08 $47.58 $52.37 $46.35 $54.74 $0.00 $038 $0.00 J0.89 $0.00 ! $0.07 ! J Purchased Servic^ JISO CXY . $2.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.22 $0.00 JO.26 $0.00 $0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $118.47 $192.37 $112.82 $140.96 $82.95 $89.65 $173.53 $135.74 $162.79 $177.24 -_$l?P.7? . $157.2k $102.19 $119.55 $131.09 $190.40 $171.91 $107.72 _1141.98 $131.98 $215.26^., $128.82 $90.80 $159.34 $122.33 $100.07 $167.12 $89.66 $88.97 $130.61 $131.56 $129.62 $165.72 Salaries $2,668.63 __ $2,613.12 $2,464.07_ $2,464.58 J2,672.65 $3,Q62.99_ $2,051.08 $2,580.18 ___ $2,699.61 $2,583.80 $2,977.79 ___ 12,767,88. _ $2,697.98 $2,187.63 __ $2,552.53 $2,174,63 ___ $3,001.20 $3,238.85 $2,410.27 $2,504.78 $3,685.61 . $3,079,21 $2,278.37 $2,415.64 $2,331.12 $1,962.38 $2,567.56 $3,072.53 $2,134.19 $2,348.42 $2,186.51 ___ $2,423.10 $2,539.79 $2,572.34 tA^-^ Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS ALL HIGH SCHOOLS 5,068.00 \" IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL RECEIVER DEC 1 , 1995 CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 1 $ 11,352,320.00 17,845,851.00 29,198,171.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,521.28 5,761.28 100% Office Of Desegregation hionitoring INSTRUCTION____________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL ___________ $ $ $ 737,901.00 12,071,325.00 12,809,226.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,381.87 2,527.47 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL ____________ $ $ $ 1,044,413.00 2,012,601.00 3,057,014.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 397.12 603.20 10% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL _______________ 1 1 $ 5,551,285.00 2,102,065.00 7,653,350.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.77 1,510.13 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL 1 $ $ 2,769,966.00 2,769,966.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 9% J. LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL _________________ 1 $ $ 1,248,755.00 1,659,860.00 2,908,615.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 327.52 573.92 10% Page 1 Ba ESheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 837.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 1,874,880.00 3,404,231.00 5,279,111.00 121,867.00 2,366,077.00 2,487,944.00 172,489.00 332,984.00 505,473.00 916,816.00 460,107.00 1,376,923.00 457,471.00 457,471.00 206,237.00 245,063.00 451,300.00 36% 64% 100% 5% 95% 100% 34% 66% 100% 67% 33% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,067.18 6,307.18 145.60 2,826.85 2,972.45 206.08 397.83 603.91 1,095.36 549.71 1,645.07 546.56 546.56 246.40 292.79 539.19 100% 47% 10% 26% 9% 9%Sheetl MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL#OF STUDENTS 884.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,980,160.00 3,348,363.00 5,328,523.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,787.74 6,027.74 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 128,710.00 2,129,169.00 2,257,879.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,408.56 2,554.16 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 182,175.00 503,058.00 685,233.00 27% 73% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 569.07 775.15 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 968,298.00 413,802.00 1,382,100.00 483,159.00 483,159.00 217,818.00 302,334.00 520,152.00 70% 30% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 468.10 1,563.46 546.56 546.56 246.40 342.01 588.41 26% 9% 10%Sheetl HALL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 911.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 2,040,640.00 3,193,915.00 5,234,555.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,505.94 5,745.94 100% INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 132,642.00 2,160,160.00 2,292,802.00 .6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,371.20 2,516.80 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 187,739.00 308,865.00 496,604.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 339.04 545.12 9% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 997,873.00 377,932.00 1,375,805.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.85 1,510.21 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 497,916.00 497,916.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 244,470.00 346,958.00 591,428.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 268.35 380.85 649.21 11% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS FAIR HIGH SCHOOL 890.00 ' IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,993,600.00 3,001,845.00 4,995,445.00 40% 60% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,372.86 5,612.86 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 129,584.00 1,986,456.00 2,116,040.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,231.97 2,377.57 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 183,411.00 348,495.00 531,906.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 391.57 597.65 11% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 974,870.00 310,114.00 1,284,984.00 76% 24% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 348.44 1,443.80 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 486,438.00 486,438.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 219,296.00 356,780.00 576,076.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 400.88 647.28 12% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1,546.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 3,463,040.00 4,897,497.00 8,360,537.00 225,098.00 3,429,463.00 3,654,561.00 311,674.00 519,199.00 830,873.00 1,693,427.00 540,110.00 2,233,537.00 844,982.00 844,982.00 380,934.00 408,725.00 789,659.00 41% 59% 100% 6% 94% 100% 38% 62% 100% 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,167.85 5,407.85 145.60 2,218.28 2,363.88 201.60 335.83 537.43 1,095.36 349.36 1,444.72 546.56 546.56 246.40 264.38 510.78 100% 44% 10% 27% 10% 9%Sheetl ALL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 5,623 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET 12,595,520 19,446,132 32,041,652 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,458.32 5,698.32 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL _______________ INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ZZZZZZZZZZZ OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS______________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL ______________________ 818,708 13,033,196 13,851,904 1,158,888 2,612,328 3,771,216 6,159,560 2,063,725 8,223,285 3,072,942 3,072,942 1,385,508 1,756,883 3,142,391 6% 94% 100% 31% 69% 100% 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 145.60 2,317.84 2,463.44 206.10 464.58 670.68 1,095.42 367.01 1,462.44 546.50 546.50 246.40 312.45 558.85 43% 12% 26% 10% 10%Sheetl MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 491.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,099,840.00 2,166,387.00 3,266,227.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,412.19 6,652.19 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 71,490.00 1,449,519.00 1,521,009.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,952.18 3,097.78 47% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 101,185.00 317,267.00 418,452.00 24% 76% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 646.16 852.24 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 537,822.00 170,629.00 708,451.00 268,361.00 268,361.00 120,982.00 228,972.00 349,954.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 35% 65% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ A 1,095.36 347.51 1,442.87 546.56 546.56 246.40 466.34 712.74 22% 8% 11%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 792.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,774,080.00 3,060,661.00 4,834,741.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,864.47 6,104.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 115,315.00 2,191,564.00 2,306,879.00 5% 95% 100% 1 1 $ 145.60 2,767.13 2,912.73 48% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 163,315.00 273,988.00 437,303.00 37% 63% 100% 1 $ 206.21 345.94 552.15 9% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 867,525.00 344,752.00 1,212,277.00 432,511.00 437,876.00 195,149.00 250,357.00 445,506.00 72% 28% 100% 99% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 435.29 1,530.65 546.10 552.87 246.40 316.11 562.51 25% 9% 9%Sheetl MANN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 847.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,897,280.00 3,054,156.00 4,951,436.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,605.85 5,845.85 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 123,323.00 2,122,129.00 2,245,452.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,505.47 2,651.06 45% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 174,550.00 404,376.00 578,926.00 30% 70% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 477.42 683.50 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 927,770.00 292,498.00 1,220,268.00 462,936.00 462,936.00 208,701.00 235,153.00 443,854.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 47% 53% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 345.33 1,440.69 546.56 546.56 246.40 277.63 524.03 25% 9% 9%Sheetl SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 612.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,370,880.00 2,137,196.00 3,508,076.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,492.15 5,732.15 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 89,107.00 1,442,640.00 1,531,747.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,357.25 2,502.85 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 126,121.00 258,188.00 384,309.00 33% 67% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 421.88 627.96 11% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 670,360.00 230,628.00 900,988.00 334,495.00 334,495.00 150,797.00 205,740.00 356,537.00 74% 26% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 376.84 1,472.20 546.56 546.56 246.40 336.18 582.58 26% 10% 10%Sheetl FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 759.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,700,160.00 2,467,868.00 4,168,028.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,251.47 5,491.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 110,510.00 1,620,096.00 1,730,606.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,134.51 2,280.11 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 156,415.00 346,791.00 503,206.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 456.91 662.99 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 831,378.00 278,393.00 1,109,771.00 414,839.00 414,839.00 187,018.00 222,588.00 409,606.00 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 366.79 1,462.15 546.56 546.56 246.40 293.26 539.67 27% 10% 10%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 609.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 $ $ 1,364,160.00 1,960,787.00 3,324,947.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,219.68 5,459.68 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 1 $ 88,670.00 1,193,161.00 1,281,831.00 7% 93% 100% 1 S $ 145.60 1,959.21 2,104.81 39% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ~ 1 A $ 125,503.00 311,767.00 437,270.00 29% 71% 100% 1 $ 206.08 511.93 718.01 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 667,074.00 267,894.00 934,968.00 332,855.00 332,855.00 150,058.00 187,965.00 338,023.00 71% 29% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 439.89 1,535.25 546.56 546.56 246.40 308.65 555.05 28% 10% 10%Sheetl PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 781.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,749,440.00 2,327,557.00 4,076,997.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 2,980.23 5,220.23 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 113,714.00 1,555,741.00 1,669,455.00 7% 93% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 1,991.99 2,137.59 41% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 160,948.00 361,519.00 522,467.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 462.89 668.97 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 855,476.00 199,892.00 1,055,368.00 426,863.00 426,863.00 192,438.00 210,405.00 402,843.00 81% 19% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 255.94 1,351.30 546.56 546.56 246.40 269.40 515.80 26% 10% 10%i Sa^.u^ Incentive Schools Cost per Student $600 Cost per Student $500 $400 VI ro o Q $300 $200 $100 $0  Jb 'hy- Incentive Schools 11 IIBs w Ave rag ^Rockefeller Costs for 1993-1995 IFranklin Rightsei Garland Ish IIMitchel Stephens SCHOOL STEPHENS GARLAND RIGHTSELL MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER FRANKLIN ROMINE WASHINGTON KING GIBBS WILLIAMS BOOKER CARVER STEPHENS GARLAND NEW STEPHENS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACT SHEET STEPHENS /GARLAND JUNE 7,1994 BUDGET 1993/94 1,273,272.88 1,408,766.58 1,238,154.99 1,311,925.10 1,764,565.19 1,567,895.14 1,267,911.36 2,278,100.33 1,588,019.16 1,390,795.00 1,800,998.00 2,254,707.00 2,048,463.00 94/95 (1,316,770.51) 95/96 (1,316,770.51) ENROLLMENT 1993/94 145 205 189 230 340 345 334 721 553 299 472 595 595 PER PUPIL 8,781.19 6,872.03 6,551.08 5,704.02 5,189.90 4,544.62 3,796.14 3,159.64 2,871.64 4,651.49 3,815.67 3,789.42 3,442.79 INTEREST/CONST FUNDS PARKIN/RENT/UTILIT GARLAND TO IRC 231,559.00 96/97 (1,316,770.51) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 231,559.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL (3,950,311.53) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 463,118.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL SAVINGS (1,316,770.51) (1,085,211.51) (368,614.17) (2,770,596.19) CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FUNDS AVAILABLE INCLUDING INTEREST SECOND LIEN BONDS 3,701,624.01 2,615,300.00 7 TOTAL PROJECTED COST TO CONSTRUCT 6,316,924.01 C/W I F\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_1547","title":"Court filings concerning educational law and school integration and planning","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1991/1992","1992-07-01/1992-07-22"],"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","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning educational law and school integration and planning"],"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/1547"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["127 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ndd_holsaertfaith_r4x63bc0q","title":"Dear Ms. Klekota, 1991","collection_id":"ndd_holsaertfaith","collection_title":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Holsaert, Faith"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Dougherty County, Albany, 31.57851, -84.15574"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":["fhpst01002","https://repository.duke.edu/iipsrv/iipsrv.fcgi?IIIF=/srv/perkins/repo_deriv/multires_image/d/6/06/d60600e9-446b-41eb-ab85-ab96b21c1464/fhpst01002001.ptif/full/!350,350/0/default.jpg"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Faith Holsaert papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Holsaert, Faith","Feminism","Civil rights","Social justice","Women political activists","Women's rights"],"dcterms_title":["Dear Ms. Klekota, 1991"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Duke University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4x63bc0q"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Duke has not determined the copyright status of this item. Regardless of its status, we have made a good faith determination that online access through the Duke Digital Repository is an acceptable fair use and otherwise permitted under U.S. copyright law. For more information, see our page on copyright and citations: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/research/citations-and-permissions."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_364","title":"Desegregation and education plan","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":["1991/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation and education plan"],"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/364"],"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\n10/07'94 12:46 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst @002 DESEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1994-95 AREA ELEMENTARY: 40:00% - 60.00% AREA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 51.25% - 76.88% AREA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 49.11%-73.67% ORIGINAL MAGNETS (BOOKER, CARVER, GIBBS, WILLIAMS, MANN, PARKVIEW) 50% - 55% INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAMS (CENTRAL \u0026amp; MCCLELLAN) (HENDERSON) (DUNBAR) 49.11%-73.67% 51.25%-76.88% 40% - 60% INTERDISTRICT (KING, WASHINGTON, ROMINE) 40% - 60%*4 Desegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum bhck percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimum black percentage for each secondary (junior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the distnet-wide black percenuge at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The rmnirnum and maximum black percenuges constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. re- The Student Assignment Office and all building principals will be held accountable for complying with desegregation requirements. In addition to complying with desegregation requirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes in an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegiegation to occur in classrTOms. School desegregation requirements and equiuble classroom assignments will be monitored by the LRSD Offices of Desegregation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. 'S The accepuble range is listed below: .5\nElementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% . 73.75% 52.50% . 78.75% 49.25% - 73.75% 1 1ES59S (}\\0/i ^'^fjze^ fc.UArkansas Democrat (l^azcllc |  MONDAY, APRIL S. 2000 Judge gets revised school plan Desegregation report a trial run, and nioie, LR officials say I RvrvNTifiA HOWELL more than that. We wanted to as- One provision of the plan cal'.- - U!K,VNS.VS ni-Mn( i\u0026lt;AT.o,\\zr.rrr. sc.s.s our progress and to show the for hiring a The Little Rock School District lin the ongoing 1982 school .ton e.xpert to -oik with staff on has issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and a federal judge that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. parties tin the ongoing 1982 school desegregation lawsuit] and the community our good faith conipli- ance. he said. The 1998 plan, which is 24 The 129-page compliance report. sent to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, describes the School Board policies. academic programs and staff vised plan training efforts now in place in response to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. pages, was negotiated by representatives of the district and the Joshua intervenors, the class of black students in the three Piilas- ki County school districts. The re- cum- bersome plan of more than 200 pages in use since the late 1980s. policies and programs, as well as on desegregation or discrimina- This year's report, available for review at all schools, is a preview of a document the district must submit to Wright next spring. That second report is a prerequisite for the district's anticipated release in June 2001 from federal court supervision. lion problems. The district has retained two experts: Terrence Roberts, now a California psychologist, who was one of the nine black students to integrate Central High in 1957\nand Stephen Ross, an education policy researcher at the University of Memphis. Roberts has advised administrators on policies dealing with achievement, parent involvement, counseling, student discipline and use of conimunitj' volunteers. He developed a two-day workshop for school administrators and others on \"Learning to Cope with Differences. Brady Gadberry. special assistant to the superintendent and co- .........-,rtn author of the report, said this aware of it. failure to report non- compliance also may result in disciplinary action being taken.\" year's voluntary report is a practice run for the 2001 report. But. ' School '  Continued Iron Page 1B The compliance report describes efforts to give school prin- XUMva --------- . cioals and the new (juupus U'ad- The philosophy of the revised plan permeates the activities ol the district, Gadberiy and Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs wrote in the new report's introduction. Employees are fully expected to comply with the Revised Plan. To ensure compliance. it is the responsibility of all ..............- ------- - - , employees to report instances of tional programs and the develop- non-compliance when they arc '''''vsiem.s a Expanding the number of 4- vear-nids in preschool program.-\" from 720 to 880 in 27 schools. a I 'onverting junior higiis to middle .schools for gi'ades six IInmigii eight. Ross has focused on instruc- mcnt of new systems to measure student progi'ess and hold schools accountable for achievement. I See SCHOOL, Page 3B I ership Teams of teachers, parents and community members the au- a Establishing alternative education programs throughout the city, a Adding a double-period of English and language arts instruction in middle and high schools. thority to develop and cany out school improvement plans. The report details the new Col- ....................... _ Icctivc Responsibility Plan, which school stndent.s can get credit sets student achievement goals on ............... \" ' ' which each school will be cvaluat-  Establishing the Hall High University program in which high from the University of Arkansas at ed bv the district and state. The collective responsibility I plan, when completed, will de- I scribe the technical assistance to ' schools that fall short of I heir Little Kock. H Constructing the new Stephens lilemcntaiy School, which open.- in January. Also, the district has initiated\ni scholarship program for pupils who graduate from a Little Rock high school after attending incentive elementary schools. Incentive ' goals and lav out the consequences of failure. Those conse- ' quences could include replacing eiemenu.i.s .............- the .school .s principal and up to .m apt pxl ra funding for pro- ' percent of the staff. oranis to help raise student i The district has enacted puli Ihe nas tnatieu pui- I cies to increase minimum gradua- arams achievement. I tion requirements to 24 units and I to increase the number of slii- , dents, particularly black students, taking pre-Advanced Placement i and Advanced Placement courses. I according to the compliance re- I port.\nAdvanced Placement courses 1 are rigorous courses developed by  the national College Board that I enable students to gel college i credit for Inch school coursework. i The district offers 80 Advanced ' Placement courses. ' The district has loosened admis- 1 Sion requirements to the courses, allowing students who make C's or belter to take the Advanced Placement courses without getting Administrators periodicall.v collect data on 10 factors related to scliool resources. The factors include the pupil-teacher ratio at each school, the percentage ol teachers with master's degrees and nine year.s of experience, the number of new teachers, the number of computers per student, the per onpil expenditure in discre- tionaiv funds and the number of volunteer hours per student, among others. Each factor is assigned a numerical value, and those numbers are totaled for each school and compared to the district mean. Resources can be added to schools that vary from the mean. I teacher recommendations. I The compliance report de- i scribes all components of the dis- . - ...........I lii/iPnPT' j trict's new elemenlaiw literacy iriClS Uc vrujuuuiMi I program and produces details of a ! m 11111 inuIfI1 nt* Mnt.ional Sci* I multiinilliun-dollar National Sci- i ence [oundalioii grant to revise science and mathematics courses and increase student numbers in upi\u0026gt;er-level classes. ?\\s a result. most ninth-graders are now re- quired to take physics. 1 Other initiatives addressed in ' the compliance report inclurle: SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2001  LR schools, state near deal on desegregation funds BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Little Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating: The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district.  The impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no proof that the district is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is goiiig to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit. On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and 'Rmothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement. The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about the negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B fhistrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a $20 million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dec. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally ' agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether the loan should be for^ven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. 'Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,\ntransportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody./via,Ie4 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 9, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research. I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 1 f. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownI IIssm Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVES) August 24. 1999 AUG 2 1399 OFHCEGr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nThe August 11 Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 73301 (501) 834-8000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools Date: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Carnine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Carnine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that \"may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Carnines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting\nhe asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree? If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. 1 may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much.Date: September 3, 1999 To: All Associates From: Re: Response from Carnine 2^1^ A week ago Thursday (August 26) I asked for your comments on Carnines letter about our report. If you havent already done so, please get me that information in writing immediately. If your sections of the report werent touched upon by Carnine, just say so in a note to me. Thanks.Memo To: Ann From: Margie Subject: Carnine Response Date: August 27, 1999 Alternative education program seats: Nothing new. We complimented the district for expanding alternative education. No disagreement. Ombudsman role: Notice that training occurred week before report published. The clarification recommended in our report was not for the administrators as much as it was for the ombudsman. 1 have received several visits from the ombudsman and, although 1 didnt quote him, it was clear to me that he was not sure of the exact nature of his role. In fact, his role is still being defined. He informed me last week that the duty of dropout prevention had been added to his job description. He still has not been formally trained for the position. He mentioned that he was going to apply for a training session designed for ombudsmen being held in Canada. I am curious as to what the inservice traiing on 8/5/99 entailed. I dont disagree with with Carnine. 1 figure his comment was more in the nature of an update.Memo To: From: Date: Ann Brown Skip Marshall Septembers, 1999 Subject: Comments on Carnine response to Transition Report I found none of his responses were directed to any portion of the report to which I made a contribution. To: Ann X From: Gem As I read it, Les Carnines letter regarding the recent ODM report did not touch on any of the topics I wrote for the report. Accordingly, I wrote no comments on his letter.To: Ann Brown From: Horace Smith Re: Response to Dr, Carnines Observations Talent Development Committee I am glad that the district is formally researching ways to fund AVID and related approaches to develop minority academic talent. I had pointed out to Bonnie during our early discussions that the district seemed to have few contingencies for funding some very ambitious and expensive programs. Cultural Sensitivity Training I am encouraged by the news that Dr. Terrence Roberts will be helping the district implement a training of trainers model for cultural sensitivity. I talked to Marian Woods regarding the training this week. No one mentioned this model or Dr. Roberts involvement during my research for the report. I talked to both Kathy Lease and Marian Woods while preparing the report. Kathy even reviewed our findings and did not take issue with the fact that we said that the district had not identified a training model for cultural sensitivity. My one continuing concern remains whether the district will: A) Evaluate specific needs regarding cultural sensitivity B) Tailor types of training to those building needs C) Develop and implement a process for evaluating the degree of change in attitude and behavior in the school environment. Personnel Recruitment If the district is preparing recruitment goals and procedures for areas in which African Americans are underrepresented, that is great. Again, the district representative, Dick Hurley, reviewed our report findings and did not indicate that goals and procedures were being enacted.To: Ann From: Melissa Re: Carnine Memo Date: September 7,1999 I highlighted the items that deal with my section on school construction. The information presented in the report was as accurate as I could make it and reflected the facts as given me by Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, and Doug Eaton. All three of these individuals also reviewed the report prior to filing. Sorry for the delay!I K Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEnrss August 24, 1999 AUG 2 S 1359 OFHCfcCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the '99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided:  Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, ,e^e V. amine Superintendent of Schools I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU^ LED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASU.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 2 11993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W By\n,C5 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 JOINT MOTION OF LRSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan state: 1. Joshua and LRSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and reguested 2. approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On that date, counsel for Joshua confirmed in writing Joshua's agreement to support approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. See Exhibit B. Also on that same date. the LRSD Board of Directors approved the January 16 Revised Planand authorized submission of the plan to this Court for approval. 3. LRSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this Motion\na. that the record in this case supports modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations\nb. that the January 16 Revised Plan is an appropriate modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations\nc. that the January 16 Revised Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members\nand, d. that, if LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan during its term and implements in good faith the programs, policies and procedures related thereto, LRSD will be unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations at the end of the 2000-01 school year. 4. As a part of the compromise and settlement between LRSD and Joshua, Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation. 5. LRSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement cannot be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, LRSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua 2class members to submit written objections to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. LRSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. LRSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette\nshall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers\nshall prominently post the notice at all school\nand shall cause the notice to be broadcast over the cable television channel controlled by LRSD. 6. In light of their agreement, LRSD and Joshua respectfully request that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled. 7. LRSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members\nthat the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C be published at least thirty (30) days the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections\nthat the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled\nand that this Court finally approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS 3FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 BY: BY: Christopher Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people hy-depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of January, 1998. Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roache11 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Kristopher' Heller^ 4 Little Rock.School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan January 16, 1998 SECTION 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. 1.1. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\")\nb. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nc. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nd. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 1.2. This Revised Plan does not affect the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua's\") right to enforce the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little'Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). 1.3. Although this Revised Plan supersedes the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, LRSD expects to continue to work cooperatively with PCSSD and NLRSD in the areas addressed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. * EXHIBIT I f i ASECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs. policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African- American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers. primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers. including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers 2to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. 2.2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight a Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. 32.4. LRSD Shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities\nensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures 4designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.3. LRSD shall provide transportation to students othei-wise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extra-curricular activity. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 2.7.1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement. LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of 5either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2.9. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools. 2.9.1. Within 60 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2.9.2. Within 180 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall report by school the results of its assessment of the allocation of resources. 2.10. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities. 2.11. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. 2.11.1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. 62.12. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination. 2.12.1. LRSD shall implement a training program through the United States Department of Justice, the Arkansas Department of Education and/or the National Conference of Christians and Jews in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. 2.13. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Plan. 2.13.1 The LRSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing LRSD's compliance with this Revised Plan in accordance Section 6. SECTION 3: Student Assignments. 3.1. Attendance Zones. While this Revised Plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan, LRSD attendance zones may be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 3.1.1. Satellite Zones. LRSD may eliminate satellite attendance zones where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n3.1.2. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD may assign students 71 to area elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent African-American) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in Section 3.1.3. below\n3.1.3. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African- American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school\nor. b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African-American students. If a satellite zone is established, it shall be of sufficient size to ensure substantial desegregation at the school. 3.1.4. High Schools. LRSD may assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that. to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. 3.2. Voluntary Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 8school year. the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 3.2.1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (\u0026gt; 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to a racially balanced LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.4. Employees'.Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to 9capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.6. Outside Students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\nand. 3.2.7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. 3.3. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: a. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program\nb. King High Intensity Learning Program\nc. Washington Math Science Program\nd. Henderson Health Science Program\ne. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program\nCentral International Studies Program\nand, g- McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. However, LRSD f. agrees that during the term of this Revised Plan it will not modify 10or discontinue a magnet program which is successful. 3.4. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or'all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. 3.5. Ninth Grade Schools. Because of limited capacity at LRSD's high schools, it may be necessary as a part of the orderly conversion to middle schools to establish two or more schools composed entirely of ninth grade students. If so, LRSD shall assign students to the ninth grade schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each ninth grade school shall be within plus or minus ten percentage points from the district-wide percentage of ninth grade African-American students. 3.6. School Construction/Closina. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor 11maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. 3.7. Modification Standard. During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level stiructure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a schools other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor. 3.7.2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. 3.8. Racial Balance. This Revised Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. 3.9. Housing. LRSD and Joshua commit to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent 12recurrence of, segregated housing patterns. SECTION 4: Interdistrict Schools. LRSD and PCSSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 4.1. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools\n4.2. LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools\n4.3. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School\n4.4. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD\n4.5. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools\n4.6. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition\nand, 13^.1. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. SECTION 5: Student Achievement. 5.1. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four year- old classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. 5.2. seajii33aZldacaua3e Ats. 5.2.1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal^ that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nc. Promote thematic instruction\n^The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. 14d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\ne. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nf. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\ng- Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nh. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\n1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nj- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nk. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand. 1. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: 15a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment\nb. Promote thematic instruction\nc. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction\nd. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\ne. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nf. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\ng- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom\nand. h. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six through twelve\nLRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also 16a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subjects areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners\nb. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula\nc. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking\nd. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students' and. where practical. assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers\ne. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies\nf. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. 5.3. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 5.3.1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation\nincluded here since there will be a period of transition into middle schools. 175.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum\n5.3.3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention\nand, 5.3.4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the nximber of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. 5.3.5. Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. LRSD shall provide assistance to those students experiencing difficulty with Algebra and Geometry. 5.4. Computer Literacy. LRSD shall adopt as a goal that all primary grade students f- will be trained in the use of computers and upon graduation shall be computer literate. 5.5. Incentive Schools. LRSD shall continue to provide double funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools, in accordance with the current formula as described in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM). These schools shall be renamed and refocused. The plant services department shall provide the maintenance and upkeep necessary to preserve the comparable physical equality of these schools. 185.6. Alternative Education. 5.6.1. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. 5.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies or procedures designed to ensure equity in the facilities, staff and resources provided for alternative education. 5.7. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a \"^parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. 5.8 Scholarships. Within one calendar year from the date of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall establish or participate in a program for providing college scholarships to designated schools for LRSD students who graduate from an LRSD high school after having attended a racially identifiable elementary school. This program shall be maintained at least until graduation of the class that begins kindergarten during the 2000-01 school year. SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\n6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent\n196.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees\n6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n6.5. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution\n6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand, 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. SECTION 7: Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: 7.1. Notice. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the ODM its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. 7.2. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no 20less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modif ication. Joshua shall be entitled to receive from LRSD the information which LRSD believes supports its request for modification. 7.3. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. 7.4. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. SECTION 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. 8.1. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 8.2. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 8.2.1. The party shall as soon as reasonably 21practicable give the LRSD Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following\na. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Plan at issue\nb. the names of all students involved, if any\nc. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any\nd. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue\nand, , e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 8.2.2. The written notice is intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the party so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 8.2.3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within a reasonable amount of time not to exceed fifteen (15) days from receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 8.2.4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within fifteen (15) days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 8.2.5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district 22court^s designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 8.2.6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall be free to implement the programs. policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Revised Plan. 8.3. Programs, Policies and/or Procedures. Compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section 8.2 shall include LRSD's implementation of the programs. policies and/or procedures developed in accordance with this Revised Plan. Before the end of the transition period, LRSD shall develop and/or identify the programs, policies and/or procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and provide them to Joshua. Joshua shall have a right to invoke the process described in Section 8.2 if LRSD fails to adopt programs, policies and/or procedures required by this Revised Plan\nadopts facially deficient programs. policies and/or procedures\nor. fails to implement the programs, policies and/or procedures adopted in accordance with this Revised Plan. SECTION 9: Term. The term of this Revised Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school ^'ear. SECTION 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for 23implementation of this Revised Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a repprt on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. 24John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Fax January 16, 1998 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear'Mr. Heller\nThis is to advise that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors agree that we have reached an accord or agreement with respect to the revised Desegregation and Education Plan which is dated January 16, 1998, You may advise your board of this fact and that we look forward to working with you and with the administration to develop the contemplated programs, policies and procedures required by the plan for implementation. We also look forward to working with the board through counsel in the implementation phases through ombudsperson, the expert and our continued monitoring of the district. The latter will be in the vein of cooperation. The role of the state with respect to facilitating and furthering the goals herein remains to be addressed and I am sure that counsel for the district and for Joshua will approach that matter on a cooperative basis which is consistent with providing the best education possible for children of the Little Rock School District with special emphasis upon those children who are the lowest from the norm in terms of student achievement and treatment. bhn W. Walker incerely, JWW:lp J, EXHIBIT S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE TO THE JOSHUA CLASS: ALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE BLACK OR AFRICAN-AMERICTkN PUPILS WHO RESIDE IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND WHO ATTEND, HAVE ATTENDED, WILL ATTEND, OR WHO ARE ELIGIBLE, WERE ELIGIBLE OR WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ONE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK OR PULASKI COUNTY), THEIR PARENTS AND/OR NEXT FRIENDS WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED, OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE THE VICTIMS OF RACE DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION BY ONE OR MORE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND/OR BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. This action arises out of efforts beginning in 1956 to desegregate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. In 1989 a settlement was reached and approved in which the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") agreed to implement the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and requested approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors (hereinafter \"Joshua\") engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both  EXHIBIT i iparties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On January 21, 1997, LRSD and Joshua filed a joint request with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, for approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan basically provides as follows: Section 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. The January 16 Revised Plan will replace the current LRSD desegregation plan, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and all existing agreements and court orders with some exceptions.  It will have no effect on the September 28, 1989 Settlement Agreement\nthe Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nthe district court's order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nand, the M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986. Section 2: Obligations. same LRSD's basic desegregation obligations remain essentially the under the January 16 Revised Plan as under the current desegregation plan. The obligations are clearly and simply stated and cover every aspect of school operations. The January 16 Revised Plan includes an even stronger commitment to an equitable distribution of faculty by race, education and experience. Although some specifics are included, the January 16 Revised Plan contemplates that during the transition period the district will identify and/or develop programs, policies and procedures related to each obligation. An expert selected by the district and approved by Joshua will assist the district in this process. Section 3: Student Assignments. Under the January 16 Revised Plan, the emphasis moves from racial balance to quality education. During the term of the plan, elementary and junior high/middle school attendance zones may be redrawn to create neighborhood schools with as many of those neighborhood schools being desegregated as practical. High school attendance zones may be redrawn to achieve racial balance within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and, to the 2extent practicable. maintain a consistent feeder pattern. Volunta^ intradistrict transfers will continue to be allowed under rules similar to the current student assignment plan. The student assignment plan also provides for the conversion of all LRSD junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight. Because of capacity limitations at LRSD's High Schools, the conversion to middle schools may require the creation of two ninth grade schools. Finally, the January 16 Revised Plan calls for the construction of at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, one or more the Incentive Schools will be closed. Section 4: Interdistrict Schools. Interdistrict schools will continue to operate as they did under the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Section 5: Student Achievement. The January 16 Revised Plan is founded on the belief that providing every student a quality education is the most promising means to the long-term desegregation of LRSD. It outlines LRSD's basic strategy for ensuring its students receive a quality It includes an early childhood education program, education. a revised reading/language arts curriculum emphasizing the primary grades, a revised mathematics curriculum, an alternative education program and parental and community involvement program. Another important piece of the student achievement section is a college scholarship program all students who attend :  \"* for identifiable elementary schools. racially Section 6\nLRSD Compliance Program. LRSD will implement a comprehensive compliance program to ensure it substantially complies with its desegregation obligations and its other legal and ethical obligations. Section 7: Plan Modification Process. The January 16 Revised Plan includes a process for plan modification designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage LRSD will submit proposed plan modifications to the litigation. other parties who will have an established time frame for comments and suggestions. LRSD will then submit its recommended plan modification for court approval. Parties would generally be prohibited from raising issues before the district court not raised during the comment period. 3Section 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance for three years. The plan establishes a process for addressing compliance issues again designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage litigation. compliance issues will first be submitted to LRSD. All If no agreement is reached, the issue will be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Only if ODM's efforts at facilitating an agreement fail would the issue be submitted to the district court for resolution. Section 9: Term. The term of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan will be three school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year, court supervision will end at that time, Federal Section 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year will be a transition period in preparation for full implementation of the January 16 Revised Plan. Section 11: Unitary Status. If LRSD substantially meets its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan, LRSD will be unitary at the conclusion of its term and released from court supervision. The above is not intended to be a full, detailed statement of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan, along with the current LRSD Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, will be made available to Joshua class members during regular business hours at LRSD's administrative offices at 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. The purpose of this notice is to advise Joshua class members of the January 16 Revised Plan and to give them an opportunity to show cause or to provide written objections which demonstrate why the January 16 Revised Plan should not be approved by the District Court. Joshua Class members have until the day of 4, 1998 to file written comments or objections with Mr. James McCoirmick, U.S. District Court Clerk, U.S. Courthouse, 600 W. Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. All Joshua class members will be bound by the District Court's decision approving or rejecting the January 16 Revised Plan. Absent good cause shown. there will be no hearing on the whether the January 16 Revised Plan should be approved. Accordingly, this Notice provides Joshua class members their only opportunity to object to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, WESTERN DIVISION 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Upon consideration of the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 is tentatively approved pending the Court's consideration of written objections filed by Joshua class members on or before the ___ day of , 1998\n2. LRSD is hereby directed to provide notice to Joshua class members as described in the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand. 3. The hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 is hereby cancelled. On this ___ day of , 1998. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEO *^)iwaisss^\\ ..\u0026lt;4ssssssiississ^.^\u0026lt;^^^ I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECB?V'S August 24, 1999 AUG 2 \u0026gt; ^353 OFRCtOr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the '98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and^r revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (301) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals \"Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools S01J7441tf-' UALKhK LAW KIKM /ay HUL AUb -.b 'yy lb:L4 JOHN W. walker Ralph Washington MARK BLTiNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Auguoi jvnii AXZ IXfATVirn OA J Tnuivuix* A Mr. Larry' Berkley President Little Rock School Soard 810 west Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 , Dear Mr. Berkley\nUtank vou for vour call of a minutes ago wherein you informed me that you had receiveo mformafion from District souixes that we (Joshua) have had a fair opportunity to p^icipate in the devisation of the policies which arc on your agenda for consideration tonight. That means IDC QcVlSaUOIl Ui iiJC rM*w** .m \u0026lt; j w  . 5 v c a A That you choose not believe me and Ms. Springer when we told you that we had not been afforded an opportunity to participate in the process pnor to any ccnsiderauon by the Boar  requfred by the re'^sed desegregation plan. In that you choose not to credit our representaiions and that you plan to proceed despite our objections, I believe that your decision is inconsis^t of and that you plan to proceed despite------------- , . ,  . the direction of the Board during the July regular meeting and the August agenda meeting that we be meaningfully included as parties in the process. We have document^ our requests and ^e M  _____i...2.L...,..-,tUartkantArAArttrtffnnrt prepared to demonstrate that we have sought to work 'svith you rather than to resort to court action. I am still hopeful that this will be the path that the Board takes. In the meantime. however, I renew my request including adoption of the Chamber of Comme\u0026lt; that the Board defer further action with respect to plan revision management study until we have had full and fair opportunity to share our views at the pertinent administrative level before the Board is presented recommendations. I also renew my request that no policies be developed in a vacuum by Ms. Lmda Young. 'Ns have repeatedly stated our objection to her involvement in the devisation of pohetes, plans and procedures that purport to be in the interest of African Amencan chUdren. Our objecuon is further lughlighted that this task and her job were not posted and that she has no e^enence objective qualification for addressing the needs, curricular and r.----- or non-curricular, of the class, which we represent. Mr. Berkley, your position and that of Dr. Carnines with respect to a definition of participation in the process leaves us in a position where we must seriously consider whether we must seek a different method and forum for addressing our concerns.5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 789 P05 AUG 2b 99 15:25 The letter which we just received dated August 20, 1999 is a good example of the administrations bad faith. Today is the board meeting, I just received a draft of administrative regulations KF and KLG-R from Dr. Anderson. Please note that they are presented for our review and comment. Review and comment is far removed from the process leading up to these documents. Good faith was the premise of our revised plan. It is not evident fiom the writings or from the note dated August 20, 1999 as an example which we just received on August 26, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. I am addressing a copy of this letter to each Board member and others listed below. Sincerely, fohn W. Walker rWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Chris Heller Members of the Board: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Mike Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr. R Baker Kumis Mr. Mike Kumpuris Ms. Sue H. Strickland P.S. ODM has now issued two reports in the last month or so. They have not been placed on the agenda for discussion leaving the impression that the Board as a Board ignores and disregards the Court of which ODM is its official arm. That seems to be rather contemptuous.. /fn. Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 TO: Board of Education FROM\nDr. Kathy Le:\nas^^: ssistant Superintendent, PRE il' THROUGH: ^es Gamine, Superintendent '. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE\nAugust 24, 1999 SUBJECT\nLRSD Assessment Program The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department has spent a year studying e modifications needed in the Little Rock School Districts assessment plan in order to adequately address e requirements of the various documents that are guiding our work. The primary document that impacts the development of a comprehensive assessment plan for the district is the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). There are fourteen sections of the RDEP that impact assessment planning. One component of assessment is the evaluation of instructional programs. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. A very critical part of any assessment program is parmering with parents to facilitate student success. Section 2.8 of the RDEP states, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. Assessments will be more frequent in the proposed plan, thus facilitating frequent communication with parents and fostering strong partnerships in the support of students. Section 5.2.1. of the RDEP sets up four expectations for the Primary grades that impact assessment: 1) 2) By the completion of the third grade, all students will be readin: independently and show understanding of words on a page\n3) 4) Clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills will be identified\nStudent performance must be monitored using appropriate assessment devices\nand Parents or guardians must be provided with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students. ig The intermediate grades are addressed in Section 5.2.2. These goals include the mastery and daily use of higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences, and for personal growth and enjoyment by the end of the sixth grade. This section also requires that student performance be monitored using appropriate assessment devices, and that parents/guardians get better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate academic development. Secondary schools are addressed in Section 5.2.3. This section requires that the district, adopt a goal stating that upon graduation, all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners. Once again, there is a requirement to Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices (5.2.3.f.). Section 5.3.2. addresses the requirement to, Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised (mathematics) curriculum. The districts Strategic Plan also states some very specific criteria that must be measured by the assessment plan. By 2003, at least 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. By 2003, at least 65% of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the national average in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nat least 30% will perform at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nand no more than 10% will perform at the lowest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests. One of the strategies set forth in the Strategic Plan states, We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students and that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. In addition to the documents guiding the work of our district, the State Board of Education has adopted the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). This plan carries specific requirements to participate in norm-referenced testing for grades 5, 7, and 10, and criterion- referenced testing for grades 4, 6, 8, and end of course exams in Algebra I, geometry, and literacy. The State has implemented the Smart Stan Initiative to provide specific strategies and resources to ensure a successful start K-4. Smart Start will be expanded in future years to higher grades. In researching options for a comprehensive assessment program for LRSD, various members of the PRE staff and the Curriculum and Instruction staff met with representatives from a variety of testing companies. We also visited with Dr. Steven Ross (University of Memphis), and Dr. Sean Mulvenon and Dr. Ronna Turner (University of Arkansas) to explore feasible options for Little Rock. Drs. Mulvenon and Turner also met with Drs. Carnine, Williams, and Lease to discuss assessment proposals. Once information was obtained about the various options, I met with Dr. Ross and Dr. Lesley to determine the criteria that would guide the decision-making. After considering all proposals, coordinating with the state assessment plan, reviewing the requirements of our guiding documents, and considering our budget, the following K-12 Assessment Plan is being proposed for your approval\nKindergarten Grade, and 2\"** Grade Pre-and post-assessments using Marie Clays Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement will be administered to all kindergarten, first, and second grade students. These individual assessments are in line with the States Smart Start Initiative. A meeting was held with all district kindergarten teachers to gather input on what kind of assessment they preferred. They overwhelmingly opted for individual assessments at this age. 2\"** Grade (spring) During the spring semester, 2\"^ graders will be screened for the districts Gifted and Talented Program. A nationally normed and locally designed criterion referenced test provided through consultation with Northwest Educational Association (NWEA) will be used as one indicator in the G/T identification n process. Identified 2\"* graders will also take the Raven, a non-verbal intelligence test. Grades 3-11 Beginning with the 3'* grade, we will administer a pre- and post- criterion- referenced test developed to align with our curriculum. We are proposing a partnership with NWEA to develop these assessments. Our students will be assessed in reading, language arts, and math. By using pre-and post-tests, we will be able to monitor the growth of every student. We can calculate the value-added growth of attending a particular school over time, or simply determine the amount of growth in one year. The use of these assessments gives us an opportunity to track longitudinal data to monitor student achievement. In addition to these pre- and post-tests developed with teachers and curriculum staff with the assistance of NWEA, we will utilize released items from the state's criterion referenced tests to develop additional assessments that can be administered during the second and third nine weeks. These assessments will be developed with teachers and can be incorporated into a students grade within a course. State Assessment Program The state accountability program designates the following assessments (not fully implemented until 2003)\nCriterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Intermediate Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark End-of-CourseAlgebra I End-of-CourseGeometry End-of-CourseLiteracy Grade 4 Grade 6 (not complete) Grade 8 When completed When completed Grade 11 April April April Jan/April Jan/April Jan/April Norm-Referenced SAT-9 Grades 5, 7, 10 September We believe this program of varied assessments affords the Little Rock School District the greatest opportunity to have timely measures of student achievement. We will be able to monitor student achievement, offer enrichment or remediation as needed, and plan for the success of each of our students. Both the Curriculum and Instruction Division and Planning, Research, and Evaluation appreciate your endorsement of this proposal.Section: Commitment to Desegregation (pg. 1) Goals and Objectives This section contains an overview of the districts plan of action for providing quality desegregated education in aU schools, and features nine beliefs or commitments, beginning with 1) The belief that all students can learn\n 2) eliminating achievement disparity\n3) improved educational quality and academic performance, including double funding for incentive schools\n4) improving race relations, 5) equity in all phases of school activities and operations\n6) promoting positive public reaction to desegregation\n7) inter and intradistrict recruiting\n8) infusion of multicultural education into the curriculum\nand 9) ongoing staff development for all district personnel. Progress Note: Areas in this section are also addressed elsewhere in this review: see achievement, discipline, recruitment, incentive schools, public relations, and staff development. 1. The district has a history of demonstrating that it believes that all students can learn, and has an inclusive academic program. That program includes an alternative learning program that, the record shows, needs much improvement. 2. Achievement disparity between the races is still a problem and has not improved. 3. Incentive schools have a mixed history. Double funding has sometimes fallen short, but mostly the district has unnecessarily exceeded the double funding level. In some instances incentive school students are out-performing those in area schools, but the record contains no evidence that correlates student performance with double funding (although that s a major purpose of double funding). The record does show that implementation of many incentive school features has been slow and uneven. 4. The LRSD has a history of generally positive race relations overall, although racial incidents no doubt occur. Some inservice training on race relations has occurred, but generally it has been hit- and-miss. 5. Equity in all phases of school activities and operations is hard to measure and neither ODM nor the record has made this call. However, we are aware of no policies that are uinately inequitable nor aim to tolerate inequities\nyet some practices appear to be inequitable, such as the disproportionate disciplinary sanctions received by black students.. 6. The extent to which the district has promoted positive public reaction to desegregation is also hard to measure. Persistent squabbling (for example, among school board members and between the parties, along with the districts tendency to blame desegregation and the Court for its woes, doesnt present a positive record in this area. 7. The districts student recruitment record is uneven, both intra- and interdistrict. The numbers that each district gives us on M-to-M transfers conflict, but generally show that PCSSD has more M- to-M students than the LRSD. However, we dont know whether the PCSSD or LRSD was responsible for promoting the transfers (they each claim that they did it). 8. The district has been released from Court supervision in the area of multicultural education. 9. Staff development is directed by the LRSD department so named, but inservice is scattershot and often poor. ODM has not done a report that focuses solely on inservice, but we have touched on it in our reports on the incentive schools, Alternative Education, McClellan, and Four-Year-Old Programs. In these reports we found that inservice was often inconsistent or altogether absent\nwhen it was offered, it was frequently inadequate.Conclusions The record shows that the LRSD has had mixed results in meeting the objectives of this section. Most notably, the gap in achievement between the races has not narrowed. The district did a good job of infusing multicultural education and has been released in this area. Bottom Line The goals and objectives in this section are reasonable and worthy, but none of them has been fuUy met (except in multicultural education), due to various factors that include foot-dragging, poor planning, and inept follow-through.Area: Achievement Disparities (LRSD Plan, pg. 1\nInterdist. Plan, pg. 6) Goals and Objectives To eliminate the educational achievement disparities between black and white students on normreferences and criterion-referenced test. Progress Little. See ODM report: Status on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD (1994). Issues Many forces affect achievement, such as socio-economic status, ineffective teaching strategies, racism, and low expectations. Many of these factors are outside the control of the district. However, our report was clear: the district promised equitable education for its students. We pointed out that assessing the links between programs, process, and results had to occur in order to evaluate program and service concepts, determine the scope, quality, and consistency of implementation, and made informed decisions about where to make changes. Conclusions A laudable but very difficult goal to reach. The gap will not be narrowed to the extent named in the Settlement Agreement, especially utilizing current assessment standards. However, the district can do much more to improve minority achievement. Our report on achievement was clear about the kinds of approaches that could help the districts make gains in narrowing the achievement gap.Section: Leadership (pgs. 2-3) Goals and Objectives To provide coherent and consistent leadership for change from the superintendent and board of directors. The primary thrust of this section is to delineate that: the school board is representative of the populations it serves the superintendent and board is answerable to its public and should keep the public informed about the schools  the superintendent and board members should model the behavior of an effective desegregated school setting the superintendent and school board should provide clearly articulated leadership the district promises equitable hiring practices and budgetary decisions that will be consistent with desegregation policies the board and staff are to participate in ongoing staff development that responds to the needs of a desegregated school system the board and staff are to conduct annual self evaluations in six areas that mostly deal with relations (board, superintendent, community, staff, fiscal management, and instructional programs). the district promises to end all vestiges of discrimination, segregation, or unfair treatment, and promises to ensure that all students have a fair chance to learn. Progress The history of the district had been discord and dissension among many of its board members, superintendents, and employee groups, as illustrated by telecasts of the board meetings and board minutes (which arent an official part of the Court record, but ODM attends all board meetings and reads the minutes of them.) Superintendents seemed to do everything except try to implement the plan\nthe record contains little evidence that the have superintendents articulated or demonstrated their beUef in the plan. The record shows that the objectives in this section have been only partially met. Other indicators of the extent of comphance arent on the record, although we know about it. (For example, they havent done the annual self evaluations for several years. Evidently the evaluations stopped after responsibility for them was transferred to Ed Jackson from Sterling Ingram. We dont know why.) Conclusions The objectives of this section make sense, but the record indicates mixed results, partly because of changing superintendents, multiple agendas, and inept leadership. Except for recent history under Don Roberts (which largely isnt in the record because of the moratorium), the superintendents and board have a miserable history of working together. The LRSD Strategic, under Williams, does show evidence of an attempt at collaboration, but that plan was never filed with the court, so technically isnt part of the record. Don Roberts was able to mobilize the district for some concerted action as demonstrated by the moratorium and motion for plan modification. The board and superintendent worked through Task Forces with staff, parents, community members, and ODM to develop some of the ideas that Roberts has said will underpin plan. However, the districts submission doesn t reference the extent to which the work of the Task Forces will be used. Bottom Line The objectives of this section are fine, but none of them has been completely realized. On-the-record documentation of their failures in these areas will be spotty. Section: Early Childhood Education (pgs. 4-5)The Eight Circuit ruled that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and that no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section is an introduction to the broad area of early childhood education. The authors speak to the importance of early educational experiences, quote from expert sources, and cite statistics related to the need for school-sponsored early childhood education. The section proposes expanding of existing early childhood programs developing new programs to meet the needs of at-risk students and to remediate racial achievement disparities. These programs will have three components: -HIPPY -four-year-old program -City-wide Early Childhood Education Program. Progress Since this section is little more than an introduction to early childhood education, it is not an area where we would appropriately measure the districts progress. In reviewing the following four sections, we can examine the progress made by the LRSD.Section: Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) (pgs. 6, 14-16) HIPPY is part of the early childhood education program. The Eighth Circuit stated that, at least in the incentive schools, ECE is crucial. Goals and Objectives The HIPPY program targets parents of economically deprived children and works with mothers to help them teach their four- and five-year-old children at home. The plans states that the HIPPY cannot be continued at present levels without the continued receipt of JTPA and Chapter program  2 funds. The LRSD and PCSSD are to collaborate on HIPPY\nHIPPY and the school-based four-year-old program are to collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and teacher training. Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) screening (or a comparable model) will be conducted on HIPPY participants as they exit kindergarten and a standardized test will be given at the end of third grade. These measures will be used to judge the success of HIPPY as an early childhood intervention strategy. Progress . The district has had a HIPPY program since the 1986-87 school year. To save money, the district proposed in a March 1995 business case to drop the program from all schools except the incentive schools. The proposal failed for lack of board approval. In August 1995 the district filed for unitary status in the area of HIPPY. However, during the hearing on unitary status, testimony was not given on HIPPY because the director was ill and couldnt attend the hearing. The districts 1994-95 extended evaluations claimed that, based on the SAT-8 scores earned by some former participants, HIPPY was helping to reduce achievement disparity. The districts claim could not be substantiated from the data presented. Test results for students in 1989-90 and 1990-91 were presented, but these results were not compared to a control group or to the district average for all students of the same age. Conclusions Nationally and internationally HIPPY has a proven track record and a sterling reputation. Its implementation in the LRSD has long left much to be desired. The 1994-95 extended evaluation of the program was poorly done and says little for the competence and professionalism of the staff. Bottom Line HIPPY functions as described in the LRSD Plan, but it effectiveness has not been measured by the districtSection: Four-Year-Old Program (pgs. 7-8, 17-18) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives The program for four-year-olds was designed as a means to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged students and to help racially balance schools that had been difficult to desegregate. This section of the plan contains several provisions that have been modified by subsequent District Court orders. The plan originally required that the district locate a four-year-old classroom in each of the elementary schools. The May 1992 Order of the District Court required the district to establish the number of classes needed to serve at least as many students as would have been served under the original scheme, but the district could locate the classes where they were most likely to serve desegregation and reduce achievement disparities. (This requirement equates to a capacity of 720 students.) This section also addresses the need for developmentally appropriate curriculiun, areas of collaboration with PCSSD, and program evaluation. Progress ODM has published two reports on the four-year-old program (7-31-92 and 5-26-95). In both instances, we found the instructional program offered in the LRSD to far surpass the educational offerings usually available to children of this age. In ODMs monitoring report that covered the 1995-96 school year, we examined the following areas\nenrollment, recruitment, staffing, curriculum and instruction, parent involvement, staff development, program evaluation, and facilities. Several of these areas are not part of this section of the plan, but requirements in these areas emanate from court orders or other section of the LRSD or Interdistrict Plan. The district is meeting both the letter and the spirit of the early childhood section of the plan. The four-year-old classes are evaluated annually by outside experts using a standardized observation form. Trained evaluators visit each classroom for a full day. Ratings compiled from the annual assessment continually rank the LRSD classes well above the score needed to be termed a quahty child care program, and in some areas the district composite score is at the very top of the rating scale. Conclusions The district has done a fine job in early childhood education. In the last five years, they have met their deadlines for establishing new classrooms and have created a high quality program. Our only wish would be for more programs to accommodate the high demand for ECE.Section: Citywide Early Childhood Education Program (pgs. 9-11,19) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section deals with developing a coordinated early childhood effort between the LRSD, the City of Little Rocks child care program, and Head Start. Much of this sections narrative is devoted to a description of the program requirements for the three entities. The plan also sets forth ways that the three entities will work together in: parent involvement, staff development, student referrals, student assignment, long-term monitoring, and facilities. Progress During the 1991-92 plan modification hearings, the LRSD submitted a long-range plan for early childhood education that would have relied on outside agencies such as Head Start to fulfill part of the districts requirement to provide early childhood education. The May 1992 Order of the District Court instructed the LRSD to limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through 95 agencies, such as Head Start, which the district does not control and the goals which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location, and so forth. For a year or two after the May 1992 order, the LRSD concentrated its efforts more on meeting the terms of the plan related to the school-based four-year-old classes rather than making extensive efforts related to the Citywide program. In recent years, the district has demonstrated good-faith efforts working with outside agencies that deal with early childhood issues. Representatives of a variety of other agencies are included on the LRSD early childhood council and in training activities. Conclusions Many portions of this section are dated. The LRSD currently collaborates with more agencies than the two mentioned here, and some of the activities described in this section may no longer be the most practical approach to ensuring quality early childhood education. In this area, the district has made some good-faith efforts. The LRSD and the city leaders now appear to work cooperatively on a variety of projects. The relationship between the district and city hall has changed positively but could also change again depending upon the districts and citys leadership. Although were aware of this information through board meetings and the public record, including newspaper articles, the official court record will be essentially bare in this area. Bottom Line This section is out-of-date.Section\nRockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School (pgs, 12-13) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section of the plan evolved from the Tri-District Plan. The early childhood program was designed to foster both desegregation and academic achievement and to provide excellent early childhood education while enhancing training for early childhood professionals. The school was to serve as a model for cooperation between the public schools and the community and as a demonstration site for area educators. Progress ODM has examined the progress being made in the Rockefeller early childhood program in each of the last four incentive school reports (December 1993, December 1994, May 1995, July 1996). During the period between the 1992-93 and 1995-96 schools years, the LRSD made great progress in meeting the terms of this section of the plan. Both the May 1995 and July 1996 reports found substantial evidence of good faith in implementing the Rockefeller program and substantial con^liance with the terms of the desegregation plans. Diuing the period that the LRSD had been under a hiatus from ODM monitoring, the district created a new early childhood specialist position for the Rockefeller program. This is a position that ODM recommended several years ago and the hiring of such an individual addresses one of the chief parent concerns of a lack of certified personnel on staff during the summer months. Unfortunately, the individual hired for this position (a personal friend of the principal) has created a firestorm of dissension and sharply divided the ECE staff against the principal. This isnt a matter of record, but of Ann Browns intimate knowledge of what goes on at Rockefeller. Conclusions The district has made great strides in this area since 1992-93 and has been largely complying with the terms of the desegregation plans since 1994-95. An area in which the program falls short of the promises in the plan is innovative practices. The Rockefeller program does not really develop any early childhood innovations, but this shortcoming can be overlooked when you consider that innovative education and sound practices are not always mutually inclusive. Also, the program is only minimally used as a demonstration site for the county school districts.Section: Special Programs (pg. 20) Goals and Objectives The plan describes the AP\u0026amp;L summer science institute as a one-week enrichment program designed to generate interest in the study of science. Progress The sponsoring company (AP\u0026amp;L) dropped the funding about five years ago, causing the program to be discontinued after ten years of success. Conclusions The AP\u0026amp;L summer science program apparently was in existence at the time the plan was being written and was included to pad the list of desegregation strategies. Bottom Line The summer science program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Summer Learning Program (pg. 21) Goals and Objectives The summer learning program was the six-week Job Training Partnership Act tutorial program which provided instruction in math and reading for a maximum of 350 underachieving secondary students employed by JTPA. Progress LRSD successfully conducted the program for several years but intermittent funding has weakened it recently. LRSD requested release from court supervision in this area and presented impressive testimony in support of the request, but dropped it, apparently in favor of other strategies including plan modification. Conclusions LRSD has an impressive record regarding the JTPA program. Recent funding issues beyond the districts control are the only flaw. Bottom Line The summer learning program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Asset Program (pgs. 24-27) Goals and Objectives The Asset Program is described in the plan as an after school tutorial program for at-risk junior high school students. Slated for four of the districts junior high schools in the 1988-89 school year, the program was to be expanded to include all junior highs by the 1993-94 school year. Progress According to LRSD personnel, Asset was discontinued about five years ago because of the loss of funding. Conclusions LRSD operated Asset as long as JTPA funding was available but discontinued it when funding ended. Bottom Line The Asset Program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: School Operations (pgs. 28-47) Goals and Objectives This section of the plan consists of one and a quarter pages of narrative and 19 pages of timelines. The narrative portion of the section describes the monitoring responsibilities of the LRSD Office of Desegregation. The office is responsible for monitoring 15 areas that cover the full spectrum of school operations from staffing to school climate, student services, and beyond. Progress Any record in this area would relate to the individual areas the Desegregation Office is to monitor, but as far as we know (but not as part of the court record), any type of oversight by the LRSD Office. of Desegregation ended when Russ Mayo left in June of 1996. Nancy Acre, who serves as director of student assignment, concentrates her efforts exclusively on issues related to assignment and enrollment. The Associate Superintendent of Desegregation has been an unfilled position throughout Dr. Roberts tenure. Recently the position has been advertised, but we have no word that a person has been selected to fill the position. The monthly desegregation update that is included in the LRSD Boards agenda is yeiy brief\nit deals only with enrollment or the bi-racial committee, and is prepared by an admimstrative assistant. This worries us, as it indicates a profound shift away from the previous focus on desegregation. Conclusions During Dr. Roberts tenure, he seemed to take the lead in issues related to desegregation. Dr. Roberts did not focus on issues related to enforcement or compliance with the April 1992 Desegregation Plans. Instead he seemed to concentrate his attention to the work groups and developing the new, very abbreviated plan that was filed with the court on September 26, 1997. Bottom Line The Desegregation Office has lacked leadership for nearly two years. It seems logical to conclude that this vacancy has resulted in a diminished focus on issues related to the current plans. Because of the moratorium, we have no official record of what the district has done recently.Area: Discipline (LRSD Plan, pg. 28) Goals and Objectives to develop and implement polices that improve discipline to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. Progress The districts own monitoring reports indicate a continuing disparity in disciplinary sanctions. Past policies of zero tolerance and strict adherence to discipline policies have only served to exacerbate the problem. ODM has received numerous complaints from teachers, parents, and Joshua concerning unfair discipline practices, and while informal investigations have not proven the allegations, neither have they disproved them. ODM staff has provided the LRSD with many workshops that focused on working with minority youth and cultural differences. A major problem has been teachers who do not relate well to minority students, especially black males. Additionally, minority students ( black males in particular) have taken advantage of the teachers who fear them or who were uncomfortable with them. ODM has not published a report that solely focuses on discipline, but it has been considered in our reports on the incentive schools and alternative school. The LRSD has done a major overhaul of its discipline policies. The new pohcies provide a great deal of flexibihty at the building level and contain provisions for addressing schools that have high discipline statistics. The new approach should make a big difference. The changes on not in the record. Conclusions The district has a long way to go in solving its discipline problems, but safe and orderly schools are essential for community confidence in them. Some of the districts pohcies and practices have worked against minority youth, as has the lack of understanding between white teachers and minority students. Cultural sensitivity training in the LRSD has been spotty at best.Section: Program for Accelerated Learning/Academic Support Program (pgs. 48-57) This program was replaced pursuant to a Court order dated May 1, 1992. The new program is entitled Academic Support Program (filed with the Court on March 24, 1993). Goals and Objectives The objectives are to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences to improve achievement and decrease disparity among students. The plan proposes to identify and serve at-risk students, prescribe personalized intervention plans, reduce pull-out programs, and provide parents with the skills needed to assist their children at home. Services are provided indirectly, whereby math and reading speciaUsts assist the regular classroom teachers with implementing remedial services, and directly, whereby students identified with severe reading problems attend reading classes designed to assist them with reading skills. Schools could opt for indirect, direct, or a combination of delivery services. All remediation programs fall under the Academic Support Program (ASP) umbrella. Progress Initially, the program started with a bang. AU of the schools in the district participated in the ASP. Two ODM associate monitors visited several of the programs and felt that they were being implemented sufficiently. In the 1994-95 school year, the LRSD combined the language arts specialist and math specialist positions into one position at the elementary level. This measure was intended to be a budget cutting device. However, the district did not submit the change to the Court. Conclusions The LRSD took three steps forward and two steps back. The original model seemed to work well and, since the schools could modify the ASP to meet their needs, the program was very user fiiendly. But language arts specialists are not math teachers. Math scores on the standardized tests were showing improvement prior to the elimination of the math specialists\nhowever, overaU math scores for aU students have declined in the last two years. Ironically, language arts scores have improved, but reading scores have fallen. Issues The ASP was never designed specifically for black students\nhowever, as a group, black students stood to gain the most from the program, simply because a greater percentage of black students needed remedial help in math and language arts. The district should assist schools with developing site-based ASPs, utilizing a variety of services provided by the district. Bottom Line The results are mixed. Students are doing better in language arts, poorer in math.Section: Gifted Education (pgs. 58-62) Goals and Objectives While the plan indicates that the district operates in compliance with the ADE gifted and talented standards, the plan also commits to devoting special attention to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels. The plan further commits to collaborate with the other two districts on curriculum, staff development, and research and administration. Progress Gifted and talented education in the LRSD is still fairly new. Except for trying to eliminate a coordinators position and reducing the number of specialists (both of which did not occur), the program has continued to grow and develop. The LRSD does a good job of identifying potential G/T students, especially minority students. Conclusions The LRSD has to follow federal and state guidelines in G/T placements. To our knowledge the district has never been cited for any violations in placement. The quality of G/T education is another matter. The program is still weak and has trouble enrolling and keeping some students, particularly minority students at the secondary level. G/T education in the LRSD is more often than not more work, not better, challenging, or interesting work. The program often lacks originahty. The G/T coordinators in the three districts do meet at least twice a year and participate in joint inservice programs. While they may collaborate on showcasing promising models and programs, they are very protective of their students and have been reluctant to recommend gifted programs in each others district to potential M-to-M students. Issues The biggest number of complaints we hear are from black parents whose children cannot attend one of the magnets, especially Dunbar. Since G/T education is offered in all LRSD schools, theoretically, it shouldnt matter where children attend school as long as they are enrolled in a G/T program\nbut in reality, all G/T programs are not created equal. Bottom Line The record is sparse on G/T. We have not done an independent report on it, but have referred to it in some reports, primarily those on incentive schools. We testified in a hearing that to eliminate the G/T coordinator would negatively affect the program. The information above is what we know through our experiences. We believe that what is in the plan for G/T is fine, and the district is meeting the letter of its obligations in G/T education, but could do so much better where quality and equitable inclusion are concerned. This is an area in which Mr. Walker is very interested.Section: Multicultural Curriculum (pg. 63) Goals and Objectives The districts approach to multicultural curriculum includes\n1) integration into all subject areas\n2) a focus which permeates the entire school environment\n3) opportunities for students to develop self- esteem\nand 4) opportunities for students to examine the accomplishments of varied cultural groups. Progress The district was released from court supervision and monitoring of multicultural curriculum.Section: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants (pg. 81) Goals and Objectives The goal here was to promote each elementary area school as a community of learning among parents, students, and staff by providing various enrichment activities at the building level. Supported by annual allocations, each area elementary school was to develop a focus or thematic emphasis which would be unique to that school. In addition to enriching the curriculum, the focus would also act as a recruitment tool for desegregation. The district also committed to provide\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_819","title":"Desegregation: District Desegregation Team, minutes, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2002"],"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 (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: District Desegregation Team, minutes, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/819"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n / Attachment I - Nll NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on March 11, 1991. The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Monday, March 11, 1991, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following team members attended the meeting: Mr. James Smith, Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Donald Watkins, Mr. Jim Morris, Mr. Greg Daniels, Mrs. Mable Mitchell, and Ms. Scharmel Bolling. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting and furnished copies of the agenda. (See copy attached.) The first matter discussed was the comparison of disciplinary referrals for first semester 1989/90 and 1990/91. The total number of disciplinary referrals reflected an increase of 4.4% and disciplinary actions reflected a 17% overall increase in suspensions. Current year expulsions reflected a 44% decrease. Fewer expulsions and the establishment of an elementary suspension program at the Boys Club were cited as factors contributing to increased suspensions. Mr. Smith noted that far fewer referrals related to misbehavior on buses even though approximately twenty buses had been added by the Transportation Department. Mr. Smith questioned what percentage of the total referrals reflected individual students with several referrals. Mr. Daniels explained that the Computer Services Department could generate information to address this concern in an easy-to-read format. Mrs. Bynum requested that such a format be used for all monthly reports in the future. Mrs. Bynum expressed concern about the accuracy of coding disciplinary referrals. She requested Mr. Acklin to address this concern with Principals at the next Administrator's meeting. Ms. Bolling expressed concern with the number of students ref~rred for possession of dangerous objects. She requested clarification of the District's Policy, noting a difference between the number of students referred for this infraction and the number actually expelled. Mr. Acklin explained that each incident is examined on an individual basis as he personally reviews every reported incident of possession of a dangerous object. Depending on the circumstances, some of the students are suspended rather than expelled. Mrs. Mitchell expressed appreciation for the use of discretion in recommending expulsions. Mr. Acklin also mentioned that all expelled students are referred to the Juvenile Courts School in order for student to continue earning academic credits. Unfortunately, some students elect not to attend. These students are not given the option of attending the Alternative School. .. It was noted that the West Campus has not recommended any students for expulsion. Mrs. Mitchell inquired as to why there have been more expulsions on the East Campus. Mr. Smith noted that the age of the students more than the size of enrollment was a major factor in the number of expulsions. Mrs. Bynum mentioned that often situations arising in the community result in campus misbehavior. Mr. Jones requested statistics from the West Campus regarding the incidences of older students electing to withdraw from school to avoid expulsion. Mr. Smith noted that next year all students must remain in school until age eighteen or graduation, therefore, an Alternative School Program will be significant in the District. Mr. Morris mentioned that District administrators had anticipated some increase in disciplinary problems due to the secondary school reorganization, which necessitated changes in assignments for many students and staff members. Mrs. Bynum added that we had been concerned about the large number of suspensions on the seventh grade campus last year, however, the number of current year suspensions for seventh and eighth grade students show a marked decline. We will continue to monitor disciplinary referrals for these groups of students, also. Mrs. Mitchell expressed appreciation for the East Campus staff, and confidence that they were working to ensure a safe educational environment for all students. She was concerned, however, about counselors needing more time to work directly with students experiencing difficulties. Mr. Jones questioned the need for a disciplinary referral category for the Bi-District Alternative School. Mr. Acklin advised the group of the school not being a suspension program, instead one designed for students with unique needs such as inability to cope with school, poor school attendance, or habitual tardiness. Ile stressed the importance of making this factor known in order to benefit students enrolled in this program. The next matter discussed was how to best provide information that monitors need to compare academic achievement of black students with that of white students. The lack of this information was cited by most first semester school teams. A procedure is needed to encompass disaggregated achievement test data, grades and graduation information. Mr. Jones will assemble a committee to address this concern and provide this team a report on findings and plans next month. Several members discussed the need to follow-up on the performance of students removed from basic classes. The team also discussed reviewing the performance of students assigned to teachers who have completed specific inservice programs such as TESA and Cooperative Learning. Elementary grade distribution sheets must be prepared by hand due to the absence of on-site computer terminals. This process requires more time. There is a need for standardization in relation to the secondary schools. Mr. Daniels stated tl1at he was eager to bring elementary schools into the computer network. Mrs. Bynum acknowledged the District's financial situation, but stressed the fact that data collection is such a critical part of monitoring, therefore, constant accumulation of data will prove to be very cumbersom without adequate computer terminals. We next reviewed and discussed first semester School Monitoring Reports. Mr. Morris expressed the need for principals to correctly code building expenditures in order to document purchases of materials and supplies for each department. Other areas of concern discussed were those related to student discipline, one-race classes, parental involvement, and seating patterns for students, with the team making note to stress the importance of school personnel encouraging interaction between various ethnic groups. The team stressed the importance of Principals sharing the Monitoring Reports with their staffs so they can see the critical concerns, as well as how other schools are handling certain matters as reflected in the numerous positive comments offered by the teams. Mrs. Bynum shared reports prepared by Principals as responses to monitoring teams concerns. The final matter discussed was the Success Through Outstanding Role Models Program (S.T.O.R.M.). There are approximately fifteen North Little Rock High School-West Campus students who completed training February 25, and returned required paperwork. The three pilot elementary schools, Argenta, Pine and Redwood, have identified approximately twenty students for participation. An equal number of participants will be chosen from each school. Mentors will work with the mentees during school time, after school, and much telephone contact will be involved. Each child's needs will be unique and each mentor will convey to his mentee a message of being on his side. Plans call for mentors and mentees to have been paired prior to the March 17 meeting of the Di-racial Committee. There has been long term interest from this committee for the development of such a program and some members have indicated an interest in meeting some of the mentors. Mrs. Bynum mentioned a plan to add tenth grade students prior to the end of the school year. These students could become replacement mentors for graduating participants. Ms. Dolling noted that Classmates for each school might be interested in helping with the STORM program by providing things for them to do or incentives for accomplishments of goals. Mrs. Mitchel expressed pleasure with the initiation of the program and advised the team that she would like to see a program started for female students at some future time. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. N (0)J E'F IBII LIITTILJE JE(Q)CIBC:J PTIJiffiIIILC C CCIH (ID )( D)I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET RECEIVED NOV 9 1992 July 29, 1992 Office of Deseg\negtliN1 Monitoriilg Minutes of Administrators' Meeting on July 29, 1992 The Central Office Administrators and Principals of the North Little Rock School Dis~rict met with Steve Jones, District Attorney, on July 29, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following perscnnel attended: Mr. James Smith, Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Donald Watkins, Ms. Esther Crawford, Mr. Dana Chadwick, Dr. Steve Phaup, Mr. Jim Morris, Mrs. Jo Stt!wart, Mr. Eugene Wise, Mr. Gary Goss, Dr. Jess Walker, Mrs. Letitia Martin, Mr. Doyne Ward, Mrs. Barbara Gilkey, Mrs. Ann Kincl, Mr. Gregg Thompson, Mr. Ken Kirspel, Mrs. Ginny Wiseman, Mr. Arthur Tucker, Mrs. Kathy Ccok, Mrs. Jane Ford, Mrs. Susie Jackson, Mrs. Pat Siegel, Mrs. Kaye Lowe, Mrs. Linda Wilson, Mr. Harold Allen, Mrs. Portia Power, Mrs. Beverly Kelso, Mr. James Zeigler, Mrs. Fran Jackson, Miss Dana Snowden, Mrs. Diane Crites, Ms. Linda Chancellor, Ms. Katherine Tweedle, Mrs. Marsha Paul and Mr. Johnny Kellar. The objective of the meeting was to increase staff's awareness of the Desegregation Plans (North Little Rock School District and Interdistrict) as approved April 29, 1992. Mr. Smith opened th~ meeting by explaining that Attorney Steve Jones would go through the plans with them so they would be familiar enough to follow through with implementation and be capable of making their building staffs aware of the District's responsibilities in meeting these mandated orders. Mrs. Bynum furnished copies to each person and informed the group that a copy of the plans would be placed in the media centers of each school. Mr. Smith went on to say that Judge Wright always remind\u0026amp; us that \"this is r.ot my plan, it is yours,\" so we all have to be well informed of its content and meet our responsibilities in seeing that every phase of the plan is carried out. Attorney Jones gave a brief explanation cf how our plan evolved and its development. He explained that our plan AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER p: 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 evolved around the original \"Storm Plan\" developed in 1973. He said that he did not feel that the North Little Rock School District contributed to the segregation problems of the Little Rock School District, but the Eighth Circuit Court had the last word and we have to live with it. The NLR Plan was initiated by the filing on March 17, 1986 of the \"Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School Dist:rict.\" The purpose of this initial submission was to address the interdistrict violations add:tessed by the Court of Appeals in LRSD v. PCSSD. The district court required the NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations as well, and in response the NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeal~ for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District.\" Scme modification occurred either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties which has now been approved. Attorney Jones explained that our District was the only one of the three districts that had a plan approved in 1987. He stressed that our plan draft gave us enough flexibility that would allow us some leadway in implementation, where the other two districts bogged down in not leaving themselves flexibility to change without going back to the court for approval. He commented that our District was accomplishing more with the sn1all amount of desegregation money awarded in the settlement than the other two districts. lie said that all of our money is going into compensa~ory education (slightly more than $500,000. each year). He went on to say that the over-riding element was that we are doing what we said we would do and much more than our pian requires. He said that we could be very proud of our District's sovereignty. He said the court commends us. He also commended us in the smooth implementation of our restructuring process and the fact that implementation of our Reduction in Force policy for the 1992-93 school year had left all the compensatory programs intact. He said that our efforts to involve the community, patrons, students and employees in making decisions for both of these changes was a credit to our District. Attorney Jones complimented Mr. Gene Jones for being instrumental in securing funding to implement additionul programs that our desegregation money would never have covered. He reminded the group that both Master McCutheon and Mr. Reville both said that desegregation is a state of mind. Mr. Smith reminded the group that the District was receiving $500,000. per year for seven years to fund the implementation of the mandated orders. He went on to say that we must keep in mind that we are now in the fourth year of this funding. The first item of the plan discussed by the group was Section 1: Student Assignment Plan. Attorney Jones gave a short explanation of M-to-M transfers and student transfers to magnet schools. He explained the concept used for elementary student assignment where schools in a predominately black area are paired with one or more schools in a predominately non-black area. Each elementary school in the district must have a student population which approximates as nearly as is feasible a racial balance of 42 ptrcent black and 58 percent non-black students. To assure each school will have a student population composed of these percentages, schools are placed in groups so that students within each group can be assigned to schools in such numbers as is necessary to achieve the desired racial composition. Kindergarten students are assigned to their neighborhood schools and are not transported for purposes of racial balance. The next item discussed was our special education program. ~ir. Smith said that we need to look closely at new students entering. Be said that we have a very good evaluation system in identifying special education students, but we do have over representation of blacks in special education. Mrs. Fran Jackson questioned if we over identify special education students, what impact this would have on M-to-M transfers? Attorney Jones could not give an immediate answer to this. He said the District did not guarantee a racial balance in special education. He said that our compensatory programs were in place to help us in this area and we have already seen some good results from the programs. Mr. Smith commented that we are closely monitored by the State Department of Education in special education. They come each year to closely scrutinize our program. Mr. Thompson questioned transfer of a student \"in geed standing\" from one district to another. It was brought out that a student caught with a gun in a Little Rock school could be transferred to the North Little Rock School District. Mr. Watkins asked if Attorney Jones could see us reaching a deadline of M-to-M transfers. Attorney Jones responded that he did not. Mr. Thompson asked for a brief description of the \"School Choice Act.\" Attorney Jones responded that the Act 762 did have its limitations in that a student residing in one school district can transfer to another school district, the Board of Directors of the resident district may enter into an agreement with the Board of Directors of the receiving school district trar1sferring the student to the receiving district for purposes of education. Boards of Directors of local school districts are prohibited from granting legal transfers in the following situations: (a) where either the resident or the receiving district is under a desegregation relatea court order or has ever been under such a court order\nand (b) the transier in question would negatively affect the racial balance of that district which is or has been under such a court order. Attorney Jones discussed Act 624 of 1987 which states that \"the children or wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district and a resident of another school district shall be entitled to attend school in  either district  \" Mr. Goss brought up a short discussion of transportation of students for extra curricular activities. Attorney Jones pointed out that our District had provided transportation for extra curricular activities even though the plan did not mandate that we do so. The state finances the cost for transportation of M-to-M transfer students. Attorney Jones said the District is to be commended for an equitable process in achieving a racial balance in our schools. At this time a ten minute break was called. The next item discussed after return from break was Section 2: Staff Recruitment Plan. Attorney Jones commented that this was the most difficult part of the plan. He went on to say that the North Little Rock School District had made great strides in correcting the racial imbalance of Central Office Administrators, Principals and coaches, but has had a problem in recruiting black teachers. He went on to explain that there has been a tremendous drop in black teacher applicants since 1970. He said that many blacks have opted to go into other areas of employment that would offer greater financial security than is offered in the teaching area. He also stressed that our District faced vicious competition just in the i~.rnediate area, since the other two districts in our area are able to offer a higher salary. He commented that we have had a good record of retaining the black teachers we have been able to hire. He said the pool of qualified black applicants continues to shrink, and we do compare favorably with the shrinking pool of applicants. He pointed out that when attending recruitment fairs, we will offer a commitment on the spot to a good black teaching applicant. Mr. Morris brought up a discussion of transferring staff to achieve racial balance. Attorney Jones responded that we certainly could involuntariiy transfer non-black teachers to other schools whose staff is racially imbalanced. Attorney Jones suggested skipping over Secticn 3: Special Education Plan, since it was largely dictated by the State Department of Education. He reminded the group that emphasis should be placed on the evaluation process to identify special education students and constant scrutiny of the process. A short discussion of Section 8: Gifted and Talented Education was the next item. Attorney Jones commented that the same consideration applies to Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Education, in that it is dictated by the State Department of Education. He pointed out that we do have better participation of minorities than the ether two districts. Ann Kincl spoke to th6 problem of getting more black students and black teachers in ~he G/T program. She also said that she would like to see our principals more involved in the program. The next item discussed was Section 4: Compensatory Education. Attorney Jones explained that many new programs had alread~ been implemented and others are in the making. He said that many of our teachers had complained about requirements in having to participate in the training program, \"Teacher ExpE,ctations and Student Achievement\" ('l'ESA). This training consists of five workshop sessions and iive classroom observations per teacher. In the program, teachers learn to inciease specific motivating and supportive interactions with low achievers. He also said that teachers had complained about the project, \"Prac~ical Approach to Curriculum and Instructional Renewal\" (PACIR). In this program, objectives are developed\nstudents' progress is measured\nstudents' needs identified\nand programs, practices and resources adjusted. Attorney Jones said that the North Little Rock School District will continue to focus on remediation of identified deficiencies in reading, language arts and mathematics. He commtanted that \"it was just to bad if teachers did not like it - it is a part of our desegregation plan and we do not have ar. option.\" He went on to say that we could not deviate from the plan. Mr. Smith referred the group to page 36. Mr. Gene Jones explained that the District had hired compensatory a.:.aes and extended day personnel to concentrate efforts toward remedial ~eading and remedial mathematics supplementaty instruction for elementary stuoents in grades 1, 2 and 3. He said we have gone beyond this by employing Remedial Reading teachers. He went on to say other options were being looked at for grades 4, 5 and 6. Ms. Crawford spoke up to say that emphasis in elementary is on grades 1, 2 and 3, and other programs developed for 4, 5 and 6 are our own option. In looking at Section 5: Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention, Attorney Jones pointed out that we have moved far beyond what we have committed to. He used as example our Alternative Education Center - an alternative program for cut-of-school suspensions. The commitment was to provide for selected secondary school students, but has already been expanded to include elementary students. The center will provide services to grades K-12 during the 1992-93 school year. The program is available for students whose behavior is unmanageable both at school and at home and who cannot function in the on-campus suspension program. Students continue their academic work and receive counseling services. The next item discussed was Section 6: Extracurricular Activities. Attorney Jones explained that the Joshua Intervenors had filed \u0026amp; suit against the District challenging the process in selection of spirit groups. He said that we had followed our plan and could not see that in any way the process was unfair. He went on to say that the extra curricular activities were constantly scrutinized and we encourage participation. The district pays for uniforms and transportation because we recognized these were problems that kept some students from participation. Mrs. Bynum reminded the principals at elementary level to closely monitor the awards, committees, etc. to be sure they were racially equitable. Mr. Goss brought up a discussion of the athletic selection process, in that the coaches decide who participates. Attorney Jones said that we certainly have a higher black representative in sporting activities, but it is not a legal matter at this time. Mr. Morris pointed out that coaches have to be certified, but spirit group sponsors do not, although all the district sponsors are certified personnel. Mrs. Wisen,an questioned if the suit was against people or process. Attorney Jones was adamant that the district used a process instead of setting quote\n\"pick a certain number.\" Mr. Thompson said we should have a written plan to address each extra curricular activity, the same as we do for curriculum. Attorney Jones suggested that principals keep recvrds of all activities and keep aware of what is going on, when prcblems arise, make plans to correct them. Mrs. Bynum said that principals should look at their School Profiles from the monitori~g process. She suggested they call their staffs' attention to the extra curricular activities, and ask for their input and assistance in monitoring these activities. She also said they might want to look back at the Joshua monitoring reports for their schools. Attorney Jones said that if a problem was seen, we should immediately look for ways to eliminate any disproportionate process in selection of committees, etc. Mrs. Bynum said the key factor was communication to students and parents . The next item discussed was Section 7: Discipline, Expulsions and Suspensions. Attorney Jones said there were three factors to consider for any infraction: (1) communication, (2) consistency, and (3) documentation. He said that documentation will vary commensurate with infraction. He went on to say that we were the first of the three districts to ke~p students in school --- expulsion only for possession of weapon. He said we did not think it was good to put students out on the street, we want to make sure that discipline referrals are in school. A very brief discussion of Section 10: Desegregation Monitoring followed. Attorney Jones commented that he was sure that everyone was familiar with the school based monitoring process, and we were more concerned with the Joshua monitoring. Mrs. Wilson said the Joshua monitoring team was very thorough --- even looking at teachers' lesson plans. Attorney Jones commented that we have to understand their role and be courteous and cooperativew Attorney Jones called attention to pages 1 and 2 of the Interdistrict Desegregation Flan. He informed the group that he had written the introduction and that our role was very limited in the Interdistrict Plan. Mrs. Bynum said she hoped that the overview gave the group a better understanding ot our Desegregation Plan and would enable them to answer questions, and to keep their building staff informed. Meeting was adjourned at 1~:00 p.m. ~ ov 9 1?9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0:1 .a of 1:er.c~')':-'i:,, I 'J,.::\n1g North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on September 14, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on September 14, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, with the District Attorney, Members from the Federal Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Members of the Joshua Intervenors Monitoring team. Persons attending the meeting were: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM Horace Smith - Associate Monitor - ODM Ms. Joy Springer - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Delois Sikes - Joshua Intervenors Ms. Debbie Parker - Joshua Intervenors Mr. Kirke Herman - Joshua Intervenors Steve Jones, Attorney - NLRSD Mr. James Smith - Superintendent of Schools - NLRSD Mrs. Mable Bynum - Asst. Supt.-Desegregation - NLRSD Mr. Gene Jones - Asst. Supt.-Instruction - NLRSD Mr. Bobby Acklin - Asst. Supt.-Student Services - NLRSD Mr. Donald Watkins - Asst. Supt.-Business - NLRSD Mr. Jim Morris - Director-Personnel - NLRSD Mr. Greg Daniels - Director-Computer Services - NLRSD. Steve Jones opened the meeting by expressing concern that information required for internal monitoring as well as requests for additional information from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Monitoring Team could become a tremendous task for our District Desegregation Office. He stressed a need to come up with a schedule of reports and information to be provided to both ODM and Joshua, thus lessening the voluminous paper work involved. He also said that some of the information requested by the Joshua team was impossible to provide prior to their visits due to the early date. He pointed out that we did not allow our internal monitoring teams to interrupt the educational process in the classrooms and that last year some of our teachers had felt intimidated during Joshua's monitoring visits. Ms. Springer responded that they had already agreed that they would go about the process somewhat differently from last year. A discussion then pursued relating to individual data on students. Steve Jones reminded everyone that students records were protected by the Educational Privacy Act\ntherefore, individual records could only be viewed with written permission from the parents of students. Mr. Gene Jones explained that aggregated test data was compiled and could be furnished to them for perusal. Ms. Springer responded that their team just wanted to be sure that the tests were being given and data kept for each student. Steve Jones replied that the data was available in Principals' offices, and with written permission from parents, individual student data could be made available to them. The next item discussed was the Joshua team's request to view teachers' plan books. Steve Jones requested their rationale for this request? Ms. Springer responded that they wanted to know what was going on in the classroom and to make sure the multicultural curriculum was being included in the classrooms. Steve Jones pointed out that teachers' plan books were as varied as the individual teachers themselves, and a lesson plan would not always reflect a true picture of the learning process of a particular class, or the many facets of a particular lesson. Steve Jones used an example of an instructor he had in college that lectured without notes, but to him represented one of the best instructors he had. Mr. Herman responded that although he had been out of the educational field for some time, that teachers always used an organization plan. Ms. Springer commented that the group looked at teachers' lesson plan books last year and did not understand why this was a problem now. Further discussion continued on this issue. Steve Jones explained that he had thought Joshua monitors were asking to collect all the teachers' plan books for scrutiny. Mr. Morris commented that it would be a problem for one of the team members to look at a plan book and understand it without a teacher to explain the contents. Ms. Springer and Mr. Herman agreed that they would be upset if they did not find a plan book \"up to date,\" asking how a teacher's lessons could be evaluated. Mr. Gene Jones pointed out that principals confer with teachers about plan books to evaluate what is occurring in the classroom. He went on to say that there are two formal observations of each teacher in the classroom every year and this is used by the principal in evaluating the teacher. Mr. Acklin commented that not only are there two formal observations, there are also many informal observations occurring in the schools, in the way of walk through observations of classes by principals, but that it would be impossible to document everything. Mrs. Brown agreed that monitoring during a class session could be made very intimidating to a teacher. Mr. Horace Smith spoke to the issue of multicultural education. He said that it is not necessarily that which is highlighted in a \"plan book,\" but observations and conferences with the principal regarding multicultural infusion into the curriculum and activities occurring in the schools would assure the monitoring groups that multicultural education is being included in the educational procccc cf the schools in our area. Steve Jones again reiterated that the District does not want its teachers to worry about monitoring so much that the educational process will be hindered in any way. A discussion between Steve Jones and Ms. Springer continued. Mr. Jones pointed out that it would be best for monitoring teams to talk with teachers during breaks and preparation periods. He stressed that the monitoring process should not be observed as a process to place the blame on any one, but should be as constructive as possible for the teachers and principals. Ms. Springer responded that their team would like to spend more time in the classroom this year. The next item discussed was the possibility of the District Desegregation Office forwarding the same or similar information to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors, instead of having to gather different information for each. Steve Jones pointed out that at least a fifty percent change occurs during any one school year and gathering the data in the many ways requested by the different groups was becoming such a tremendous task that it was hard to carry on the regular business required of the Desegregation Office. He also commented that a clear cut assignment of students was not completed for at least two weeks after the opening of school and then it was constantly changing. A discussion between Ms. Springer and Mrs. Bynum concerning the School Profiles was the next item. Mrs. Bynum responded that October 1 enrollment and assignments were usually the basis for the profiles, so the profiles would not be ready until sometime in October. Mrs. Brown reported that her office had been studying materials used by schools in Cleveland, Ohio, and they would decide if some of the methods and forms used there could be useful in this area. She said they would furnish all three districts a survey form to be used to audit all reports and information generated. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring could then make its requests for information match the district's schedule. Format and appropriate dates for reports were discussed. Once these are agreed upon, the Compute~ Services Departments in all three districts could generate information for transmittal to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors. Mrs. Brown commented that there was great redundancy in information, including the school monitoring process. She indicated a need to coordinate team visits and collaboration of our efforts to avoid such redundancy. Ms. Springer brought up a discussion of the Desegregation Plan relating to the Special Education section. She asked if we had a Special Education Committee. Steve Jones responded that the committee was in place and Dr. Steve Phaup was in charge of thi~ committee. Mrs. Bynum pointed out that she had invited Joshua Intervenors through Attorney John Walker last spring to inform the District of its appointee to the Special Education Review Committee. Mrs. Bynum said that she was not aware if the committee had met yet this year, but Dr. Phaup would know and could answer any concerns they would have about our Special Education Program. The next item discussed was the compensatory education programs that have been implemented by the District. Steve Jones commented that we should not be surprised if these classes are racially disproportionate. Ms. Springer asked whether we knew if the compensatory education programs were working? Mr. Gene Jones said that the program goals are being monitored closely, and thus far had shown a definite improvement\nhowever, some of the programs are too new for much analysis. Ms. Springer questioned criteria for classroom aides. Mr. Gene Jones responded that it depends on the number of Chapter I students and criteria is set to meet the needs. He went on to say that the District increased the number of these positions last year and uses computer lab aides at the elementary and middle school levels. He stressed that needs vary greatly in different elementary schools\nhowever, each elementary school has a half-time compensatory aide in addition to those associated with the Chapter I and computer labs. Ms. Springer questioned the use of social workers in the District. Mr. Jones responded that Barbara Gilkey does work in this capacity and heads up our HIPPY Program. He went on to say we had added a position of Social Case Worker, whose responsibility is to work with pregnant students and students who have young children of their own. Social workers receive referrals for assistance from school personnel. Steve Jones praised the District's efforts in compensatory education programs, stressing the expansion of our HIPPY Program which is now serving at least 200 families. Several aides are working in this program which helps to give home instruction to students who might not otherwise get the pre-school attention they need. Mrs. Joshua voiced a concern about the nature of the bussing plan for some of the students in the Gribble Addition and Boone Park areas. Mr. Acklin explained that all elementary students living more than two miles from their school were provided transportation. A discussion concerning this practice ensued. Mrs. Joshua was concerned that some of these students lived more than two miles from school and were not being transported. Mr. Acklin assured her this was not the case. Mr. Acklin reported that the State does not require student transportation, but if a District chooses to transport students, reimbursement is made for students being transported two miles or more. He also pointed out that we furnish transportation by choice for the benefit of our students, but the District could not afford to transport all students. He reiterated his intention to review the areas of concern with a commitment to fairness in approving any new bus routes. The next item discussed was class size. Mrs. Bynum addressed this concern by reporting that classes are kept within the maximum student limit, but stressing that at both the elementary and secondary levels student counts above 25 are allowed. Mrs. Bynum questioned Mrs. Brown concerning the forms she would furnish to the District. Mrs. Brown responded that a master schedule would be developed that we could all work with. Steve Jones thanked the group for their attendance, and Mrs. Bynum requested that the regular District Desegregation Team members remain for further discussion. Mrs. Bynum questioned Steve Jones about what we should do about the quarterly reports. Steve Jones responded that he thought we should continue to submit the reports, since much of the instructional information submitted in the reports was not available in any other complete report. It was agreed that we would continue to compile information to be submitted for July, August and September. Comparison data of achievement disparity was discussed. Steve Jones said that the achievement disparity in our District had been impacted by some factors beyond our control\nhowever, we continue to do many things to address the issue. We discussed the need to keep follow through data on students who remain in our District for all of their education. We could then compare that data with that collected on students that come and go from the District. Meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f:::w~~ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on September 14, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on September 14, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, with the District Attorney, Members from the Federal Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Members of the Joshua Intervenors Monitoring team. Persons attending the meeting were: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM Horace Smith - Associate Monitor - ODM Ms. Joy Springer - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Delois Sikes - Joshua Intervenors Ms. Debbie Parker - Joshua Intervenors Mr. Kirke Herman - Joshua Intervenors Steve Jones, Attorney - NLRSD Mr. James Smith - Superintendent of Schools - NLRSD Mrs. Mable Bynum - Asst. Supt.-Desegregation - NLRSD Mr. Gene Jones - Asst. Supt.-Instruction - NLRSD Mr. Bobby Acklin - Asst. Supt.-Student Services - NLRSD Mr. Donald Watkins - Asst. Supt.-Business - NLRSD Mr. Jim Morris - Director-Personnel - NLRSD Mr. Greg Daniels - Director-Computer Services - NLRSD. Steve Jones opened the meeting by expressing concern that information required for internal monitoring as well as requests for additional information from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Monitoring Team could become a tremendous task for our District Desegregation Office. He stressed a need to come up with a schedule of reports and information to beprovided to both ODM and Joshua, thus lessening the voluminous paper work involved. He also said that some of the information requested by the Joshua team was impossible to provide prior to their visits due to the early date. He pointed out that we did not allow our internal monitoring teams to interrupt the educational process in the classrooms and that last year some of our teachers had felt intimidated during Joshua's monitoring visits. Ms. Springer responded that they had already agreed that they would go about the process somewhat differently from last year. A discussion then pursued relating to individual data on students. Steve Jones reminded everyone that students records were protected by the Educational Privacy Act\ntherefore, individual records could only be viewed with written permission from the parents of students. Mr. Gene Jones explained that aggregated test data was compiled and could be furnished to them for perusal. Ms. Springer responded that their team just wanted to be sure that the tests were being given and data kept for each student. Steve Jones replied that the data was available in Principals' offices, and with written permission from parents, individual student data could be made available to them. The next item discussed was the Joshua team's request to view teachers' plan books. Steve Jones requested their rationale for this request? Ms. Springer responded that they wanted to know what was going on in the classroom and to make sure the multicultural curriculum was being included in the classrooms. Steve Jones pointed out that teachers' plan books were as varied as the individual teachers themselves, and a lesson pl~n would not always reflect a true picture of the learning process of a particular class, or the many facets of a particular lesson. Steve Jones used an example of an instructor he had in college that lectured without notes, but to him represented one of the best instructors he had. Mr. Herman responded that although he had been out of the educational field for some time, that teachers always used an organization plan. Ms. Springer commented that the group looked at teachers' lesson plan books last year and did not understand why this was a problem now. Further discussion continued on this issue. Steve Jones explained that he had thought Joshua monitors were asking to collect all the teachers' plan books for scrutiny. Mr. Morris commented that it would be a problem for one of the team members to look at a plan book and understand it without a teacher to explain the contents. Ms. Springer and Mr. Herman agreed that they would be upset if they did not find a plan book \"up to date,\" asking how a teacher's lessons could be evaluated. Mr. Gene Jones pointed out that principals confer with teachers about plan books to evaluate what is occurring in the classroom. He went on to say that there are two formal observations of each teacher in the classroom every year and this is used by the principal in evaluating the teacher. Mr. Acklin commented that not only are there two formal observations, there are also many informal observations occurring in the schools, in the way of walk through observations of classes by principals, but that it would be impossible to document everything. Mrs. Brown agreed that monitoring during a class session could be made very intimidating to a teacher. Mr. Horace Smith spoke to the issue of multicultural education. He said that it is not necessarily that which is highlighted in a \"plan book,\" but observations and conferences with the principal regarding multicultural infusion into the curriculum and activities occurring in the schools would assure the monitoring groups that multicultural education is being included in th1: 1::d.ucationa1p:\n::-ocess cf the schools in our area. Steve Jones again reiterated that the District does not want its teachers to worry about monitoring so much that the educational process will be hindered in any way. A discussion between Steve Jones and Ms. Springer continued. Mr. Jones pointed out that it would be best for monitoring teams to talk with teachers during breaks and preparation periods. He stressed that the monitoring process should not be observed as a process to place the blame on any one, but should be as constructive as possible for the teachers and principals. Ms. Springer responded that their team would like to spend more time in the classroom this year. The next item discussed was the possibility of the District Desegregation Office forwarding the same or similar information to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors, instead of having to gather different information for each. Steve Jones pointed out that at least a fifty percent change occurs during any one school year and gathering the data in the many ways requested by the different groups was becoming such a tremendous task that it was hard to carry on the regular business required of the Desegregation Office. He also commented that a clear cut assignment of students was not completed for at least two weeks after the opening of school and then it was constantly changing. A discussion between Ms. Springer and Mrs. Bynum concerning the School Profiles was the next item. Mrs. Bynum responded that October 1 enrollment and assignments were usually the basis for the profiles, so the profiles would not be ready until sometime in October. Mrs. Brown reported that her office had been studying materials used by schools in Cleveland, Ohio, and they would decide if some of the methods and forms used there could be useful in this area. She said they would furnish all three districts a survey form to be used to audit all reports and information generated. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring could then make its requests for information match the district's schedule. Format and appropriate dates for reports were discussed. Once these are agreed upon, the Computer Services Departments in all three districts could generate information for transmittal to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors. Mrs. Brown commented that there was great redundancy in information, including the school monitoring process. She indicated a need to coordinate team visits and collaboration of our efforts to avoid such redundancy. Ms. Springer brought up a discussion of the Desegregation Plan relating to the Special Education section. She asked if we had a Special Education Committee. Steve Jones responded that the committee was in place and Dr. Steve Phaup was in chu~gc of this committee. Mrs. Bynum pointed out that she had invited Joshua Intervenors through Attorney John Walker last spring to inform the District of its appointee to the Special Education Review Committee. Mrs. Bynum said that she was not aware if the committee had met yet this year, but Dr. Phaup would know and could answer any concerns they would have about our Special Education Program. The next item discussed was the compensatory education programs that have been implemented by the District. Steve Jones commented that we should not be surprised if these classes are racially disproportionate. Ms. Springer asked whether we knew if the compensatory education programs were working? Mr. Gene Jones said that the program goals are being monitored closely, and thus far had shown a definite improvement\nhowever, some of the programs are too new for much analysis. Ms. Springer questioned criteria for classroom aides. Mr. Gene Jones responded that it depends on the number of Chapter I students and criteria is set to meet the needs. He went on to say that the District increased the number of these positions last year and uses computer lab aides at the elementary and middle school levels. He stressed that needs vary greatly in different elementary schools\nhowever, each elementary school has a half-time compensatory aide in addition to those associated with the Chapter I and computer labs. Ms. Springer questioned the use of social workers in the District. Mr. Jones responded that Barbara Gilkey does work in this capacity and heads up our HIPPY Program. He went on to say we had added a position of Social Case Worker, whose responsibility is to work with pregnant students and students who have young children of their own. Social workers receive referrals for assistance from school personnel. Steve Jones praised the District's efforts in compensatory education programs, stressing the expansion of our HIPPY Program which is now serving at least 200 families. Several aides are working in this program which helps to give home instruction to students who might not otherwise get the pre-school attention they need. Mrs. Joshua voiced a concern about the nature of the bussing plan for some of the students in the Gribble Addition and Boone Park areas. Mr. Acklin explained that all elementary students living more than two miles from their school were provided transportation. A discussion concerning this practice ensued. Mrs. Joshua was concerned that some of these students lived more than two miles from school and were not being transported. Mr. Acklin assured her this was not the case. Mr. Acklin reported that the State does not require student transportation, but if a District chooses to transport students, reimbursement is made for students being transported two miles or more. He also pointed out that we furnish transportation by choice for the benefit of our students, but the District could not afford to transport all students. He reiterated his intention to review the areas of concern with a commitment to fairness in approving any new bus routes. The next item discussed was class size. Mrs. Bynum addressed this concern by reporting that classes are kept within the maximum student limit, but stressing that at both the elementary and secondary levels student counts above 25 are allowed. Mrs. Bynum questioned Mrs. Brown concerning the forms she would furnish to the District. Mrs. Brown responded that a master schedule would be developed that we could all work with. Steve Jones thanked the group for their attendance, and Mrs. Bynum requested that the regular District Desegregation Team members remain for further discussion. Mrs. Bynum questioned Steve Jones about what we should do about the quarterly reports. Steve Jones responded that he thought we should continue to submit the reports, since much of the instructional information submitted in the reports was not available in any other complete report. It was agreed that we would continue to compile information to be submitted for July, August and September. Comparison data of achievement disparity was discussed. Steve Jones said that the achievement disparity in our District had been impacted by some factors beyond our control\nhowever, we continue to do many things to address the issue. We discussed the need to keep follow through data on students who remain in our District for all of their education. We could then compare that data with that collected on students that come and go from the District. Meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~w~~ rmv 9 t992 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Of/leec ,f0 ~~\\1~a:l!ioMro. nitoring North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on October 12, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on October 12, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following persons attended the meeting: Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. James Smith, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Donald Watkins, Mr. Jim Morris, Ms. Scharmel Bolling and Mr. Greg Daniels. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting by reminding the members that she had furnished copies of a memo from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding a survey/information audit. She pointed out that she had furnished a list of forms and information previously required from each particular department and asked that the administrator responsible feel free to add to or revise the list. Ms. Bolling questioned \"date available.\" Mrs. Bynum responded if it was information or report due periodically that an approximate date could be used. Ms. Bolling stated that she usually FAXed a copy of any information from her office to the Federal Monitor's office. Mr. Jones commented that the items listed for instruction were not nearly as comprehensive as his regular quarterly status update. He mentioned that vocational assessments, extended day program and the summer transition program were not shown on his list. Mrs. Bynum agreed that these items should be included since they pertain to our compensatory education program. Mrs. Bynum inquired about the personnel department's responsibilities. Mr. Morris responded that he thought his list was complete. Mr. Daniels questioned the instructional requirement of interim grades/report cards. Mrs. Bynum stated that we could only report the dates that interim grades/report cards were issued. She pointed out that the Joshua team had reported in its findings that we were only doing interim reports for the first quarter. We discussed the practice that Lakewood Middle School has made to furnish parents/guardians a copy of the students' interim grades as part of their MGAP project. Mrs. Bynum reiterated that the list she had prepared was only a start to give each administrator an idea to expand upon, and if they would make her aware of any and all information/reports issued from their offices or other offices under their respective area, she would then pass the information on to the Federal Monitor's Office. She reminded them that this information is due on October 19th. Mr. Jones reported that our annual school report to the State Department of Education is due on October 15, 1992. We discussed the fact that this is reported from Computer Services in the form of a disk which could be furnished to other sources if requested. Mrs. Bynum informed the team of our student enrollment statistics for the 1992-93 school year. She reported that we have 9,251 students enrolled with 48.3 percent black as compared with 46.9 percent during the 1991-92 school year. Mrs. Bynum noted that we have several elementary schools with more than 50 percent black students. Mrs. Bynum reported that the District has 295 black M-to-M transfers from the Little Rock District and we have 143 non-black M-to-M transferring to the Little Rock District. The District also has 545 students enrolled in Magnet Schools (276 non-black and 269 black). It was also pointed out that our District has 57 black students going to Oak Grove and only 7 non-black coming to our District from Oak Grove. It was further noted that under the School Choice Act we had only one black student going to Pulaski County Special School District, while 81 non-black from Pulaski County attend North Little Rock Schools. Mr. Morris asked if we report on home schooling? Mr. Jones responded that the parents notify us of the home schooling and from there it was handled through the State Department of Education. He pointed out that there seemed to be an increase in home schooling each year. Mrs. Bynum asked Mr. Jones if he had any information on the Special Education Committee? Mr. Jones responded that the committee was in place and had met once thus far. He reported that Mr. Prentice Dupins had been appointed to the committee. Mrs. Bynum commented that the Joshua t~am had inquired about the committee and that she had sent a copy of her earlier letter inviting them to appoint a member to serve on the committee, but Joshua had not responded to the invitation at this time. Mr. Morris furnished copies of the staffing percentages by race and gender for 1992-93. He reported that we had made some progress in that we now have a black teacher placed in the Gifted/ Talented program. He pointed out that we did have a glaring need for black teachers at Baring Cross, but that the enrollment was down this year at the school, therefore, no new staff were hired. Ms. Bolling inquired if the courts have set down a specific quota we must meet for staffing. Mr. Morris responded that state legislation says we should have the same percentage black teachers as students. We discussed the relevant labor market as compared to our district's accomplishment in recruiting black teachers and agreed that we were ahead in percentages as compared to the applicants available as represented by the labor market statistics. Mr. Morris commented that the district had offered contracts to four black teachers that had turned us down this year. We discussed our inability to compete in salaries with the other two districts in our area with our budget. Mr. Morris reported that he would start next week visiting colleges/universities in recruitment efforts for the 1993-94 school year. Recruitment packets have been sent to all major colleges in Arkansas and surrounding states in preparation of recruiting. Mr. Watkins reported that in budget comparisons from last year, some pre-school money was added from the desegregation budget for supplies and equipment. He further explained that some of the cost was paid under the Chapter I program. The next discussion concerning \"Project Promise\" was led by Mr. Jones. He explained that this program is targeted at black students for our Gifted/Talented program. He reported that we have employed three persons to work part-time as home visitors. Mrs. Bynum commented that we also have non-black students with the same needs. Mr. Jones reported that $25,000 had been allocated for band instrument purchase in an effort to recruit students that would not otherwise participate in band because of lack of funds for instruments. Mrs. Bynum inquired about the status of the pre-school program scheduled to open at Redwood Elementary. Mr. Jones responded that materials had been ordered and plans were to get the program in operation during the month of November. Further discussion of the pre-school program continued. Mr. Jones explained that funding for teachers was provided by Chapter I and that the Arkansas Better Chance Program (ABC) provided funding for the paraprofessionals. He said that we also used some desegregation money for supplies and materials. Mr. Jones reported that the program required that a separate fenced play area be provided for these students. Mr. Morris asked if the ABC funds were recurring? Mr. Jones responded that it could be a very competitive process, but he felt sure that it will continue. The next item discussed was staff development. Mrs. Bynum asked if plans were being implemented for secondary TESA training. Mr. Jones said we would prefer the teachers participate in the training after regular work hours and pay them a stipend. He expressed assurance that we will conclude total staff training in areas mandated by the court order by the time required. Mr. Jones asked that we discuss a problem he has seen in the compensatory education program. He reported that he thinks there is an erosion of the extended day program in some of our elementary schools. He said that we needed to decide if we were going to continue this program as a part of our disparity reduction plan and if so, we had to come up with a definite plan or face continued erosive process in the program. He pointed out two problems with the program: (1) transportation and (2) some principals' attitudes. Ms. Bolling asked if we had shown any improvement in students' test scores? Mr. Jones said we had seen about a three point gain on test scores from the participating students. He said that schools in Oklahoma City had used this program and it had proved to be very effective. Mr. Jones reported that three of our elementary schools are now using the compensatory aides to provide services to at risk students in other ways than the extended day program. Mrs. Bynum responded that if they are operating successfully in some schools, we should have them in all schools. She went on to say that she liked the idea and hoped we would be able to impact the test scores, but also we should be able to see some behavior improvement from these students. Mr. Jones agreed to address this issue with elementary principals. The next item discussed was the positive effect we are seeing in the HIPPY program. We discussed the differences in the extended day program and HIPPY program. It was agreed that the personnel involved and the attitudes displayed make the difference in the programs effectiveness. Mr. Jones announced a pre-school parents' meeting at Central Elementary School scheduled for tonight and encouraged the other administrators to attend. Ms. Bolling brought up a discussion of the district's participation in services offered to students eligible for medicaid assistance for a new dental/vision clinic that has offered its services. Ms. Bolling reported that we were getting some resistance from principals in releasing students for the services. The clinic personnel are responsible to furnish a signed statement from the parents for release of the students. Mr. Jones responded that there was some employee concerns about the clinic's operation being questionable, as to whether it is offering medical treatment or merely providing medicaid screenings. He further stated that the district has approximately 600 students that would be eligible for the services. He also pointed out that the district does some screening and we could possibly bill medicaid for those. All agreed that efforts should be made to help students to be physically fit for learning. Mrs. Bynum reminded the team members to submit quarterly desegregation status update information by October 30, 1992. Respectfully submitted, ~Wo~~ ' NLRSD Dese re ation Team Meetin s Year Dates Attendance (13) Proof Number Percent 2002-03 7 54% Minutes 2001-02 11 85% Minutes 9/11/01 Canceled Notice 4/9/02 Notice 3/02 Canceled Note 2/12/02 Notice 1/02 Canceled Note 12/11/01 Canceled Notice 11/28-29/01 ??????? Notice 11/13101 Notice 2000-01 3/12/01 10 77% Minutes 5/8/01 Canceled 10/10/00 Notice 1999-00 3/14/00 11 85% Minutes 2/8/00 8 62% Minutes 1/11/00 Notice 12/14/99 Canceled Notice 11/9/99 11 85% Minutes 10/12/99 11 85% Minutes 1998-99 10 77% Minutes 9 69% Minutes 11/10/98 10 77% Minutes 1997-98 5/12/98 Canceled Notice 14/14/98 12 92% Roster 3/10/98 Canceled Notice 2/10/98 12 92% Minutes 1/13/98 10 77% Roster and 12/9/97 11 85% Roster and 11/11/97 12 92% Roster and 10/14/97 10 77% Roster f9~9l 4=,~, 1995-96 4 31% Minutes 1994-95 r 1993-94 1992-93 12/14/92 8 62% Minutes NLRSD Desegregation Team Meetings Year Dates Attendance (13) Proof I Number Percent 2002-03 3/18/03 t 7 54% Minutes - 2001-02 ~ 10/9/01 11 85% Minutes 9/11/01 Canceled Notice 4/9/02 Notice 13/02 Canceled Note 12/12/02 Notice -- - 1/02 Canceled -- Note 12/11/01 Canceled Notice 11/28-29/01 ??????? Notice - 11/13/01 Canceled 1 Notice - 2000-01 3/12/01 10 77% Minutes 5/8/01 10/10/00 Notice 1999-00 3/14/00 11 85% Minutes - 2/8/00 8 62% Minutes 1/11/00 Notice 12/14/99 Canceled Notice 11/9/99 11 85% Minutes - -, 10/12/99 11 85% Minutes - 1998-99 2/9/99 10 77% Minutes -, - ~ 12/8/98 9 69% Minutes I- - -11/10/98 - 10 77% Minutes 1997-98 5/12/98 Canceled Notice ~ -, - 4/14/98 12 92% Roster \u0026gt;-- - 3/10/98 Canceled Notice -2/10/98 12 92% Minutes 1/13/98 10 77% Roster and agenda - -12/9/97 11 85% Roster and agenda - - - 11/11197 12 92% Roster and agenda ~ -10/14/97 - 10 77% Roster 1996-97 1995-96 7/13/95 4 31% Minutes - 1994-95 -- - I- 1993-94 c--- 1992-93 12/14/92 8 62% Minutes E SEP 1 9 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO Rl,IG NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 a The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 1:30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Greg Daniels, Kaye Lowe, Jerry Massey, )viable Mitchell, Danny Reed, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin started the meeting off with appreciation to the Desegregation Team for attending the first meeting of the school year. With everyone covered up in work and showered with things to do, we have not sat down and talked about what's going on with the different departments. Mr. Acklin reported the Biracial Committee resumed meeting, and he shared his appreciation to the Desegregation Team for attending those meetings as well. It helps us keep informed on what each department is doing. Mr. James Smith and Mr. Dana Chadwick may be 15 minutes late to the meeting due to their presence required at the Monitoring Exit Meeting in the District. Mr. Acklin reported monitoring is in progress, as we do every year. Monitoring is designed to help improve the schools. To the best of his knowledge, no one else has monitored and each year it gets a little less and less. Office of Desegregation Monitoring could have been in the first week of school, but he does not recall. That is not to say we are doing everything right, but he thinks someone recognizes that we are trying to do things right. He mentioned that as we work through desegregation, we will never get it perfect because it is based on individuals\nand, individuals are not perfect\nwe will always make mistakes. Our monitoring is to catch those mistakes\nthings we might be doing wrong or could do differently\nmake it better for the students and then we can change it. He hopes that monitoring fits into a part of what the schools are doing rather than something that's viewed with apprehension. The final monitoring reports have been turned in from the schools. These reports will be compiled in booklet form, and you will receive a copy. Mr. Acklin stated he has not had a chance to analyze the discipline to report to the Desegregation Team. Mrs. Jackson is still ill, but she is doing better. He announced Thursday, March 20, 2003, at the School Board Meeting, four students will be recommended for expulsion for drugs\nsmoking marijuana\nsecond offense. There will be two students from the NLRHS-East Campus and two students from the NLRHS-West Campus. Mr. Acklin informed the Desegregation Team that he has started working on student assignments early this year to assure this task is accomplished, and he will make adjustments as he goes. He is in the process of getting the elementary student assignments completed and sent to Computer Services to be entered in the computer, so that printouts could be sent to the schools to check for accuracy. He stated that we have students coming and going from every direction in the District, in which special attention is given. Page 2 Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Mr. Acklin asked Mr. Massey if the capacity of the schools had changed from last year. Mr. Massey explained that nearly every school would change slightly, if the staffing at that school changed. Nothing significant - opts to be less than twenty-change anywhere in the last year. Mr. Acklin stated we would work with him on the capacity of the schools as we move through the assignments. Mr. Acklin announced the Student Handbook Committee would convene in April. As directed by the School Board, the committee will consist of the same number of teachers and Administrators. In addition, parents and high school students will be part of this committee. The Committee will proceed through the handbook to see if there are any changes needed. The School Board wanted this done by a certain time, and we are starting it early to get it done. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had any questions regarding the before mentioned. There was no response from the committee. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had any information that they wanted to share with the committee. Mr. Reed reported Special Education Monitoring would take place the week of May 15, 2003. Regarding Personnel\nMr. Reed reported recruiting efforts are underway, going to colleges and universities\nThursday recruitment will take place at the Chambers of Commerce. One concern Mr. Reed had was the number of college graduates sliming down this year, which would impact recruitment of minority applicants. He reported a number of recruitment activities planned: Grambling State University, Louisiana Tech, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Arkansas Tech and U of A at Fayetteville. Mrs. Lowe reported interviewing twenty-plus applicants for elementary schools. Mrs. Mitchell requested a copy of the minutes so she could share the information with the other members of the School Board. Mr. Acklin explained that everything we do is connected to Desegregation\nsomehow, someway\nand each and every day, he realizes more and more the truth to that statement. \"Doing the right things right\", that is what desegregation is. Mr. Acklin advised that the next meeting will be next month at the same time and hopes Mrs. Jackson will be back to report on the discipline. Mr. Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, .ci,:11~\n1 d 2003 - vrf\\C0F G O, t 'rti:GATAIOO~N l10ffitl NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC1 North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 b 2DOI - Z. The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday October 9, 2001, at 1: 30 p.111.i, n the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Greg Daniels, Fran Jackson, Letitia Martin, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin opened the meeting by introducing Letitia Martin. Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs. New to the table, she was invited to give the Desegregation Team input anytime. Mr. Acklin repo1t the Desegregation Monitoring Team Training has commenced this morning. Only training new monitors, it was an enthusiastic group from across the district. Mr. Acklin shared information to the new monitors to help them in the monitoring process. Mr. Acklin stated that this is the main monitoring becau e it is a self-monitoring and we are not trying to hide anything from ourselves. We are trying to improve upon the areas we are not doing well in, but that is the purpose of self monitoring to find what we are doing well in and build on that and then where we are not doing well we could identify those areas and move forward. Mr. Acklin encouraged the committee not to cover up problems but to note the problem areas and we will try to correct it. The Desegregation Monitoring Team Training make-up session will be this evening from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for those who could not make this morning's session. Monitoring perimeter dates have been given to the principals\nafter October 15 to a day in January. Any day during that time, they could have the monitoring team come in and monitor. The principals are to notify Mr. Acklin of their monitoring date. Mr. Acklin reported on State Monitoring. He received a letter from Desegregation Monitoring and Accountability Office\nwe are continuing Monitoring, \"we are continuing our meetings\nthat will help the State revamp their monitoring program when they come out to the schools.\" Mr. Acklin will be asking some of the Desegregation Team members to see if the North Lillie Rock School District stands are the same or make changes. We ask the State for help in discipline and staff development. If the State could help us with closing the disparity between black and non-black, we welcome them to come in. Mr. Acklin stated that sometime we close in on orth Little Rock but the problem is not this small it is like this everywhere\nwe may not be doing as bad as we think we are in discipline. Mrs. Jackson reported the Times ewspaper has requested a breakdown of discipline by - reason and actions. In addition, the Times wanted to know about the alternative Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 2 Tuseday, October 9, 2001 programs. Mrs. Jackson talked with the reporter, Matthew Hodges, about the Shorter Now Program for the 16 and 17 year old youngsters\nThe Adult Program for the 18 year old\nArgenta\nArgenta After School Program\nPulaski Alternative Learning Academy, Step One Program, Water Shed Program, The on-handicap BIA Classroom, and the Incentive Programs in the schools. It has been a concentrated effort to look at the needs of the children and place them in the appropriate placement as we do this then we have a decrease in suspensions. Mrs. Jackson stated that  North Little Rock had fewer suspensions this year than the previous year.  North Little Rock Administrators in the schools are doing a terrific job.  North Little Rock is blessed because we have many alternative programs and we can fit the need of the child with the program.  Overall, the data on discipline is showing an improvement. Mr. Acklin informed the members he had received a Jetter from Mr. John Walker's office asking for statistic information on black males as principals and assistant principals. We did provide that information to his office. We have not heard anything back from them. They requested this information after we hired the principal at Poplar Street Middle School. Mrs. Mitchell added she had received calls regarding this situation as well. She referred the callers to the North Little Rock School District's Personnel Office. Mr. Morris stated he had no one to contact him about this situation. Mr. Acklin believes someone who interviewed for the principal position at Poplar Street Middle School felt he/she should have been hired for the position. There were people who applied who had a higher academic degree but no experience. Mr. Acklin remarked that Mrs. Cooley, from John Walker's Office, requested all of the North Little Rock School District committees that a parent could serve. We listed the about 16 committees that parents could serve on and sent the list to Mrs. Cooley. Mr. Acklin reported that he had a visit from Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the cost of Spirit Group uniforms. He wants to speak with the secondary principals. Mr. Acklin stated we do not have enough in the Desegregation Office budget to help but we do. There was a discussion around the table regarding budgeting Spirit Group uniforms. Some children cannot do fund raising because they do not have an outlet. (Locations and non-working parents). Mr. Acklin mentioned a concern came to his attention regarding a Social Studies Committee that was one-race. Investigating this concern, we found no committee with just one race. Mr. Acklin asked the members to inform him immediately if the members hear of any one-race committees. We are committed to bi-racial committees. .. Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 3 Tuseday, October 9, 2001 Mr. Acklin brought to the table a personnel issue that may turn into a lawsuit. A teacher felt they were being treated differently than another teacher, based on their degrees\na degree outside of the educational area. This teacher feels like the other teacher is being paid for their degree and he/she is not. We have thoroughly investigating this and cannot find any records where someone is being paid for a doctrine outside of the educational field and someone is not being paid for a doctrine outside of the educational field. We try to do things fair and we are within policy. We have sent the disgruntled teacher a letter explaining this. Mr. Daniels asked for clarification. There was a discussion with Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Acklin, Mr. Morris and Mrs. MitcheJl with explanation and clarification. Mr. Acklin asked the members if they had anything to share. Mr. Daniels mentioned the school profile information would be provided next week. Mr. Reed informed the members that we have not set the Special Education State Monitoring date. We will have a Special Education advisory meeting in November. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ,----/..1.. . ,, . ~I \\ ./  /2--nd~_ f1/l-C//2( ,.{\n,  Sandy Juckett, Secretary Sandy Juckett 10/09/01 09:03 AM To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Desegregation meeting today at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. .N. ., 0 0 U)  0 ' 00 -z 0 ., ... ::r r :::0 0 r,,. .. ..., N I.Jt 0 ' 00 ...... Vl 0 0 0 0 September 28, 2001 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder ... Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, October, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office. Please note the next seven meeting,\n0n vour calendar. November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, 1 \"-----\n., ~mnlnvPr. www.nlrsd.kl2,ar.us Sandy Juckett 09/28/01 12:59 PM Sandy Juckett North Little Rock School District To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSO@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Mr. Acklin would like to remind all of you about the upcoming desegregation meeting on October 9, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. Please note the next seven meetings on your calenciclr. November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, Sandy Juckett 09/11/01 10:20 AM Sandy Juckett North Little Rock School District Secretary To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation meeting scheduled for today has been canceled. Sandy Juckett 09/07 /01 02:47 PM To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Mr. Acklin would like to remind all of you about the upcoming desegregation meeting on September 11, 2001 at 1 :30 p.m. in the conference room. Please note the next eight meetings on your calendar. October 9, November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, I I - 04/08/02 05:27 PM  Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Meeting Just a reminder .... Deseg. mtg.  Tue. April 9 1:30 p.m. cont. rm. Sandy Juckett, Secretary North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115-0687 501 771-8050 Fax: 501 771-8001 March 2002 meeting cancelled Esther Crawford 02/06/02 01:59 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Re: Desegregation Meeting Tuesday, February 12, 2002 Sandy, I will be out of town on Tuesday and will not be able to attend the meeting. Sorry.Esther Sandy Juckett Sandy Juckett 02/06/02 12:29 PM Please respond to Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Desegregation Meeting Tuesday, February 12, 2002 There will be a meeting of all members of the desegregation team on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. N \"\" 0 0 \"0 en  \"d 0 0::, 0 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; z 0.. ..,. ::r ...., N ,... ..... \\J\\ 0 ' 00 ....,  VI 0 ...., ~ 00 0 0 0 Februruy 6, 2002 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From: f1f'- Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Meeting Just a reminder .. . Desegregation Team will meet on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office  A- ,:\n,,,.,1 n,,nnrtunitv Emolover  www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us January 2002 meeting cancelled Sandy Juckett 12/11/01 11:30 AM To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Today's Meeting has been canceled. No Deseg Meeting today. Thank you! N -.J 0 0 \"O 0 \"O (fl 0 t:d 0 X ' 00 -.J '.0., . . :,- 0 -.J N .... .... \"' 0 ' 00 -.J \"' 0 -.J -.J ' 0 0 November 20, 2001 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From: /4 Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Plan On November 28 and 29, Steve Jones will meet with us to discuss the desegregation plan revisions. We will meet in the conference room at 1:30 p.m. on November 28 and at 9:00 a.m. on November 29. Please make every effort to attend.  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us Sandy Juckett 11/13/01 09:21 AM To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Just a reminder to let you know the Deseg meeting is today at 1 :30 p.m. in the conference room. Sandy Juckett 05/08/01 09:03 AM Sandy Juckett To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Oaniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim OyeriNLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: North Little Rock School District Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation DESEG MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED FOR TODAY. THANK YOU! Greg Daniels 03/13/01 12:31 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Deseg Sandy, We have a Intranet training scheduled from 1 - 2 pm for elementary secretaries. I will be unable to attend the Deseg meeting. Thanks, Greg Daniels Director-Computer Services Greg.Daniels@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us 501.771.8025 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 c The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday March 12, 2001, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Jim Dyer, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Absent members are Greg Daniels, Esther Crawford, and Fran Jackson Mr. Acklin opened the meeting reminding the members the purpose of the Desegregation Team meetings\nfirst that we said we would have meetings and we are still under a desegregation court order. Mr. Acklin mentioned that Little Rock School District was getting ready to go back in to court to ask for unitary status, which will affect us eventually, depending on what the agreement will be as it relates to Magnet Schools and M to M transfers\nweather or not the State will continue to pay. Mr. Acklin reported that the Desegregation Monitoring is complete. We will get a copy to you shortly and we will go over the Monitoring Report at the next Biracial Committee meeting. There are some things we know we need some improvement. Some are minor things. Mr. Acklin reported that the Desegregation Office is working on the Civil Rights Report. It's a Federal report we get periodically from Washington. It is a long drawn-out extensive report and we have that completed. We did have to ask for a ten-day extension. Mr. Acklin thanked Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Morris and others who helped gather the information needed. Mr. Acklin reported that our quarterly reports are doing well. Last years is due now and this is the last call we are going to bind what we have and give it to Steve Jones for him to review it and see what is missing, see what we need to included, move around, or make changes. Mr. Jones will mark it up\ngive it back to us\nwe make the corrections\nwe make fresh copies\ngive Mr. Jones ten copies bound\nand Mr. Jones will furnish the different parties a copy. Mr. Morris elaborated on minority teacher recruitment. We actively recruit at Philander Smith, UAPB, Grambling, Jackson State, and Southern. Mr. Morris reminded the committee members that we still have a desegregation plan in effect\nthere has been no changes in recruitment retention, hiring. Mr. Morris mentioned he would like to send a letter out to the principals reminding them that this is still part of our plan and that we have responsibility for that. Mr. Acklin stated that we try to document everything we do in recruitment. Even the number of jobs offered but turned down. Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 2 March 12, 2001 Mr. Acklin asked the members if they had anything they wanted to share with the committee. Mr. Reed mentioned that the Special Education Annual Monitoring was during the last part of January and we have not gotten the report back yet. As a matter of fact they still have Argenta Academy to do. One piece of information from the Magnet Review Committee was the County School District informed us at the last meeting, Carl Brown and Jim Johnson that they were probably going to change the magnet selection process to lottery. Mr. Chadwick reported we will have, on this board agenda for Thursday night, recommendations for summer school and that includes the summer school for eighth graders and tuition assistance for high school summer school. Last year we help eighty students with partial tuitions, using free and reduce lunches to qualify. Ms. Mitchell reported on Act 326 of 1997. This is teaching Black History all year. Mr. Acklin read a letter from a parent, Victoria Hester. Mrs. Hester would like to compliment Mr. Warren for the outstanding job he does, she stated that Mr. Warren takes care of business in a professional manner with immediate results. She was very happy with the way he handled her problem. Mr. Acklin went on to say that, Mr. Warren works in Transportation and he works on concerns from parents and touches a lot of different people in all areas of town. When we receive input back from parents like this, it helps the North Little Rock School District to keep a good name. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, y -~~~Iv I -,\n/~..,\nPf f . Sandy Juckett, Secretary N (0)J fiTl.J BII LITTTJLJIEB (O)mCC\n:J FUiffIiL ICI C CCI8 I(D )(OI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET March 9, 2001 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist . Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs - Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services ,.James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From:,4\u0026amp;, Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder ... Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, March 13, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSO@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Oaniels/NLRSO@NLRSD, Jim Dyer/NLRSD@NLRSD, Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSO@NLRSD, James. Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSO@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: North Little Rock School District Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Desegregation Meeting, Tuesday, March 13 in the conference room at 1 :30p.m. NCO)~'F IBIJ LJ'IIr 'JrJLJEIff iC O\u0026lt;) Cill : 1P1LJJIBLI I3\u0026lt; C l CCJB (IQ )C OJL) l ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET October 6, 2000 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder  Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, October 10, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference roon: of the Administration Office. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. UOX 687. NORTH Ll'TVJ'LR ROf:K AR 7?11 r--mi:\ns:n i\nr11177 1 QAr,fl Sandy: Shara Brazear 10/06/00 12:56 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Re: Tf haamn kusn!a ble to attend the meeting as I will be on vacation that day. Shara W( DI)B T IBII LTITTILJEIB (D)CI[ CI P11JIB3CILCT CI CI8 I(Q )C OI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET July 15, 2000 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's District-wide Biracial Committee met during this quarter to analyze data and discuss matters related to District programs. (See Attachment X-Al and X-A2.) District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team did not convene during the fourth quarter. School Monitoring School monitorinS?w\nas completed according to the published schedule. Principals were advised cf their ccn11.I111tteers1 nc.1ngs, urenso f conce1.i.iS and suggestions for improvement. Principals were asked to prepare written responses to findings with specific reference to areas of concern. The District's Desegregation Team, the Biracial Committee and member of the North Little Rock School Board of Education (See Attachment X-B) have reviewed schoolmonitoring information. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team AT'rACHMENTX -B2 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Francical Jackson, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by announcing three expulsions coming up, one from Belwood Elementary, a male student had a pellet gun and two students from West Campus involved in drug infraction. One was selling and one was buying. Bobby Acklin reported on the Unifonn Committee meeting held on March 13. There was a good turn out with students and adults. There was a long discussion and the majority of the group requested more information. The next Uniform Committee meeting will be April 17. A lengthy discussion on school uniforms followed. Bobby Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, 0~ Slli1d. . ,..\n'.!.~ . -!\\.\\,,!.'.~ ~\"'~ J.. ... !.dfY NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOi, DlSTRfCT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, February 8, 2000, al I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room oflhe Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Greg Daniels, Jim Dyer, francical Jackson. Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by giving an update report on school monitoring. Bobby Acklin informed the Desegregation Team of the new Onifoml Committee. Seventy-nine le11erst o parents and students will go out today requesting they altend a meeting on March 13 lo discuss the possibility of school unifonns. Mable Mitchell asked how were the students and parents selected. Dana Chadwick responded that the secondary principals were asked to give names of two parents and two students, one black and one non-blac\", from each grade level (6-12). The elementary principals were asked to give names of two parents, one black and one non-black, from each grade level (K-5). Every school will have representation. Bobby Acklin asked Fran Jackson lo speak to the Desegregation Team on the new Truancy Law and how the Biracial Committee will satisfy that law. rrnn Jackson handed out a list of the students sited for truancy during the first semester. She slated that each parent/student handbook addressed truancy. She proceeded with a detailed description of the process followed when a violation of the truancy law has been made. Fran Jackson stated that a new law had been implemented that every school district should organize a Community Truancy Board with a new committee or an existing committee with the approval of tha1 committee. The Community Truancy Board concept was presented to the Birncial Com mince and they have agreed to serve as the Community Truancy B011rd. The primary function of the Community Truancy Board is to recommend method:..::.  school a1tendancc. Jim Morris reported on teacher recruitment. Mnble Mitchell remarkedo n Charter chools and asked for feedback from the Desegregation fcam when that moment arises for North Little Rock Schools. Mr. Acklin thanked the tenm members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, (fi,J~ (J.~Jr  Sandy Juc~tt, Secretary N (0)J ET IEI ILITTTILJEJ E(Q)(Cil l: IPTIJiIfLfiI T(C CClB IC IT(D\u0026gt; )I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 14, 2000 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From~ Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's Biracial Committee convened monthly during the second quarter. The following officers were elected for 1999 - 2000\nVickie Hendrix, President\nAutreana Battles, Vice President\nand Sue Brummett, Secretary. (See Attachments X-Al, X-A2, and X-A3.) District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team convened twice during the second quarter to analyze information, discuss policies, procedures, activities and programs related to quality desegregated education. Due to other school functions and c-' responsihilitiPs conflictine with the scheduled meeting the December Desegregation Team meeting was canceled. (See Attachments X-Bl, X-B2, X-B3.) School Monitoring Biracial School Monitoring Teams have been named for 1999 - 2000 school year. (See Attachment X-C.) A.~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LIITLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 N -.J 0 0 \"C 0 '0 -., ... ... .,... .,.. . \"C 0 1:11 0 ~ ' 00 -.J 0 ...... :,- ...... -.J N .... .... Vl 0 ' 00 -.J  Vl 0 -.J -.J 0 0 January 6, 2000 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jirn Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder . .. Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, January 11, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office .  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us Due to other school functions and responsibilities conflicting with the scheduled meeting the Desegregation Team meeting was canceled today, December 14, 1999. 1. Welcome Desegregation Committee Meeting Agenda Items Nov-99 2. First Quarter Status Reports were due October 15 Thank you to: Shara Brazear and Jerry Massey Still waiting on a few - you know who you are ... 3. Mr. Chadwick - \"The Times\" report on Benchmark Scores 4. Mrs. Jackson - Discipline Report 5. Mr. Smith - update \"Uniform Committee\" 6. Next meeting December 14 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Greg Daniels, Francical J. Jackson, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin remarked how astonishing it is that Monitoring Training and the funeral of Daisy Bates fell on the same day. Mr. Acklin reported Monitoring Training started today with a good turn out, lively and positive group. He reflects that desegregation does not have the negative condemnation that it once had. Monitoring is for two purposes, one to celebrate the good things we are doing and, second, to improve on the negative. Monitoring in the schools will begin now until January 15, 2000. The monitoring report will be available after compiling the Final Reports. Mr. Acklin reported the Biracial Committee has resumed meeting once a month. At the last meeting there was a tremendous tum out and participation. Seeking suggestions for programs to discuss from month to month at the Biracial meetings, Mr. Acklin made an open invitation. Mr. Morris will be asked to speak on personnel recruitment and perhaps Mr. Daniels could talk about the new web site. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had anything to share. Mr. Massey stated next month the revised Building Capacity Report will be ready. Mr. Daniels mentioned the school profile information went out to the schools last week. 1 \"- r--.,.,::d- informed the members a group had been established to study Understanding Poverty Issues. Mr. Morris spoke on recruiting efforts. The state required recruiting plan has been completed. He stated Friday, November 5, recruiters visited Grambling University and brought back more contacts, then ever before. If adding teachers and building administrators in the recruiting efforts will get more contacts than that is what we want to do. We will continue to identify minority teacher candidates before we go out and make contact at the career fairs. Confident this year with documentation, we will be able to answer questions for ODM. Mrs. Jackson reported due to space at the NLRHS-East Campus, a closure to special education students has been implemented. Mrs. Jackson will contact Mr. Reed before the second semester for any changes. In the way of discipline, Mrs. Jackson reported, there had been no expulsions this year. There is an expulsion recommendation on the table. A black female from Poplar Street Middle School ' \" had a knife at the bus stop. Depending on the pending information, we will send this child to Water Shed. In the Other Placements category, she gave the following information: Black Black White White Proeram Male Female Male Female Total Step One Program 4 1 5 Intervention Step One 0 0 0 0 0 Water Shed 1 1 2 Suspensions for the month of October 1999 is 474, including SAC and Home Suspensions, Boys and Girls Club, and K-6 Suspensions. Last year, October 1998 totaled 582. We had 1,878 referrals out of 1,535 students for the month of October 1999. The major reasons for referrals are 1) disruption, 2) excessive tardiness, 3) disregard for direction of teacher/administrator, and 4) physical abuse of students. We are still experiencing more discipline behavior problems from black children. The percentage of total black referrals is 79.12% and 78.17% students\nnon-black referrals are 20.87% and 21.82% students. The desegregation plan asks to compare to see if we are consistent with consequences and referrals between black and non-black students and we are. In the category Action Taken, from most to fewer\nDetention Hall, SAC, Saturday School, Conferences with Students. Comparing black and non-black, is consistent. Mrs. Jackson reports, she looks for repeat offenders when she reviews the discipline information\nif so, how many suspension days and reason. She visits with the building administrator and decides what program would be best suited for each student. She makes use of all facets to help the children before they need to go before the board. She reports building principals have been doing a good job in looking at students and working with assistants and counselors. Mrs. Jackson briefly explained the procedures for the Water Shed Program and the Step One Program.  '1 .,h reports this year is one of the smoothest we had, and he feels good about what L going on in the buildings. He hopes we can keep it this way. He commented on improvements at Boone Park Elementary School. Ms. Crawford explained the model program at Boone Park. There are six programs like this in the state. To improve reading scores, particularly first grade, one of our first grade teachers went through intensive training this summer, and she now serves as a resource person in that building to help implement the ideal first grade classroom. In January, we will set up another first grade classroom. It is expensive but well worth it. Mr. Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ~i:\n:j~ N (0)~ TIBII LTITTILJE~ CO\u0026gt;~CC J PllJiffiILCTCI CCI8 I(Q )(QI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET October 15, 1999 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From~Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The Biracial Committee did not convene during the first quarter. District Desegregation Team The Desegregation Team did not convene during the first quarter. Sc/zoo[ Monitoring A window of time has been established in which the schools may monitor. The established window of time is November 1, 1999 through January 15, 2000. Iv~v.w.L. 6 .... \u0026amp;lug will be conducted on November 9, from 8:30 a.m. until i l :30 a.m. with an evening session on the same day from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. This training will be for the monitors who have never gone through the training before. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 ~~e,veo SEP 1 9 2003 omcoEF eoESEGREGAMTIOONNl 10R\\KG NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRI\u0026lt; North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 d The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, October 12, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Greg Daniels, Francical J. Jackson, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Welcoming the committee, Mr. Acklin recommended addressing issues as they arise could help move the meetings along. Mr. Acklin reported receiving a few telephone calls from Seventh Street Elementary parents concerned with one-race classes. He stated that once he has the One-Race Reports from the Principals he would have answers for these parents. He noted when mandatory student assignment was in place, Seventh Street Elementary was racially balanced. He also stated racial interaction among the children does occur between classrooms, field trips, and school assemblies. We look at the whole situation and not just at statistics, but what is best for the children. The next item Mr. Acklin discussed was to direct back to quarterly Status Reports instead of yearly. Mr. Smith mentioned the fact that the Desegregation Plan was outdated and changes have occurred as well as directives from the State Department. Mr. Acklin strongly emphasized the importance of reporting the factual items listed in the Desegregation Plan. Mr. Chadwick informed the members he had received the Eighth Grade Benchmark scores. Mr. Dyer added that the pilot testing was performed in February 1999. Mr. Chadwick reported unfortunate results at Lakewood, Ridgeroad and Rose City Middle Schools, with less than proficient level scores from black students. Mr. Chadwick stated \"The Times\" might release an article on these scores on Thursday, October 14. Mrs. Jackson reported no expulsions for this school year. She spoke on addressing potential problems before they get to the expulsion point by changing student placement, encouraging principals to look at alternative schools, and parent conferences. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Acklin to check with Al McClendon at the Boys Club concerning a request for a school bus to take students from Boone Park Elementary School to the Boys Club in the afternoons for tutoring. Mr. Dyer gave a brief report on the Penn State Project. He stated the project had been completed last year but with carry-over money, he was concluding an evaluation follow-up with student and teacher surveys. The Penn State Project started approximately four or five years ago and currently the North Little Rock School District has approximately sixty-five students throughout the Elementary schools who participate in this project, (with the majority at Boone Park Elementary). Ms Crawford added, the Penn State Project started at Boone Park Elementary and Central Elementary. When Central Elementary closed, those students were disbursed to other schools. Mr. Smith relayed positive responses from staff members at Boone Park Elementary and Seventh Street Elementary pertaining to the reduction of class size. Mr. Smith noted the reduction of class size is certainly part of the desegregation effort. Mr. Daniels stated the whole atmosphere at Boone Park is different from a year ago. Ms Crawford explained, Mavis Cherry, Principal of Boone Park Elementary, hired excellent teachers, a literacy coach and a parent coordinator\nsmaller class sizes and purchased new materials, contributed to the improvements. The classes in kindergarten and first grade are making so much progress due to the smaller class size and the teachers are teaching well. Mr. Acklin mentioned the Biracial Committee meetings have begun and by next month all vacancies should be filled. He stated it was suggested Ann Kincl give a presentation on the Gifted Program. At the next Biracial Meeting we may need to reorganize, have introductions to the new members, discuss objectives and the developmental aspects for the Biracial Committee. Mr. Smith announced a need for a committee to study school uniforms this year. This committee will consist of two parents from each school, (black and non-black), a school representative, and students at the secondary level. He asked Mr. Chadwick and Ms Crawford to get with the principals and secure parents for this committee. Mr. Smith suggested the principal could be the school representative. The procedure will be to make a recommendation to the School Board and if the School Board says no then it will go on the school election ballet next year. Mrs. Brazear mentioned it could be difficult getting uniforms for all the students in the District. Mr. Smith mentioned the committee would only need to meet a few times. Ms. Crawford mentioned the cost issue. So many of our children are on the Free or Reduced Lunch Program. Mr. Acklin requested to remind principals, as they develop committees, that the District is biracial and try to include what we have in our district to obtain opportunities for imput. Mrs. Brazear mentioned a concern she had for the twenty non-black nominees on file for the Superintendent's Honor Roll. Mr. Smith said to go outside the staff and look in the community. Mr. Smith briefly mentioned a concern with the teacher shortage issue. Mr. Morris said the number of applicants this year is down over a hundred from what it was five years ago. Mr. Smith noted the District's application would be placed on the District's website for availability. Mr. Smith commented on the District's new Web Master, Doye Wasson. He said she has made a lot of progress with the District's new website, and she will welcome any information you would like to share concerning your department. Mr. Daniels reported he would release the October 1 count when it has been sent to the State Department. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ~~9~ Sandy Jucketr, Secretary NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on February 9, 1999 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Francical J. Jackson, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by asking Fran Jackson to give the discipline report. Fran Jackson, Discipline Report for January, 1999 REFERRALS Black males: 811 referrals - 672 students, (139 repeat offenders) Black females: 385 referrals - 339 students, (46 repeat offenders) White males: (23 repeat offenders) White females: (9 repeat offenders) Total number of referrals: 1,517 REASONS Black and White males: 1 )Disruption, 2)Disregard for directions, 3)Physical/threatening abuse Black and White females: 1 )Disruption, 2)Tardiness, 3)Physical/threatening abuse ACTION TAKEN Black males: 1 )Detention hall 2)Others 3)SAC 4)Saturday School White males: 1 )Detention hall 2)Saturday School 3)Others 4)SAC Black females: 1 )Detention hall 2)Saturday School 3)Others 4)SAC White females: 1 )Detention hall 2)SAC 3)Others 4)Saturday School West Campus, East Campus, and the Middle Schools are giving out approximately the same number of suspension days. Boys Club, for the most part, is giving out 3 - 5 and 10-day suspensions. HOME SUSPENSIONS: Three at East Campus\n22 at Argenta\n1 at Ridgeroad\n5 at Amboy\n2 at Boone Park\n5 at Seventh Street, 5 at Lynch Drive, 3 at Meadow Park, 7 at North Heights, 8 at Park Hill. Total of 59 suspensions. Keep in mind, some of those schools have self-contained classes and the next step is Home Suspension. If you have a self-contained BA class you look for the number to be higher than other schools where there is not a self-contained BA class, because the next step, when that child is out of control is to send him home. The first thing suggested is a Cool Off Day. If the child is totally out of control, rather than suspending him that first day, and you have had the conference with the parent, a Cool Down Day would be implemented. Start off fresh the next day this shows the parents we are trying to work with them. When SAC is full a home SAC is given. This is not coded in our discipline referrals. Comments received from staff members concerning students sent back to their regular campus from Argenta initiated my memo. On that memo I asked if they would contact me if they were having problems. First of all, work with Nancy and if they were still having problems talk with me so that we could reassign those students back to Argenta. I have spoken with Nancy about leaving a cushion space so those students could go back to Argenta. EXPULSIONS The number of expulsions this year has been down. We have 3 (black males) coming up for this school board meeting. A student at Argenta had drugs for the second time, a student at the East Campus struck at a couple of campus supervisors, and a student at Ridgeroad was in possession of a gun. All three sets of parents are aware we are taking their children before the board. A request from John Walker's office for discipline records for all students in secondary schools for the past two years with the exception of the West Campus. A copy of our yearly discipline report for the last two years should suffice. Mr. Acklin read part ofa letter dated January 22, 1999 addressed to Mr. Smith from John Walker. \"You will recall in a letter to you dated September 30 that I raised the issue rather the District was acting in good faith with respect to its recruitment placement in hiring African American teachers. As I write this letter my concern remains. I now advise that the district was presented with another opportunity to hire a full time, certified, and qualified African American teacher at the second grade level at North Heights Elementary School. Regrettably the district chose to hire a white non-certified long-term substitute. Mrs. Kristine Gatewood applied for this position and was given an interview however, she did not receive notice from central office personnel that she was not selected for the position. In order that I may be assured I do not have incorrect information would you please provide the following:  Applications that qualified for that level  Race and Gender  District Personnel policy that outlines the hiring process  Who was interviewed  Who did Ms. Snowden interviewed and resume'  Copies of the applicants' sore sheets, including objective criteria used by the hiring officials for scoring\" Another letter dated January 28, 1999 from John Walker's office stated they received word that we don't have any minority teachers at Amboy nor Crestwood. \"Would you please advise if this information is correct.\" Mr. Acklin stated we have a minority teacher at Crestwood and at Amboy we have a minority administrator but no minority teacher presently. Mr. Acklin asked for comments or questions around the table. There were none. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, 6~ -C:hotce \\ -~-- ~ _/- .,-_. -,\u0026gt;:-\n_ :,\n~:  -_-__~_- ':- \"-:( , ..J rilr_~.-.~ ,-.,) N -..J 0 0 0 '0 -., \"..'. .., /1) /1)  0 t,:l 0 X ex', -..J 0 .., ... ::,\" t\"\"' ... /1) ::0 0 n :,\n- -..J N .... .... \\Jl 0 ex', -..J  \\Jl 0 -..J -..J -0 0 0 February 3, 1999 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder .. . Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, February 9, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office.  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us I  283 NCOIB) ~/IrIIBLII TTTILJE~@ CC~ JPTIJIB3CILCI T C ClB CI O(Q))I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 15, 1999 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORJNG District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's Biracial Committee convened monthly during the second quarter. The following officers were elected for 1998-1999\nVickie Hendrix, President\nJimmy Maxwell, Vice President\nand Sandy Pryor, Secretary. (See Attachments X-Al, X-A2, X-A3 and X-A4.) The committee has identified targeted items to work on during this school year. Items are as follows: (I) Conflict Resolution (2) Poplar Street Middle School Update (3) Overall Elementary Changes (4) Pal Program (5) Argenta Academy Update ( 6) PT A African American Recruitment (7) Parent/Community Component District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team convene monthly during the second quarter to analyze information, discuss policies, procedures, activities and ( programs related to quality desegregated education. (See Attachments X-Bl and X-B2.) School Monitoring Biracial School Monitoring Teams have been named for 1998-99 school year. Training sessions and site visits have been scheduled for December and January. (See Attachment X-C.) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LI'ITLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 283 1998-99 Desegregation Team Meetings November JO, 1998 1:30 p.m. Conference Room December 8, I 998 1:30 o.m. Conference Room January 12, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room Februarv 9, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room March 9, 1999 1:30 o.m. Conference Room April 13, 1999 1:30 o.m. Conference Room May 11, 1999 l:30p.m. Conference Room June 8, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on December 8, 1998 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Jim Dyer, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin gave the desegregation team an update on North Little Rock School Monitoring. Not all the schools have turned in their monitoring date. Crestwood, Pike View, North Heights, have completed their monitoring and the East Campus is monitoring today. Monitoring is going well and special attention is focused on committee concerns. A brief report was given at the last Biracial Committee Meeting of the monitoring process. Each monitoring report and principal's response will be complied into booklets and distributed to the Biracial Committee, School Board, Attorney John Walker, and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. January 15 is the final monitoring date. The State Department has asked the courts to postpone their monitoring in February to acquire information from the three districts that would aid the State in compiling pertinent information to benefit the three districts in their monitoring process. So far the three districts have identified five areas: academic disparity, budget, discipline disparity, staff development, and minority staff recruitment. The three districts agreed with the State in obliterating the \"Allen Letter\" and start over with the monitoring plan. Attorney John Walker has filed an objection with the courts for the State to postpone monitoring. In his deposition he indicated the State had not used the time they had wisely in working toward making the changes and the Joshua Intervenors were not involved in the process. We will be meeting again with the State on December 16. Dana Chadwick and Esther Crawford have been involved discussing Smart Start. Donald Watkins will be meeting on the 16th as it relates to budget and next month Jim Morris will be ready to discuss staff recruitment. Mr. Acklin gave the team an update of the last Biracial Committee Meeting. A parent on the Biracial Committee gave a presentation on parent involve ::!.!   '  and focusing on minority parents. It was a program she had been involved with in Rockford, Illinois. She made a good presentation and offered excellent information to take advisement on. The next Biracial Committee Meeting will be a presentation on our alternative school, Argenta Academy. Danny Reed mentioned the Special Education Advisory committee meeting December 10, 1998, Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Jim Morris mentioned the successful UAPB recruitment trip last week. Bobby Acklin dismissed the meeting. Respectfully submitted, SAK. Juckett(l _ /~/- /I c.9(~ -Eut/4 i!Jyodc EfPokd fl)~ a~cg~ Agenda December I, 1998 Opening/Welcome: Vickie Hendrix, President New Member: Vickie Hendrix, President Grace Guajardo School Monitoring: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Special Speaker: Linda Morgan, Parent \"Parent Involvement\" Agenda Items for Tuesday, January 5, 1999: Vickie Hendrix, President Adjournment: Vickie Hendrix, President SEP 1 9 2003 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas DESEGORFEFGIMCAOETNOIOIFT NO MR\"mI NutGes o f t he D1. stnc t De segregat10 n Te arn Meeting on November 10, 1998 Attachment 1 e The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, November 10, 1998, at 1:30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Greg Daniels, Jim Dyer, Fran Jackson, Jerry Massey, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Sandra Juckett recorded the meeting. Esther Crawford and Dana Chadwick were at the Smart Start meeting .. Mr. Acklin opened the first Desegregation Team meeting of the 1998-99 school year by asking Fran Jackson to report district discipline with bottom line figures. He also asked her to report on current issues regarding discipline. Fran Jackson reported from August 1998 through October 1998 a total of 2,193 referrals\nhowever, this reflects a number of students as repeat offenders. The number of referrals is up slightly from last year, but down on black referrals by 2.22%. Disruption is the major reason for referrals followed by excessive tardiness, disregard for direction, and threatening physical abuse. D-Hall is the major action taken on referrals followed by SAC, Saturday School, Conference with Student, and Conference with Student and Parent. Fran Jackson will furnish copies of the Disciplinary Report'to those who so desire. Suspensions are down by fourteen with a total of 542. Major Action taken on suspensions is SAC followed by home suspensions. Fran Jackson explained the different programs available for North Little Rock School District students such as, Argenta Academy, Our Program, Step One Program, Youth Challenge Program, C-Step, and the WaterShed Program. Fran Jackson praised the prosecutor for his stand on truancy. Bobby Acklin discussed a meeting, pertaining to discipline, that Margaret Powell invited him to, along with representatives from the Boys Club, YMCA, Parks and Recreation, CStep Program, Youth Challenge, Fortune 5\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_410","title":"Desegregation plan audit","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1994"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan audit"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/410"],"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\nArkansas Democrat (gazette Judge reassigns desegregation duties U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright issued an order Friday allowing the Little Rock- School District to eliminate the position of desegregation facilitator and assign the duties of that position to others. The order also created a new position, director of student as- signment. Wrights order assigns most of the responsibilities of the facilitator to the associate su- perintendent for desegregation. The judge stressed that the\nduties assigned to the facilitator are very important to achieving desegregation goals and must not be neglected. None of the parties in the desegregation case objected to the school districts proposal.New desegregation plaSludJiTfied ! 1 Judge called earlier version sketchy, wrong and hard to read BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District on Monday filed a revised desegregation plan audit that attempts to correct deficiencies U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright cited in the first version. some Wright said last month that the districts initial audit  a listing of all the districts desegregation obligations based on desegregation plans and past court orders  was glaringly incomplete, inaccurate and far from user-friendly. The document omitted some obligations and did not include an organizational chart of the districts administration, the judge said. She also said the document was difficult to decipher because it contained no cover or title page, no table of contents, no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, and no other signposts to guide her or any other reader through the more than 206 pages. District officials need the audit system to determine what tasks they need to complete and to serve as a basis for budgeting, Wright said. The revised audit  submitted on the day the judge made the deadline for doing so does have a table of contents, an introduction, and an organizational chart. It also includes a listing of obligations, not only from the districts desegregation plan but also from the interdistrict plan and court -- ---------- xxviii3 i . t.iiuaiiis. ! Tho Acting Associate Superin- i introduction to the re- tendent for Programs and Cur- officials riculum Development Dennis audit Glasgow, the three assistant su- matter to eliminate duplication. The audit is organized like this: The page number of the desegregation plan or court order is listed and then all the obligations listed on that page follow. For example, the audit says language on page 148 of the de- or- segregation plan obligates the district to have a maximum I pupil-to-teacher ratio of 20-to- ! 1 in the districts incentive ele- ! mentary schools. The plan also ! lists what the district must do ' to increase staffing if the ratio ' is exceeded. The audits organizational chart shows that Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for De- segregation Russ Mayo and Sterling Ingram, director of planning, research and evaluation, report directly to Superintendent Henry P. Williams.  f 1 manager for support services 11 report to Matthis. Jeanette Wag- 1 ner, director of communica- ij tions, reports to Mayo. J The district did not have a j deputy superintendent until I Williams recently named ? Matthis to the position.  No court date has been set I for a hearing on the revised au-  dit. I I 1 1 IArkansas Democrar \"^(gazette FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8. 1993 . LRSD document indecipherable, judge says testily . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL\nDemocrat-Gazette Education Writer The federal judge presiding in the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit has once again sharply criticized the Little Rock School District for failing to comply with her directives. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said in a sevenpage order Thursday that a desegregation plan audit submitted to her by the school district Sept. 10 was glaringly incomplete, inaccurate and far from user friendly. She directed the district to correct the deficiencies and submit a completed report by 5 p.m. on Oct. 15. Jerry Malone, an attorney for the district, said Thursday that the district had made a gallant effort to submit the audit to the judge by the Sept. 10 deadline, and it was understandable that changes might be necessary. He had not seen Thursdays order birt said the district would correct the deficiencies listed by the judge. -The districts desegregation plan audit is supposed to list its desegregation obligations, including those contained in the districts court-approved desegregation plan, an interdistrict desegregation plan, past court orders and monitoring reports,\nThe judge found that the document submitted by the district omitted dozens of the desegregation plan requirements and included none of the provisions from the interdistrict plan, .The document also wrongly said that certain desegregation tasks were complete when they are not, she said. Other tasks were listed as one-time projects when they should be recurring. The document does not include the organizational chart she requested, ,'Wright said the districts document was difficult to decipher because it contained no cover or title page, no table of contents. no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, no explanation of the documents format, no clarifying notes, nor any other signpost to guide the court  or any other reader  through the tomes 206 pages in a quest for meaning, The LRSD audit in its present scope and form cannot serve as an adequate foundation for building the districts long-term program and budget planning, Wright wrote, Without a complete and accurate inventory of its legal obligations, the district will not know whether it is doing all that it is required to do, will not be able to determine the extent of implementation, and will not be able to measure its progress toward fulfilling desegregation plan commitments and complying with court orders, And, she said, if the LRSD cant identify what works and what doesnt, it cannot possibly build a case for modifying its de- segregation plan should the district wish to do so. The judge first asked for the audit in February and was told it was under way. She became an- g^ later when she learned that district staff members were not even told to begin the audit until March 22. In a Sept. 8 order, Wright requested the audit to be submitted by Sept. 10. She said if the audit was incomplete, the district should file a plan for completing it. Earlier this year, Wright ordered Little Rock School Board I i members to attend court hear- ! ings because either they did not understand her court orders or they were deliberately ignoring them. She said in June that the district was suffering from repeated and continuous mismanage- \u0026gt; ment. She put the district on notice that its desegregation-related problems could justify the imposition of a receivership.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LRC82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER u 'awe ) :TC?U37 ''AS OCT 7 1595 cahl \u0026gt;' 2^ .TG^CLSRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 8, 1993, the Court issued an Order requiring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide the Court with the completed desegregation plan audit that, according to testimony from LRSD administrators, the district has been working to complete since early 1993. In the alternative, if the audit were still unfinished. the Court required the district to provide information on the audit process that included a list of the complete and incomplete audit steps, the person(s) responsible for each of those steps, a timeline for completing each step, and a firm audit completion and submission date. The LRSD responded by filing, on September 10, 1993, a document referred to in the Notice of Filing as the \"LRSD Desegregation :\np CL! Audit, although the document itself was untitled. The Court has found it difficult to decipher the document because it contains no cover or title page, no table of contents, no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, no explanation of the document's format 3or organization, no key to the item numbering system or its significance, no clarifying text notes. nor any other type of signpost to guide the Court  or any other reader  through the tome's 206 pages in a guest for meaning. The filing appears to be a partial listing of LRSD Desegregation Plan provisions, although the submission lacks any specific document or page references save for occasional \"Comments,\" some of which state \"Taken from Narrative,\" and at least one of which states \"See Court Order,\" although which Court Order is not specified by date or any other identifying reference. The audit, which is to serve as a basis for the district's longterm program and budget planning, was, by Court Order, to comprise a complete inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court directives. Unfortunately, the LRSD Desegregation Audit as submitted is glaringly incomplete. missing literally dozens of provisions from the LRSD Desegregation Plan alone. Some of these omissions are listed by way of example in the attachment to this order. Furthermore, the Court had suggested in a July 8, 1993 hearing that the audit include an organizational chart which reflects accountabilities and designates the administrator responsible for carrying out programs and other aspects of the plan. During the same hearing, the Court also directed the district to include in the audit the requirement for issuing regular quarterly reports to the Court. The next month, during an August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court directed that the audit include the role of the McClellan Community School -2-Advisory Committee in certain budgeting decisions. Yet none of this information is reflected in the audit. Not only are LRSD Desegregation Plan items absent from the audit, but the document appears to contain not a single one of the numerous provisions of the Interdistrict Plan, for which the district is as responsible as it is for the plan which bears its name alone. Moreover, the audit does not include any of the requirements found in Court Orders, nor does it contain any of the recommendations from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) June 1992 Incentive School Monitoring Report, all of which were ordered into law July 10, 1992. Yet, to be a tool useful for facilitating comprehensive planning and budgeting as well as for aiding monitoring and evaluation activities, the audit must contain the provisions of all desegregation plans and relevant court orders for which the district is legally obligated. In addition to being incomplete. the audit also contains numerous inaccuracies. For example. it lists an Incentive-wide Parent Internship Program as having been completed prior to 1992-93. Yet, ODM monitoring has confirmed that this program has never been established. The audit lists brochures for each incentive school as completed in 1992-93, but such brochures are still being developed according to ODM. An ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness of incentive schools appears in the audit as completed in 1992-93, but hearing discussions and ODM monitoring has revealed that no such blitz has taken place. Page 203 of the document lists, in the Incentive Schools section. an item 2.3 as requiring \"special emphasis on school recruiting minority students, adding a \"Comment -3-that \"no need exists.\" The correct provision that appears in the Incentive School section of the plan is that there is to be emphasis on recruiting minority teachers for which a need most certainly exists. Also, a number of items labled in the audit as \"one-time activities\" are actually recurring in nature, such as certain special education inservices, surveying students as needed to determine vocational education awareness, and incentive school staffing and staff development activities. On the other hand, the audit states that the district has not started some activities in the incentive schools that ODM has determined it has. including mini-workshops. requesting that parents pick up report cards, and recognizing parents and community volunteers. These few examples of audit inaccuracies are far from exhaustive. Furthermore, the format and organization of the audit is far from user-friendly, leaving any reader without guidance as to the purpose of the document, what it is based upon or refers to, the scope of its contents, how it is to be read for understanding and accessed for information, its correlation with planning and budgeting activities. and how it will relate to monitoring and evaluation processes. Any document that is not readily understandable as to either its content or its functional context and purpose will not be readily usable and, therefore. will have little or no operative worth. The LRSD audit in its present scope and form cannot serve as an adequate foundation for building the district's long-term program and budget planning and, ultimately, for shaping its future. Without a -4-complete and accurate inventory of its legal obligations, the district will not know whether it is doing all that it is required to do, will not be able to determine the extent of implementation, and will not be able to measure its progress toward fulfilling desegregation plan commitments and complying with court orders. If it cannot measure progress, the district will be unable to identify what programs or other desegregation activities are working. And if the LRSD can't identify what works and what doesn't. it cannot possibly build a case for modifying its desegregation plan should the district wish to do so. The Court is at a loss to understand why the LRSD has failed to produce a complete, accurate, and understandable audit to serve as a basic tool for the district's own planning use. The Court has not imposed stringent conditions about the audit, dictating neither the inventory process, production timeline. format, nor completion deadline. Instead, the Court left all those decisions up to the LRSD, imposing only the basic requirement that the audit include all desegregation plan and court order requirements. However, the Court had also urged the district to finalize the audit with deliberate speed, and, trusting that LRSD administrators had grasped the crucial nature of the audit with its critical link to budget and program planning, the Court also expected the audit to be accurate. Neither has the Court surprised the district by asking  after the audit process dragged on for months  for the completed audit to be filed. Far from it. In numerous hearing discussions, directives from the bench, and Orders, the Court has repeatedly stressed the -5-importance of the audit. In response, the district has repeatedly told the Court since early in the year that the audit was underway, beginning in February 1993 with testimony from Superintendent Mac Bernd that the audit process had begun. However, in a July 1993 hearing, testimony revealed that the audit actually had not even been commissioned until March 22, 1993, but administrators assured the Court that the process was nonetheless nearing completion. Again, at an August 12, 1993 hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, the LRSD's lead planning specialist and director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that audit completion was imminent and submitted, as Exhibit 162, a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report. But a finished audit did not subsequently appear, so the Court required in its September 8, 1993 Order that the district file the audit immediately if it were complete, laying out alternative steps in the event the audit still remained incomplete, as the Court has now determined that it is. Because the audit must be inextricably linked to an ongoing cycle of planning, tasking, monitoring, evaluation, and financial appropriation, it must meet reasonable criteria for completeness. accuracy, understandability, and usability. The LRSD Desegregation Audit as submitted on September 10, 1993 is wholly inadequate because it is neither complete, accurate. understandable, nor usable. Therefore, the Court requires the district to correct the deficiencies in the audit that have been discussed in this Order and to submit a complete, accurate. and self-explanatory desegregation -6-.. audit no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 25, 1993. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 ,-X- of October 1993. UNITED SPATES DISTHICT . JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SH^ IN ^OMPLIANCe WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP JN BY -7-.. ATTACHMENT Examples of omissions from the LRSD Desegregation Plan (citing plan section or subsection title and page reference): Commitment to desegregation, pg. 1, lacks Board commitments A through H\nLeadership, pp. 2-3, is missing seven of the commitments listed in that plan section\nSummer Learning Program and ASSET program requirements, pp. 21-22 and 24-25, evaluation\nare bereft of the components that include goals and Multicultural curriculum, pg. 64, is minus the specific ways human relations are to be integrated into the curriculum\nFocused activities, pg. 81, omits the three purposes of these activities\nPrivate school recruitment lacks requirements on pg. 95\ncertain Vocational Education commitments on page 98 and some aspects of special education collaboration, pp. 111-112, are absent\nSome components of the Parent Involvement/Community Linkages section on pp. 131-138 are lacking\nItems from the VIPS timeline. pp. involvement and minority partners do not appear\n134-138, regarding parent Significant portions of the student assignment section, pp. 139- 148, are left out, including school racial balance requirements\nSome provisions under Incentive School Parent Recruitment, pp. 215-223, are not included\nand Educational Equity Monitoring, pg. 226, Desegregation Facilitator position. does not mention the(J c n-'/j?' RECEIVSI5 93 SEP 23 SEP 2 2 IW3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Office Of Desgsregaiion Moniiofing\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION BY--------------- ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA TO THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S NOTICE OF FILING REGARDING THE LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT The Joshua Intervenors submit to the Court that the school district, in submitting its Desegregation Plan Audit, has failed to address the Incentive School benefits which include scholarship commitments and double funding to Incentive School children. Wherefore, Joshua pray that the Court withhold approval of the school district's desegregation audit until after a hearing is held on the issues raised. The Joshua Intervenors also pray for their costs and reasonable counsel fees for having to reply to this filing and to participate in these proceedings. Respectfully submitted. ^hn W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE has been mailed. I hereby certify that a copy of the foreqging qe prepaid to the counsel of on this -- day of September, postage prepaid 1993. Jbhn W. WalkerTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9.1993 * Wright wants desegregation audit Judge says delay on list impeding other district operations BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright on Wednesday ordered the Little Rock School District to immediately provide her with a desegregation plan audit listing all desegregation obligations. If the audit is not completed, she said, the district must submit an interim report by Friday afternoon telling what steps are being taken to complete the document, who is taking the steps and what schedule will be followed in finishing the work. Wright said the audit is crucial to the districts efforts to make long-term program and budget plans. She said district officials are taking far too long to conclude the document, which is impeding the progress of other district operations. Wright also pointed out that she first asked about the audit in February and was assured repeatedly throughout the year that its completion was imminent. In a second order Wednesday, Wright said a Little Rock district system of funneling information to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring through the superintendents office was unsatisfactory. The office is an arm of the federal court. The judge said the Little Rock system carries too much potential for delay, inaccuracy and laundering. She also said the district has a history of management bottlenecks, stagnated communication and general tardiness, and she will not allow the district to create one more means of slowing itself down..c ii JLED eas?erVctK ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 08 1995 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 carl r, ^r- I Sf^^NTS, 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\nrk 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 a I 6 8concern 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 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- arecognizes 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 requires 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 required 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 DISTRICT :t judge rms document entered on docket sheet in COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- CN BYA RECEIVED SEP 1 0 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAIlT^zfF- - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. directing the On September 8, 1993, this Court entered an order Little Rock School District to submit its desegregation audit to the Court by 5 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of the order. In accordance with those instructions, attached hereto is the Desegregation Plan audit as commissioned by the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District during the 1992-93 school year. In particular, the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District was instructed to: In particular. 5tP 10 vs. \"audit\" that indicates . . prepare a report or the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of [the] programs outlined in the [Desegregation] Plan. . . 2. Attached hereto is the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit report dated September 10, 1993. The report includes a narrative providing background information on the audit as well as summary data as revealed by the audit. Thereafter, the audit identifies those programs or activities completed prior to the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities completed during the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities identified as occurring on a one-time basis\nthose programs or activities which are or activities which recurring in nature\nthose programs or activities which are yet to be implemented\nand, those programs or activities which have been deleted. 3. The desegregation audit as presented herewith relates to those programs and activities identified by the court-approved Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan dated April 29,1992, as well as the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. Although one section of the audit refers to activities which were completed prior to 1992-93 and another section refers to activities completed during 1992-93, the Little Rock School District hastens to point out that many of those programs and activities are recurring in nature. 4. The document as filed herewith constitutes the audit commissioned by the Superintendent. However, the document must still be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits this desegregation plan audit. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK Attorneys for the Little Rock School District 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205 B- J Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of filing has been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid: 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 -2-Mr. Richard Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs, Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 L- m aio^ -3- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT Planning, Research and Evaluation September 10, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT The Desegregation Plan Audit/Review, as approved by the 1992-93 LRSD Superintendent, required two major tasks: (1) collecting and compiling data to determine the degree to which each program of the Desegregation Plan has been implemented\nand (2) developing a format for reporting the data. Although additional tasks were discovered to be necessary during the process, this document serves as the final report for the project as originally designed. During the development of the project, assistance was sought from Bradley Scott of the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas\nThelma Cook, Support Program Manager of the Equity Assistance Center, Arkansas Department of Education\nand Bill Mooney, Budget Specialist, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Additional resources were provided by Diane Barksdale, currently an assistant principal at Carver Magnet School. An audit as conducted in business and education is based on a set of predetermined standards. The standard for this review is the Desegregation Plan. Therefore, program status was tied to the written requirement of the Plan. A review of the Plan's timelines and narratives for each program was conducted by Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) staff to deteirmine the requirements of the Plan. When reviewingDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 2 the narratives, the staff did not attempt to interpret the intent of the original writers. Rather, an effort was made to identify requirements as literally written. The data gathering forms (Attachment 1) were prepared by the PRE staff to include a list of all identified requirements. Program managers were requested to verify all requirements for assigned areas and to identify the status of each requirement. Many of the items identified as completed recur annually, response choice included: The * * Completed prior to 1992-93 Completed during 1992-93 * One-time activity * Recurring activity * Not started * Deleted (deletion approved by Court) * Addition (addition approved by Court) * Comments Supportive evidence to demonstrate completion of each requirement was to be gathered for possible use at any court hearing, as well as to improve, modify or delete programs. Upon receipt of the data gathering forms, the responses from the program managers were tallied according to the choices (Attachment 2) and revealed the following: response * Eighty-six percent of the reported activities had been completed. * Fourteen percent of the reported activities had not been implemented. * Sixty-seven percent of the reported activities identified as recurring activities. were These programs were * Eleven program managers reported completing all activities. However, as previously stated, many of the reported activities recur annually. These programs were Commitment to Desegregation, Summer Learning Program, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA Program), Program forDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 3 Accelerated Learning/Instructional Technology, Giii.cd , Talented education. Multicultural Curriculum, Parkview Magnet, Vocational Education, Library Media, Special Education and Staff Development. Gifted and In the Interdistrict Plan, managers for Staff Development, Special Education and Vocational Education reported completing all activities. It should be noted that many of the reported activities in the LRSD Plan and the Inter-district Plan each year. occur In addition, Program Managers identified activities for programs specified in the Desegregation Plan that are to be implemented. A list of programs and number of activities is provided (Attachment 3). Since the audit process was based on self-reporting it was necessary to implement means for ensuring a reasonable level of accuracy. Activities were sorted and printed by category in order to provide the information necessary for further review. During the data gathering and review process, some discrepancies were discovered regarding the status of some activities. Accordingly, adjustments were made during the development of the management plans. A complete list of the responses by category is attached. Each program manager was requested to review the sorting and to develop management plans for recurring activities and activities that are to be implemented. The Program Budget Document (Attachment 4) is the format for developing the management plans. What began as an assessment of the Desegregation Plan has evolved into the formation of the ProgramDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 4 Budget Document which includes the means for monitoring, reporting and determining the level of success for each program. In the future, auditing of the Desegregation Plan to detexTnine implementation status or effectiveness can be accomplished through reporting process of the Program Budget Document.LITTLE ROCK CHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DESEGREGATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS PROGRAM MANAGER Act ivities COMPLETED PRIOR TO '92-'93 during '92'93 ONE-TIME activity recurring activity HOT STARTED DELETED ADDED COMMENTS I i J I I I \u0026gt; CU n 3- 3 n\u0026gt; deletion Approved by Court JProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 1 . Commitment to Desegregation * Narrative 1. Leadership Narrative 3 . Early Childhood 33 Special Programs Narra tive Sommer Learning - 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Humber of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started I of 3 Total Humber of Recurring Activitie.s 1 9 107 4 8 1 1 80 3 8 0 8 27 1 0 1 J 7] 3 6 6. J I PA Asset Program * 3 31 31 0 31. I . School. O[)erations 41 90 76 14 7 7 8 . A c a d e m i c S11 [i o r t 1  41 38 3 3 5 9. P.A L/1 n s t r uc t i 0na 1 Technology 5  50 50 0 22 LO. C i f ted/TaJen ted Education * 7 13 13 0 1.2 IJ . Multicultural Curriculum * 17 123 123 0 6G 12. Eocused Activities 1 26 17 9 17 Ol r\u0026gt; rr 3 m : ro 13. Parkview Science Macnet * 5 18 18 0 11 L4 . McClellan Community School Narrative 4 3 1 1 * (.ompleted all objectives as identified in the written planProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 15. Recruitment of Pri- va te School Students'!: Narra tive 16. Federal Programs 1 17. Vocational Education* 11 18. Librafy/Nedia 1 19. Special Education * 13 20. Staff Development * 8 21 . Support Services Narrative 1.1. Parent Involvement/ Community Linkage 3 23. Student Assignment Narrative 24. Facilities Narrat ive 25. Incentive Schools 73 26. Educational Equity Mon 1 tor ing 1 27 . Transportation Narrative 28. Data Processing Narrat ive LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAH Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 2 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Ac tivi ties 8 8 34 34 56 39 2 34 11 8 294 19 23 8 8 7 34 29 56 39 2 28 11 5 240 18 19 8 * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 3 54 ]. 4 0 8 6 24 3 53 35 2 25 4 165 21 14 8 cu o zr 3 m ZJ ro a ro1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. Prograjn Interdistrict Plan Overview S tuden t Choices/Options Summer School Staff Development - School Operations Muit i-Dis tric t Library Media Special Education * Vocational Education* Cuidance and Counseling Parent Involvement/ Community Lin.kages Public Relations TOTAL Total Number of Obj ectives Narrative 11 2 29 5 11 5 Narrative See LRSO Plan Narrative 303 ei\" I i 1' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number . of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 41 4 3 1 54 8 101 10 6 See LRSD Plan : I,.., I : r : 4 6 1421 I I,,, 29 33 1 17 7 101 10 4 See LRSD Plan T : I-' 41 1217 12 10 0 37 1 0 0 1 See LRSD Plan 5 204 3 of 3 Total Humber of Recurring Activities . 26 3 2 1 n 1 90 9 1 See LRSD Plan 40 951 j=\u0026gt; O) n 3 'ro OJNUMBER ACTIVITIES LRSD PLAN IN PLAN COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS ATTACHMENT 3 TO BE IMPLEMENTED PERCENT OF ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS Leadership 9 1 8 11% Early Childhood Education 107 80 27 75% Special Programs 4 3 1 75% School Operations 90 76 14 84% Academic Support 41 38 3 93% Focused Activities 26 17 9 67% McClellan Community School 4 3 1 75% Federal Programs 8 7 1 88% Facilities 8 5 3 63% Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 34 28 6 82% Incentive Schools 294 240 54 82% Educational Equity Monitoring 19 18 1 95% Transportation 23 19 4 83% INTERDISTRICT PLAN Overview/Student Choices and Options 41 29 12 71% Summer School 43 33 10 77% School Operations Multi-District 54 17 37 31% Library Media 8 7 1 88% Guidance and Counseling 6 4 2 67% Public Relations 46 41 5 89%ATTACHMENT 4 LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq #: Program Name: Page: 2 Revision Date: Progrsm Code: Primary Leader: Program ObJecUve: Secondary Leader: Plan Rclcrcnce Page Number Ob|ccUvea StTBlcglca Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibili ty Evaluation Criteria 3 IRECEIVED SEP 10 1993 - tr\u0026gt;.. Office of Desegregalicn Mcniionng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sep / Q jC,Q? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIEF  - vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. On September 8, 1993, this Court entered an order directing the Little Rock School District to submit Little School to its desegregation audit to the Court by 5 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of the order. In accordance with those instructions, attached hereto is the Desegregation Plan audit as commissioned by the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District during the 1992-93 school year. In particular, the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District was instructed to: In particular . . . prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of [the] programs outlined in the [Desegregation] Plan. . . 2. Attached hereto is the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit report dated September 10, 1993.\nThe report includes a narrative providing background information on the audit as well as summary data as revealed by the audit. Thereafter, the audit identifies those programs or activities completed prior to the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities completed during the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities identified as occurring on a one-time basis\nthose programs or activities which are recurring in nature\nthose programs or activities which are yet to be implemented\nand, those programs or activities which have been those programs or activities which deleted. The desegregation audit as presented herewith relates to those programs and activities identified by the court-approved Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan dated April 3. 29,1992, as well as the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April Although one section of the audit refers to activities 29, 1992. which were completed prior to 1992-93 and another section refers to activities completed during 1992-93, the Little Rock School District hastens to point out that many of those programs and activities are recurring in nature. the The document as filed herewith constitutes the audit commissioned by the Superintendent. I ' 2_______ still be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. 4. However, the document must Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits this desegregation plan audit. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK Attorneys for the Little Rock School District 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205 B: 7 Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of filing has been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid: 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 -2-Mr. Richard 'Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 m A1oaJ L- -3- 'Pfa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT Planning, Research and Evaluation September 10, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: August 3, 1993 life lb 0 AUH u 1393 '1 To: Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney From: Sterling Ingram/ irector Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: LRSD Desegregation Plan Audit Thank you for meeting with Bill Mooney and me on Friday, July 9, 1993, as instructed by Judge Wright on Thursday, July 8, 1993. The audit is well underway. Bill and I have come to an agreement regarding the desegregation plan program inventory which is a necessary component for both the audit and the budgetary process to be developed by us. regarding these matters. I will continue to consult with him The initial survey results have been compiled. will be verified. That information This is being done so that an accurate determination can be made regarding our implementation status. I have conducted several meetings with various program managers to provide assistance in completing the initial tasks. I met with curriculum program managers on July 20, 27, and August 3, 1993. In addition, I met with the program managers for support services on August 2, 1993. I will continue to monitor the development of the documents and provide assistance to those managers who need help. I envision the audit process as an ongoing activity. As such. this should be helpful in the budgetary process to allow continuous program evaluation, modification, revision or elimination/replacement. We will continue the efforts currently underway. bjg cc: Bill Mooney, Budget Specialist Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent I^SCEIVSD AUG 4 1993 OWce of Dssg! 3f3\u0026gt;\u0026gt;tioii Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: July 22, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Sterling Ingram\nDirector Planning, Research^ and Evaluation Through: V*' Kk Estelle MatthisS Interim Superintendent Re: Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report As requested in the agenda meeting, I am providing a progress report relative to the Desegregation Plan Audit. I am available to answer your questions. bjgATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Bernd Memorandum to Ingram Implementation Memorandum Attachment 3 Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4 Program Status Composite Total by Program Attachment 5 Audit/Review ChronologyLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report The Little Rock School District must accept the affirmative responsibility to execute the steps necessary to convert to a unitary school system. Unitary status can be achieved only through good faith implementation of the Plan and attainment of the desegregation goals and outcomes. Identifying the status of the Plan requirements is the first phase in strengthening the desegregation process. In the budget document submitted to the Federal Court in July 1992, the Little Rock School District committed to conduct an audit of the Desegregation Plan. The purpose of the audit was to provide information relative to the implementation of the plan. The task of conducting the audit or review was assigned to the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Office on March 23, 1993 (see attachment 1). A review of the Plan's timelines and narratives was conducted by the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff to determine the requirements of the Plan. Data gathering forms were developed and forwarded to each program manager (see attachments 2 and 3). Program managers were requested, to verify all requirements for assigned area and to identify the status of each requirement. Supportive evidence to demonstrate completion of each requirement was to be gathered for possible use at any court hearing, as well as to improve, modify or delete programs. The initial phase of the audit/review is a self-reporting process. An audit as conducted in business and education is based on a set of predetermined standards. For the purpose of this audit/review, the Plan requirements are the audit/review standards.LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 2 The initial review of responses from the program managers revealed that: (See Attachment 4) * Eighty-six percent of the reported activities have been completed. * Fifteen percent of the reported activities have not been implemented. * Sixty-eight percent of the reported activities were identified as recurring activities. * Twelve program managers reported completing all activities. These programs are the Commitment to Desegregation, Summer Learning Program, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA Program), Program for Accelerated Learning/Instructional Technology, Gifted and Talented Education, Multicultural Curriculum, Parkview Magnet, Recruitment of Private School Students, Vocational Education, Library Media, Special Education and Staff Development. In the Inter-district Plan managers for Staff Development, Special Education and Vocational Education reported completing all activities. It should be noted that many of the reported activities in the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan occur each year. Program Managers reported a number of activities for programs specified in the Desegregation Plan that are to be implemented. A preliminary list of these unverified programs and number of activities follows:LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 3 NUMBER ACTIVITIES LRSD PLAN IN PLAN COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS TO BE IMPLEMENTED PERCENT OF ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS Leadership 9 1 8 11% Early Childhood Education 107 80 27 75% Special Programs 4 3 1 75% School Operations 90 76 14 84% Academic Support 42 39 3 93% Focused Activities 27 18 9 67% McClellan Community School 4 3 1 75 tt. *0 Federal Programs 8 7 1 88% Facilities 8 5 3 63% Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 34 28 6 82% Student Assignment 11 10 1 91% Incentive Schools 294 240 54 82% Educational Equity Monitoring 19 18 1 95% Transportation 23 19 4 83% INTERDISTRICT PLAN Overview/Student Choices and Options 41 29 12 71% Summer School 44 34 10 77% School Operations Multi-District 53 17 36 32% Library Media 8 7 1 88% Guidance and Counseling 6 4 2 67% Public Relations 46 41 5 89%LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 4 Continuing audit/report activities include\n* Verification of self-reporting by PRE staff and Program Managers. Special attention will be given to activities that have not started and those activities that recur each year. Development of management plans for recurring activities and activities that are to be implemented. The plans will include a * reporting cycle for monitoring implementation and program results. Development of assessment plans for each plan component to include identification of results since the 1989-90 school year. * * Integrating court orders into the audit/review process. Integrating data into the planning and budget process.Attachment #1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 22, 1993 Mr. Sterling Ingrain Mac Bernd C Marie Parker 72201 ! 0 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; s J SUBJECT: DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of thi memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. report please timelines that herein. include outline As a part f this 2. any plans. the assessment systems documents, or processes mentioned Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose.of the aspect of the plan being evaluated\nand (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. Please prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue The as a graduate school project. information she has gathered may be quite useful you prepare your report. o you as 3. , 4 . In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement our Desegregation Plan. c. cc: Cabinet Mr. Chris Heller Date: To: From: Re: Attachment #2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, June 15, 1993 ARKANSAS 72201 Selected Administrators Mac Bernd, Superintendent Desegregation Plan Implementation Status In order to implement a more effective system of monitoring progress of the Desegregation Plan, a series of activities will be conducted during the next several months. These activities will help to ensure compliance relative to implementation and program outcomes. Enclosed you will find management timelines that identify required activities for each Plan component. requirements taken from the narrative sections of the Plan, but not contained in the timelines are also included. Additional Each program manager should verify all requirements for his/her area of responsibility and identify the status of each requirement, each activity place an \"x\" in the appropriate column. This For in the appropriate column. status report will go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and at some later date we will probably participate in a The ODM monitors will expect the district to have supportive evidence to demonstrate our completion of each requirement. It would be helpful if you would begin to secure the supportive evidence so that we can be fully prepared for a court hearing. court hearing. Identifying the status of the Plan requirements is only the first phase in strengthening our desegregation process, determine the degree of effectiveness of each program component. Therefore, it will be necessary to conduct a review to ascertain if programs are working to achieve the expected outcomes that should benefit all students of the Little Rock School District. We must Please return the management timelines to the Planning, : and Evaluation office by June 21, 1993. If you have any questions, contact Sterling Ingram at 324-2124. Research bjg cc: Board of DirectorsPROGRAM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS PROGRAM MANAGER I ! I 1 I i Activities COMPLETED PRIOR TO '92-'93 during '92'93 ONE-TIME ACTIVITY RECURRING activity NOT STARTED DELETED ADDED COMMENTS \u0026gt; rf rt 03 O Et 3 fl) 3 rt N3 NJ ' Deletion Approved by Court * A Addition Approved by CourtAttachment #3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: June 15, 1993 To: Selected Administrators From: Mac Bernd, SuperintendentCLVVA^.j Re: Desegregation Program Assessment The Little Rock School District must accept the affirmative duty to take all steps necessary to convert to a unitary system. Unitary status can be achieved only through good faith implementation of the Plan and attainment of the desegregation ,,j ~~2. Your assistance is needed to accomplish our task. goals and outcomes. In order to effectively manage attainment of plan outcomes, want to establish consistency in formatting assessment . procedures ~ ' .-_ - we Enclosed you will find forms for reporting your assessment procedure. In addition, we have included a auide - _ In addition, we have included a guide sheet to assist you in completing the form, forms as succinctly as possible. Please complete the All desegregation programs should have a clearly defined goal purpose, objectives, activities and timelines for completion. Measurements should be established that will identify the degre of success relative to the goal or purpose, originate from the Plan section titled or e II Programs should Commitment to Desegregation in the Little Rock School District.\" . ---------------- This section establishes the foundation for all desegregation operations. Please return the assessment forms to the Planning, Research and Evaluation office by August 6, 1993. into a concise evaluation document. The forms will be compiled A follow-up meeting will be scheduled later to clarify your assessment procedures. If you have any questions, contact Sterling Ingram, at 324-2124. If you bjg cc: Board of DirectorsPROGRAM TITLE Guide heet PROGRAH DESEGREGATION GOAE(S) Identify the for inclusion purpose in the Desegregation Plan How will racial inequities be improved I-------------------------------------------------------------- Oupl icale, i f needed. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan EXPECTEU OUTCOMES What do achieve When do achieve you expect you expect your goal to to PROGRAM f-lAMAGER EVALUATION PROCEDURES/HEASURE What is the measure success How will gress Staff NECESSARY RESOURCES of you monitor pro- What are the necces- sary items/actions needed to cess . ensure suc- These should items/actions require funding. \u0026gt; to o rr g (t 3 * Co -O tolittle rock school district DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan PROGRAM TITLE Example PROGRAM ECnegation GOAL(S) PROGRAM MANAGER Staff expected OUTCOME.S evaluation procedures/measures IIECESSAPY RESOURCES I)f Effectiveness: Hard data * Program gains/losses (annual) I *Comparison *Longitudinal study Soft data  Survey *Interviews \u0026lt; etc. Use of outside for review persunnel I Duplicate, if needed. Data collection timeline Reporting Schedule \u0026gt; (u o 3\" 3 re 3 rt * Co T3 CoPROGRAM TITLE Special Education PROGRAM desegregation GOAL(S) 1 . Io reduce the number of minority student enrolled in special education to reflect the District's racial population and to be comparable to national statistics in the ('revision of free, appropriate public education to handi- capped students ( J Oc icaLe, if needed. little rock school district DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan PROGRAM MANAGER Matthis/Kohler expf.cted OUTCOMES Dy the end of the 1994-95 school year the number of minority students categorized and receiving services as Mentally Retarded will be deduced by 20 percent. Dy the end of the 1994-95 school year all staff members involved in the referral stra te of all process will deinon- underslanding aspects of the referral/placement process as outlined in local, state, and federal legislation. I evaluation PROCEDURES/MEASURES Comparison of 1909-90 MR enrollment to the 1994-95 MR enrollment (race and gender). Annual review of enroll- ment data will be Oucted to monitor gress con- pro- IIECESSARY RESOURCES Staff development relative to referral/ placement procedures \u0026gt; 03 o 3- 3 (0 3 It * to X)PROGRAM TITLE program desegregation GOAL{S) I 1 L Ouplicate, i f needed. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT desegregation program ASSESSMENT PLAN PROGRAM MAHAGER EXIECTEO OUTCOMES I evaluation PROCEDURES/MEASURES HECE.SSARY RESOURCES \u0026gt; (u o 3 n\u0026gt; 3 * co \u0026gt;0 LnPrograjn Total Number of Obj ectives 1. Commitment to Desegregation * Narrative LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL BY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 1 1 0 2. Leadership Narrative 9 1 8 3. Early Childhood 34 107 80 27 4. Special Programs Narrative 4 3 1 5. Summer Learning * 5 8 8 0 6. JTPA Asset Program * 3 31 31 0 7. School Operations 41 90 76 , 14 8. Academic Support 5 42 39 3 9. PAL/Ins tructional Technology * 6 50 50 0 10. Gifted/Tal.ented Education * 7 13 13 0 11. Multicultural Curriculum * 17 119 119 0 12. Focused Activities 1 27 18 9 13. Parkview Science Magnet * 5 18 18 0 14. McClellan Community School Narrative 4 3 1 1 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 1 1 70 3 6 31 77 35 22 12 66 17 11 1 * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan \u0026gt; rt Q\u0026gt; Q tr 3 (D 3 rtProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 15. Recruitment of Private School Students* Narrative 16. Federal Programs 1 17. Vocational Education* 11 18. Library/Media * 1 19. Special Education * 13 20. Staff Development * 8 21. Support Services Narra t ive 22. Parent Involvement/ Community Linkage 5 23. Student Assignment Narrative 24. Facilities Narrative 25. Incentive Schools 7 2 26. Educational Equity Moni tor1 ng 7 27. Transportation Narrative 28. Data Processing Narrative LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAJ-I Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Gtartod 8 8 34 17 58 39 2 34 11 8 294 19 23 8 8 7 34 17 58 39 2 28 10 5 240 18 19 3 * Completed all objectives a.s identified in the written plan 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 54 1 4 0 2 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 0 5 24 3 55 35 2 25 4 5 165 21 14 8 \u0026gt; rt 0) O tr 3 o 3 4: -0 to1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Progreun Interdistrict Plan Overview Student Choices/Options Summer School Staff Development * School Operations Multi-District Library Media Special Education * Vocational Education* Guidance and Counseling 9.- Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 10. Public Relations TOTAL Total Number of Obj ectives Narrative 11 2 31 5 22 5 Narrative See LRSD Plan Narrative 318 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL BY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 41 44 1 53 8 101 19 6 See LRSD Plan 46 1405 29 34 1 17 7 101 19 4 See LRSD Plan 41 1206 86% * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan 12 10 0 36 1 0 0 2 See LRSD Plan 5 199 1 3 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 26 35 1 15 7 91 9 2 See LRSD Plan 41 956 68% \u0026gt; 0) n tD  4^ O CJMarch 22 ATTACHMENT 5 IMPLEMENTATION/ASSESSMENT PROJECT - CHRONOLOGY Memo from M. Bernd to Ingram April 2 - May 19 Reviewed plan for narrative requirements Developed forms to be included with timelines for implementation and assessment reporting May 24 Requested approval of forms and memo to administrators June 2 Approval of forms received June 2-13 Typing of information on implementation forms completed June 14 Memo and forms sent to cabinet level members Associate Superintendents Manager, Support Services Communications Director Forms forwarded to program managers with instructions to: 1. 2 . 3 . Review plan timelines and narratives Identify activities used to achieve objectives Add activities that have been omitted Forms for School Operations distributed on 6/23/93 June 21 - July 15 Implementation forms returned and reviewed Activities sorted according to the form columnsOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: October 11, 1991 To: BiUy Bowies, PCSSD Mable Bynum, NLRSD James Jennings, LRSD From: Ann Brown Subject: Request for Information Attached is a comprehensive list of basic information which we require at ODM for monitoring purposes. Please forward immediately as many of the listed items as are presently available. If you should need additional time to furnish certain facts or materials, let me know when to expect that data. Meantime, please dont delay forwarding any information that is complete. There are a few starred items which appear at the end of the list This information is of a recurring and/or ongoing nature such as the agendas and minutes of school board meetings. WeU expect to receive this information as appropriate: monthly (e.g. school board agendas and minutes), quarterly (e.g. discipline data), or as produced (e.g. district publications, press releases.) Im aware that ODM has received some of the requested information, so there is no need to send duplicates of data youve already forwarded (October 1 enrollment figures, for example.) By requesting this amount of information at the first of the school year, I hope to minimize the number of separate requests for data that might otherwise be necessary. However, you can expect requests for specialized information from time to time as we monitor certain specific programs and aspects of the desegregation plan. Thank you very much for your assistance.General Information for Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attendance zone maps (as changes occur) ^^Alternative school poIides, procedures, and referral process t-^oard of educatiorVcommittee meeting schedule R J Capacity of each school buildin\nO i-dlAkE manual (LRSD) //Ia/oOaZ District Bi-ratial committee meeting schedule ocr 2 8 1991 u-District Bi-radal committee membership list, induding race and address izEarly childhood education manual (polities, etc.) Office of Dasegragstion Mcnitcnnc / ^{-5arly childhood enrollment by school, txEnrolImeni\nfinal Occober 1 data by s , age level (e.g. four-year-old program), race, gender txEnrolIment\nOctober school, giade, dass, i^, gender /zExtracurricjIar/co\u0026lt;urricular participation by school, acdvity. race, gender /failure and retention rate, by schooL gra^, dass, race, gender tXlifced/talented, AP, enriched, and honors enrollment by school, grade, subject, race, gender Graduation and retention rate for preMous semester by school, grade, race, gender i/filPPY partidpation, induding area served, race, gender i/fnservice dates, schedule, training topics, trainers (by race, gender) for all employee groups o-b'/ M-to-M, magnet, and desegregation transfers by race, grade, sending and receiving school t/Monitoring schedules of all distnct monitoring groups including bi-radal committees vdVIulticuItural education curriculum guides (with revisions as completed) xuz,' ' ex\u0026gt;PTA/PTQ officers and committee membership by school, race, gender PTA/PTO total membership by school, race Policies on extracurricular and co-curricular activities t-^chool improvement plans School profiles v J z-^chool partners in education listing (updated as expanded) ^chool and district PTA/PTO meetings and school open house schedule -*^chool volunteer building coordinator listing, induding ra^g, gender  j^pedal education enrollment, by sdrosl, dassification, rag, gender i^taffing data by position, race, gender (school and central office) Standardized testing results by school, grade, race, gender -Student rights and responsibilities handbooks t-Volunteer training schedule *^oard of education/committee agendas and minutes ^Discipline documentations, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to alternative dass or school by school, g^e, r^e, gender District Bi-radal committee minutes District publications (newsletters, brochures, etc.) Dropouts and reason for withdrawal by school, grade, race, gender Monitoring reports of all district monitoring groups iz^Monthiy calendar of events (special events, meetings, etc.) Press releases Denotes information of a recurring or ongoing nature Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371 -0100 September 17, 1992 Marie Parker LRSD Student Assignment 501 Sherman LR, AR 72202 Dear Marie: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit win include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date the information is generated. convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed, districts audit by Monday, October 19,1992. For your Please return a copy of your In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive LRSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Connie Hickman Associate MonitorOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 17, 1992 Mable Bynum NLRSD P.O. Box 687 2700 Poplar Street NLR, AR 72115 Dear Mable: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit will include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date the information is generated. convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed, districts audit by Monday, October 19,1992. For your Please return a copy of your In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive NLRSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Connie Hickman Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (SOI) 371.0100 September 17, 1992 BiUy Bowles PCSSD P.O. Box 8601 925 Dixon Road LR, AR 72216 Dear Billy: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit will include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date e information is generated. For your convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed. Please return a copy of your districts audit by Monday, October 19, 1992. In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive PCSSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Connie Hickman Associate Monitor Title Incentive Schools Latin Program Incentive Schools Spanish Program__ Special Education Enrollment Results of School. Monitoci-ng------- Action Plans for Dvpirpprp\npntati J R REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Update report on approach, methods, an used in participating schools strategie\nUp'date report on approach, methods, and strategie used in participating schools____________________ Enrollment in special education by school, grade, subject, race, gender Corrective action forms on each student in a building receiving.s.pecja1 ediiratinn________ Individual school action plan to remediate defiripnciPS______________________________ OCT PO i9\u0026gt;2 December 1 Child Count Total district special education population by disability, age, race, etCi____________________ Inservice '92-'93 Academic Support Program Educational equit Inservice 1992-93 Purchase Math Manipulatives Academic Support Program Educational Equit' Mui ticultural Purchase Trade Books/Material Dispersed information on multicultural college nffprings\ndevelopment and implementation of multicultural curriculum guides K-12\nidentification and incorporation of multiculatural inDepartment Responsible/Contact Person supervisor oT Communi Date Available dations, English, ESL, \u0026amp; Foreitn Languages Supervisor of Communi English, ESL, \u0026amp; Forei Director Division of Exceptional Children Director Division of Exceptional Children ( ( ations n Languages 10-01-92 09-15-92 12-01-92 Director Division of Exceptional Children/ Pri nci pal Director Division of Exceptional Children Mathematics/Wood Mathematics/Wood Readi ng/Stoval1 Reading/Stoval1 Curriculum and Learning Imurovement, Estelle Matthis 10-15-92 12-15-92 12-01-92 June, 1992 June, 1992 June, 199^ June, 1992Title Multicultural cont'd African/African- American Program\nRites of Passage Program New and Vacant Teaching and Instructional Aice Posi tions for 4- Year-old Classes Classroom Set-Ups For New 4-Year Old Program G/T Enrollment Library Use Report aff Developmen' Staff cHal oque elopmen /Calend REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Department Reaponalble/ Contact Person structional materials into instructional programs\nrecorded multicultural inservice training Progress on Incentive Schools' implementation of African/Atrican-American Program and Rites of Passage Program Teaching and Instructional Aide positinns fur nev Four-Year-Old classes will be submitted to the Dirpctor of Human Rpsniircps for annniincptnpnf on_ the known vacancy list Timeline for ordering materials, supplies and equi pment Enrollment in G/T by school, grade, race and gpndpr______________________________________ Data on use of library by students and teachers, library instruction, circulation District-wide staff development activities r scheduled for the 1992-93 school year_____ SchoQl.Staff Dev Participation Rei . Identification by school, participants, aiid. number of hours of the comiletion of specific staff development activities Date Available Curriculum and Learning Improvement, Estelle Matthis E.ar.Iy...Childhnfid Education Dept. EarlyChildhood Education Dept. 6-Q1-93 5-03-93 G/T Supervisor/Coord. 11-15-92 Instructional Techv coor. Lib services Marvin Zimmerman Staff Develop. Dir. Maryin Zimmetman Staff Dev. 0ir. 25th of each mo. 10-15-92 End of I quarter ea.Title OCTOBER 1 FNROI 1 MERI______ ANNUAL RETENTION REPORT- ANNUAL -DROP-OUT REPORT- QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT QUARTERLY ENROI I MENT REPORT QUARTERLY MITHDBAWAl REPORT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE REPORT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK---------- CAPACITIES________ BI-RACIAL COM. M1NUTE.S----------- EQUITY COMPLIANCE REPOB.I------------ BIRACIAL MONITOR ING REPORTS------ Btai REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Deecriptton Enrollment data by school sorted by r^ace and gender Retentions by school, grade, race and gender Pupils in grades 7-12 who \"dropped-out\" of school. and'did not return hv 10/31---L----------------- . 1-5 Attendance (ADM, ADA) by school, grade and gender wi th Di strict totals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enrollment last day of qtr. by school, grade and race-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Pupils in grades 7-12 who withdrew by school, grade race and gender-------------------------------------------------------- Attendance (ADM, ADA) by school, grade and gender with District totals Includes report of punils who entered from another state and a report of graduating seniors. ---------------------- Published handbook with District procedures for assigning students to schools--------------------------------------------- Capacity listing for each school_______________ Recorded minutes of each hi^-acia.lcommfifttjnt}. Department Reaponaible/Contact Peraon Office of Organizationa learning Equity____ Office of Organization?  I.P^^rii ng Eqiii^ty ,--- ice of Organizational \u0026amp;-Learainq Equity----------- Office of Organizational \u0026amp; Learuinq Equity----------- Office of Organizational a learning EqiiLty----------- Office of Organizational A Learning Equity______ Rppnrt nf I RSD compl iancewi th .SQF eniii tv. -guidflline: Monitor Incentiye Schools Date Available 1Q./I5. L lQ/1 11ZJ 0____ 15 days aft ?nd of qtr. 15 days aft eniL.flJ.jQlE,- 15 days aft end .af .qtr.- 7/1 r r r Office of Organizational A,I.gaming Equity------ Office of Organizational \u0026amp;earni.ng Equity----------- Office of Organizational X I parni ng Eqiii ty---------------- Office of Organizational \u0026amp; Learning Equi-ty----------- Office of Organizationa \u0026amp; Learning Equity 2Z1 ^qth 5\u0026gt;f pach month in/is QuarterlyTitle Board Agenda Board Meeting Mi nutes School Plans REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Printed agenda of all Board meetings Approved minutes of Board meetings School Improvement Plan State Annual Repc't Meeting State Standards School Profile School Profile EK Department Responaibie/ Contact Person Mac Bernd Mac Bernd Annual Report Report to patrons of District's progress on long-range goals Janet Bernard Assoc.Supt. . Janet Bernard_______ Planning Research and Evaluation Sterling Ingram Communications Dept. Dianne Woodruff Date Available 4th Wed. ea, mo. Monthly as avallable 10-15 10-15 10-15 9-30 annu. News Coverage analysi s Weekly report details category and amount of print news coverage for LRSD, etc. Communications Dept. Dianne woooruff Weekly/ garter! y Press Release analysi s Analysis of kind and amount of news coverage generated from LRSD press release Communications Dept. Dianne Woodruff QuarterlyMEMORANDUM Date: November 20,1992 From: Connie To: Polly Subject: Report/Information Audits The following is a list on information needed that was not listed on the districts information audit BIRACIAL COMMITTEE - Membership list, by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # from LRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD Monitoring instruments used by all three districts Monitoring team lists (district and school-based) by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # from LRSD and PCSSD Meeting and monitoring schedule for the school year from all three districts Meeting agendas from all three districts Monitoring reports - LRSD building level biracial committee reports and semester reports from planning and evaluation. PCSSD - local building reports, district biracial committee summary reports and the Office of Desegregations semester reports. PARENT COUNCIL (only LRSD) - Membership list, by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # Monitoring team list by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # Meeting and monitoring schedule for the school year Meeting agenda and minutes Quarterly monitoring reportsPTA/PTO - Officers and committees by race and gender from PCSSD and LRSD. membership by race and gender from all three districts. Total MISCELLANEOUS - Press releases from PCSSD and LRSD Recruitment plans from LRSD and PCSSD??? Public relations log or some tracking system from aU three districts District publications (ie newsletters, brochures, videos,... for all three districts (NLRSD did list updated brochures and a quarterly newsletter) VIPS/ PALS monthly or quarterly hours by school, number of hours served, race, and gender from all three districts VIPS/PALS training schedule from LRSD and PCSSD (PCSSD did list a volunteer monitoring training schedule) LRSD Incentive School Mentors by race, gender, and number of hours served monthly or quarterly List of volunteer coordinators by race and gender at each school in aU three districts - List of each schools business and community partner in LRSD \u0026amp; PCSSDGsnersi Information for Ofnca of Desegregotian Monitorin\nO vAttendanca zone maps (as changes occur) ~7 V izAltemative school policies, procedures, and referral process -^Eoard of education/committee meeting schedule iXlapadty of each school building CARE manual (LRSD) i-Distnct Bi-radal committee meeting schedule i/District Bi-radal committee membership list, indudin: t-driy childhood education manual (polides, etc.) 9 race and address i-Edriy .childhood enrollment by school, age level (e.g. four-year-old program), race, gender u-EhroIIment\nfinal Cctobe.^ 1 data by school, grade, class, race, sender L-Ectracurricular/co-curricular participation by school, activity, race, gender '-d^ailure and retention rate, by school, grade, dass, race, gender i-Cifted/talented, AP. enriched, and honors enrollment by school, grade, subject, race, gender Graduation and retention rate for prerious semester by school, grade, race, gender iz'KlPPY partidpation, induding area ser/ed, race, gender z.''lfise.nnce dates, schedule, training topics, trainers (by race, gender) for all e.mployee groups -'M-to-M, magnet, and desegregation transfers by race, grade, sending and receiving school i-'fflonitoring schedules of all district monitoring groups including bi-radal committees i-d^ulticulturai educadon curriculum guides (with redsions as completed) -^A/PTO officers and committee membership by school, race, gender '-'PTA/PTO total membersiiip by school, race vdPolides on extracurricular and co-curricular activities , z- \u0026lt;-^chool improve.mem: plans v^chool profiles i'-SchooI partners in education listing (updated as e.xpanded) - i\u0026gt;-School and district PTA/PTO meetings and school open house schedule '9 c-SchooI voluntee. building coordinator listing, induding race, gender u-Spedal education enrollment, by,school, dassification, race, gender I'Slaffing data by position, race, gender (school and central office) iz5tandardized testing results by school, grade, race, gender '-'Student rights and responsibilities handbooks 'Volunteer training schedule ^oard of education/commictee agendas and minutes '^yiscipline documentations, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to alternative class or school by school, grade, race, gender i/Distnct Bi-radal committee minutes 'district publications (newsletters, brochures, etc) \"Dropouts and reason for withdrawal by school, grade, race, gender \"Monitoring reports of all district monitoring groups ^''Monthly calendar of events (special events, meetings, etc) ^ress releases \"Denotes information of a recurring or ongoing nature\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_423","title":"Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)","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":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)"],"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/423"],"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\nProvisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fulfill Board Responsibilities The LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals which it has failed to fulfill, according to the introductory section of the 1992 plan, page 1.  The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm- referenced and criterion referenced tests.  Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation.  The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. In addition, under the title \"Leadership\" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert leadership in the following areas.  Clearly delineating the districts desegregation mission to the staff and the community.  Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for the development of policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement the policies.  Adopting a budget which will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment.  The conduct of an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools  Failure to reserve kindergarten and four-year-old program seats for white students and engage in documented, sustained, and vigorous recruitment to attract those students, (plan page 140, May 1992 order, page 28).  Program specialists have not been hired at all incentive schools (May 1992 order, page 41).  A staffing needs assessment has not been administered and analyzed (May 1992 order, page 41).  Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each school (May 1992 order, page 42). Little significant progress has been made toward desegregation of the incentive schools, with the exception of Rockefeller (1992 plan, page 149). Lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement aU plan recruitment activities (i.e., individual brochures, marketing blitz) (1992 plan, pages 215-217).  The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all activities related to the incentive school program (1992 plan, page 151). Equity Issues  Failure to show significant progress in the reduction of the achievement disparity between black and white students (1992 plan, page 1, 1989 Settlement Agreement, page 26).  Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34).  Failure to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education (1992 plan, page 111). Recruitment  The district has not developed a Strategic Recruitment Plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan.  The Recruitment Tracking System, first requested during the March 1991 Construction Hearing, has not been implemented. Additional Items from the May 1992 Order  A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students (May 1992 order, page 38).tiP- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ofj 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 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITES The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\"), for its Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites for the 1994-95 school year, states: 1. Pursuant to the court-approved desegregation plan, the LRSD agreed to implement four-year old programs in all schools in the LRSD by the 1993-94 school year. 2. The LRSD later proposed certain modifications to the 1989 settlement plans, which modifications were heard by this Court. 3. Among the modifications proposed was the request that the Court accept the District's long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991. Although the Court did not accept the long-range implementation plan as submitted, the Court did release the LRSD from the requirement to place a four- year old program in every elementary school in the District. Ind-ifip4 . By Order dated May 1, 1992, this Court accepted the LRSD's proposal that four-year old programs be placed in locations which would best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance in the District. Further, the Court permitted the District to complete implementation of the program by the 1994-95 school year. 5. In accepting the LRSD's proposed modifications, the Court continued the requirement that the four-year old programs developed by the District had to accommodate the number of children which equalled or exceeded the number which would have been accommodated had all schools in the District had a four-year old program as originally planned. 6. The LRSD added additional four-year old programs as required during the 1993-94 school year. 7. Further, the LRSD has now completed its review and has determined the number of classes necessary to accommodate the number of children which would have been accommodated had programs been placed at all elementary schools in the District. The LRSD has also determined those locations it believes will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate listing of the sites selected by the LRSD to complete its obligations for four-year programs during the 1994-95 school year in accordance with the Order dated May 1, 1992. The sites reflected are incorporated herein by reference. lrd-*pp 29. The LRSD is now prepared to take those steps necessary to implement the hereindescribed expansion of the four-year old program for the 1994-95 school year. However, the LRSD would request expedited consideration so that it may begin the necessary preparatory arrangements. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Little Rock School District, moves this Court for an Order approving the locations, number of classes and other terms as outlined in the attached implementation proposal\nit requests that it be awarded its costs. expenses, attorney fees incurred herein and all other legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 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 Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 Ind'tpp 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 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. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Ind-tpp 4 EXHIBIT 1 LRSD'S 1994-95 FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITE SELECTIONS Pursuant to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, as amended by subsequent court orders, the LRSD must accommodate in four-year old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been accommodated if all schools in the District had a four-year old program At the time the commitment was made, the LRSD had 36 elementary schools. The number of children to be served was computed by using a maximum capacity of 20 students per class. This yielded 720 students as the total number to be served. In accordance with the May 1, 1992 Order of this Court and North Central accreditation standards, the number of students per class during the 1993-94 year was based on the standard of 18 students per classroom. By virtue of this standard, the LRSD had capacity to serve 576 students in its 32 four-year old classes. Accordingly, the LRSD must add eight (8) four-year old classes during the 1994-95 year to have the capacity to serve the additional 144 children necessary to achieve the 720 children capacity as originally computed. To select the eight (8) sites, the LRSD considered the following criteria: 1. Schools which are difficult to desegregate and are racially imbalanced. Irad-tpp 52 . Areas which have a very high concentration of low income families, Based on its review, the LRSD selected the following elementary school sites: 1. Badgett - One additional class can be added by using space that is available within the building. 2. Bale - One additional class can be added by using space that is available within the building through the reassignment of classroom space (classroom space currently being used for physical education on rainy days and for psychological testing). 3. Fair Park One additional class can be added by installing a trailer, which would free up a classroom within the building. 4. Geyer Springs One additional class can be added by offering only two (2) kindergarten classes. Although a third kindergarten class was added after the start of the 1993-94 school year, the majority of the students assigned to that class were from outside the schools' attendance zones. Accordingly, other assignments consistent with the desegregation plan should be available in the event non-attendance zone kindergarten students need to be accommodated during the 1994-95 school year. 5. Mabelvale - One additional class can be added by using a room being made available due to matriculating seventh grade students. 6. Watson - One additional class can be added by using space within the building obtained through the sharing of space by the Irad-app 6Chapter I teacher (there three (3) days a week) and the G/T teacher (there two and one-half (2/1/2) days a week). 7. Woodruff - One additional class can be added by using space available within the building. 8. Stephens - One additional class can be added by using space within the building. Ind-app 7RECSa ^7^ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cffico of Dcsogr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ISSUE. A. Previous LRSD Election Zones. The district court approved seven single-member zones for the election of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) Board of Directors on December 18, 1986. Appellant's App. p. 50. Before that time, LRSD board members were elected in at-large elections. Arkansas law requires, however, that school districts with student populations in excess of 24,000 elect board members from single- member zones. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 (Michie 1991). Pursuant to previous orders of this Court and the district court. LRSD annexed territory of the Pulaski County Special School District which increased LRSD's student population above 24,000 and was required by state law to establish single-member zones. The LRSD zone plan approved by the district court had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 census: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 petal population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n7.83% black\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30% black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10% black. 1The district court found that the zone plan \"comports with the one- man one-vote principle required by the Constitution  . , [and is] in compliance with the mandate of Amended  2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C.  1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" Appellant's App., p. 50-51. The district court's December 18, 1986, order approving the LRSD zone plan was not appealed. The Charles Plaintiffs, as members of the class represented by the Joshua Intervenors, were parties to the case when the zones were established. LRSD App., p. 1. In fact, Mr. Charles was substituted as a named plaintiff when he became president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP. LRSD B. The PCBE Plan. App., p. 4. The Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\") plan for LRSD election zones was prepared by Metroplan, a non-profit corporation whose members are local governmental entities in the central Arkansas area. LRSD App., p. 41. Metroplan was asked to determine whether the previous LRSD election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man, one-vote\" principle according to 1990 census data and, if so, to prepare alternative proposals for rezoning LRSD in compliance with federal law. LRSD App., p. 42. Jim McKenzie, the Executive Director of Metroplan, was primarily responsible for preparing the proposals. LRSD App., pp. 76-77. Before preparation of alternative proposals for submission to PCBE, Mr. McKenzie contacted Jim Lynch, who became the Charles Plaintiffs' expert in this case, concerning criteria which should 2be considered in preparing election zones. Lynch provided McKenzie a written list of five criteria\n(1) adhere to the one-man, one- vote doctrine\n(2) avoid diluting minority political expression\n(3) districts ought to be compact and contiguous\n(4) district boundaries should be recognizable\nand, (5) use existing political boundaries. LRSD App., pp. 9, 76-77. McKenzie followed Lynch's criteria in developing four alternative proposals for rezoning the Little Rock School District. LRSD App., pp. 77-80. McKenzie was aware of the December 18, 1986, order stating that the previous LRSD election zones were in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. LRSD App., p. 40. II. THE DESEGREGATION PLAN MODIFICATION ISSUE The parties to this case are in the process of implementing desegregation plans agreed upon in 1989 and approved by this Court in 1990.* The Interdistrict and LRSD Desegregation Plans call for eight racially isolated incentive schools but do not require that each incentive school must remain open in perpetuity. Instead, a purpose of those plans is to move LRSD black students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools: 'There are four desegregation plans, district and an Interdistrict Plan. one for each school 1991. The plans were modified in For a history of the development of the desegregation plans and the 1989 settlement agreement, see Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). 3\"As new interdistrict schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school . . II LRSD App. , p. 3 31. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. The planned effort to move students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools is illustrated by the parties' agreement about Stephens school. Stephens is one of the eight incentive schools established under the 1989 plans. LRSD App., pp. 331, 3 34. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. The plans require the parties to quickly convert Stephens from an incentive school to an interdistrict school and to close \"[t]he old Stephens school building.\" LRSD App., pp. 332, 334. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 10\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. Washington Elementary School provides another example of the transition from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The 1989 desegregation plans list Washington among the eight incentive schools. (8 J.D.R. 1722\n10 J.D.R. 2288), but the parties later agreed that Washington would become an Interdistrict Magnet School.^ 2 The district court rejected the settlement plans on June 27, 1989 and, during the pendency of the appeals of that order, approved a substitute plan known as the Tri-District Plan (Docket #1328). The Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 #1328) . school year, and Washington operated under that plan as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Following this Court's approval of the 1989 settlement plans, the parties agreed that Washington should continue to operate as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school rather that resume operation as racially isolated incentive school. - - as Docket #1434. a 4The plans and agreements of the parties to date will reduce the number of incentive schools from eight to six by moving incentive school students to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The assignment of Ish attendance zone students to King Interdistrict School is the first movement of students from a segregated to an integrated school which has been opposed by any party. LRSD committed to build a new King Interdistrict School \"in downtown Little Rock ... in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" LRSD App., P. 334 . LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. That area is populated primarily by students who are enrolled or are entitled to be enrolled in an incentive school. The specific site within that area was approved by the district court on March 17, 1992 (LRSD App., p. 227. Docket #1576) and no appeal was taken from that order. Each LRSD school. including each incentive school. has an attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 310-313. The zone established for each new elementary school required by the desegregation plans must be superimposed upon the existing zone plan and will necessarily ^Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors told the district court: \"I'm suggesting that integration by itself is just unacceptable to black people at this time. It has to be something that is much more substantive than merely being in the same environment with white students.\" LRSD App., p. 292. 5usurp some or all of the attendance zone of one or more of the existing elementary schools. LRSD hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller to design an attendance zone for King Interdistrict School. LRSD App. , p. 301. Dr. Thalmueller is a former employee of LRSD who has been involved in the preparation of LRSD attendance zones for seventeen years (LRSD App., p. 301) and who prepared the attendance zones for the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan. (LRSD App., p. 283). In drawing the King attendance zone, Thalmueller engaged in an effort \"to minimize the impact of the attendance zone on other students in the district. try to keep the domino effect down to the smallest possible factor . . [and] to reduce busing to whatever extent we could\". LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller also tried to draw the King zones so that students whose assignments were changed as a result of the establishment of that zone would not have to endure a second change of assignment when zones were later established for the Stephens Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller prepared three plans. reviewed them with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and presented them to LRSD. LRSD App., pp. 303-304. In the plan adopted by the LRSD Board of Education, Dr. Thalmueller placed the entire Ish zone, consisting of six zone blocks, in the King attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 335-336. The only schools whose attendance zones were changedby the Thalmueller plan are Ish, Jefferson, Rightsell and Washington. LRSD App., pp. 335, 336. 6One hundred eighty-three students were enrolled at Ish for the 1992-93 school year. Ninety of those students were from outside the Ish attendance zone. LRSD App. , p. 308. There were 229 students in the Ish attendance zone. June 8, 1993 LRSD App., p. 307. Only 93 of those students attended Ish school. LRSD App., p. 307. The others attended schools throughout LRSD. Dr. Thalmueller and LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker prepared a report on the impact of the King attendance zone (LRSD App., p. 321) which was presented to the LRSD board, shared with all counsel on March 12, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 325) and presented to the District Court on June 8, 1993. The report describes the following impact upon Ish: \"Ish will remain open unless fewer than one hundred students choose Ish, in which case all Ish students will be assigned to King, and Little Rock School District will work with the Ish community to determine an appropriate use for the Ish building.\" LRSD App., p. 321. Four community meetings, including one at Ish school, were held in March, April and May 1993 \"to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme selection for Martin Luther King, Jr. school\". LRSD App., p. 337. Surveys were mailed to all families affected by the location of the proposed attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 320. The King attendance zone was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on April 22, 1993. On May 5, 1993 LRSD moved for approval of the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 231. Docket #1820. Joshua opposed LRSD's motion. LRSD App., p. 235. Docket #1825. The North Little Rock 7School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Knight Intervenors did not oppose the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 305. The district court conducted hearings on June 8 and 9, 1993 and approved the King attendance zone as drawn by Dr. Thalmueller, but not LRSD's plan for determining whether Ish should be closed. LRSD App., pp. 285-291. The court preferred Thalmueller's plan to the ideas presented by Dr. James Jennings, another former LRSD employee, because Thalmueller's plan would impact fewer attendance zones and because his plan \"left room for doubt\" concerning the 4 future location of the Stephens site. The district court announced that it would order that Ish remain open if one hundred or more students chose to attend Ish from among the students within the Ish attendance zone whether or not presently enrolled at Ish (229 students (LRSD App., p. 307)) and all students attending Ish whether or not residing within the Ish attendance zone (90 students (LRSD App., p. 308)) LRSD App., pp. 286-287. Dr. Jennings was subpoenaed only a few days before the hearing and had not previously reviewed Thalmueller's plan. During his previous employment with LRSD, Jennings had prepared a plan to create attendance zones for King and Stephens together. p. 279. LRSD App., Jennings' testimony consisted of his recollection of the plan he had previously prepared on the assumption that King and Stephens zones would be established at the same time. and his reaction to Thalmueller' s plan which he had seen for the first time the day before. LRSD App., pp. 281-283. Jennings' proposals would impact the attendance zones of thirteen schools. 280. LRSD App. , p. Jennings worked with Thalmueller to prepare the attendance zones contained in the 1989 desegregation plan (LRSD App., p. 283) and considers Thalmueller competent to prepare attendance plans (LRSD App., 284). zone 8The court's bench ruling was followed closely by a written order (Docket #1848) which established the following process by which LRSD could attempt to \"meet its burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School\" from among those attending Ish or residing in the Ish attendance zone and \"proving that fewer than 100\" of those students wished to attend Ish: \"Within ten days from June 9, 1993 the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close. II June 11, 1993 Order, Docket #1848. The court told Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. 293-300) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\". June 11, 1993 Order, p.3 LRSD filed on June 21, 1993 its proposed survey of potential Ish students and its plan for implementing the survey results^. LRSD proposed \"to send the form letter, the King and Ish fact sheets, and the School Selection Form to the parents of all students described in the court's June 11, 1993 Order in accordance with the attached time line for implementing King/Ish Survey Process. I LRSD App. , p. 24 0. No one objected to the process LRSD's filing showed exactly how the survey process would be  It included a time line, a form letter to parents of potential Ish students, fact sheets on both King and Ish Schools which would be sent to potential Ish students and a school implemented. selection form. LRSD App., p. 240. 5 9proposed by LRSD. The district court approved the process on June 30, 1993. Docket No. 1873. LRSD engaged in an extensive effort to inform potential Ish students about King and Ish Schools and to maximize the response to its King/Ish survey. Two hundred sixty survey forms were mailed, 173 were returned and 82 students requested Ish School. LRSD App., p. 271-272. Based upon the results of the survey, LRSD moved on July 19, 1993 to close Ish School. LRSD App., p. 268. Docket No. 1908. Joshua opposed LRSD's status report about the survey process (LRSD App., p. 265) and LRSD's Motion to close Ish School (Docket No. 1918). On August 2, 1993, the district court granted LRSD's Motion to close Ish School. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. The Charles Plaintiffs contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, the Charles Plaintiff were required to establishthe LRSD conducted a series of community meetings, including two at Ish School. Fliers announcing the community meetings delivered door to door and distributed to local churches. were Ish patrons conducted a door to door campaign encouraging parents to return the survey forms. The LRSD student assignment office telephoned parents who were sent survey forms and encouraged them to complete and return the forms. LRSD App., pp. 271-272. 10following four elements: (1) that blacks are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) that blacks are politically cohesive\n(3) that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat blacks' preferred candidate\nand, (4) that based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nThornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 25, 50- 51 (1986) . The district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish each of the above elements. The PCBE plan contains two majority black zones. Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to prove that three majority black zones can be created. In addition, the majority black zones must have at least a 65% black majority to enable blacks to elect their preferred candidate. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988). Each of the three majority black zones in the plan advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs has a majority black population of less than 65%. As a result, the district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that three majority black LRSD zones with a 65% black majority population can be created. The Charles Plaintiffs attempted to establish black political cohesiveness through statistical proof of the correlation coefficient comparing the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate. However, the 11correlation coefficient does not establish the percentage of black support for black candidates. The Charles Plaintiffs did not undertake the additional statistical analysis necessary to establish black political cohesiveness, and therefore, the district court held that they had failed to establish this element. The Charles Plaintiffs' attempt to establish white bloc voting was infected with the same statistical flaw. In addition. persistent proportional representation of blacks on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible tl for the Charles Plaintiff to establish white bloc voting. Nash V. Blunt, 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992). Evidence of elections between white and black candidates demonstrates that white voters do not usually vote as a block to defeat the blacks' preferred candidate. Accordingly, the district could found that LRSD did not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. Finally, the district court held that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the PCBE plan than they had under the previous zone plan which had been approved by the district court in 1986. The Charles Plaintiffs' expert testified that the opportunity of blacks is the same under the PCBE plan and under the previous court approved plan. The findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed. 12A. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ACT, 42 U.S.C. SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  1973, A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND Introduction. No plan for single-member election zones is immune from challenge under the Voting Rights Act. If a plan concentrates minorities into super-majority zones. the plan may be said to dilute minority voting strength through \"packing.\" If a plan does not create the maximum number of minority black zones, it may be said to dilute minority voting strength through dispersion of minority voters. Compare Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D.Ark. 1989), and Jeffers v. Tucker. 839 F.Supp. 612 (E.D.Ark. 1993) . PCBE adopted a Metroplan proposal for LRSD election zones which has two majority black zones. The Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of LRSD election zones to create a third majority black zone. In discussing the racial gerrymandering of election zones, the Supreme Court has stated: Racial classifications of lasting harm to our society. any sort pose the risk of They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. The Charles Plaintiffs argued before the district court that the PCBE plan violated the Voting Rights Act due to \"packing.\" this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time argument based on the dispersion of black voters. In an PCBE adopted Metroplan proposal No. 4. 13Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions\nit threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer mattersa goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody. and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. Shaw V. Reno, 509 U.S. 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993). B. Discussion. 1. Liability Under Section 2 Generally. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was tl designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.\" South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966). As amended in 1982, Section 2 of the Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1993). Section 2 further states: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if. the circumstances, based on the totality of it is shown that political processes leading to nomination the or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office political subdivision is which in one the State or circumstance may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to 14have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion population. in the 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993) (emphasis in original). In order to prevail on a Section 2 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. Ill S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991), The Supreme Court has stated that a minority group challenging single-member election zones under Section 2 must establish three \"necessary preconditions\": First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member If it is not, as would be the district. case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member If the electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests, [citations omitted]. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable  in the absence of special circumstances, a minority candidate running such it as unopposed . . . usually to defeat the preferred [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member candidate. minority's district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles. 478 U.S, at 50-51\nGrowe v, Emison. ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. , 122 L.Ed.2d 388, 404. Satisfaction of these three II preconditions\" is necessary. but not sufficient, to establish liability under Section 2. Growe. 507 U.S. at ___, 122 L.Ed.2d at 15404\nChisom. 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364\nsee League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements. 999 F.2d 831, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, in order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must demonstrate that (1) the group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) it is politically cohesive\n(3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate\nand. (4) based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" the group has less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the challenged electoral device. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nGingles. 478 U.S. at 50-51. 2. Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact. The plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE contains two majority-minority zones. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, in the context of the present case, the first Gingles precondition requires that the Charles Plaintiffs establish that the black population of LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50. More than mere numerical superiority must be considered in determining whether the Charles Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient II majority\" in single-member zone to elect representatives of their choice. . As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 a F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% frequently used. of total population is and is derived by 16supplementing simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F.2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the black population in LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to permit creation of three zones with at least 65% minority population. Otherwise, the PCBE plan for a LRSD election zones \"cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Singles. 478 U.S. at 50. Each of the purported \"majority\" black zones proposed by the Charles Plaintiffs falls below the 65% guideline. Under the Charles Plaintiffs' plan, 81% of the blacks who live within the boundaries of the LRSD would be packed into zones 1, 2 and 6 resulting in percentage black populations in those zones of 64.7%, 64.0% and 61.7%, respectively. The remaining black population is dispersed among the remaining four zones. Appellant's App., p. 55. 9 Therefore, the plan for LRSD election zones advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs demonstrates that the black population in LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute Charles Plaintiffs' Zone 1 has percentage population variance of negative 4.5%, and therefore, will in all probability be the first zone to fall out of compliance with the II requirement. LRSD App., p. 74. one-man. one-vote\" Metroplan proposal No. 4 adopted by PCBE took into account present demographics trends by placing more persons in zones with declining population and by placing fewer persons in zones with increasing population. within the limits prescribed by the law and with a lesser degree of This was done population variance than provided in the Charles plaintiffs' plan. LRSD App., pp. 78-80. 17a sufficient \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Appellant's App., p. 155. Furthermore, McKenzie testified that the Charles' Plaintiffs plan did not present compact zones. LRSD App., P. 61. Accordingly, the district court found, \"The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 7. The district court's finding that the black population of LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in three LRSD election zones is not clearly erroneous. Political Cohesiveness. In an effort to establish black political cohesiveness, Lynch computed the correlation coefficient (the \"r\" statistic) and the r- square value for all 65 voting precincts in LRSD. Lynch compared the percentage of black voting age population within the precinct and the percentage of votes for the black candidate for ten elections involving a black candidate and a white candidate. summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles 3. A Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. Relying only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Lynch concluded that blacks were politically cohesive. Appellant's App., P. 160. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 does not support Lynch's conclusion. The correlation coefficients calculated by Lynch and summarized in Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no proof that 18blacks are politically cohesive. 10 The correlation coefficient is a measure of consistency. LRSD App., p. 134. See Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1987)\ns^. generally, Richard Engstrom \u0026amp; Micheal McDonald, \"Quantitive Evidence in Vote Dilution Litigation: Political Participation and Polarized Voting,\" 17 Urban Lawyer 369 (1985). A perfect positive correlation (i.e., a correlation coefficient of one) between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate results where, for example, the same percentage of blacks and the same percentage of white voters support the black candidate in each precinct.'* If 25% of the black voters and 20% of the white voters in each precinct support the black candidate. perfect positive correlation exists. The correlation coefficient provides no evidence of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Thus, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 indicates only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Lynch conceded that the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no information about the 'it is nevertheless important to note that the only LRSD zone election analyzed by Lynch produced no significant correlation between black voting age population and support for the black candidate. Appellant's App., p. 157. \"Lynch's feeble understanding of the correlation coefficient was demonstrated when on cross-examination Lynch was unable to describe circumstances which would produce a perfect positive correlation. Lynch testified that he merely entered the data into a computer equipped with software to calculate the correlation coefficient. LRSD App., p. 165. 19 apercentage of black support for the black candidate. LRSD App., p. 158. Lynch admitted that nothing in his analysis excluded the possibility that only 25% of the black voters supported the black candidate in the elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., p. 161. Lynch acknowledged that, if only 25% of the blacks supported a black candidate, blacks could not be considered politically cohesive. LRSD App., p. 159. In order for the correlation coefficient or r-square value to demonstrate political cohesiveness. they must be used in conjunction with homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis. S^, e.q. . Whitfield v. Democratic Party of the State of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1383 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nCitizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1987). Homogeneous precinct analysis is the examination of a precinct which is overwhelmingly populated by a discrete group to determine what percentage of voters in that group support a particular candidate. See Campos v. City of Baytown. 840 F.Supp. 1240, 1246 n.lO (5th Cir. 1988). For example, if a precinct is 100% black and the black candidate gets 90% of the votes in that precinct, then 90% of the black voters preferred the black candidate. If there is also a high correlation coefficient among all the precincts (meaning that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct), it may be appropriate to conclude that approximately 90% of black voters in each precinct supported the black candidate. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 371-72. 20Regression analysis involves the calculation of the regression coefficient, commonly reported as \"b\". It is the regression coefficient \"that illuminates the degree to which voting patterns are racially differentiated.\" Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, P- 375. Whereas the correlation coefficient measures how consistently the electoral support for the black candidate changes with the percentage of black voting age population, the regression coefficient estimates how closely the change in percentage of votes for the black candidate tracks the change in percentage black voting age population. For example, where voting is completely racially polarized, the percentage of votes for the black candidate would track perfectly the increase in black voting age population.^ See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 375. Therefore, homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis are necessary to establish racially polarized voting. Lynch testified that he did not conduct homogeneous precinct analysis. LRSD App., p. 164. With regard to regression analysis, Lynch testified, \"I'm not familiar with that term.\" LRSD App., p. 163 . As a result. Lynch's conclusion that LRSD elections are racially polarized IS without foundation. The correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 demonstrate *^The regression coefficient is to be distinguished from the square value calculated by Lynch. The r-square value is merely the square of the correlation coefficient. The regression coefficient (\"b\") represents the slope of the regression line. __ regression line is the line which minimizes the deviations among samples. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the samples' deviation fiom the regression line. With a perfect correlation, either positive or negative, the samples fall perfectly along the regression line. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. samples. The The See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. 21only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provides no indication of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Because the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks are politically cohesive, their Section 2 claim must fail.\"* 4. White Bloc Vote. a. Persistent Proportional Representation. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice White, noted in Gincles that \"persistent proportional representation is inconsistent with [the] allegation that the ability of black voters ... to elect representatives of their choice is not equal to that enjoyed by the white majority.\" Ginoles. 478 U.S. at 77. With regard to this statement by Justice Brennan, Justice O'Conner, joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell and Justice Renquist, wrote. \"I *The conclusion that blacks are politically cohesive can be drawn based on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 only if it is assumed that black voters preferred the black candidate. However, the Supreme Court has stated that minority support for the minority candidate \"never can be assumed, but must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of  2.\" Shaw v. Reno. 509 U.S. at ___, 125 L.Ed.2d at 532 . V. There is one other notable limitation on the value of the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and percentage of votes for the black candidate does not preclude the possibility of an equally strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and any of the other factors which Lynch testified often determine the outcome of elections. For example, the correlation coefficient between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the democratic candidate may be as strong or stronger, in any given election, the correlation coefficients shown on as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., pp. 170-171. 22agree with Justice Brennan that consistent and sustained success by candidates preferred by minority voters IS presumptively inconsistent with the existence of a  2 violation.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 102 (O'Conner, J., concurring). After considering the above quoted language in Ginqles. the court in Nash v. Blunt. 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992), concluded, \"If defendants can prove prior persistent proportional representation, it would be virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to prove white voters usually vote together to defeat minority-preferred candidates.\" Recognizing that Ginqles provides that \"proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a  2 claim,\" Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 75, the court in Nash reasoned that persistent proportional representation would constitute a defense* to a Section 2 claim only where. in addition to a history of proportional representation, there exists a substantial likelihood that proportional representation would continue in the future. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 14 98. For example, the plaintiffs in Na^ challenged the Missouri legislative redistricting plan as it applied to Jackson County, Missouri. The court noted that \"during the past decade, the proportion of black legislators for Jackson County has been in almost exactly equal proportion to the The court in Nash describes representation as an \"affirmative defense.\" persistent proportional This is a misnomer. A true affirmative defense relieves a defendant of liability even though the plaintiff has established each element of his claim. The classic example is the statute of limitations. However, persistent proportional representation, in effect, makes it \"virtually impossible\" to prove a necessary element of a Section 2 claim, legally significant white bloc voting. in effect, 1498. Nash, 797 F.Supp. at 23proportion of black citizens living in Jackson County. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The court found that the proportion of majority black districts created under the challenged plan was roughly equal to the proportion of black population and concluded: Thus, we conclude that there has been at least a ten-year history of proportional representation, as well as a near certain likelihood that there will be proportional representation for the next decade. Therefore, we find the defendants have successfully proved the elements of this affirmative defense. Nash. 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The facts of the present case are remarkably similar to the facts before the court in Nash. Blacks constitute 29.1% of the voting age population of LRSD. LRSD App., p. 6. There are seven members of the LRSD Board of Directors. Thus, proportional representation would be two of the seven board members or 28.6% of the board. Since 1983, the racial composition of the LRSD Board of Directors has been as follows: 1983 to March 1987 - two blacks. five whites\nMarch 1987 to June 1988  three blacks, four whites\nand, June 1988 to present - two blacks, five whites. Therefore, since 1983, the proportion of black members of the LRSD Board of Directors has been equal to or greater than the proportion of black members of the electorate. Moreover, under the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE, blacks are virtually certain to be proportionally represented in the future. The PCBE plan contains two black majority zones. PCBE Zones 1 and 2 have percentages of black population of 79.82% and 59.39%, respectively. LRSD App., p. 8. Although PCBE Zone 2 falls below the 65% guideline discussed in 24Smith V. Clinton, supra, Lynch testified that blacks would be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of 60%. LRSD App., p. 104. Lynch specifically referred to North Little Rock election zones with percentage black populations of 59.4% and 58.8% in which black candidates have been successful. LRSD App., P- 11. Therefore, blacks will continue to be proportionally represented on the LRSD Board of Directors under the PCBE plan. The consistent and sustained past, along with the certain future, of proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiffs to establish legally significant white bloc voting. Na^, 797 F.Supp. 1500. b. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The Charles Plaintiffs substantially relied on the testimony of Lynch in an attempt to establish white bloc voting. Lynch calculated the correlation coefficient and the r-square value comparing the percentage of white voting age population to the percentage of votes for the white candidate for same ten elections analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. Appellant's App., P. 158. Based only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33, Lynch concluded that the white majority voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the candidate 25preferred by blacks. 16 LRSD App., p. 149. Again, the record does not support this conclusion. As with Lynch's reliance on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 to establish black political cohesiveness, the correlation coefficients and r-sguare values shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 demonstrate only that approximately the same percentage of whites preferred the white candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 provides no information concerning the actual percentage of white voters who preferred the white candidate. Lynch failed to conduct the concomitant homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis necessary to make Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 meaningful. c. Legally Significant White Bloc Voting. Black electoral success in LRSD and the City of Little Rock supports the district courts's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. To establish legally significant white bloc voting under Gingles. the minority group \"must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable itin the absence of special circumstances such as a minority candidate running unopposed usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Gingles, 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). Stated another way, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of 'In his deposition taken the day before his trial testimony. Lynch stated that he had undertaken no study, and therefore could offer no opinion, on the issue of whether white bloc voting worked to usually defeat the candidate preferred by blacks. Lynch changed his testimony at trial.  LRSD App., pp. 148-151. 26minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 56 (emphasis supplied). It is the \"usual predictability of the majority success [that] distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election.\" Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). See Whitcomb v. Chavis. 403 U.S. 124, 153. The Charles' Plaintiffs failed to establish the \"usual predictability\" of white candidate success necessary to establish white bloc voting. As discussed above, blacks have enjoyed proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors since 1983. Likewise, blacks have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. Appellant's App., p. 161-62. See Leadership Roundtable v. Citv of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 590 (E.D. Ark. 1980). In sum, white voters do not sufficiently vote as a bloc to \"usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Ginqles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). In 1966, Dr. T.E. Patterson was elected at-large against white opposition to become the first black member of the LRSD Board of Directors. In 1983, Bill Hamilton, a black. defeated a white opponent by winning 70% of the vote in an at-large election. LRSD App., p. 12. In 1986, Thomas Broughton, a black and current PCBE member, garnered 74% of the at-large vote in LRSD to defeat a white opponent. LRSD App., p. 20. In a 1989 Zone 2 election, Hamilton 27received 84% of the vote to defeat a white opponent.* LRSD App., p. 36. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 also reveal significant black electoral success in LRSD. Those exhibits examined ten races in the City of Little Rock which pitted a black against a white opponent. The black candidate won six of the ten races, including the only two LRSD elections shown on those exhibits. LRSD App., p. 152. Moreover, the two LRSD elections had the lowest correlation coefficients of the ten elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. In fact. Lynch testified that the correlation coefficient for the 1989 election of Hamilton was not statistically significant. LRSD App., p. 142. This was the only election analyzed by Lynch under the previous singlemember election zones. Evidence of exogenous elections in the City of Little Rock further demonstrates the considerable success of black candidates. Blacks won four of the eight races analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 which did not involve LRSD. Appellant's App., pp. 110-11, 157, 161. Similarly, the black candidate prevailed over white opposition in nine of the twenty-three contests for the City of Little Rock Board of Directors shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 35. Appellant's App., p. 161-162. As noted above, blacks In the only other LRSD election involving a black and a white since the implementation of election zones, Charles Young, a white, defeated Lawrence Hampton, a black. The race was to represent Zone 6 which at the time was 72.7% white. Even so, Young defeated Hampton by only 32 votes. Even so. This race was excluded from Charles Plaintiff's Exhibits 32 and 33. LRSD App., p. 35. 28have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. More importantly, the success of black candidates in LRSD and the City of Little Rock cannot be attributed solely to \"special circumstances.\" See Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 47. The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"All of the black electoral successes in the LRSD and Little Rock City Board elections were won under 'special circumstances' II Brief of Appellant's, p. 34. However, as the Charles Plaintiffs define \"special circumstances,\" it is equally true that all of the black electoral failures in LRSD and City of Little Rock elections were the result of \"special circumstances.\" For example, the Charles Plaintiffs describe the black majorities in LRSD Zones 1 and 2 as \"special circumstances.\" It follows then that the failure of a black candidates in a white majority zone would also be attributable to \"special circumstances. it is worth noting that another tl special circumstance\" referred to by the Charles Plaintiffs was support by the \"white power structure. II Lynch testified that black candidates Charles Bussey, H.D. Stewart and Jesse Mason were supported by the \"white power structure\" in races for City Board positions. Lynch testified that the only white candidate who was strongly supported by the \"white power structure\" was Gary Barket in the 1992 City by the II Board race. in 1992 City Barket lost the race and, in fact, received only 300 more votes (7299 to 6999) than Gloria Wilson, a black, whom Lynch described as antithetical to the \"white power structure.\" _ \u0026gt;(___________1_ . ...  . _ -- Thus, the \"white power structure\" described by Lynch has been able to elect its candidate only when that candidate is black. And, if the Court testimony regarding the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Bussey, Stewart and Mason were also the preferred candidates of African Americans. LRSD App. pp. 186-191. accepts Lynch's Exhibit 32, Bussey 29Lynch acknowledged that many factors other than race determine the outcome of elections. LRSD App., p. 129. These other factors \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections. II Gingles. 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J. , concurring). The Charles Plaintiffs should be required to prove that its asserted reasons for any alleged failure by blacks to elect representatives of their choice cannot be characterized as a \"mere euphemism for political defeat at the polls,\" Whitcomb. 403 U.S. at 153\nsee Clements. 999 F.2d at 859. Indeed, one of these other factors explains the 1983 loss by Dr. Mitchell, black current member of the LRSD Board of a Directors, to a white opponent, Frank Mackey, in her first attempt to gain election to the board. Mitchell testified that name recognition had a \"great deal\" to do with her 1983 loss to Mackey. LRSD App., p. 210-211. Mackey's father, after whom Mackey was named, had been twice elected to Pulaski County Sheriff and twice elected County Judge for Pulaski County. LRSD App., p. 211. All of LRSD is within Pulaski County. However, in the same election in which Dr. Mitchell lost to Mackey, Hamilton, a black. was elected to the LRSD Board of Directors with 70% of the vote over a white opponent. LRSD Appendix, p. 12. Both Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell competed districtwide for at-large positions on the LRSD Board. Hence, many of the same voters, black and white alike, voted for Hamilton, but not for Dr. Mitchell. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that 30whites \"usually\" vote as a bloc to defeat the preferred candidate of blacks. 19 Similarly, Lynch testified that the election of Dr. Hamp Roy to the City of Little Rock Board of Directors over black opposition was due to large amount of money spent by Dr. Roy to win election. In Lynch's own words, \"Dr. Roy just spent an unbelievable amount of money to get that job.\" Lynch agreed that Dr. Roy's election was a \"special situation.\" LRSD Supp., p. 188. Thus, black electoral defeat in LRSD and the City of Little Rock has resulted from the same \"special circumstances\" which the Charles Plaintiffs argue account for black electoral success. The district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting should be affirmed. 5. Opportunity to Participate and to Elect. a. Less Opportunity: The Benchmark. As the final element of their Section 2 claim, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to establish that, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity than other Hamilton testified that it takes only about 300 votes to win an election within the current LRSD election zones. Hamilton's testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5 which show the results for the 1987 and 1989 LRSD elections. In the 1987 Zone 6 election, Charles Young defeated Lawrence Hampton 250 votes to 218 votes. In the 1987 Zone 7 election, Oma Jacovelli defeated Doug Harden 293 votes to 257 votes. ' In the 1989 Zone 1 election, Katherine Mitchell defeated Kenyon K. Lowe, Sr. 322 votes to 59 votes. In the 1989 Zone election. Frederick Lee 230 votes to 49 votes. Bill Hamilton defeated There are at five zones in the PCBE plan with black population greater that 4,600. The minimum black population in a LRSD zone under the PCBE plan is 1,112. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, a black candidate has at least the \"opportunity\" to be elected in every LRSD zone, even without receiving a single white vote. App. , 8 . 31 2members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U.S.C. 1973\nChisom. 501 U.S. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. The Charles Plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously used the 1986 plan approved by the district court as the benchmark for determining whether blacks have \"less opportunity.\" The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"The comparison of minority's 'opportunity' a under a historic scheme and the challenged scheme compares the minority's opportunity to itself, not to 'other members of the electorate. t II Brief of Appellants, p.l9.^ This statement would be true but for the fact that the \"historic scheme\" in this case was specifically found by the district court to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Appellant's Appendix, p. 50-51. In finding that the previous plan complied with the Voting Rights Act, the district court implicitly found that blacks had the same opportunity as other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. As a result. it makes no difference whether one is comparing the PCBE plan to the \"opportunity\" of other members of the electorate or to the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when adopted in 1986 because they are the same. Therefore, The Charles Plaintiff's also argue that the PCBE plan should not be granted deference because it is retrogressive. LILI__^1, retrogressiveness may constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Although Voting Rights Act, it does not constitute a violation of Section 2. Na^, 797 F.Supp. 1498. Thus, the plan adopted by the PCBE should be granted deference unless it is found to be in violation of Section 2. Voinovich v. Quilter. ___ U.S. , , 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513 (1993). --- 32the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when approved by the district court in 1986 is an appropriate benchmark to judge the PCBE plan. See Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp 553, 573 (E.D.Ark 1991), aff 'd U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2296, 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992) b. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. Using the previous plan as a benchmark, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" that the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones results in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan when approved by the district court. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 3 64\nTurner. 784 F. Supp. at 573. In an effort to meet this burden. the Charles Plaintiffs presented socioeconomic data concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the ^Turner, is distinguished from Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 196, because Turner involves a Section 2 challenge to a zone plan which revised a court approved plan to conform to the 1990 census. See Doulin V. White. 535 F.Supp. 450 (E.D.Ark. 1982). 7 _ zone plan based on the 1990 census, the Arkansas legislature preference to plans that departed as little as possible from the remedy implemented in Doulin\" ...... It In revising the II gave as a starting point . . and \"obviously used the Doulin plan Thus, the court in Turner concluded Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 556, 558. \"'Less opportunity' by any fair interpretation means 'less opportunity' than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot 'less opportunity' than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence.\" 473 . Turner. 284 F.Supp. at 33political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384.^ The socioeconomic data indicates that blacks are poorer, less educated. have fewer vehicles and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population. Even so, consideration of the socioeconomic factors provides no insight into the issue of whether the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones \"results\" in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the 1986 plan. Regardless of where the zone lines are drawn, blacks have the same socioeconomic status. It is not the line drawing by the PCBE which \"results\" in the blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process. but rather. it is their diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238 (Eisele, J., dissenting and concurring). Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by PCBE, and consequently, their Voting Rights Act claim must fail. See Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. ^^S^ Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else.\")\nLeadership Roundtable v. Citv of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 584 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by blacks.\"). See Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers 34c. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. In proceedings before the district court, the Charles Plaintiffs alleged vote dilution due to \"packing\" of blacks into zones with unnecessarily large black majorities. A comparison of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones and the previous plan, however, reveals that both when it was adopted in 1986^ using 1980 census data and when analyzed by Metroplan using 1990 census data. 24 the previous plan exhibited more \"packing\" than the PCBE plan. Consequently, if the Charles Plaintiffs concern is \"packing, they are better off under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they have ever been since LRSD Board members have been elected from single-member zones. Lynch testified that the opportunity of blacks to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the PCBE plan as it was under the 1986 plan. LRSD App., p. 148. Moreover, the Charles Plaintiffs' claim of packing is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. As noted above, the plan adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the 1986 plan when approved by the district court, which was expressly found to comport with the Voting Rights Act. The law of the case doctrine provides that when a court decides an issue of law that decision continues to govern the same issues at subsequent stages of the ^^The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. ^Under the prior districting scheme, the two majority black districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the Lwu majority black districts have 79.82% and 59.39% black population. two 35same case. Morris v. American National Can Corporation, 988 F.2d 50, 52 (8th Cir. 1993) . The doctrine was created to prevent relitigation of settled issues in a case and to protect the settled expectations of the parties, ensuring uniformity of decisions and promoting judicial efficiency. Id. Furthermore, \"[t]he law of the case doctrine applies to issues implicitly decided in earlier stages of the same case.\" Little Earth of United Tribes v. Dept. of Housing. 807 F.2d 1433, 1438 (8th Cir. 1986). The district court explicitly stated in its December 18, 1986 order that the previous LRSD election zones complied with the Voting Rights Act, and therefore, implicitly found that the percentage of black population in the zones did not dilute black voting strength through \"packing. Consequently, it is the law of H this case that the percentages of black population in the majority black zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE, which are lower than in the previous plan, cannot be said to violate the Voting Rights Act. d. The Senate Factors. In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, a challenged electoral device results in a minority group having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, the legislative history of Section 2 identifies a number of factors which \"may be relevant. 25 Senate Report, p. 28-29, reprinted in ^The Senate Report recognizes that the factors contained in the report may not be relevant in all Section 2 cases. 478 U.S. at 45. Gingles. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining 36 H1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07\nGinqles. 478 U.S, at 44-45 (1986). Although the district court made findings with respect each of these factors, the Charles Plaintiffs address only select factors in their Brief. LRSD assumes that the Charles Plaintiffs accept the district court's findings with regard to those factors not addressed. LRSD will respond to the Charles Plaintiffs' argument that LRSD used discriminatory electoral devices and that the policy underlying the PCBE plan is tenuous on the factors they discuss. There are presently no electoral devices being used in LRSD elections which enhance the opportunity to discriminate against blacks. In 1987 the State of Arkansas adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to LRSD elections. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (Michie 1991). Since 1986 members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected from single-member zones, two of which have a majority black population. As a result, the majority vote requirement enhances the opportunity of black candidates to win election in these zones by preventing a candidate supported by the white minority from being elected by a plurality. With regard to the policy underlying the PCBE plan. PCBE instructed Metroplan to prepare alternative plans for LRSD election whether a violation of Section 2 exists has been criticized because the factors more logically support proof of \"intent, It Whitfield V. Democratic Party of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1382 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990), and as a result, often takes attention away from the real issue. Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1386-87 (\"It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws.\"). 37zones which preserve existing zones to the extent possible consistent with federal law. LRSD App., p. 41. The overriding policy underlying the PCBE's instructions was stability. LRSD Ms. Pat Gee testified extensively regarding the importance of stability of the LRSD Board of Directors. LRSD App., pp. 215-218. Stability has been recognized as a legitimate policy in redistricting. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 214. This is especially true where, as in the present case, the plan being App. , p. 4 6. revised was court approved and was specifically found to comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Thus, the policy underlying the PCBE plan for LRSD elections cannot be described as tenuous. II. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE CLOSING OF ISH SCHOOL AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ISH STUDENTS TO THE NEW AND INTEGRATED KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL. This Court's review of district court decisions concerning disputed modifications to a settlement agreement is subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard. ADoeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). This Court should also \"give a healthy measure to deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court\". Id. at 257. The last time proposed modifications to the desegregation plans were before this Court, this Court described \"the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are submitted in the future) to which all the parties have not agreed. II Id. at 258. While \"disputed 38modifications are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications\", Id., the party requesting modification of a school desegregation plan need not prove \"a grievous wrong evoked by new and unforseen conditions\". Id., quoting United States v. Swift \u0026amp; Co. . 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932). This Court adopted the Sixth Circuit standard for reviewing disputed modifications: To modify [a] consent decree [], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal. either ] because experience proven less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions has it have changed which warrant fine tuning of the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Id. at 258, quoting Heath v. De Courcv. 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). The standard adopted by this Court is in harmony with the later decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) See Lorain NAACP v, Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141, 1149 (6th Cir. 1992) (treating the Rufo and Heath standards as harmonious and holding that school desegregation consent decrees ^Under Rufo, \"a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. tt 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. 502 U.S. at should If the moving party meets that standard, the court \"consider the proposed modification suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.\" Id. \"Modification whether is It of a consent decree may warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially be more onerous . . [\n] when a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforseen obstacles. [\n] or when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest.\" Id. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886-87. 39\"are subject to the same standards as enunciated in Rufo and Heath.\") The district court found \"that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein\". August 2, 1993 Order, p. 5 (Docket No. 1926) . This finding is supported by record evidence, including the results of a survey process which was approved by the district court without objection. LRSD App., p. 263-264. The primary goal of the plan is desegregation, and the district court properly found that that goal would be impeded by the continued operation of a racially isolated school whose attendance zone residents, for the most part, elected not to go there. The district court also found that \"[t]he closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties.\" August 2, 1993 Order, p. 5. The plan seeks to achieve its purpose. desegregation party by movement of students from racially isolated schools to desegregated schools. LRSD App., p. 331. The modification approved by the district court \"gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order, P- The 4. replacement of an older, inefficient and racially isolated school 40 not favored by even a majority of the attendance zone residents with a new desegregated school in the same neighborhood furthers the purpose of the desegregation plans in a more efficient way and does not upset the basic agreement of the parties. The district court's findings are sufficient, under the standard established by this Court in Appeal of Little Rock School District and by the Supreme Court in Rufo, to warrant the modification approved by the district court. The approved modification, closing Ish, is \"suitably tailored to the changed circumstance\", insufficient interest in Ish and the election to attend King by potential Ish students. Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 890. The modification does not \"create or perpetuate a constitutional violation\"^ or rewrite the settlement \"so that it conforms to the constitutional floor\". Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 890-91. Therefore, because it stayed within the boundaries imposed by Appeal of Little Rock School District and Rufo, the district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting the plan proposed by LRSD: Within these constraints, the public interest and the \"[c]onsiderations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system,\" Dowell, 498 US, at 112 It L Ed 2d 715, the allocation of Dowell, 498 US, at 111 S Ct 630, require that the district court defer to local government administrators, who have the \"primary responsibility of elucidating, assessing and solving\" the problems of institutional reform, to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 US, at 299, 99 L Ed 2d 1083, 75 S Ct 2749. To the contrary, the movement of black students from an older, racially isolated school building to a new, integrated school building in the same general neighborhood is a part of the remedy for past constitutional violations. To the contrary. LRSD App., p. 331. 41Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 891. Joshua first argues that something about the settlement plans or this Court's 1991 decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District deprives the district court of discretion to close an incentive school.^ Brief of Appellants, p. 49-50. Joshua argues that because Ish is an incentive school and incentive schools are a major component of the settlement agreement, that tl Ish must not be closed\". Brief of Appellants, p. 49. That conclusion does not flow from the premises. Further, none of the desegregation plans contains an explicit or implicit statement which supports Joshua's position that incentive schools must not be closed, and Joshua has provided this Court no reference to any plan in support of its position. The district court, on the other hand, properly considered and set out in its Order the relevant language of the settlement agreement which shows the relationship between the establishment of interdistrict schools and the desegregation of incentive schools: As new interdistrict schools are established, those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school. . . . August 2, 1993 Order, p. 3. ^Joshua does not discuss the law of modification of consent decrees or argue that the district court failed to follow the standards enunciated in Appeal of Little Rock School District and Rufo. 42Joshua seems to equate the commitment to double fund the incentive schools with a commitment to perpetuate them. This Court emphasized the importance of double funding because double funding was designed to soften the impact of racial isolation at the incentive schools (LRSD App., p. 331), not because this Court endorsed the perpetuation of racial isolation. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d at 1385. Without the commitment of double funding, this Court would have found the settlement plans unconstitutional er se because of racial isolation. Id. The District Court properly considered and quoted the plan language which explains the reason for double funding incentive schools: Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to insure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. ~ .... ... shall utilize the To meet that goal, the parties services of consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black implementing educational setting. a August 2, 1993 Order, p. 4, quoting Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. Joshua's argument that an incentive school must not be closed even when fewer than 100 students wish to enroll there and when the alternative is a new integrated school \"in the same ^Double funding of incentive schools is important because that funding compensates for racial isolation. That does not mean that racial isolation is a good thing which must be preserved at its present level. The purpose of the desegregation plan is to end racial isolation, not to perpetuate it in order that double funding will be continued. 43general neighborhood\" which II offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56-station computer lab. electronic-assisted instruction, and an automated media center,\" is not supported by the settlement desegregation plans or the law. August 2, 1993 Order, P- This Court has emphasized the 4. importance of double funding for the incentive schools (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1385 (1990)\nAppeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991)), but it has never found in the plans a requirement that each incentive school building must remain open regardless of the circumstances. Joshua next argues without any legal citation that LRSD is improperly \"attempting to avoid its double funding obligations\". Brief of Appellants, p. 51. This argument, which is merely a restatement of its previous argument. seems to be based on the false premise that King is a racially identifiable school\nThus, the Ish students have been placed in the unfair position of attending a racially-identifiable school, but have been and will be deprived of attendant benefits they were promised. Brief of Appellants, p. 53. Joshua provides no record support for the statement that the Ish students will attend II racially- a identifiable school\", and cannot do so because it is not true. is in Joshua's argument that no incentive school should be closed direct conflict with the Desegregation which requires incentive school and the transfer Plan terms of the Interdistrict interdistrict school. of the closing of Stephens its students to a new LRSD App., p. 332. 1982, p. 10. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 44The district court found that \"the parents of Ish Incentive School students . . elect[ed] to send them to King, new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general a neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order, p. 4 (emphasis supplied). Joshua's unsupported argument that the former Ish students are being deprived of incentive school \"benefits\" while being moved from one racially isolated setting to another is simply wrong. Joshua's next argument is that LRSD failed to recruit white students for Ish Incentive School. For this reason, Joshua argues. without citation of authority, the district court should not have \"reward[ed] the district for failing to meet its obligations by granting its motion to close Ish.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 54. The district court did express concern about LRSD's recruitment of white students to incentive schools, but it also had before it evidence of relative merits of King and Ish schools. LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker testified that a primary purpose of the LRSD desegregation plan is to eliminate racially- identifiable schools (LRSD App., p. 316) and that King is better located than Ish to attract white students. LRSD App., p. 314. Ms. Parker believes that students at King will receive as good an education as they would have received at Ish, and testified that LRSD is committed to see that that happens. LRSD App., p. 317. Mr. Doug Eaton, LRSD's Director of Plant Services, testified that If Joshua's argument is that the Ish students should remain in a racially-identifiable school so that they can receive benefits promised to students who attend such schools, that argument ignores the basic purpose of the plan, which is to reduce racial isolation. 45Ish is in a good state of repair and has not been neglected. LRSD App., pp. 318, 319. Finally, Billy Bowles, PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, testified that it is difficult to recruit white parents to incentive schools: There are perceptions about incentive schools, parents look at them as 85% to 90% black and Many and recruiting white parents, just to be perfectly honest with you. it's real difficult to those schools. It doesn't mean that we don't try to recruit them. But just like Little Rock whites, they've just chosen not to go. LRSD App., p. 278. The district court, although concerned about recruitment of whites to Ish, determined from this and other evidence that the future of Ish should be decided by giving \"the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order. Joshua's final argument is that the district court should have conducted further hearings with respect to LRSD's survey of potential Ish students. It was not necessary for the district court to do so. A two-day hearing preceded the district court's decision to approve the King attendance zone and to require LRSD to file with the court and serve upon the parties the process by which it would determine whether fewer than 100 students from among the groups selected by the district court wished to attend Ish. LRSD filed and served a detailed survey process. Even though the district court warned Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. ^^See. Note 5, supra. 46293-300.) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\" (June 11, 1993 Order, p. 3, Docket #1848), Joshua did not object to the survey process. Following the survey, LRSD filed a status report (LRSD App., p. 260) and a motion to close Ish School (LRSD App., p. 2 68). Joshua's only response was to file an \"opposition to status report\" on July 23, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 265) which was refiled on July 28, 1993 (Docket No. 1917) in response to the district court order requiring that responses to LRSD's motion to close Ish School be filed no later than July 28, 1993 (Docket No. 1916). Before the district court approved the closing of Ish School, Joshua raised only three issues with respect to the survey: (1) \"Although the Court may have approved the survey form and process, there was no effort made, on information and belief, to reach pre-school children which may or may not have included kindergarten children\"\n(2) \"The process was designed to fail\"\nand (3) LRSD and the district court should have assumed \"that an equal percentage of the students who did not return the forms would 1. e. , have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, 55.4%\" and therefore should have presumed that the actual number of students preferring Ish would be 145. Joshua Intervenor's Opposition to Status Report (LRSD App., 265) Docket No. 1915) also attached to Joshua's response to order (Docket No. 1917). Joshua now contends that it \"objected not only to the survey format, but also to the fairness of the manner in which it was carried out. and whether it was done correctly even under the survey guidelines proposed by LRSD.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 56- 57. Joshua also contends that it \"raised issues about the validity 47of the survey which came to light only after it was done.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 57. The district court fairly viewed Joshua's objections as untimely objections to the survey process. August 2, 1993 Order, p. 2. The court's bench ruling makes it clear that LRSD was required to survey then current LRSD students. not families who might potentially enroll their students in LRSD schools the following year. The court said, for example, that LRSD would be required to survey the group of students \"attending Ish who live inside the zone\" which was \"about 93 students\", and an additional 90 students \"who attend Ish who live outside the zone\". LRSD App., 287. These were the numbers of students actually attending LRSD for the 1992- 93 school year. LRSD App., pp. 308-309. The survey process filed by LRSD contains no plan to identify and to survey students other than those enrolled in the LRSD system for the 1992-1993 school year. Had Joshua considered this to be a flaw in the survey process, it could have filed a timely objection. This is not an issue of whether the survey \"was done correctly even under the survey guidelines proposed by LRSD\", or an issue \"which came to light only after [the survey] was done\". Brief of Appellants, p. 57. The next issue raised by Joshua after the survey was completed was that \"[t]he process was designed to fail\". This is. on its face. an objection to the process which could have been timely filed. 48Joshua's final objection to the survey, that LRSD should have been required to extrapolate the actual survey results and keep Ish open if the number derived from that extrapolation exceeded one hundred, is also an objection to the survey process which could have been timely filed. It was clear from the survey process filed by LRSD that LRSD would count only those students who affirmatively selected Ish School. In its form letter to parents of potential Ish students which was filed as a part of the survey process, LRSD said: If fewer than 100 students choose to attend Ish Incentive School, Ish will be closed and those students who reside in the present Ish attendance zone will be assigned to King Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 240. The district court gave Joshua an ample opportunity to object to the survey process and plenty of warning about the time frame for doing so. Even if the issues raised by Joshua had been timely filed. the court could have properly decided them without a hearing. The court could have concluded without a hearing that if fewer than one hundred of those students residing in the Ish attendance zone and those outside the zone attending Ish for the 1992-93 school year failed to declare an interest in attending Ish, that there was insufficient support for Ish to justify keeping it open, even assuming that a new class of kindergarten students would arrive and even assuming that those who failed to respond to the 49survey would choose Ish in the same proportion as those who did respond to the survey. Each finding made by the district court is supported by the record, and Joshua does not argue that the district court's findings ar unsubstantiated. The district court carefully applied the standard for modification of consent decrees set out by this court in Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (Sth Cir. 1991), and Joshua does not argue that the district court misapplied that standard or should have applied some other standard. In fact, Joshua makes no argument at all concerning the appropriate standard for modification of a consent decree. The district court's factual determinations are supported by the record and its legal conclusions are the result of careful application of the appropriate standard for modification of consent decrees. There was no abuse of discretion. CONCLUSION The district court's finding that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, is not clearly erroneous. The district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying LRSD's desegregation plan. The district court's orders on these issues should be affirmed. /// /// The form letter to parents made it clear that failure to respond to the survey was, in effect, a vote against Ish School. The parents were notified that Ish would be closed if fewer than 100 students chose to attend Ish. LRSD App., p. 240. 50Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District By: Christopher He er State Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I caused a copy of the foregoing Brief for Appellant Little Rock School District to be served on the following people by hand delivery on April 19, 1994, addressed as follows: 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 51Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher He 52 V rbcbivsd ^PR 2 2 1994 Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitofinfl U n DIG'irflCTCuU.\"T EASTERN D:GTniCTAr.\ni:\n:/s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA^i\n^ 2 Q WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCCSMAC:\n, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Ey.' I\u0026gt;ISINTIFF 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 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN Introduction This brief traces some of the history of the development of the present LRSD and Interdistrict desegregation plans in support of the argument that the parties intended, and now have in place. three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District. Some of the documents which were submitted by the parties to Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon do not appear on the docket. For the convenience of the Court and the parties. documents are referred to throughout this brief by their location in the Joint Designated Record which was used for the 1989 and 1990 appeals and subsequently by the district court. Those documents not contained in the Joint Designated Record are referenced by date and docket number.statement of the Case A. Desegregation Plans Aubrey McCutcheon filed his \"Interim Report and Recommendations of the Special Master\" on February 16, 1988. 4 J.D.R. 714. Special Master McCutcheon approved and recommended for immediate adoption certain \"Proposed Stipulations For Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan\" which had been agreed upon by the parties to this case. The Stipulations contained an interim plan as well as a planning process which was to result in a final plan to be submitted to the Special Master by September 30, 1988. The Little Rock School District submitted its proposed desegregation plan on October 3, 1988. 5 J.D.R. 1040. The October 3, 1988 Proposed LRSD Desegregation Plan contained the following language about Washington school: \"The new Washington will function as an interdistrict magnet school. A tri-district survey will be conducted in October 1988 to determine a theme. The Washington students who were temporarily reassigned for the 1988-89 school years will be assigned to the new Washington school. Washington's location is expected to be a major asset to its ability to attract white students. In particular, it is easily accessible to downtown office workers from both North Little Rock, Pulaski County and Southwest Little Rock. Also, Washington's proximity to 1-30 is expected to attract students who live outside of 2Pulaski County. The Little Rock School District is interested in opening the magnet and M-M programs to students who live outside of Pulaski County. 5 J.D.R. 1045-46. The October 1988 plan also recommended Stephens as an interdistrict magnet: \"The recommendations in this section are based on current demographics and geography which identify a need for new construction. It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary due west of and adjoining the Capitol Hill Complex. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades. The new Stephens will be similar to the new Washington in that it will have a capacity of six hundred students and serve as an interdistrict magnet. The magnet theme will be based on the results of the tri-district survey. In addition to being located on the 1-630 corridor, the new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel.\" 5 J.D.R. 1047-48 (emphasis supplied). The third interdistrict magnet school proposed in the October 1988 plan was King: \"The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area bounded by 1-630, Chester Street, Seventh Street and Center Street. In addition to being an interdistrict 3magnet, the big attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and child care facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock.\" 5 J.D.R. 1048. Working with the parties and the Special Master, LRSD prepared a long term desegregation plan. The plan was submitted in two parts on January 31, 1989. Volume I does not address student assignment issues. Volume II, which was modified slightly and resubmitted on March 23, 1989, describes \"student assignments\" and \"facilities\". An Interdistrict desegregation plan was submitted to the Special Master on February 15, 1989. The March 1989 LRSD plan lists Washington among the incentive schools (10 J.D.R. 2288) and provides the following description of Washington school (10 J.D.R. 2231-33): \"Washington school is closed for the 1988-89 school year. A new Washington school is being built at the same site with a projected capacity of 1,050 students. The students who were originally assigned to Washington for the 1988-89 school year have been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students (166) will have a preference to return to the new Washington in the 1989-90 school year.\" The March 1989 LRSD plan contains the following language about Stephens and King schools: 4\"It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 600 students. It serves as an Interdistrict school. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its Early Childhood Program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. 10 J.D.R. 3232. According to the March 1989 plan, the non-magnet enrollment in LRSD for the 1988-89 school year was 8,327 black students and 3,835 non-black students for a total of 12,162 students. The projected enrollment for the 1989-90 school year was 8,500 black students and 3,850 non-black students for a total of 12,350 students. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The March 1989 plan listed 22 elementary schools with a total capacity of 9,501 seats and a projected enrollment of 8,187 students. 10 J.D.R. 2227-28. The eight incentive schools. 5Including 1050 seats at Washington, would have a total capacity of 3800 seats. 10 J.D.R. 2228. Romine was to be established as an interdistrict school for the 1989-90 school year with a capacity of 490 seats, up to 49% of which would be allocated to PCSSD and at least 51% of which would be allocated to LRSD. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The February 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan lists Washington as an incentive school (8 J.D.R. 1722), proposes the conversion of Romine into an interdistrict school (8 J.D.R. 1731- 32), and requires LRSD to construct two new interdistrict schools. King and Stephens. Stephens is described as follows in the February 1989 Interdistrict Plan: \"LRSD will build new Stephens Elementary School a operating at grades pre-K through 6 to be located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. This school will be ready by the 1990-91 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this elementary center be constructed, owned, and operated by the LRSD and draw its black student body largely from the students then attending the old Stephens school and its white student population, to the extent feasible, from both dependents of state government employees and PCSSD students. This school will have an early childhood program. The old Stephens school building will then be closed.\" 8 J.D.R. 1732. The February 1989 Interdistrict Plan contains the following language about King school: bU]y\\Dewt-n.Bri 6\"LRSD will construct a new King Elementary School as a downtown Interdistrict School by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this facility be located in the general area bounded by Interdistrict 630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. These parties believe that this location would serve as a natural attractor for individuals who work within the governmental and business centers of Little Rock.\" 8 J.D.R. 1734. The 1989 LRSD and Interdistrict Plans were among the plans the Special Master recommended for rejection on May 10, 1989 (Docket #1182) . The district court accepted the Special Master's recommendation and rejected the 1989 desegregation plans on June 27, 1989 (Docket #1200). All three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors appealed from the June 27, 1989 order. Following the June 27, 1989 order of the district court. metropolitan supervisor Eugene Reville relocated to Little Rock and commenced the task of preparing new desegregation recommendations for the three districts. On January 2, 1990 Mr. Reville filed his proposal, the \"Tri-District Plan\", with the district court. Docket #1291. Under the Tri-District Plan, Washington became an interdistrict magnet school for basic skills/math/science which was described as follows: \"This school will open in 1990-91 for students who learn well in a highly-structured setting\nwho are motivated by btlqr\\OMe|*n.Bri 7academic, physical, and social competition\nand who are interested in math and science.\" 16 J.D.R. 4329. The Tri-District Plan contains the following language regarding assignments to Washington: \"Assignment to Washington will be open to students from the Pulaski County Special School District or the North Little Rock School District based on majority-to- minority provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (the \"School Choice\" law). Preference will be given to black students in the Little Rock School District who live in the attendance zone for Washington School and to white students in the Pulaski County Special School District. Next preference will be given to students who attend schools that are less than fifty-six percent black.\" 16 J.D.R. 4250. The Tri-District Plan does not require the construction of a new Stephens or King Interdistrict School. On March 5, 1990 (Docket #1328) the district court entered an order approving the Tri-District Plan as submitted on January 2, 1990 with only minor exceptions. Washington Elementary School was closed and rebuilt on the same site during the 1988-89 school year. The new Washington school opened for the 1989-90 school year as racially a identifiable elementary school with 519 students, ninety-eight percent of whom were black. During the pendency of the appeals of the district court's order rejecting the settlement plans and 8approving the Tri-District Plan, the Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 school year. Washington operated during the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Fifty-seven percent of Washington's 762 students were black. One hundred thirty-two white students from outside LRSD attended Washington Interdistrict Magnet School during the 1990-91 school year. The desegregation plans presented to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the joint appeal of the three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors required only three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District - King, Romine and Stephens. On December 12, 1990, the Court of Appeals approved those desegregation plans but recognized that a transition from the Tri- District Plan to the settlement plans would be necessary: 'It may be necessary, in order to make smooth a transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. Absent such agreement, the district court is authorized to take such action as may be just.\" LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). Since certain existing schools, including Washington, were assigned different purposes under the Tri-District Plan than under the settlement plans, it became necessary for the parties to immediately resolve kMhyXDnec-n.Bri 9those differences. The parties reached the following agreement concerning Washington School: \"Washington School was a racially identifiable black school during the 1989-90 school year. Washington opened for the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced (57% black) magnet school. Washington should continue to operate as a magnet school. This agreement is recorded in a stipulation and consent order signed by all the parties and entered by the district court on February 13, 1991 (Docket #1434). On May 1, 1991, the parties jointly proposed certain revisions to their 1989 desegregation plans. Washington was removed from the list of incentive schools in the May 1, 1991 LRSD plan. 22 J.D.R. 5723, 5726, 5729. Although Washington is not listed as an interdistrict school in the May 1, 1991 interdistrict plan (see 22 J.D.R. 5864-70), the May 1991 LRSD plan describes the goals of the Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet and explains how students will be assigned there: \"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be 60 percent black and 40 percent white.\" 22 J.D.R. 5698. k\u0026gt;tlv\\DHet-n.Bri 10This court's final ruling on the May 1, 1991 desegregation plans was filed on May 1, 1992, approving \"the revised plans as attached to\" the May 1, 1992 order. Those are the plans under which the districts presently operate. The LRSD plan contains the following language concerning assignments to Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet: \"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be consistent with the Interdistrict Plan, seeking to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal to be 50 percent black/white.\" LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 144. The difference between the racial composition proposed by the parties in the May 1, 1991 plan (60% black and 40% white) and the racial balance contained in the plan as approved by the district court dated April 29, 1992 (between 60% and 40% of either race with the ideal goal to be 50% black/white) is significant. The racial balance prescribed for Washington by this Court is the racial balance for interdistrict schools found in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and described in this Court's May 1, 1992 Order: \"Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance for the various types of LRSD schools: Interdistrict schools at 50 percent black/white with variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race ... a H kBth|y\\DMe(*n.Bri 11May 1, 1992 Order (Docket #1587), pp. 27-28. This Court would not have assigned to Washington the racial balance requirements of interdistrict schools if Washington were not, in fact, operating as an interdistrict school. The decision that Washington should be governed by the racial balance requirements for interdistrict schools set forth in the Interdistrict Plan reflects this Court's recognition of Washington as an interdistrist school. The 1989 desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals require the operation of three Interdistrict schools within LRSD - Romine, King and Stephens. 8 10 J.D.R. 2229- 32\nJ.D.R. 1721, 1731-34. LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools - Romine, King and Washington. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans should be amended to reflect the fact that LRSD presently operates the number of interdistrict schools contemplated by the plans agreed upon by the parties in 1989 and approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. In its order with respect to the modifications proposed by the parties in the May 1991 plans, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said: \"It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable ... tl Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). In accordance with the 1989 plans approved by the Court of 12Appeals in December 1990 and the order quoted above, LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools. B. Demographics According to the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans as those plans were approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990, LRSD was to establish three interdistrict schools, two of which would be located in central Little Rock in the general area along 1-630 between University Avenue and 1-30. One school was to be established \"near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" 10 J.D.R. 3232. The other was supposed to be \"located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" 10 J.D.R. 3232. Since those plans were written, both King and Washington schools have been established as interdistrict schools within the area described in the plans. Also since those plans were written, 1990 census information has revealed a dramatic shift of population away from the area in which the interdistrict schools were to be located. This decline in population in the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools is illustrated by undisputed evidence which was presented to the district court concerning the issue of revised election zones for the LRSD board. When the initial LRSD board member election zones were approved by Judge Woods on December 18, 1986 (Docket # 719), zones one and two had total populations of 25,399 and 25,295 respectively. Zones one and two cover most of central and east Little Rock, which is the 13primary area in which LRSD interdistrict schools were to be located. According to the 1990 census information, the population of zone one is 20,901, which is 4,498 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 population of zone two was 20,415, which is 4,880 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 census shows an eighteen percent decline of the number of people in zone one and a nineteen percent decline of the number of people in zone two. The movement of population away from east and central Little Rock is further shown in the testimony of Jim McKenzie about the election zone issue. Mr. McKenzie is the executive director of Metroplan, governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area. Mr. McKenzie testified that his organization tracks demographic changes in Little Rock and that there was a material demographic change from the 1980 census to the 1990 census. April 13, 1993, Tr. 62-63. Although the population in eastern Little Rock a declined each year since 1980 (Tr. 67), most of the movement out of that area occurred between 1985 and 1990. Tr. 62-63. Mr. McKenzie testified that the \"center city\" will continue to lose population. Tr. 100-01. Mr. McKenzie prepared four proposals to adjust the LRSD election zones so that they would contain relatively equal populations. He testified that his proposal number four \"looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals.\" See Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 21, taukorVDeaet-n.Bri 141993 (Docket #1853), p. 5. According to Mr. McKenzie's description of proposal number four, \"the areas of the City of Little Rock that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have a positive variance. Id. In proposal number four, which was presented to the court in PCBE Exhibit 1, the only two zones which show a positive variance from the mean, indicating a projected loss of population, are zones one and two. See Tr. 101-02. The movement of population away from the area targeted for the establishment of interdistrict schools within LRSD is also shown in information provided to the parties by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A document titled \"Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended\" shows a total population of the incentive school attendance zones (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens) of 1,946 for the 1993-94 school year. The incentive school attendance zones generally correspond with the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools. In fact, the interdistrict schools were expected to draw their black student population from among \"those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an Incentive School\". 8 J.D.R. 1722. The present number of students in the incentive school zones (1,946) is dramatically lower than the capacity established for the incentive schools in the 1989 desegregation plans of 3800 students. 10 J.D.R. 2228. The parties projected in the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan that if 3600 LRSD black students attended kMlvMiMH-Pl.Bri 15incentive and interdistrict schools, the racial composition of the area schools would be 56% black. 10 J.D.R. 2231. According to the 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, the incentive schools alone should be \"sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary academies) [now area schools] of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%.\" 8 J.D.R. 1721. That means that in 1989 the parties expected that more than 3600 black students would attend the incentive schools from the incentive school zones, but today only 1,946 students reside in the incentive school zones. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring prepared and distributed to the parties in February 1994 a study of \"Enrollment In Downtown Elementary Schools\". That study defines downtown elementary schools as those located \"east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham.\" This is generally the area targeted for the location of LRSD interdistrict schools. This study shows that the incentive schools have a capacity of 2,305 students but that the October 1, 1993 enrollment was only 1,454 students. There are 1,429 available seats in downtown elementary schools. Those schools operate at only seventy-six percent of capacity. The February 1994 ODM study also shows that the two existing downtown interdistrict schools. King and Washington, are operating at 80% and 77% of capacity, respectively. There are 139 available seats at King and 218 available seats at Washington. King kitkor\\DBW(\u0026gt;n.Bri 16Interdistrict School has attracted 200 white students from outside the downtown area and Washington Interdistrict Magnet School has attracted 249 white students from outside the downtown area. Finally, both the Pulaski County Special School District, which was to be the primary source of white students for the interdistrict schools (8 J.D.R. 1721), and the Little Rock School District have experienced an unexpected overall decline in student population. The number of students attending PCSSD declined from 21,633 for the 1992-93 school year to 20,426 for the 1993-94 school year according to the October 1 enrollment count, a loss of 1,207 students. The number of students attending LRSD declined from 26,212 for the 1992-93 school year to 25,594 for the 1993-94 school year, a loss of 618 students. Both districts expect to lose more students for the 1994-95 school year. C. Plan Modification Process The PCSSD plan contains a desegregation plan amendment process (pp. 104-05) which this Court has found should be implied in the LRSD and NLRSD plans (Memorandum and Order, June 21, 1991, p. 17, Docket #1479). This Court has described the plan modification process as follows: \"Proposed amendments may arise in multiple ways. including by agreement or consultation with the other parties. Any proposal is first submitted to the PCSSD Office of Desegregation (Office) for initial review and analysis. The Office will make a recommendation to the kMtay\\Dnet*n.Bri 17superintendent who will in turn make the final recommendation to the Board. If the Board approves, the matter will be submitted to the Court, and formally submitted to the other parties to the litigation. If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended. Note that bv the Plans own terms, agreement of all parties is not required for amendment.\" 1^. (emphasis in original). LRSD has followed the desegregation plan amendment process with respect to its proposal to recognize Washington as an interdistrict school in place of Stephens. The proposal was first reviewed by the LRSD Desegregation Office as well as other administrators and the superintendent. Following that review. LRSD informally submitted the proposal to the other parties on November 12, 1993. LRSD proposed: \"That we seek to amend the desegregation plan to acknowledge the fact that both Washington and King have been established as interdistrict schools and that the establishment of two such schools within LRSD satisfies the Eighth Circuit's requirement that LRSD operate 'the agreed number of interdistrict schools'. PCSSD would be expected to 'engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts' to recruit students to Washington, but would be relieved of the expectation that the white student population of Washington would come primarily from PCSSD. White LRSD students presently attending Washington would be allowed to remain and LRSD would lathy \\DBMg-Pl.Bri 18continue to recruit white students for Washington in the future.  Letter to Counsel, November 12, 1993. LRSD further proposed: \"That we delay the construction of a school at the present Stephens site so that LRSD may complete its demographic study to determine how best to meet the requirements of its student population and the desegregation plans. If LRSD determines to build a new school at the Stephens School Site, the new school will be an incentive school and the parties will s\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":372,"next_page":373,"prev_page":371,"total_pages":3369,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4452,"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}}]}}