{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_333","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 21-22","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":["1997/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 21-22"],"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/333"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nSummary of Assessment/Evaluation Activities Little Rock School District Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Docunients English Language Arts Primary Grades (K-2) Teacher-made tests\nGraded Papers Student grades\nGrade Reports Student Report Cards Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessmentfall and spring annually, 2000 and 2001, grades K-2\nTitle I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation for 1999- 2000 (Executive Summary and Draft Copy from PRE) Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, and Highlights. June 2001 (Report to Board of Education from Division of Instruction) DRA Report to Campus Leadership Team Institute, Summer 2000 DRA Reports to Schools and District-Level Staff Achievement Level Test language and reading, spring only, 2000 and 2001, grade 2 ALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Office of Gifted/Talented Education, and Board of Education English Language Arts Intermediate Grades (3-5) Teacher-made tests\nGraded Papers Student grades\nGrade Reports Student Report Cards Achievement Level Test language and reading, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 3-5\nALT reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education 1Academic Program Annual Assessments Criterion-Referenced Tests 2000-01, grades 3-5\nReports/Dociiineiits | CRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, and District-Level Staff Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examinationspring 1999, spring 2000, and spring 2001, grade 4\nGrade 4 Literacy Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education Success for AllBrady, Baseline, Charter, Cloverdale, Fair Park, Meadowcliff, Romine, and Woodruff SAT9 reading and languagi annual, grade 5. SFA Site Visits SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education________________ SFA Site Visit Reports to SFA Teacher Leader, Principals, Director of Early Literacy, other District-Level Staff Eight-Week Assessments Eight-Week Assessment Reports to Principal, SFA Facilitator, SFA Teacher Leader, University of Memphis English Language Arts Middle School (6-8) Program Evaluation conducted by University of Memphis, 1999____________________ Teacher-made tests\nReport to Director of Federal Programs, other District-Level Staff, and SFA principals Graded Papers Student grades\nTeachers Grade Reports Student Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports by Teacher, Course, School Achievement Level Test language and reading, spring 2000, fall 2000, and spring 2001, grades 6-8\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education 2Academic Program Aiiiiiinl Assessments Reports/Dociimeiits Criterion-Referenced Tests 2000-01, grades 6-8\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, and District-Level Staff Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark piloted in spring 2001\nGrade 8 Literacy Benchmark piloted in spring 2000\nSAT9 reading and language annual, grade 7\nGrade 6 Literacy Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/ Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Reports to Schools, Student/ Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education English Language ArtsHigh School(9-12) EXPLORE English and reading, annually, grade 8. Teacher-made tests\nEXPLORE Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors Graded Papers Semester examinations\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports by School, Teacher, Course Achievement Level Tests reading and language, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001\ngrades 9-11\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education End-of-Level Literacy Exam to be piloted in spring 2002\nLiteracy Examination Report to School, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education SAT9 reading and languagi annual, grade 10\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education 3Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Dociiiiieiits PLAN English and reading\npractice test for ACT\ngrade 10\nPLAN Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors PSAT Verbaloptional practice test for SAT\nscreening test for National Merit program\ngrade 11\nPSAT Reports to Schools, Students/Parents ACT English and reading optional test for college admissions, grades 11-12\nACT Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, and District-Level Staff SAT Verbaloptional test for college admissions, grades 11- 12\nSAT Verbal Reports to Schools, Students/Parents ASVABaptitude test for military recruitment, grade 11\nASVAB Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors Advanced Placement English Language and Composition- optional test for college credit, grades 11-12\nAdvanced Placement English Literature and Composition optional test for college credit, grade 12. College Remediation Reports prepared by Arkansas Department of Higher Education AP English Language and Composition Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, and District-Level Staff AP English Literature and Composition Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, and District-Level Staff Reports sent to Superintendent, high school principals, other District-level staff and are used in Building-Level Report Cards 4Academic Program Annual Assessments MathematicsPrimary Grades (K-2) Teacher-made tests\nReports/Dociiineiits Graded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards MathematicsIntermediate Grades (3-5) Achievement Level Test- mathematics, spring 2000 and spring 2001, grade 2. Teacher-made tests\nStudent grades\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education______ Graded Papers Teacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Criterion-Referenced End-of- Unit Tests, grades 3-5\nGrade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination, spring 1999, spring 2000, and spring 2001, grade 4 Achievement Level Test mathematics, spring 2000, fall 2000, and spring 2001, grades 3-5\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, District-Level Staff, and NSF Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Superintendent, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF ALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 mathematicsannual, grade 5. SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF 5Academic Program Annual Assessments MathematicsMiddle School (6-8) Teacher-made tests\nReports/Dociiiiieiits Graded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Criterion-Referenced End-of- Module Tests, grades 6-8\nAchievement Level Test mathematics, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 6-8\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, District-Level Staff, and NSF ALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 mathematicsannual, grade 7\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmarkpiloted spring 2001, grade 6\nGrade 8 Mathematics Benchmarkpiloted spring 2000, grade 8\nEXPLORE mathematics annually, grade 8. Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF EXPLORE Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors, and NSF 6Academic Program Annual Assessments MathematicsHigh School (9- 12) Teacher-made tests\nReports/Dociinients Graded Papers Semester Examinations\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Achievement Level Test mathematicsspring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 9-11\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 mathematicsannual, grade 10\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF PLAN mathematicspractice test for ACT, annually, grade 10\nPLAN Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors PSAT mathematicsoptional practice test for SAT and screening test for National Merit program, annually, grade 11\nPSAT Reports to Schools, Students/Parents SAT Mathematicsoptional test for college admissions, grades 11-12\nSAT Results to Schools, Students/Parents ACT Mathematicsoptional test for college admissions, grades 11-12\nACT Results to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff ASVABaptitude test for military recruitment, grade 11\nACT Results to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors Advanced Placement Statistics optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Statistics Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff 7Academic Program Annual Assessments Advanced Placement Calculus ABoptional test for college credit, grades 11-12\nRepoi'ts/Documents AP Calculus AB Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Advanced Placement Calculus BCoptional test for college credit, grade 12. AP Calculus BC Reports to Schools, Student/Parents, District-Level Staff College Remediation Reports prepared by Arkansas Department of Higher Education Reports sent to Superintendent, high school principals, other District-level staff and are used in Building-Level Report Cards After-School Science Clubs with Museum of Discovery Grades 2-11 participation Reports to Systemic Research, to CPMSA Director, other District-Level Staff, and NSf 8Academic Program SMARTAlgebra I Readiness Summer Program National Science Foundation Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) Annual Assessments Evaluation of participation, attendance, and performance measures\nthen success in Algebra I Annual Evaluation Reports\nReports/Documeiits I Reports to CPMSA Director, other District-Level Staff, Schools, Board of Education, and NSF__________________ NSF Evaluation Report to NSF Steering Committee, District- Level Staff, Principals, Board of Education, and NSF Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements Reports, 1999, and 2000\nTabulated Indicators for Systemic Changes (TISC) Qualitative Report, 1997-2001 Core Data Element Reports to NSF Project Director, other District-Level Staff, Westat Research, and NSF Report submitted to Systemic Research\ndistributed to NSF Project Director, other District- Level Staff, and NSF Tabulated Indicators for Systemic Changes (TISC) Quantitative Report, 1997-2001 Report submitted to Systemic Research\ndistributed to NSF Project Director, other District- Level Staff, and NSF Site Visits\nSite Visit Reports to Superintendent, other District- Level Staff, and NSF Steering Committee Reverse Site Visits. Science^Primary Grades (K-2) Teacher-made tests\nReverse Site Visit Report to Superintendent, other District- Level Staff, and NSF Steering Committee_______________ Graded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards 9Academic Program Aniiiinl Assessments Reports/Docuiiieiits Scienci (3-5) Intermediate Grades Teacher-made tests\nStudent grades\nScience Fairs\nGraded Papers Teacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Criterion-Referenced End-of- Unit Tests, 2000-01, grades 3- 5\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, District-Level Staff, and NSF Achievement Level Test sciencespring 2000 and spring 2001, grades 3-5\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 science, annual, grade 5. SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF 10Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Docunients ScienceMiddle School (6-8) Teacher-made tests\nGraded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Science Fairs\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Criterion-Referenced End-of- Unit Tests, 2000-01, grades 6- 8\nAchievement Level Test science, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 6-8\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, District-Level Staff, and NSF ALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 Scienceannual, grade 7\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF ScienceHigh School (9-12) EXPLORE Science Reasoning, annually, grade 8\nTeacher-made tests\nEXPLORE Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors, and NSF_________________ Graded Papers Semester Examinations\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Science Fairs\nParticipation Reports and List of Winners Achievement Level Test science, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 9-11\nPLAN Science Reasoning practice test for ACT, annually, grade 10\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF PLAN Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors, and NSF 11Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Docunients SAT9 science, annual, grade 10\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF ACT Science Reasoning optional test for college admission, grades 11-12\nACT Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and NSF Advanced Placement Biologyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Biology Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and NSF Advanced Placement Environmental Science, optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Environmental Science Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and NSF Advanced Placement Chemistry, optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Chemistry Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and NSF Social StudiesPrimary Grades (K-2) Advanced Placement Physics, optional test for college credit, grades 10-12._____________ Teacher-made tests\nAP Physics Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and NSF Graded Papers Student grades. Teacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Social StudiesIntermediate Grades (3-5) Teacher-made tests\nStudent grades\nGrade Distribution Reports 16112)________________ Graded Papers Teacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards SAT9 Social Studies, annual, grade 5. SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education 12Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Pociinients Social Studies^Middle School (6-8) Teacher-made tests\nGraded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Social StudiesHigh School (9-12) SAT9 Social Studiesannual, grade 7. Teacher-made tests\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education Graded Papers Semester Examinations\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports SAT9 Social Studiesannual, grade 10. SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education Civics and United States Historyto be piloted in spring 2002, grade 9 Advanced Placement United States Historyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAdvanced Placement Psychologyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAdvanced Placement European Historyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nCRT in Civics and United States History Reports to be provided to Schools, Teachers, and District-Level Staff AP United States History Reports to Schools, Students/ Parents, District-Level Staff AP Psychology Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff AP European History Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff 13Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Dociiineiits Advanced Placement Economicsoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Economics Reports to Schools, Students Barents, District-Level Staff Advanced Placement Government and Politics optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Government and Politics Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff Advanced Placement Human Geographyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12. AP Human Geography Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Foreign Language (K-12) Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nGraded Papers Semester Examinations (9-12)\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports (6- 12) Advanced Placement Latin optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Latin Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff Advanced Placement Spanishoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Spanish Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Advanced Placement French optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP French Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff Advanced Placement Germanoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12. AP German Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff 14Academic Program Annual Assessments Music (PreK-12) Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nReports/Docunients | Graded Papers Semester Examinations (9-12)\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards I Grade Distribution Reports (6- 12) Student performances\nContest ratings Advanced Placement Music Theoryoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Music Theory Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Art (PreK-12) Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nGraded Papers Semester Examinations (9-12)\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports (6- 12) Student performances\nContest winners Advanced Placement Art Historyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Art History Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Physical Education (PreK-12) Advanced Placement Studio Artoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12._______ Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nAP Studio Art Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Graded Papers Semester Examinations (9-12)\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports (6- J2) 15Academic Program Annual Assessments Career and Technical Education (PreK-12) Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nSemester Examinations (9-12)\nReports/Documeiits Graded Papers Teacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports (6- 12) ASVABaptitude test for military recruitment, grade 11 Student Competition (i.e., VICA) ASVAB Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors Contest Winners 16i ! i Other Programs Assessments Reports/Dociimeiits I School Effectiveness Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning (ECOE/ACSIP)\nECOE/AC SIP (accreditation) Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff Annual Monitoring for State Accreditation Standards, conducted by ADE Reports sent to Superintendent from Arkansas Department of Education Middle School Self Study Foundation for the MidSouth\nMiddle School Self-Study Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams Middle School Student and Teacher Survey, Spring 2000 Report included in Middle School Transition Program Evaluation Student, Parent, and Teacher SurveysSchool Climate\nClimate Survey Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, District-Level Staff I 1 I Processes used to analyze data by Campus Leadership Teams in writing the School Improvement Plan (see Guidelines for School Improvement Planning)\nEvaluations required in Waiver Applications\nSchool Improvement Plans to Campus Leadership Teams, Teachers, District-Level Staff, ACSIP Teams, Title I Waiver Evaluation Reports to Campus Leadership Teams and District-Level Staff Magnet School Evaluation (grant-funded schools)\nMagnet School Evaluation Reports to Teachers, Campus Leadership Team, District- Level Staff, MRC, US Department of Education 17 )Other Programs Assessments Reports/Dociimeiits Magnet School Evaluation planned by MRC Magnet School Evaluation in progress by MRC\nReports to Magnet School Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff Formative and Summative Evaluations of School Improvement Plans (as per Guidelines for School Improvement Planning) Information derived from these discussions/processes are used in planning the next years School Improvement Plan by the Campus Leadership team LRSD Quality Index (see pp. 59-65 of Interim Report) Reports on these data to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, Cabinet Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability (ACTAAP) Indicators Reports on ACTAAP indicators to ADE, Board of Education, schools, and District-Level staff Arkansas Building-Level Report Cards Arkansas Building-Level Report Cards on ADE web page and mailed to every parent District Effectiveness MGT Management/Finance Study, 1999 MGT Report to Alliance for Public Schools, Board of Education, District-Level Staff Quarterly Data Reports (4* Q 1999-2000,1st Q 2000-01, 2\"* Q 2000-01, 3^** Q 2000-01, 4* Q 2000-01) Q Reports to Cabinet on quarterly basis LRSD Assessment Notebook, Aug. 2000 and annual\nReport to Cabinet, other designated District-Level staff, principals. Campus Leadership Teams 18Other Programs Assessments Repoi'ts/Docuinents _____ Arkansas Quality Award (AQA)included measurements of Customer Focused Results, Financial and Market Results, Human Resources Results, Supplier and Partner Results, and Organizational Effectiveness Results AQA Application and Feedback from Site Visit Reports to Superintendent, District-Level Staff, Principals, and Board of Education Student, Parent, and Teacher SurveysSchool Climate Climate Survey Reports to District-Level Staff and Board of Education District Annual Financial Audit Report presented to Chief Financial Officer, Financial Manager, Superintendent, and Board of Education October 1 Report to Arkansas Department of Education Report submitted annually to ADE\ncopies to District staff and schools Quarterly ReportsRecords of Certifications to Arkansas Department of Education Report submitted quarterly to ADE\ncopies to District staff Annual Reports to EEOC Records of Employees by Race/Gender Report submitted to EEOC annually\ncopy to District staff ODM Report on LRSDs Preparations for Implementation of Its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Aug. 11, 1999 ODM Report provide to Superintendent and other District-Level Staff. ODM Report on Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the LRSD, Oct. 26, 1999 ODM Report provided to Superintendent and otoher District-Level Staff. 19Other Programs Assessments Curriculum Handbooks, Catalogs, and Refrigerator Curriculum____________ Curriculum Alignment ODM evaluation of curriculum documents, spring 2000 Curriculum Mapping Early Childhood HIPPY 21^ Century Learning Communities Safe Schools/ Healthy Students Title I Programs Title VI Programs Class-Size Reduction Programs Reports/Docunients | Report sent to Associate Supt. for Instruction and shared with curriculum directors________ Curriculum Alignment Documents at District-Level Monitoring Reports by the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education Reports to ADE on ABC Grant Implementation PRE Study, 1999\nSite Visit Report, 2001 Evaluation Report, Annual Evaluation Reportssemiannual Site Visits and Audit Reports Site Visits and Audit Reports Site Visits and Audit Reports\nAnnual Report to ADE. School-Level Maps_________ Reports to Schools, Director of Early Childhood, and Superintendent Reports to Associate Superintendent, Division of Instruction and ADE______ HIPPY Report to HIPPY Supervisor, Director of Early Childhood, other District- Level Staff Site Visit Report to HIPPY Supervisor and Director of Early Childhood Evaluation Report to District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and US Department of Education______________ Evaluation Report to District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and US Department of Education Site Visit and Audit Reports to Superintendent, Federal Programs Director, and other District-Level Staff_________ Site Visit and Audit Reports to Superintendent, Federal Programs Director, and other District-Level Staff_________ Site Visit and Audit Reports to Superintendent, Federal Programs Director, other District-Level Staff, and ADE 20Other Pi ograiiis Assessments Reports/Dociimeiits Eisenhower Programs Evaluation Reports to ADE English as a Second Language Special Education ViPS Extended-Year Education (EYE) Home Language Survey to identify homes where another language other than English is spoken Language Assessment Scale to identify level of English- language proficiency Quarterly Reports on LEP enrollment\nAnnual Report to ADE\nAnnual Evaluation Report to Office of Civil Rights, Dallas State Audit Reports\nFederal Audit Reports. Volunteer Hours Report Reports on Partners in Education Spring 2001 Evaluation Report (in draft) Site Visit and Audit Reports to Superintendent, Federal Programs Director, other District-Level Staff, and ADE Survey filed in student permanent record and sent to ESL Supervisor Report to Language Proficiency Assessment Committee, parent, and ESL Supervisor Quarterly reports to ESL Supervisor and Associate Superintendent for Instruction Report to Associate Superintendent for Instruction, other District-Level Staff, and Principals Annual Evaluation Report to OCR, Board of Education, District-level Staff, and Principals State and Federal Audit Reports to Superintendent and Director of Exceptional Children_________________ Report to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, Cabinet, other District-Level Staff, ViPS Board, and Board of Education________________ Evaluation Report to EYE Principals and Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education 21Other Programs Assessments Charter School (at Badgett) Pre-Advanced Placement Courses Advanced Placement Courses Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) Scholarships Budget Parent Involvement Spring 2001 Evaluation Report (in progress) Reports on Enrollment by School, Course, and Race Grade Distribution Reports by School, Teacher, and Race Reports on Enrollment by School, Course, and Race Grade Distribution Reports by School, Teacher, and Race Reports on AP Examination Participation Reports on AP Examination Performance Reports on numbers/percents of students by race who graduate with the Honors Seal Reports on enrollment Reports on graduates Reports on District dropout rates by school and race Reports on amounts of scholarships by school Monthly reports on budget revenue and expenditures Volunteer Hours by School Records of Workshops, Meetings, etc. Program Evaluation design to be completed in 2001-02 Reports/Dociiiiieiits Charter School Evaluation Report to Director of Charter School, Campus Leadership Team, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and ADE Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff, NSF Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff, NSF ACC Reports to Superintendent Dropout Reports to Schools, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education______________ Scholarship Reports to Cabinet Budget Reports to Cabinet and Board of Education_________ Reports to Parent Coordinators, ViPS Board, Board of Education, principals, and other District-Level Staff 22Other Programs Assessments Reports/Docunients Summer School Magnet Programs Ombudsman Partnerships Professional Development Summer School Evaluation Report from PRE, Summer 2000 (in progress) MRC has evaluation design in progress Magnet Schools funded through federal grant have an evaluation design. Records of complaints and categories of complaints Donations to District, programs, and schools Records of attendance during calendar days Report will be distributed to Cabinet, other District-level Staff, principals Magnet School evaluation to MRC, Board of Education, District-Level Staff, and principals of magnet schools Reports to US Department of Education, Board of Education, District-Level Staff, and magnet schools Reports to Associate Superintendent and others upon request_____________ Monthly and annual reports to Board of Education, Schools, and District-Level Staff Reports to Schools, District- Level Staff, and ADE Records of attendance during after-school, week-end, and/or summer sessions Reports to Schools, District- Level Staff Teacher evaluations of professional development sessions Reports to Curriculum Directors PathWise Mentoring Program Correlations of teacher participation in professional development and student achievementmathematics, science, and English language arts Participants completed evaluation/survey forms for Domain A, B, C, and D Reports to Curriculum Directors, Principals, Board of Education, and NSF Survey results were submitted to Arkansas Department of Education and University of Central Arkansas from mentors and novice teachersfive times per year, 23Other Programs Assessments Reiioi'ts/Docuiiients Learning to Cope with Differences Each participant developed a self-improvement plan. Self-improvement plan shared orally with the whole group\nsubmitted in writing to Leon Modeste Participant evaluations submitted at the end of each session. Participant evaluations submitted to Terrence Roberts and Leon Modeste at end of each session Each group met monthly for six months to provide updates and reflection on implementation of self-improvement plans. Summary report of training submitted each six months by Leon Modeste to Bonnie Lesley Marco Polo Technology Workshop Evaluations of training are submitted electronically after each training session. Professional Media Center Inventories of books, tapes, videos, magazines memberhsips, etc. for teacher check-out are maintained. Summary of the classes was submitted electronically and the impact of the use with mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts in order to assist the teachers in the classroom.____________ Reports are used in reports on federal programs to Arkansas Department of Education. 24i  Quarterly Status Repof 5chof' M 1*, i\u0026gt;\u0026gt; I Services  3r(j 1i^ei{iiai/iq, Jiprif i^SS \u0026gt; I I \u0026lt;9 ) * ^w .^.f f ii Ik 7a mH\n,/f^ ?.. * i w XVl v\u0026lt; 9 9 / l Cw^ iw 1% u Sii^ \u0026lt;3^ s* *?a\nw A 4  ^ j5*  ^^Sbii* ?41 ^j g iirfeTABLE OF CONTENTS Pre-AP and/or AP Course Enrollment John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Grades\"C\" or Better John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or Course Drops John Ruffins Absent Teachers Without Subs Richard Hurley Teacher Absences Richard Hurley John Ruffins Drop-Out Data tvl b'S. ~ Everett Hawks John Ruffins - Disciplinary Data Linda Watson \" John Ruffins t Assessment Data - Kathy Lease Grade Distribution John Ruffins'' Academic High Risk Everett Hawks John Ruffins Average Daily Attendance (ADA) John Ruffins Volunteer Hours Debbie Milam  School Climate Survey Annual K-8 Retention Rate Kathy Lease John RuffinsStuder's Enrolled in at Least One AP, Pk^-AP Course for 1999-2000 by Scho^lst Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 ___________________SdiiioL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Grade ! Total Gender I Black i 09 525 F 52 10 505 I ICLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHO^OL L^'Lii 499 _ Q12ZZ_473 ZO06 - J 264 L_ j)7__ J 1231 [ 08 J .228 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC j 06 233 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL . L_ .O7 ._J 238 (ZZZOSZJ 2?2Z T 09 ~T~262 ~ r 10 I 264 M__ F__ M_ F M_ F \"m F M__ F__ M__ F__ M F__ M_ F _ M J__ M __ M _ F _ M _ t I 11__i 222 ,___F L__ .12 186 FORESrHEIGHTSj^lDDLE SCHOOL I 06 s 244 r 07 T 245 08 257 HALL HIGH SCHOOL_____ LPSD Information Senice Dept. .J.. 09 . J 413 1 M F M F M . M F M F 30 64 32_ 48_ 17_ 67 _29_ 45 32 44 30 30 22 19 21 _ 28\" _ 26 40 42 22 17_ 30 23 38_ 15 34 28 21 27 43 21 I %Black j White % White Other i %Other\n10% i 86 16% 5 1%___\n6% 13% 6% 4. i 71 87 71 i i 10%____101_ 14% __Q% 17% 12% 19% 13% 13% 10% 8% 9% 12% 11% 16% 17% 8% 6% _ 11% 9% _17% 7% 18% 15% 15% 11% 18% 9% 75 71 53 2 1 6 1 1 1 15 16 28 42 35 35 10 8 5 11 8 i. 14% 17% 14% 20% 15% 15% 11% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% i 6% 7% I i I _9____ .52___ L_.. 20%. .. 4------ ___i___ 45 39 I 1 18% _9%. 4 6 31 28 29 21 31 33 21 12% 18% 14% 14% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 13% 11% 12% 11% 12% 13% 5% i I i i I j i 14 6 3 4 4 4 4 2 0 3 0 2 0 5 3 9 6 11 5 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 6 1 4 4- t t t + 1 I 1 I I 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 3% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% I I I I -I 0%___ 0%___I 1% 0% ' 1% i 2/a 3% 1% ! Page I of 3 i_____________SdinfiL HALL HIGH SCHOOL______ I Grade Total 9nder ff/ack i %Black White %White i Ot, ' r HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL J. MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL____ MANN ARTS/SCIENCES_MAGNET  MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL fPARkyiWARTS/SCIEIlCEMAGNET LRSD Information Service Dept. 09 10 11 12 06 07 413 389 272 221 180 189 IZ08 X_i83 . X 06 ! 168 [ 07 XlH ! 08 X 148 I 06 266 T 07__L__281 I 08XL L276_ 309 + i I  I I___ 10 L 356 ------ L._.ii_.. LJ2'1 L09 216 220 1\n291 r 10 X 289 I 11 12 I 287 T_265 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F_ M F M F_ M F M F M F_ M E M F M F M E M F M E M F M F I 25 41 17 20 11 28 17 34 37 I r ...I- I 6% 11% 4% 7% 4% 13% 8% 19% 21% J. i 36__._L_. 19% 30 30 21 26 14 '26 18 32 16 43 24 35 51 36 41 25 48 30 45 30 39 21 63 i2 59 ^1 56 35 38 16% 16% 11% 15% _ 8% __ 17% 12% 22% 11% 16% 9% 17% 12% 18% _ 13% 13% 8% 13% 8% 21% 14% 1 i. 1P%_ _ 22X 14% _20%_ 16% 20% 12% _14% 14 23 18 15 6 19 7 7 9 19 13 11 7 15 13 7 _9_ 5 4 44 48 70 42 65 45 2 4 10 1 10 1 12 J 53 54 I ( 3% 6% 5% 6% 2% 9% 3% 4% 5% 10% 7% 6% 4% 9% 8% 5% 6% 3% 3% 17% 18% 2^% 15% 24% T i + I I I i f 1 i 16%- ! _.63___ 43 61 37 57 1% 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% _ _5% 3% 18% _19% _ 22% 15% 21% 13% _ 22%^ I 1 5 5 4 6 8 11 2 5 2 5 6 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 8 6 5 6 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 11 5 8 5 5 I i t I %Other 0% 1\" I I I I 4- i ! - 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 3% I ! 2% I 2% 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% I I 1% 0% 0%  ' 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2% : 3% 2% 2% Page 2 of 3School PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKLHEIGHIS MIDDLE SCHOOL GrodcrTotal^ Black V%Black^ White] %White Otl.^%Other. i M 24 I ^0 , 25 , 9%______5______2% 12 06_ 07 _ J r   08 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 IZoO 1 08 LRSD Information Service Dept. 265 i 255 247  230 155 -J L^l-[ 112 _ Grand Totals: _ M F M F M F M F M F M -4- 1 I 7% 6% 13% 11% 18___ 16___ 33___ 27------[ 28___i. 12% 35 21 20 31 23 19 14 [ 2838 15% 17% _13% 18% 13% 17% 13% 0 I 54 48 44 i 41 r r 32 24 I L! 3 5 1___ 1___ 2288 21% 19% 18% 17% 14% 10% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0 1 i i 1 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 301 4- i 4- J. I 1 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0 -I I 1 i Page 3 of 3Stuaenfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Courts for 1999-2000 by Schooly 2nd Qu^ter Tuesday, April 18, 2000 I ,__________________School CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL I Grade i Total 09 _525_ L 10 \"L505 Gender F M F M Rlaek ! %Rlack White \\ %White S Other %Other CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL ! 11 12 06 07 499 L 473 264 I ....i' I ........i 231 _08__\\__22Z [DUNBARINTIL StZuDJES MAGN^ f 233 I__07 J 238 I__08 [ 252 [fair HIGH SCHOOL r O9'~ r 262 10 264 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE.SCHOOL [hall HIGH SCHOOL. ! LRSD Information Service Dept. L_li T_22i  iFJ 186 r  06 n 244\n07 _Z245 I 08 1 257 I 09__L_4.13. F ~M F M F M F M F M F M F, M F M F M F_ M F M F M F M F M F M F .1. I -i- 1 65 26 93 51 ^7 39 I t 12% 5% 18% 231 1 ------ -----i.._ 116 43 185 121 162 84 83 47 43 .^2_ _52_ ^7 55 54 38 25_ 53 32 63 10 51 49 107 68 113 44_ 94 .JQl 66 10% _ i \\77 ! 278 218 i 19% I 8% i .25% ] 402 , ' 247 I -I 1 179 9%_ i 168 70% 46% 70% 36% 36% 2_1% 18% 9 5 20 1 4 _3 29 14% 39 22% 2 0_% _ 22% 21% 15% 43 68 52 57 26 44% 34% 55% 43% 81% 49% 38% 36% 3% 2% 9% 0% 2% 1% 12% 17% 18% 29% 21% 23% 10% + I j I I J0%_____17.____6% 20% 12%  28% 5% _ 27% 26% 44% 28% 46% 18%_ 37% _ 27% _ 16% _ 5____ 19 22 20 9 8 126 107 115 95 92__. 2% 7% 10% 9% 5% 4% 52% 44% 47% 39% 36% I I I 96____27%.. 41 10% 13 43_ 20 13 12 22 18 12 9 0 9 0 10 0 6 10 8 9 13 6 3 0 4 1 4 1 0 0 4 8 0 7 14 22 6 T i I 1 - i 1 2% 8% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 2% 1% 0% I I i 2^/r^ ! 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 3% I 5% 9% , 1% ! Page I of 3 1 I1 HALL HIGH SCHOOL School Grade Total 09 L 10_ I 1 l__j2 iHENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL iMANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET ImC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL 9^n der f 413 389 272 221 ZLL 06 I 180 07 I 189 I. - 08 1 _ 06 i _ 183 . . L 168 1 r 07 j 152 1 M F M F M  M F M F M F M F ...... 08 i__ 148_ . L 06 L 266 r 07 I 281 F M F M  M F M CJ)8ZL1276ZL___ F ZL_09i.X_309 ' io F 356 F11__Lj216 E112 220 -.-I_____ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNETZ. F .I 091 1 291 jl_ 1 r Jo 11289 287 LRSD htformation Sendee Dept, 12 L 2615 J M F M  M  M F M F M F M  M F I Black 34 66 16 27 15 __ 41 20 125 120 94__ 59 75 51 104 35 42 106 50 137 80 115 70 133 86 71 39 104 51 81 53 52_ 26_ 138 71 101 85 134 56 60 %Black 3% 17% 4% 10% 6% 19%__ 9% 69%_ _ ^1% _ 50% 31% 41% 28% 62% 21% i _ 51% 28% _  1- 4X i t 34% 52% 30% 41% 25% 48% _ 31% _ 23/,, 13% 29% 14% 38% 25% - 4_.. fThite 4^ 62 45 24 12 _ 30_ _20_ 33 17_ 61 _ 25 42 22 1 ^55 i 49 J 31 i _ 41 _ 21 8 157 192 I I 265 125 235 144 4 5 29 ___1_ 29 3 24% 20 12% 47% _ 24% _ 35% _ 29% 47% 20% _ 23% i 10_ 136 i4d__ 149_ 95 167 76__ 134 10% 16% 12% 9% 4% 14% _9% 18% 9% 32% 13% 23% 12% 33% 29% 20% _27% _14% 5% 59% 72% 94% 44% 85% 52% 1% 2% 8% 0% 13% 1% 9% _5% 47% 48% 52% 33% 58% 26% 51% I ! + 1 I I + I I I i - I I i 4- i 1 10 11 7 9 11 16 8 22 9 15 %White ! f)t. + i I i t 22 16 13 0 0 ' 10 0 5 28 17 21 20 37 7 0 0 11 0 0 851 22 10 42 15 37 18 13 j 1 I 1 1 I 4- i -1- I I 1 I 4- 1 %Other ! 0% ' 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 7% 4% 12% 5% 8% 12% 9% 8% 0% 0% 7% 0% 3% 11% 6% 7% 7% 13% 3% 0% J I 1 I I i I 0% i 3% 0% 0% 4% 2% I -i II . i 0% t I 1 I 8% ! 3% 15% 5% 13% 6% ! 5% i Page 2 of 3 r L School Grade ! Total , 9nder PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL I 12 |__06 j 265 i 255 _ SOUTHWEST MIDDLeZsCHO LRSD Information Service Dept. L.jofZZI IZZosJZ 247 230 r 06 I 155 r~07~7~177 I 08 I 112 M__ F___ M___ F___ M___ _F M__ F__ M _F__ M__ _F___ M T Black. 33 59 39 91 59 75_ I %Black I 12% 23% 15% 37% 24% 33% 106___46%^ 93 64 67 46 51 30 1 I i 60% 41% 3^ 26% 46% 27% 1 , r White 49 234 173 204 168 120 87 6 0_ .8 8 0 4_ 1 %fThite' OtK 18% 92% 68% 83% 68% _ 52% 38% 4% 0% 5% 5% 0% 4% I i 4- 10 0 15 8 3 4 5 0 2 4 0 4 0 h %Other\\ X I 4- I I. 4% 0% 6% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% Page 3 of 3Stuuenfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Coui9s for 1999-2000 by School^ 3rd Qu^er Tuesday, April IS, 2000 L School iCENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL Grade j Toto/ GendeiL 09 10 Cji L _J2 L _ 525 _ F I 505 499 ! 473 ~ T 06 1 2i4 I 07~r23i I 08 228 M F M F M F M F M F M F M lDUNBAR_l2m.SXUD|ES M^NET_IW^DLElJc^ ______F 1_07XZ238 08 L_252 IfAIR HIGH SCHOOL ] 09 T 262 ITJCL.TEZ264 I i  11 222 I 12 JZ_186 FOREST HEIGHTS MiDDLE_SCHOOL r 06 T 1 244_ Oy__L_24_5 IJO8 r 257 iHALLHlGH_SCHOQL__ LRSD Information Service Dept. Z_09 Z 413 M. F M. F M F M F M F_ M F M F M F M F M F Black 82 57 88 47 _89_ ^8_ _106 ^3_ 181 126 144 69 101 66 _ T %lilac^ White f %W\u0026lt;fei7g Other i %Other 16% 7% 17% 9% [ 280 ! 211 i 262 219 t 18%_ 395_ I 8% 249 9%__ 170 159 50__ 35 __ 59_ 55_ 61__ 63__ 43__ 32 59 _ 32 _65 13 _ 48__ 44__ 97 57__ 111 49__ 93 J3 65 69% 48% 62% 30% 44% _29% 21% _15% 25% 23% 24% 25% 16% _ 12% \"22% 12% _ 29% _ 6% 26% 24% 40% 27% 45% _20% _36%__ 25% 16% _9___ 3___ 19__ J___ 5___ 4 _ 32_ 44__ 27 __ 75 59__ 64 21__ 12 8 18 23 15_ 8___ 8 124 105 115 105_ 53% 40% 52% 43% 79% 50% 36% 34% 3% 1% 8% 0% 2% _ 2% 14% _19% 16% 32% 23% 25% 8% 5% 3% 7% 10% _ 7% 4% 4% 51% 43% 47% _ 43% I I I 9_1_____35%. _ 103 4Q_ 40% .10% 17 46 21 13 11 23 16 11 10 0 5 0 10 0 6 8 10 15 13 6 4 0 3 1 5 1 0 0 _4_ 8 0 1 14 24 3 I i 3% 9% 4% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% i I 1__0% 2% I 1 I I -i 0% 4% 0% 3% 3% 4% I 6% 5% 2% 2% 0% . i r/o 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% I 0% 3% 5% 9% 1% Page I of 3 II___________School 'HALL HIGH_SCHOOL Grade Total 09 413 10 389 I T\u0026lt; T 272 12 ] Z22T HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 180 I 07 LI 89 MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL____ Imann ARTS/SCIENC^ESJWAGNET fi^CLELLAN high SCJIOO^^ [ 08 PT83 r 06 T ies p j52 r 08~ T ~ 148 06 I 266 r 07 ~r~28? [ 08 T 271 I 0^9 P309 --- fZHoZJ 356 iPARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET I ~ i L 216 EZcl9 2ZIZZ291 r 10 i 289 L 11 L.A2 287 r 265 'jider. M__ _F___ M__ _E___ M__ F M __ F M F  M___ _E___ M___ F M _ F  _ F___ M___ F___ M___ F___ M___ F___ M__ F___ M___ F___ M___ F___ M___ E__ M___ F___ M__ F_ M___ F___ M___ F + 4. i i I T + Black. 38 67 18 31 16 J4 21 127 J 26 94 52 84 45 _9Z 36 _ 86_ _42 J_00_ 54 131 94 114 71 _132_ 87 82 48 112 54 83 51 _54_ 24_ 133 74 _HL 91 143 61 56 I -L - [ i % Black 9% 17% 5% 11% 6% _20% 10% 71% 70% 50% 28% 46% 25% _ 58% 21% 57% _ 28% I _68% 36% 49% 35% 41% 25% _48% 32% 16% 31% 15% 38% 24% _25% 11% 4^ _25% -40%. 31% 50% 21% 21% LRSD Information Service Dept. -I White 42 69 36 20 12 32 _ 18 40 20 58 31 44 21 _^3 _ 51 _ _28 41 20 9 163 201 255 128 239_ 143 4 8 30 0 31 3 _21 8_ _141_ 131_ L50 93 162 73 121 I 10% 2^^ 18% 9% 7% 4% 14% 8% 22% 11% 31% 16% 24% 11% 32% 30% 18% 27% 14% 6% 61% 76% 91% 46% 87% I i i T i i I 52% I 3% 8% 0% 14% 1% 10% 4% 48% 45% _ 52%  32% 56% 25% _46% i T T 8 11 9 11 10 15 15 19 9 12 22 16 13 0 0 7 0 5 28 20 21 20 37 8 0 0 11 0 0 8 4 1 22 10 43 13 34 15 12 j i I + I 1 I I I _h _ J %Other 0% 2/c 3% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8% 11% 5% 6% 1 12%\n9% I 8% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1 I 3% I 11% 8% ! 7% 7% 13% 3% 0% 0% 3% I I I 0% 0% 4% _ 2% I 0% . i 8% 3% 15% 4% 12% 5% 5% I i Page 2 of 3___________\" School_________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL LRSD Information Service Dept. Grade Total 12 06 265 255 07 ] 247 08 1 230 JZbe IZiss 07 J _177 J 1 LJ)8H4112_4 ! 21^ M___ _F___ M___ _F___ M__ J _F M F M___ _E___ M + 4 1 + I 4- i Black. 31 54 44 87 60 79__ i 10 _9L _66 62. _ 48 2J %Black n% 21% 17% 35% 24% 34% _ 48% 59% 43% 38% 27% 42% 25% White 48 235 180 207 165 119 84 I __.4---- 4 0 7 7_ 4 -l- 1 %White ! Ot, 18% 92% 71% 84% Q7% 52% 2,7% 3% 0% 4% 4% 0% 4% j i 10 0 16 8 3 4 5 0 2 4 0 4 0 t I %Other 4% 0% 6% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% J i 4 Page 3 of 3Studenfs Enrolled in at Least One AP, Pk9aP Course for 1999-2000 by Schou^4th Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 Schaal CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1 Grade I Total I Gender f Black . 09 J __..525_. j F ! 49 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL _ (DUNBAR INT^ STUDIES MAGNET MID^^^^ (fair high school___ FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOO*- HALL HIGH SCHOOL LKSD Information Service Dept. ( 10 L L 505_ J i f 3l UZ 499 i_.J2 L .473, Z Z 0 6 ZT 2 6 4 EZ_O7 L.23J._. C 08 L 228 M . M F M 4- I I _._F____ M  M . M . M F M . 4 -4- [3.07 r 238 I ' F r 08 ~ r 252 r 09 I 262 10 L_.ii r .12 r~264 I 222 Z r i86z rZ06 Z 244 LO7 l_245 LI 08 .J-.- .L_. 257 1L 09.1313 _ M __L __M_ ___F. __M F M F M ___F_ __M ___L __M ___L M F_ _ M F 24___ 56___ 27  44 _ 17_ 60__ 26__ 45___ 33___ 45___ 30___ 30___ 22 _ 24 _ 20 _ 30___ 21 41___ 42___ 25___ 21_  32  23__ 31 ^ABlack 5% 11% _5% 9% _ 3% 13% _ 5%_ 17% 13% 19% 13% 13% 10% 10% ___9% _.13____ 1 31 28 31 25 42 21 53 45 42 IThite 86 73 85 _ 70 102 80 _ 69 52Z 2 1 6 1 1 2 _J6 17 I ! 13%. 1 29 __^11% 16% 17% 10% 8%_ __12% 9% _17% _ _6% 17% 15% 15% 10% 17% 43 36 35 10 8 _6 _ 11^ 8 _ 8 _4__ _____ 32 29 28 9%___L__29 21% 18% 10% 3.1 32 22 %Whit^ Other \\ %Other 16% 14% 17% 14% 20% 16% 15% 11% 1% 0% ! I 3%___t 0%___! 0% 1% 7% 7% 12% 18% 14% 14% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 13% 12% 11% 12% 12% 12% 5% I i f i ! 1. i 5 15 7 3 4 5 4 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 5 3 9 9 11 5 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 6 1 4 I I i 4- I t 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% J I I 0%___ 1%___ 0% , 2% i 1% i 4% 4% 4% 2%__ 0% 0% 1% ( 0% 1% 0% 0% ( 0% . I 0% I 1% I I 1 i I 0% ! i% ( 2% 3% ( 1% .( Page i of 3i__________________SdinitL HALL HIGH SCHOOL_____ I Grade Total \\ no ^1'1 09 413 !__^10_ 11 1 ! HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET MC CLELLANJdIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCEMAGNET LRSD Information Service Dept. binder 389__ 272 _ 12 1 221 L o\u0026lt; Z38o L_.O7 J 189 [L_O8L L 183L 06 168 I I 07 I 152 L _08 ' J48__i Z T 06 T~ 266 i I l _07_ IZZ281 08 IZZ276\n309 CZlO.ZZ 356 I JI1 ZIZ m 12 1 220 1_IZZogZJ 291 OoZZ 289 Z? l...._1l 287 12 I -----L M__ F___ M__ F___ M__ F M _ F M F M__ F__ M__ F M F _ M F M__ F__ M__ F__ M__ F M _ M__ F__ M__ F__ M__ F M   M F__ M I t BlacL 26 42 17 23 -U - ! 11 27 19 35 40 35 33 32 24 26 14 29 18 32 18 43 21 M 35 52 3.6 41 24 54 34 43 28 36 20 T' i ! I %Rlack Q% 11% 4% 8% 4% While. 14 26 20 14 8 12% _ , _19 L., 9% _ -j. 19% - r 8 10 72% _ 10 i I 1 265.1 __ F %White i OtK 19% 17% 17% 13% 15% __i 8% 19% 12% 22% 12% 16% 10% 17% 12% 19% I I 20 16 t 14__t 8 15 15 7 -i I (- 10 1 i _ 5 J i 13%Z 13% 8% 15% 10% 20% 13% _16% 63___I 22% 40 58 47 55 34 30 5 46 50 70 40 64_ 45_ 2 _ 4 11 1 10 1 13 9%______6 14% _ 20%_ 16% 19% 12% 11% 3% 1% 5% 5% 3% 9% 4% 6% 6% 11% 8% 8% 4% 9% 9% 5% 7% 3% 3% 17% 19% 25% 14% 23% 16% 1% 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% 6% 3% I I i I -L 1 t i I 58__L. _ 20% 56 _63^ 40 61 38 1 54 _ i 19% 22% 14% 21% 13% 20% I j T 2 5 6 4 8 8 10 3 5 2 5 6 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 8 6 5 6 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 12 5 9 5 4 T T i I i i I I 1 1 i I %OtheL 0% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% I I I I I i 1% _j 3% J 2% J 2%___i 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1 1% ' i 0% n 0% J 1% _ 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1 .1 I I Page 2 of 3I School Grade Total PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET IPULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLEJSCHOOL___ SOUTHWEST_MIDDLE SCHOOL LRSD Information Service Dept. 12 06 -- i 265 255 [.JO7_T_2^ 08 ] _230 155 I 07 r 177 r I 08 112 Grand Totals 'jideiL M___ F___ M M F M F M _F M F M T Black. 21 17 17 --------- 30 21 28 36 26 21 31 23 19 16 2827 %Slaf^ 8% 7% 7% 12% 11% _ 12% _ 16% _ J 7% + 14% __ 18% __ 13% 17% 14% 0 fThite 24 54 49 46 42 33 25 2 0^_ 3 _ 5 1 1 -k 2333 L %White Oh 9% 21% i 19% i 19% ! 17% 14% 11% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0 1 1 I j 5 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 311 I -1- i. %Other 2% 0% 2^/0 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0 I 1 i I I J Page 3 of 3StuiiCnfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Coui^s for 1999-2000 by School, 1st Qut^^r Tuesday, April 18, 2000 I School i Grade I Total CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL I 09 _ J 525  idFiZJosl L_ iFZZ^ol [Z_12 T 473 SCLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL [ 06 264 r 07 1 231 I 08 1 228 ounbarZint'l studies M 06 4. 233 07 IZ238. (fair HIGH SCHOOL [ ^d8_Zl 252 L j09ZZ1262 i 10 -L 264 [forest heights middle school [hall HIGH SCHdOLl, LRSD Information Service Dept. I__11 ! Ti T 06 I 222 I 186 244 I 07 I 245 CdsZZZisf F 09 Gender F M F _ M___ _fL _ __M __F___ _M F M F M F __M__ _ F__ _ M__ __F_ __M _ F M F __M_ __F ___ __M _F__ M F M F M F M _F M _ r 413\"\" 1 I F Black i % Black 92 38 94 49 100 38 123 52 167 111 159 95 106 70 39^ 35 65 51 63 58 34 J 8 63 31 _65 jL 53 104 69 111 50^ 88 58 651 18% 7% 19% _ 10% __20% __ 8%_ _ _ 26%_ 11% 63% 42% 69% 41% 46% _31%_ _17% _ __15% __27% _ 21%_ 25% 23% 13% _ 7% _ 24% 12%_ White 285 217 281 217 _406 _253_ _184 178 9 4 18 4 5 4 _ 30_ __ 36 _ 42 _68 57 54 23 16 _5__ 26_ 29%_____25 28% 25% 43% 28% 45% 20% 34% 23% _ 16% 18 9 8 126 108 116 _92^ 93 101 42 %yrhite Other %Other j 54% 41% 56% 43% 81% 51% 39% 38% 3% 2% 8% 2% 2% 2% 13% 15% 18% 29% 23% 21% 9% 1 I I 1 t T t 1 _ 6% i L 10% 11% _ ^8% 5% 4% 52% 44% 47% 38% 36% 391% 10% - I i 15 48 20 13 12 22 18 13 10 0 10 0 9 0 5 11 10 13 15 5 4 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 4 5 0 6 14 22 7 3% 9% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% J I I 1 I i 1 I I 1 i I I i 4% _j 0% 2% 4% 5% 6% 2% I 2% 0% 1 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 9% 2% Pa^e I of 3____________ School HALL HIGH SCHOOL______ Grade.__TalaL Wilder. Black. HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL MANN ARTS/SCIENCEOIAGJMET MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL FpARKVIEW ARTS/SCI^^^ LRSD Information Service Dept. 09 10 413 389__ L 11 I 272 i. 12 i 221 i -i- ____l . 06 180 ..I i 07 Z.189.) [  08 . J_.li ._J, 06 Cl68_Z [_07 L 152 I 08 I 148 ]__06 I 266 L_J)7L i__281 F 08 n 276 Z 09 F: 309 10_  1 356_ L 11ZT_216 LZ12^ J_ 220 T 09 291 i I 10 I 289 Qii ! 287 1 12 I 265 ~ M F M F M F M F M F_ M F M F M F M E M F M F M F ! T 36 71 21 35 18 50 22 126 118 97 57 75 48 105  I %Blak. 18% 5% 13% 7% 23% J0% 70% I fVhite 43 59 41 28 10 31 20 33 66% __4 _ 19 51%___^_J 30% 41% 26% i i 1 64 31__ 35__i %White 15% 12% 10% 4% 14% 9% 18% 11% 34% 16% 19% 9% I i ____37_ Ot, t %Other ! 0%  _ M _F. __M ___F_ __M ___L __M ___F_ JM F ^_M __L M ___F __M F + 88 48 107 48 127 74 121 86 138 84 83 41 101 49 11 44 58 25_ 43. IQ 132 99 138 60 66 T i ! r 63%_ 22% _ 58% ^2%__ 12% 32% 48% 28% 43% 31% 50% 30% 27% 15% 28% 14% 36% 20% 11%..__. 49% 26% 46% 34% 48% 21% 25% 54. ...[..__32% _51_ 25 4E 17 8 155 195 262 135 231 145 4 8 28 1 26 3 21 10 1'39 152 167 109 174 88 131 I 30% 16% 27% 11%_ 5% 58% 73% 93% 48% 86% 53% 1% 3% 8% 0% 12% 1% 10% 5% 48% 52% 58% 38% 61% 31% 49% I 1 i T 9 8 5 8 10 17 10 23 9 14 16 16 13 0 0 11 0 5 29 15 22 20 40 8 0 0 10 0 0 8 5 1 23 11 43 16 34 17 13 I I 4 1 i 1 I 1- i 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 8% 6% 13% 5% 7% 9% 9% 8% 0% 0% 7% 0% _ 3% 11% 6% 4 -I I J i I ! i 8% 7% i 14% 3% 0% 0% J%_ 0% 0% 4% 2% 0%  8% 4% 15% 6% 12% 6% 5% ! 1 ! ! Page 2 of 3I __________________SdianL___________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS,MIDDLE SCHOOL _ 1 Grade \\ Total ^Eier. 12 265 A 05. I 255 07~ n~^47 I r 08  230__ SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL___ I __i___ 06 1 155 07 .._L 177_ 08 112 ) M . M F M JL M F M F M F M r Black. 25 58 94 65 82 08 ?---- %Rlack \\ White LRSD Information Service Dept. 84 55 71 45 49 25 ----------4. 9% 23% 18% 38% 26% 36% _ 47% 54% _ 35% 40% 25% 44% 22% 1 53 230 163 203 172 t27__ 86 6 0 8 8 0 4 I imiile. 2Q% 90% 64% 82% 70% _ 55% 37% 4% 0% 5% 5% 0% 4% Oi 11 0 13 8 1 4 5 0 2 4 0 4 0 I I I %Other 4% 0% 5% 3% 0% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% I i Page 3 of 3Studers Enrolled in at Least One AP, PRj^P Course for 1999-2000 by Schoo^nd Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 I School CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL .. \\ Grade \\ Total \\ Gender} Black ... i 0_9 i 525 I F i 52 T %Rlack White I %fVhite] Other ! %Other\\ CLOVERDALE MrDDLZE.SCHdOL____ L36.LI ______L 505.^ 1 11 ~] 499 J2ZJZ473 -ZZE 06 T 264 ! Z07? _!3231 t 08^ r - L.._. 228 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE S\u0026lt;lL 06\n-------- I 233 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F I I , L..07 EZO8 i rL238_Z_ If ZZ L _______Zj___M_____ 252 'FAIR HIGH.SCHQOlL . I 09 I 262 iZloZZ Z264Z [ 11 ]Z222 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL T 06 I_244__ L2d7_ _r_ 245 i .08 1_ 257 HALL high SCHOOL LRSD Information Sertice Dept. ZZZodZZ 1 ______I_ 413.L._ E ~M F M M F M F M F M F M F M F - 30__ 64__ 32 48_ 17  E7__ 29 45__ 32__ 44__ 30__ 30__ 22 19_ 21 __ 28_ 26 40__ 42__ 22__ 17 _ 30_ 23 _ 38 15 34 28 31 27 43 21_ 52 45 10% 6% 13% 6% 10% J% 14% 6% 17% I 12% I i I f 19% 13% 13% 10% _8% ----4.-. I 86 71 87 71 101 15 iy 53 2 1 6 1 1 1 15 iZ 39 LZ _J% _ 12% _11%^ 16% 17% 8% _6% _ 11% _ _ 9%___ J7%_ \u0026lt;8% 15% 15% 11% 18% 9% 20% 18% ,9% i - I 16% 14% 17% 14%_ 20% 15%_ 15% 11% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 6% T i _16__4._ 7% 28 42 35 35 10 8 5 11 8 9 4 6 31 28 29 21 3J 33 21 12% 18% 14% 14% 4% 3% _2% _ 4% _ 4% _ 4% 2% 3% 13% 11% 12% 11%_ 12% 13% 5% I I t .1 I I 5 14 6 3 4 4 4 4 2 0 3 0 2 0 5 3 9 6 11 5 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 6 1 4 I i 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% J j I 0%___s 4- i I 1 I t T I T t I I 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 3% 4% 2% I 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% j 1% ' Page ! of 3 II School T Grade d Total Shall HIGH scHOOi____ 09 10 i 413 i 1 389 I I JI 272 12 _ 1__ 221 HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 _T218O r 07 7 189 r 08 F 183 MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL F 06 1 168 F_O7_F._ 1527 j n' -T-\ni__08 J48 _ MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAG_NEJ_ T 06 i 266 r 07 I 281 08 L 276^_. MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL F 09 1 7309 10 1356 c_ii 216. F712 F 22o7 IPARKViEWLARTS/SCIENCE-MA^N^T F7O9 F.291_ I ^10 r 289 I 11 i 287 I I 12 2^5 LRSD Information Service Dept. M___ F___ M___ _E___ M___ F M_ F M__ F___ M___ F___ M___ F__ m7._ F _ M__ F _ M__ _F___ M___ F___ M___ F M _ M___ _F___ M___ _F___ M__ F__ M__ F M F M . M F f -1- I I Black 25 41 17 20 11 _28 _ _ _ iL _34__ 37 36__ 30 30 21 _ 26 _ 14 26 18 _32_ 16 43 24 47 35 _51 36 41 25 48 30 45 %Rlack IVhite %White i Qz 6% 11% 4% 7% 4% 13% I T I i 8%....J 19% 21% 19% 16% 16% 11% ....-I 14 23 18 15 6 19 7 15% 8% 17% 12% 22% 11% 16% 9% 17% 12% 18% 13% 13% 8% 13% 8% -1-1- 9 ! 30___ 39___ 21___ 63 4F_ 59__ _ 4,7___ 56___ 35 38__ 21% 14% 19 13 11 7 15 13 2 9 5 4 44 48 70 42 65 45 2 4 10 1 10 1 3% 6% 5% 6% 2% 9% 3% 4% 5% 10% 7% 6% 4% 9% 8% 5% 3% 3% 17% 18% i 18%__i__12 10% _14% .20% 16% 20% 12% 14% 6 I t i i ) i ! 25%\n15% i 24% 16% 1% 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% i 5% ! 3% I 53 F_18%. ._ 54 _ 63 43 61 2,7 J 9% 22% 15% 21% 13% 22% 1 5 5 4 6 8 11 2 5 2 5 6 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 8 6 5 6 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 11 5 8 5 5 I 1 I I I I I %Other. I -7 I i I  i t I J 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% ! I 1 2%___! 2% I 0% 0% 2% i 0% , 1% _ 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 0% I 1 I 0% J 1% J 0% .J 0%\n1% u 0% 0% 3% 1%__ 4% __ 2% 3% 2%\n2% i Page 2 of 3I  School Grade Total^IkderA PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL____ 12 06 i 265_J I 255 i SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL _ _ LRSD Information Service Dept. I 07 08 06 07 L 08 ' ' 247 230 M F M F M F M .l_f55 F _.L 177- M F ~M F M I T .Black. 2A. 18 16 33 27 _28 35 _27_ _20_ 23 19 14 %ladL . _i- 1 Grand Totals: [ 2838 t ! 9% 7% 6% 13% 11% 12% 15% 17% 13% 18% 13% 17% 13% 0 I i -r White % White 25 54 48 44 41 32 - j 24- 2 0 3 5___ 1___ -J-----[ 2288 i 9% 21% 19% 18% 17% 14% 10% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0 T I i 5 2% 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 301 I i I r I I 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% I I 1% j 2% I I 0% 1% I 0%___i 0 1 Page 3 of 3Studet^s Enrolled in at Least One AP, PR^AP Course for 1999-2000 by Schou^rd Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 I_____________________School iCENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Graded Total 1__Q9 525__ i.... 10 ! 505 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 11 LLZii J. 499 ___I 06 07 473 1 264 231 I J)8_Z L228 DUNBAR INTX STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE.SC. [ 06 233 [ ZO7ZL_ 238 r 08 l 252 ! iFAIR HIGH SCHOOL L 09 r'2l^ L ZloZ I_264 O1ZZZ222Z r 12 ZZ 1862 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL 06_.. _L 244_ 07 r 245 L 08l_ J 257 Gender F M ___F._ M F _ M F _ _ M _ F M F M F _ M F__ M_ ^F_ _ M___ F M F __F _ M _ _ F___ F M F M F F T i Slack. 24 56 J2.7 _ _44 _ 17 60 _ ^261 45 33 45 30 30 _23_ _ 24Z _20__ 30 27 41 I i % Black 9% 5% 11% 5% _9% 3% 13%. ___5% i I i 17% 13% 19% 13% -I FFZtffg r % FFA/fe 86 73 85 70 16% 14% 17% 14% 102____20% 81 _69 52 _ Other %Other | ?HALL high SCHOOL __ LRSD Information Service Dept. 09 I 413 ._F 42___ 25___ 21__ 32 __ 23 57^^ 13__ 31___ 28___ 37___ 25___ 42___ 21__ 5J__ 45 42___ I 13% i 10% J 10% 9% J'3% 11% 16% 17% 10% I _8% _ 12% 9% 17% 6%_ 17% 15% 15% 10% 17% _ 9% _ _21% 18%^ To% J___2_  1 ___6_ ___1_ ___L_ 2 16 17 29 _ 43 36 __35_ __10_ 8 6 11 8 8 4 ___7_ 32 __30_ __28. 29 + 16% 15% 11% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 7% 7% 12% 18% 14% 14% 4% 3% __2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 13% 12% 11% 12% 3_1_____12% 32 22 12% 5%.. + I I 5 15 7 3 4 5 4 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 5 3 9 9 11 5 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 6 7 4 I I I 1 I I t t i i I -I 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% I 1 I I 1 I 0% i 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% , 3% ' 1% . I Pa^e I of 3 i i( i_______________School HALL HIGH SCHOOL ! Grade j Total I 09 413 10__^_.389_ I--------- I 11 2T2 HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL. jMABELVALEJVUDDLE SCHOOL JL MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET_____ iMC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET LRSD Information Senice Dept. l-__12 ! r\\ I J_221 06 '771180 r~oi 1 189 I 08 I 183 TTZr 06 [168 i 07 T~i52 [ 08 i 148 2 H 06 !2_66 r 07 I 281 fZ 08j T\"276 T? 09 7 309 I io r~356 1 H I 216 I Ti I 220 ETZok 7IZ2^ o 7 7^ CZii77j.Z287 i - _12 I ^I^derl Black L_265 . j. M F M F M F M F M_ F_ M F M iL_ F_ F M F M F M F_ M F M F M F M F M F M_ F M F M F + I 26 42 17 23 11 21 19 35 io 35 33 32 24 26 %Black Q% 11% 4% 8% 4% 12% __ 9% 19%_ 222/t,_ _ 19% 17% __J 4____ 29 18 32 18 43 21 47 35 52 36 41 24 54 34 43 28 36, 20 63 40 47 55 34 30 17% 13% 15% 8% 19% __12% --------- 22% 12% 16% 10% 17% 12% 19% 13% 13% 8% 15% 10% 20% 13% 16% _9% 22% t I fVhite 13 26 20 14 8 19 8 _ 10 JO 20_ 16 14 8 15 _ 15 _1 10_ 5  5 46 50 70 40 64 45 _2_ 4 11 1 10 1 _13._ _ 6 _ 58 %White ! 3% 7% 5% 5% 3% 9% 4% 6% _6% 11% 8% 8% 4% 9% 9% 5% 7% 3% 3% 17% 19% 25% 14% 23% 16% I .14%_____56 20% 16% 19% 12% 11% 63 40 61 38 54 1 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% _6% __3% _20% _19% 22% 14% 21% 13% 20% xzn. 2 5 6 4 8 8 10 3 5 2 5 6 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 8 __6_ __5_ __6_ 9 1-0 4- i I 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 12 5 9 5 4 1 1 I 4- f %Other Q% 1% 2% 1% 3% _4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 3% 2% I J j 1 I I -i 2% 2% J 3% 1% 0% . 0% 1% 0% 0% I 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2%__: __i 2% 2% Page 2 of 3 I\n____________ School---------------- 'PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL Grade I Total ^tder 12 _J_ 06 I 265 i 255 ' 07 247Z 08 i 230 I SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL . i 07 i 177 I 08 1 112 iGrand Totals: M F M F M F M F _F M F M 1 I- r LRSD hiformalion Service Dept. Black S %Black fVhite , %fhite 7 21 17 17 30 27 28 _36 26 21 _ _31_ 23 19 16 2828 8% 7% 7% 12% 11% 12% 16% 17% 14%_ 1 24 54 49 46 42 33 25 2 0 18%_____3 13% 17% 14% 0 5 1 1 2334 9% 21% 19% 19% 17% 14% 11% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0 1.. + Qlh. 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 __1 0 r 2% J___0% ! I 4- I i _L 311 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0 J I Page 3 of 3DATA NOT AVAILABLELOCATION CENTF5AL HALL MANN METRO PARKVIEW DUNBAR J. A. FAIR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE___________ BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS________ KING_________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTALS 1999-2000 Unfilled absences lAug. iSept. Oct. iNov. jPec. Jan. 'Feb, I rt I 4 . A A on I orv c 0! 10: 44: 22, 42 30  56 iMar. I Apr. 1 + I i 1 i I i I I T  i 1 I I + I I 01 Z 11 0 0 0, 1 0 2 0 0 0 01 0 0 1 0 01 TT z 11 z z z 0\n0! 0 0 1 IL 0, 5 r\\ 01 0 0 0| ZL _01 01 Zl 121 5! 27 11 16 21 21\ni,l 15 24 35, 27 i 341 22 15! 31' 33 38 60 16 54 33 151 24, 9i 26 28 33! 37 18' 61 12 3 91 / 8 3' 81 1 91 51 131 5 3 10 2 5 4 6 14 2 9 6 36 9 7 4 15 25 12 4 4 15 623 36! 461 58 0! 5 19 5' 14 281 121 11 4\n111 331 10, 24, 8 5 18, 12[ 61 iy 7 14 4 81 \"W 511 91 91 7! 14 5 8 ~5! 947' 13 35 30 8 48 41 1 1 11 5 13 8 1 22 Zl 121 2: IT 161 10, ZI 11 TZ TT 8 13 t 2i 6' 9 56 4 9, 5' 22 6 6 1  J 5! 7381 29 39\n\"l^ 24, 25 21 \\ 361 121 221 521 21 2 37 331 O' 2\\ zi 41 41 Zl Zl 1\\ 9! 6, 61 9! 51 9| 4' zr 13 30! 17 14 6 20 36! w 45\n271 8' 41 i 01 71 31! 561 17 36, 41 68 j Til Za 691 44 38' 21, 21 91 28 24 26! 1 19 1 8 8 3 10 0 6 28' 3 5' 2, 10 1 5 4 4 2 6311 12 52 431 2 39! 141 80! 21. 4! 50' 38\nO' 9 171 14 10 18! IZ 28! m 21 8! 8, JZ 10, Zl 71 5 9 11 11 T 151 30. 1' 1 6 13 18 21 9 T 81 321 8 11 10 26 20 6 2 12 111 15 13\n2T 14 13 9! 61 14 ITT 12 5 1 3 10 26 2 8 \"l^ 3^ 8 6 3 18 23 1 'o 10 141 795 10211 15 19 10! 5, \"l^ 23! 131 131 51 16 11 ' 14 . 11 1 16 3 14 11 45 TZ 4 1 21 20 10 5 8 9 892! 461 30\n381 9' 261 21 381 21 8 12 39 24 0 31 22 1 1 10 13 7 1 16 4 6 12 3 15 jMay June totals 5: 14 4' 2 8 1 9! 9 6 10 5 11 7 22 8 1 1 20 10 3 1 10 9 642 i I T + I I I ! I i I f t I T i I I T I t T T T I I T T I i t I 288 166 275 103 201 199 238 351 109 240 383 255 44 339 276 13 40 98 56 96 61 162 81 85 55 58 136 72 121 47 47 129 42 60 63 60 123 20 67 73 309 68 58 39 148 126 54 31 59 71 6301August, 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL I 2! 3 4 5 6 9,10 11'12 13!16 17118 19'20 23!24 25 26 27 30 31 i i ! M t i i I ' ' ! i ! ! , IT\" I I ( I TOTALS MANN METRO PARKVIEW T I I + I I 1 I T1 I I T DUNBAR________ J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. t i i 1 I I iT I t i T T I I J. 1 i T 1 tI 1 T I I I T _L II T I T T I I T I I + I I I i +I 1 1 I + 4- I I I I I I T I I I I I BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY I T I I I I T TI T I tI I I H 1 i 11 I 4- T I I IT 1 CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE J_ _ L DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN I T I T I H I I 1 1 FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS KING JEFFERSON MABELVALE 1 I T I 4I I I 1 I + I I I I T I T i I T I T I i + 1 I i I I I 1 IT + I t MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY_______ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF I i + + T I I 1 ! t- I 7 I T t I I I i 1 -I-Page 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 010 02 0002 0 00 00 010 01 010 010 000 02 0 0 0 0 0000 10 T' 0 1 September, 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL II 2| 3i 1 HALL T I T 8| 9 10 13\n14\n15 16\n17|20,21 l22l23!24|27l28l29'30i I i i ! I i i I I 5123 TOTALS MANN___________ METRO_________ PARKVIEW ___ DUNBAR________ J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE I BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS KING_________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF m I T i 7 1 n I i 1 I 1 I 21 I I 4. I 2 1 u m\n2 I I T I 1 1 I I ' 1 11 H 1 I 1 1 1_ 1 I ' ii I I X 11 JLL I 1! 1 ! I 2 1' LI T I I i I li I T I I 1 1  1 1 1 2 I I I 1 1| 21 Ij T i r 21 21 3' n 1, 2 ' 3 51 2i 2 2 + I 1 1 3 4! 3 1 1 1 11 2 2 I I 1 1 5 1 IL i 1 2 i 1} 1 I '7* 1 I 1 4- + 2 I  + j ...L I I I 11' : i I I 7 1 T I I I I j 11 1 2\\ 4i 1 i L 1 1 3 2 in I X\n3i ii u 1 1 i 2\n4! 2i 1 i li 1 2 1 1 t I 2' 2' 1 3 31 3' in: ii\n1 1 21 12 1 2 3 ' 11 li II 2 1 I 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 i 1 2 2 I 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 2 2\n2 1 4 2 1 6 2, 3 I 2 TFT 1 1 2 1 1! 1' T 11 TTY I 1 1 1 1 2 1 ij 1! 1 1 I 11 1 1 11 II 2| 21 1| 2| 3| 31 41 2 1 2\\ 1 2' 4 2 2 3 3 5 3 11 2 2 I 1 1 2 1 5 3 2I 3 1' 4 8 2 3 2 5 1 5 2 1 3 t 4- 1 1 T 1i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 2 1 T I i 4 2 sj 2 ^4 2 3 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 r 3 1! 1 1 11 H 1 1 4 1 1 1 i I I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 3 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 Page 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 I T 4. 3 1 1i 1 1 1 3 1 I 1 4 2 2 I 10 5 27 11 16 21 21 47 15 24 35 21 4 34 18 9 6 12 3 9 7 18 8 3 8 1 9 5 13 5 3 10 2 5 4 6 14 2 9 6 36 9 1 4 15 25 12 4 4 15October, 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL_______ HALL___________ MANN___________ METRO_________ PARKVIEW DUNBAR________ J, A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT_______ BALE___________ BASELINE BOOKER________ BRADY CARVER________ CHICOT_________ CLOVERDALE DODD__________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN______ FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS__________ KING___________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE________ TERRY_________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON_______ W, HILLS_______ WILLIAMS WILSON________ WOODRUFF 1\n4 5' 6 7 8!11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20\n21i22i25 26 2728i29! I I T 2| 4^ 4j 2 6i I i i i Ij 1^ 1' j j __ [ 1 1 TOTALS 4 1 5! 2 31 2 2 6 3\n3 215 i 11 1! 3 3 1 1 II 41 6l 2! 11 li j 1! 3' LA 4 5! 4' 2 1 : 3i 1! ! 3 5' 1! 2 Ij ii ii\n1 1' i\n2 JI 3!- --3- 2I 2! 2\n! l! 2 1 3j 3 3! 21 4 I ! 1 3i I I i 1 2 I T i r ii ii 1 4 21 2 2i ijn 4!~ ! n3j~5 ! 3i ll 1' ' 1\n1| 3j 3i 2l 1i 3i , 1 t 1 li li 3 5 3 21 1: 4 3! 4 13 juU| 6 2 I, 1^ 1 2 1 4! 3 1 3 1 31 5 1j 1' 1j 11 1i 2i~4T I 3, 5| 2| i I 3 I T ! mn I_______I___ __ L!----1----- 1----- i----- ------1----- ------r I L 3 6 2! I 2' 51 31 31 5 li 21 I 6 6 6 ALJ 21 3 1 12 2 i i e' 2 4! T i 211 5! 5 2rL 12' 2 1 1___ I li 11 j 4 2 AU 2 22 3 2I_ __l_!__i__ _I___ L 21 , 3 i 1 2 2 1 lU 4i 3 ' 3 i 1 3! 2 4U 1: 3 1 1 a J li 1 1 1 1i 1 1 1 21 i1 2 3 3 3! 2 1 3i 3 2 li 11 1 13 1 1 ! ! 2U Ui i 2i 4 1 uHI I 1 T I 1 1 1 1 13 1 T 1 i 21 li 2! 6 3\n2 1 2 2 I 1 u I 11 u 2! Ij i 2 4 3 1 1 i 1 1 21 21 13 I T iI X 1 13 1 TU 1 T 1! u 2 22 1 i 1 I 3 2, 2 21 1 2 34 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1^ 21 ! 4- 2i 1 1! 5 1 1 I I T 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.. 111 21 422 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 li HZ li 2 3 2 11 1 44 1^ i 1 2 1 2 211 2 1 Page 1 I + X 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 Lt 21 12 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 21 1 1 1 3 2 14 4 1 3 1 3i 2 52 32 I i 8! 3! 1 I 4 . i I 1| T 1 I li 3I + ! Ii ! 2 itn li 61 4 4| i I 1 3 1 I 1 211 4 11 1 1 1 I + ! 1 1 2 I + i 11 21 2 1 1 1 t T I 1 4 1 1 4 2 2 T li 44 22 34 15 31 33 38 60 16 54 33 36 6 46 58 0 5 19 5 14 4 28 12 11 4 11 33 10 24 8 5 18 12 6 17 7 14 4 8 14 51 9 9 7 16 14 5 8L5 November, 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL Ij 2 3 4i 5 8\nQUO 11112 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 291301 ---- : 1 -----! 1 I---- I   -!\n' - ! i I MANN METRO PARKVIEW DUNBAR i 11 p 121 1 11 I I 2' 4 I 1! J. A. FAIR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT _ GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS KING JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF I T T li 2! l! 1 TOTALS I + i Hl 1| 1! ' i j 2! 3| 1! I T T 22 15 24 9 26 28 33 37 13 35 30 47 8 48 41 1 1 11 5 13 8 22 5 12 2 11 16 10 14 5 1 16 3 4 5 8 13 2 6 9 56 4 9 5 22 6 6 1 5 5 ! 9: 11 2i i T I I I tin T I ! ! Ii 2i i 11 II I j 2i 11 2\nli I li li 1' ! 3: 2 i 51 21 11 I .j i\n2\\ I 1! 5j 21 31 ~T~ ' 2: 31 21 2| 1 I i I 11 11 I 31 I i '\n2! 2^ , 1' li 1: 1! 3! 3! 3| lT\n3 i 2! ! 1 1 I 3 2| 2 3i 5 31 1 3: 5' i i 1* I I i 1! 3 ! 2i 2 I 3 FF^ 4 2! 2\n31 6| I 2 1 + I 1! 2 II 1 31 + T 1 4 i 3! 6i 41 3 3! 31414 i ij 3' li II ll li 3' 2j 1 2 11 31 4, 1 Ij i I 3 2! 2 1 2 II 3! 4 1 11 I 2 21 I 31 1 51 6 7i 4| li 1 sj 2I 2j l| 3! 2| li 31 i I 2* 5|~4 11112 I i i i i . 1, 31 II 2'' 1 9i 31 4 li 31 li ' 5| 3! 3i 21 si 2i I ! 4i 61 2 4- I I T + I i I I LJ I 2 7 I I 4 I 2i 1 3 6. Fs i 1, 4| 1 \n2 , I 2j ' I 2\n2i i i li 1| i 2\nli 1, i F... 1 ... . 1 nn 1 3 i 4! 1 T I I I 1 I T + 2 2l. 21 li 1! li F T I 2j ! 1! 2 2i 1 2 1 3 1! I T 1 1 X + I T I 1' I 4\nI 1 : 1 tin 2 II 2! i li 2: i F ! i li II i| ' T------:--------H -I -1 -T I r F I T T I 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1, 1 2 I I I 1 1 1 T 1 1 i 2: li 1! II 1: 3S Ij F i I 1 I 2, 3i 2 I T 1 I 2' FF I 1 II 1' ll 1' 1 li 1 11 I 1 I 31 3\n3 I J I 2 1 I I 1 1 T li T I 3. 1\nl! F_4 I 5 1 2 1 1 ij 1 5! 1 1 1 1 1 Ft 2 1 I I I ! I i ' I I i i H i I 1 no I I i I 2 X ! 1 1 FF I I I I T I 4- 1 1 1 3 1 1 n zz 7 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Page 1 2i 11 FdF7 i 1 2! 11 I } I F 1 2 1 I 2 --------L 1 I I i 1 T 1 1 t i I I I I I T I 1 2 1 1 F 11 T 2 3 1 3 3 2 I I T 1 2 1 6 1 1 5 T 4- 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2I IDecember. 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL___________ MANN___________ METRO_________ PARKVIEW DUNBAR________ J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER________ CHICOT_________ CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS__________ KING___________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL _____ OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON_______ W. HILLS_______ WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF____ i V 2! 3 I 1 3' 4 I 1 1' 4 41 3 1! 1 1 I i 2 6! 7, 8i 9 10'13 14 15|16|17i 7~i ! 9! 9\n2! 2, 1 1 2, 6 10 2 3i 2 3 3 I I i 2 6 1 TT li 2, 31 2 41 1611 i 61 1 ' 71 7 1! 1! Il 1i ll 2 I i ITOTALS ! i Z3 42 ' 6 4| li 11 1\n1 1 1 3| 5! ! 2. 21 2 3 3^ 6i I 1! 1! 4 5 2! I 11 31 3i 1| 21 21 21 ! 1: 6 I i 1 1 31121 11 21 4! I 2 1 4 3 ! Ij 51 11 2\\ 2| 2 21 9i 31 7| 7| 1, 2 4 5 6 1 4 II 1 21 41 3| 4r4[ i 1 ! ' ' npi T I I 1 J_Ll I I 1! 2 nU rn T 1 , 1, 2[ 2[ 2 1 1 1 ll \u0026lt; 1 ' ll i I i 11' .1___Ll 1 1 I 1 I I T J. I I I X I + I I i I T I i ! 2 i 21 1 61 2 1I 3, 1i 1 3 5 i 21 5 1 1 I ! I I 21 1 1 2 4 1 4 1 i I 1 1\n2 ' 2I 51 ll it 5 5 3 T T tn I 1 1 nr I 2| .L_ ! 3! 4i 2 I I 1! 2 I 1! I ! ill Eh\ni i 2! I '1 ! i ll II J i  i 1 11 i I I 11 ..1-21 , 5' 21 51 31 i 1 M n T I 1 4. T ! 1 11 I i J 1 1 I ant 2 2 1 1 1 i 2! I 1 T i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 4-4 o ' , j 2 21 1\n' 1\n1i 1 ' I I ' I T i 1 3 1l 1 1 1 2 3 1 I ' 11 2! 1 T I I 1 1 1 1 1 UL4 44 I I L I T i + i T T i I T I t 1 1 4 ___i_L 1 I 2! 2 1 1 2 I 1! ll 2 ZH 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 LT - 1 t - 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 I 2 I ii 1 ll_2 n 1 1 2 1 I 3 + I 1 Ll 3 3 1 1 i t 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 Page 1 I 29 39 15 24 25 21 36 12 22 52 21 2 31 33 0 2 4 4 4 6 12 1 9 6 6 9 5 9 4 1 19 1 8 8 3 10 0 2 6 28 3 5 2 10 7 5 4 4 2January. 2000 LOCATION/DATE  3 4 5, 6! 7i10i11 |12l13\n14i CENTRAL_______ HALL___________ MANN___________ METRO_________ PARKVIEW DUNBAR J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. I r? i 2 1 1 I T 2i 4 lj 2i T 1i 1 1 8 4 li I f 18d9 20\n2i\n24 25 26^31128 I TOTALS 1 1 1 IT 1  1 \"r~ nOr- i 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 3] 2i 2 2i 3 i 3' 11 3i 1 nor ' iij' .... 1 1 T MABELVALE JR. , 1 BADGETT I BALE_________ BASELINE BOOKER BRADY________ CARVER CHICOT_______ CLOVERDALE DODD_________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS________ KING_________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY_______ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF t 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 3i 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 ! V v 1 4 7 4 2 1 2 I 11 1! ! li + T i T ij 3! 1 3 2 li 1! 1| 2i li 3 1 2 i 1! 1 4 1 1 m\" 2 1 1 j 2 2 1 I I -( 1i 1 2 1 1 2 li 1 2l 2 2 5 2 3 3 I 1 t i 1 1 4 1 2 Il 6| li i 31 3 i 1 21 r 1\nIj 4i 3! 2 kI QI Q 2i 5! Sj I 2 ! 3 2 3} 1 5 1 u L2 I + I I 4- 2} 1 3 1 I I i i i I T 4i 6! 1 J- 3 5i1| 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1! 21 l! 11 21 1 ! 4| 8! 2 1 2i 3 2 6|~T 1' 1 1 1 6 I\nli 1 3 5 3' 1 3 1 lit 1 T i 1: i 1| 2 1 J-------r-^ 2, 21 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 I 1 I T I t 4- i T i I T I 1 i I 1! 1 rr 1_2l 1 1 i I 2i 2' 3] 3 ! 1 T I I 1 2nn i 2 2 3 2 T 1 1 3 li l| 2 i i 1 l! 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 5i 1 I 1 1 I i Ij 2] Ij 2, 1 ! r 4' 3\n6j 2\\ 1\n1 I I Ml H------ 1 + 1 I T T I 1 1 1 1 1 ! I IM I li 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 T 2, 1  2- 1 1 j 1. 2' 1' 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 I t 1 2 1 1  2! 1! ! 21 5 I 1 T + I 1 T 2 1 1 I M 1 2I 5j 41 1 1 n 2 1  1 2^ 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 I T I T t r M 2l 1' 3 i I T I 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 T 1 2 1 1 V 2 4 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 r I 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1| 1, 1 1l li 1 4 2 2 1 1 3 Page 1  1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 I 30 13 30 17 14 6 20 36 12 20 45 27 8 41 23 0 7 17 10 18 16 28 11 21 8 8 18 10 19 7 15 30 7 7 6 13 18 2 9 8 32 8 11 10 26 20 6 2 14 11February, 2000 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL__________ MANN METRO________ PARKVIEW DUNBAR_______ J. A. FAIR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C. I 1i 2| 3i 4' 7 8' 9 10!l1 14 15 16 17!18i21 '22i23 24!25\n28!29 ( ! ! ! 1 1-IHTT-  1 17-!\n  rltt t ! 11 7\n2 2 i: f 1, 1 I 21 sHj sR i I 3I 2Ji\n2\\ 7i 2' 2| 2i 1| i 11 ! I i 1! 2, l! iRT Ij ij 3i Ij 2i 1 i 1, 2 1 I 1 1 3 I 2 i 1 i 5' 4\n2i 4| 2i 1I 4i 2 3 2 I 2 3 2i 4 1| 4 RT 31 3 ZR 4\n5, 4' 2' 1 21 1| Ts 5\n2i 2 5 51 1 1 1 I 1| 3 2! 2\n2\n2 ri TR Rtt 1 3 3 1 3 T 3 3 2 3! 2\n1 I + CLOVERDALE JR. I MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE_________ BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS________ KING__________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 1 1! 4! 2\n2! 21 1| 2] li i 3I 1! 2 I I I T 11 I 1 Ij I i I I + I 1 1 11 1 T\" 1 1 T 1' II II T 1 I 1 I i 1 i 2 3 1 , 1 2\\ 1| J. I 5 , 1l 11 .1 1 1 1 1 1 lU *-Vt i 1 r~T2 1 2 I I T I I 11 ! Il I  ' 2 1 1 1 I R . 2, T 1 1 2 I T i_\n1 1 I 4\n91 . r sj 4i I 1! 7\n5, I 1 Ij 2i 1 is 1 2 3 1 1| 11 1 2 4 1 i 8 3 1 5i ' 1' 1\n1\n13i ij 11 I ! ! I 2: 1' 2i io\n1' I I ! 2 2 2 2 I TOTALS 2, 3| 5 2 31 3 4 3 1 3 3 2i 2 1 4i 31 11 6i II 3 2 1 2 2 1! i I 3^1 I 1 2 1 2 1 4i 71 2 I T 1 11 \"i. 1 2 1 2 3\n1 ' RHj I 2 4| 1 3 ll 2 R 1 T rM 1 I 1 2 2 I 2i 2: 1| I. T 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 t 11 2 2 4, 41 2 1 ll L.J 1 I I ! 1! I4 I 2 ! 1 ' 1 1 I 2' 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 21 3 I 7 2 4 6 6 6 10 2 3 2 i i ^-U 1 2 i -t I 2 8 2 Mil T 2\n3 4 I I 1 12 9 3 5 7 1 1 2 2 5 31 2 T! 4! 5 3 1 I I 1 1 1 1 2 I 2 1 I ij 2 2! 1 1 1, I 1  R 1 I 1 i R 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 T 1 1' 1 1 i I 1| 1, 2i 2| 1i I 4 ! O r ! I I I 1 EZ ! 1 I 2 rr 3 L L i 4i 1, 11 11 1 1, 3 1 RR 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 112 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Page 1 1 1 1 2 T 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 I I 11 2i 1 1 TR\n1! 2' T i I 1 I 1 1] 1 J_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2i I 1 I 1 I I 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 I 1 1 1 1 1 3 _j__ II 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 I 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 T I 56 31 56 17 36 41 35 68 19 41 69 44 12 52 43 2 9 14 5 15 13 21 14 13 9 6 13 14 14 9 11 12 5 7 3 10 26 2 8 12 39 8 6 3 18 23 7 R 10 14March, 2000 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL MANN___________ METRO PARKVIEW DUNBAR J, A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY_________ CARVER________ CHICOT_________ CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND_______ G. SPRINGS GIBBS__________ KING___________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE____ MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE________ TERRY_________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON_______ W. HILLS_______ WILLIAMS WILSON________ WOODRUFF I V 2 31 6i 71 81 9110 13,14115 1617,20 21 22 23 24'\n ' \" \" 1 ' 1 3i 3i 2! Il 51 2! 21 11 Ij ' ' 2^ i i I 2' 3! i 1U1 U , ! 1 2i 2j 31 21 1,2 5, i ! 1\n4i 8! 3\nI 1! 5 6 I ) I i ! 1' 1' I + II I ' I i 'TOTALS J. 38 21 21 9 28 24 26 39 14 32 80 27 4 50 38 09 11 11 15 12 17 19 10 5 12 23 13 13 5 9 16 11 14 11 7 16 3 14 11 45 19 4 7 21 20 10 5 89 T ! 21 Ij 2i 1 1 i 2^ i I 21 21 1 ' 2 11 1 2, 41 71 ' i ill 1, Ij ~ 1 11 3, 4i 1 2j '1 11 Ij 11 I 2 ' li 3 ! 3' 1 1 11 i 1' 1i 1i I 1. 5' ' li 1i : I 2l j 3^ 1| 1| 1\n' i 1! 3'\nT I 4. 1 1 4i 1 tTI 1 1 i 4! 3! 3 2 -Ji ii!i ^o-\"-!i e\n-ij 5^2 ___ M , 3i 2 9! I 2, , 1: 3lr 2i 4 i 6! 4- 2i 2 I I 1 I i 2i 1 r TI __ I____ Ui i 11 2: 1: 1 1: 1 ' I n i 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1| 2 1 ---- IL 3i 81 22 2 i 31 2 1 1, 1 2| 51 3l 2T 1 ll 2 11 2 + I\n1, 1| il sj 2' i] IT I 3 3' 2 2 1 3 5 3 2' 1i 3'13! 9! 3! 3! 3^7 ! 1: 1i i 3, i 3, ...I 1111\n,,I , I ' ll 31 31 3 1 2i 2' 6i 2' 31 51 4i ----- 1---- i---- 1--- 1------ ---- i---- i---- \\--------- 1--------r-r I I I I I 1 T 2\\ 1! 3i 1 I 1 1 1 1 21 2I 3] 4! 2!~3T 2i i 1----u i 1 1 2 11 1 T 1 1 2 3 I + 1, 2 ll 1 i 1 '_ 14___ 1___I_ U. i I 1 i 1 ! 1 i li 3: I li li 11 1 1 1 1 2 i i| 1 1 T T i 2: 2! 1 3 1 ' 2i 2 1! 1' 1 : 2 11 11 in npi 2! 1 l! rti' i 1 11 1 I 4 1 11 iTT !!I 11 ll 1 It I ! 2 + ! I UT 2n r 1I 1 11 4i 2 1 I 1 4 1 15 1 21 2i ' 1! 1' y r 4 I 1 r 11 2 1 1 1 1 O4 Tr ll 1 TT 11 1! inI ! 3 Ti 12 241 322 1 i 1 1 1 ll r 1 2 iU I 2 2 2 1, 1 1' 2 2 2 i i 1 I + + I I i 2 1 21 i TT I 4- i 2j 2 3 I T 1 11 ll 1 I 2 1 I , I ' I 11  1! Il 2! 1 II Ij 21 I 2 4i IT 1 I IT I 1 1 2 LU It i ci I i 1 411 1 24 3 1 1 i 1 n r 1 u I IT 21 ' 4 j.' 1 121 1 3 l! 4 1 33 11 1 34 1 2 1 2 5152 2 4 21 2 1 1 3 I 1 1 2 11 Page 1 1 2\\+ 1 iI 31 11 2! i 2' 3 2 3 2 1 4 IT 1 2 12 12 1| V12 + 41 1 31 1 23 1 I 4- April, 2000 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL MANN___________ METRO PARKVIEW DUNBAR________ J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT____ BALE___________ BASELINE_______ BOOKER________ BRADY_________ CARVER________ CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS____ GIBBS__________ KING JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF _ MITCHELL_____ OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER 3| 4, 5^ 6 7 10 1lH2i13 14\ni7.18,19i20,21 24,25 26 27 28, 11n 113 1' ij 4i1li 4! I 3! 2i16! 3! ' j  2' 2' 2 2! 3' 8^ 5' T X1 I i I T + I 1 ( +I TOTALS I ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 46 30 38 g 26 21 38 27 8 12 39 24 0 31 22 11 10 13 71 16 4 6 12 3 15 5 14 4 2 81996 10 5 11 7 22 871 20 10 31 10 9 i r 31101 3l li 3! 51 474\n_______ ' ' 7 i 3j j I j I I 1\n3i 8 5' j j I ns i 1\nI i 2| 11 I I I 1 I I , i j 1j 21 1! ij ij 51 ll i 41 9' 3i j ,. i1j 22'' l1l jj II 8113! i j I 2' 9j 21 i 1 2i 1 2' 6 2 5 2 Tel T T i T i I I 1 1 I I IT i I I I T I i I I i i 312 II Ij 2! 2| 21 'i 1 6il0 3 2 2| 4t! 4 TI 3' 2! 7! 7' 1j 2j 1 li Ti I 1 i 2 3 1 I 1 I 31 11 I 2! ij ! 1' 4i 6i 6' ! I II 2i 2 ! 4I 2 3 IT 1 rn'y-no ! I 11 6i 3| j i T I I I I I I I I 2! 1 1 2 I I I T I TI T I i + I II 2 ll I 3! 4! IT X t T I I t f i I I ' j i 1, I I II ij 31 r 2' ' ij 7 I I I 2! 3 2 li j 2j ij 1 j 2\\ i 1 ' 1! 1 I I I T1 ' : I j 'i T 1 t 1 I J. 2 3 1' 1 II 1 I\nI 1 1! j ij Ij 4 I i jLiL-I n I I 2' 2 I T I 2 ! : 2! 2i 2\\ 1| 1! ll 1: 7 + i Ij 2i 3j I I 1! 1 nn I T T I 1 '1'2! I i ! I___ II I n [ 212i 211 II-----1-----T----- 1----- ------TTj- I 1 I 2 t I ! 1! I 1 2 I li ry r i Ij 11 i 2 I T 1 p' Ql II ^21l 1 ij 3, 1! 21 1 li I  3 t-T-n T---- ----- 1 2[ lUx T X 2 4! j I I I 5, I i 1 1! I 1 I I T L_1 uI i I T I + I I p I T I I I T I I I I T t I T I 1 T I I T I T I I + i T I IT I I T T -L X f 1 I I I TI I I T+ I TL 1 iI Ir rp 1212 I I _l II 4- 3! 2 11i. i T , , , I I 1, li 1 i 31 Ij li 1! i ' I I I I ! 1 1 T I ' 4, I 1 1' 11 3! 21 4 1 1 j j I Si  1 2' 1 tT I 2 3 + i 4. i 31 1 3 1 1 1 1 2, 1, V I ! t 11 3 1 1 1 7 ' 1 li 1 li 2 31 1 21 I T 113n 31 2 1 1 11 14 I i Page 1 I aI 4. 1 I TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: ACCELERATED LEARNING PROGRAMS FEBRUARY 1.00 MARCH 3.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 4.50 SCHOOL: ADULT EDUCATION AUGUST 13.00 SEPTEMBER 17.50 OCTOBER 23.50 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 19.50 JANUARY 22.50 FEBRUARY 28.00 MARCH 19.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 171.00 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE AGENCIES AUGUST 2.00 SEPTEMBER 2.00 OCTOBER 14.00 NOVEMBER 6.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 24.50 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER AUGUST 23.00 SEPTEMBER 72.00 OCTOBER 31.50 NOVEMBER 19.00 DECEMBER 18.50 JANUARY 2850 FEBRUARY 31.00 MARCH 18.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 242.00 SCHOOL: ATHLETICS/QUIGLEY/SCOTT FIELD DECEMBER 0.00 FEBRUARY 1.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 1 of 19I TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.00 SCHOOL: BADGETT AUGUST 10.50 SEPTEMBER 15.00 OCTOBER 8.50 NOVEMBER 18.00 DECEMBER 7.00 JANUARY 4.50 FEBRUARY 23.00 MARCH 18.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 104.50 SCHOOL: BALE AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.50 16.00 24.00 18.50 20.00 26.50 24.00 21.50 156.00 SCHOOL: BASELINE AUGUST 12.00 SEPTEMBER 24.00 OCTOBER 35.50 NOVEMBER 17.00 DECEMBER 29.50 JANUARY 35.50 FEBRUARY 50.00 MARCH 44.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 248.00 SCHOOL: BOOKER AUGUST 14.00 SEPTEMBER 53.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 2 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL OCTOBER 62.00 NOVEMBER 53.50 DECEMBER 30.50 JANUARY 50.50 FEBRUARY 59.00 MARCH 76.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 399.50 SCHOOL: BRADY AUGUST 18.00 SEPTEMBER 35.00 OCTOBER 41.50 NOVEMBER 23.00 DECEMBER 15.50 JANUARY 28.50 FEBRUARY 51.50 MARCH 39.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 252.00 SCHOOL: CARVER AUGUST 10.50 SEPTEMBER 55.50 OCTOBER 80.50 NOVEMBER 49.00 DECEMBER 28.50 JANUARY 61.50 FEBRUARY 62.50 MARCH 58.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 406.50 SCHOOL: CENTRAL AUGUST 17.00 SEPTEMBER 58.50 OCTOBER 127.50 NOVEMBER 179.50 DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY 136.50 131.50 149.00 MARCH Wednesday, April 19, 2000 136.50 Page 3 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 936.00 SCHOOL: CHICOT AUGUST 12.50 SEPTEMBER 6550. OCTOBER 63.50 NOVEMBER 58.50 DECEMBER 28.00 JANUARY 48.50 FEBRUARY 51.00 MARCH 100.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 427.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY AUGUST 4.50 SEPTEMBER 40.00 OCTOBER 31.00 NOVEMBER 22.50 DECEMBER 20.50 JANUARY 33.50 FEBRUARY 67.00 MARCH 61.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 280.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JR HIGH AUGUST 2.00 SEPTEMBER 66.00 OCTOBER 96.00 NOVEMBER 67.00 DECEMBER 65.50 JANUARY 64.50 FEBRUARY 80.00 M?\\RCH 78.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 519.50 SCHOOL: DODD SEPTEMBER 12.50 OCTOBER 35.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 4 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL NOVEMBER 52.50 DECEMBER 11.00 JANUARY 26.50 FEBRUARY 21.00 MARCH 61.50 APRIL 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 221.00 SCHOOL: DUNBAR AUGUST 6.00 SEPTEMBER 102.50 OCTOBER 104.50 NOVEMBER 104.50 DECEMBER 90.00 JANUARY 55.00 FEBRUARY 148 50 MARCH 123.50 APRIL -5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 729.50 SCHOOL: ENGLISH NOVEMBER 1.00 DECEMBER 1.00 FEBRUARY 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 3.00 SCHOOL: FAIR JULY 13.00 AUGUST 24.50 SEPTEMBER 65.50 OCTOBER 112.00 NOVEMBER 101.50 DECEMBER 83.00 JANUARY 74.00 FEBRU?\\RY 109.00 MARCH 87.00 JUNE 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 674.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 5 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: FAIR PARK AUGUST 25.00 SEPTEMBER 49.00 OCTOBER 47.00 NOVEMBER 13.50 DECEMBER 17.00 JANUARY 2400 FEBRUARY 22.00 MARCH 29.00 JUNE 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 227.50 SCHOOL: FEDERAL PROGRAMS JANUARY 1.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.50 SCHOOL: FOREST HEIGHTS AUGUST 10.50 SEPTEMBER 88.00 OCTOBER 121.50 NOVEMBER 118.00 DECEMBER 72.00 JANUARY 91.00 FEBRUARY 149.50 MARCH 116.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 766.50 SCHOOL: FOREST PARK AUGUST 22.00 SEPTEMBER 42.50 OCTOBER 69.00 NOVEMBER 68.50 DECEMBER 32.00 JANUARY 58.50 FEBRUARY 57.00 MARCH 44.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 393.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 6 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: FRANKLIN AUGUST 15.00 SEPTEMBER 55.00 OCTOBER 85.00 NOVEMBER 42.00 DECEMBER 21.50 JANUARY 48.00 FEBRUARY 68.50 MARCH 78 50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 413.50 SCHOOL: FULBRIGHT AUGUST 1.50 SEPTEMBER 30.50 OCTOBER 49.00 NOVEMBER 31.00 DECEMBER 28.00 JANUARY 38.00 FEBRUARY 33.50 MARCH 35.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 246.50 SCHOOL: GARLAND AUGUST 19.00 SEPTEMBER 36.50 OCTOBER 46.00 NOVEMBER 40.50 DECEMBER 26.00 JANUARY 42.00 FEBRUARY 46.50 MARCH 37.50 JUNE 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 296.00 SCHOOL: GEYER SPRINGS AUGUST 17.00 SEPTEMBER 32.00 OCTOBER 36.50 NOVEMBER 19.00 Wednesday, April 19,2000 Page 7 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL DECEMBER 10.00 JANUARY 26.50 FEBRUARY 30.50 MARCH 8.50 MAY 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 182 00 SCHOOL: GIBBS AUGUST 14.00 SEPTEMBER 38.00 OCTOBER 46.50 NOVEMBER 37.00 DECEMBER 22.50 JANUARY 52.50 FEBRU/iRY 64.50 MARCH 82.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 357.50 SCHOOL: HALL AUGUST 22.00 SEPTEMBER 75.50 OCTOBER 126.00 NOVEMBER 93.50 DECEMBER 66.00 JANUARY 81.50 FEBRUARY 139.00 MARCH 116.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 720.00 SCHOOL: HENDERSON AUGUST 9.00 SEPTEMBER 78.00 OCTOBER 105.50 NOVEMBER 93.50 DECEMBER 68.50 JANUARY 78.00 FEBRUARY 107.50 MARCH 78.50 APRIL 1.00 Wednesday, April 19,2000 Page 8 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 619.50 SCHOOL: INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS CENTER JULY 0.50 AUGUST 2.00 OCTOBER 1.00 NOVEMBER 2.00 JANUARY 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 8.50 SCHOOL: IRC SEPTEMBER 0.50 OCTOBER 2.50 NOVEMBER bECEMBER 5.00 1.00 JANUARY 2.00 FEBRUARY 3.00 MARCH 0.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 14.50 SCHOOL: JEFFERSON AUGUST 1.50 SEPTEMBER 20.50 OCTOBER 33.00 NOVEMBER 21.00 DECEMBER 17.00 JANUARY 28.00 FEBRUARY 22.50 MARCH 34.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 178.00 SCHOOL: M.L. KING AUGUST 31.00 SEPTEMBER 34.50 OCTOBER 33.50 NOVEMBER 32.50 DECEMBER 18.50 JANUARY 40.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 9 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL FEBRUARY 48.00 MARCH 45.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 283.50 SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY AUGUST 5.50 SEPTEMBER 4000 OCTOBER 41.00 NOVEMBER 35.50 DECEMBER 16.50 JANUARY 48.00 FEBRUARY 29.00 MARCH 33.50 MAY -1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 248.00 SCHOOL: MABELVALE JR HIGH JULY 3.00 AUGUST 4.50 SEPTEMBER 40.00 OCTOBER 72.50 NOVEMBER 75.50 DECEMBER 63.50 JANUARY 54.00 FEBRUARY 107.00 MARCH 94.50 APRIL -14.00 MAY -1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 499.50 SCHOOL: MANN AUGUST 7.50 SEPTEMBER 83.50 OCTOBER 109.00 NOVEMBER 105.00 DECEMBER 84.00 JANUARY 83.00 FEBRUARY 156.50 MARCH 94.50 MAY 1.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 10 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH JUNE TOTAL 0.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 724.50 SCHOOL: MATH SEPTEMBER 1.00 OCTOBER 5.00 NOVEMBER 1.00 JANUARY 8.50 FEBRUARY 5.00 MARCH 12.00 JUNE 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 33.50 SCHOOL: MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH SCH AUGUST 4.00 SEPTEMBER 77.50 OCTOBER 133.00 NOVEMBER 134.50 DECEMBER 116.50 JANUARY 126.50 FEBRUARY 147.00 MARCH 146.00 JUNE 10.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 895.00 SCHOOL: MCDERMOTT AUGUST 10.00 SEPTEMBER 23.50 OCTOBER 37.00 NOVEMBER 38.50 DECEMBER 32.00 JANUARY 32.00 FEBRUARY 26.50 MARCH 25.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 225.00 SCHOOL: MEADOWCLIFF AUGUST Wednesday. April 19, 2000 3.00 Page 11 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL SEPTEMBER 13.50 OCTOBER 27.00 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 9.00 JANUARY 19.00 FEBRUARY 34.00 MARCH 19.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 152.50 SCHOOL: METROPOLITAN JULY 22.00 AUGUST 25.00 SEPTEMBER 17.00 OCTOBER 16.50 NOVEMBER 16.00 DECEMBER 900 JANUARY 16.50 FEBRUARY 15.50 MARCH 900 JUNE 12.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 159.00 SCHOOL: MITCHELL AUGUST 2.50 SEPTEMBER 26.50 OCTOBER 22.00 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 26.00 JANUARY 28.50 FEBRUARY 48.50 MARCH 48.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 229.50 SCHOOL: OTTER CREEK AUGUST 2.00 SEPTEMBER 6.00 OCTOBER 25.00 NOVEMBER 17.00 DECEMBER 20.50 JANUARY 21.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 12 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL FEBRUARY 18.50 MARCH 28.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 139.00 SCHOOL: PARKVIEW AUGUST 8.00 SEPTEMBER 81.50 OCTOBER 142.00 NOVEMBER 91.50 DECEMBER 81.00 JANUARY 50.00 FEBRUARY 125.00 MARCH 134.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 713.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS INT AUGUST 8.00 SEPTEMBER 28.00 OCTOBER 34.00 NOVEMBER 25.50 DECEMBER 13.50 JANUARY 24.50 FEBRUARY 34.50 MARCH 41.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 209.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH AUGUST 7.50 SEPTEMBER 72.00 OCTOBER 115.50 NOVEMBER 63.00 DECEMBER 48.00 JANUARY 44.00 FEBRUARY 113.00 MARCH 64.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 527.00 SCHOOL: PUPIL PERSONNEL Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 13 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: ROMINE AUGUST 1.00 SEPTEMBER 27.50 OCTOBER 27.00 NOVEMBER 39.00 DECEMBER 12.50 JANUARY 32.00 FEBRUARY 48.00 MARCH 77.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 264.50 SCHOOL: SCIENCE/ENV ED JULY 5.00 AUGUST 3.00 SEPTEMBER 8.50 OCTOBER 4.50 NOVEMBER 2.00 DECEMBER 1.00 JANUARY 8.00 FEBRUARY 8.00 MARCH 9.00 JUNE 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 54.00 SCHOOL: SOUTHWEST JULY 2.00 AUGUST 29.00 SEPTEMBER 70.50 OCTOBER 115.50 NOVEMBER 51.50 DECEMBER 61.50 JANUARY 74.50 FEBRUARY 109.00 MARCH 86.50 MAY 0.00 JUNE 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 603.00 SCHOOL: SPECIAL EDUCATION Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 15 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL AUGUST 13.00 SEPTEMBER 30.50 OCTOBER 31.00 NOVEMBER 30.00 DECEMBER 21.00 JANUARY 19.00 FEBRUARY 26.50 MARCH 34.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 205.00 SCHOOL: SUBSTITUTES JANUARY 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.00 SCHOOL: TERRY AUGUST 2.50 SEPTEMBER 25.00 OCTOBER 44.50 NOVEMBER 50.50 DECEMBER 28.00 JANUARY 50.50 FEBRUARY 24.50 MARCH 29.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 254.50 SCHOOL: UNASSIGNED AUGUST 3.00 SEPTEMBER 1.00 OCTOBER 1.00 OCTOBER 7.00 NOVEMBER 2.00 JANUARY 3.50 FEBRUARY 2.50 MARCH 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 22.00 SCHOOL: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION JULY Wednesday, April 19, 2000 2.00 Page 16 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL AUGUST 29.50 SEPTEMBER 17.00 OCTOBER 20.50 NOVEMBER 28.50 DECEMBER 24.50 JANUARY 32.00 FEBRUARY 28.00 MARCH 20.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 202.50 SCHOOL: WAKEFIELD AUGUST 9.00 SEPTEMBER 25.00 OCTOBER 36.50 NOVEMBER 23.00 DECEMBER 11.50 JANUARY 34.00 FEBRUARY 34.00 MARCH 31 50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 204.50 SCHOOL: WASHINGTON AUGUST 13.00 SEPTEMBER 53.00 OCTOBER 84.50 NOVEMBER 55.00 DECEMBER 35.50 JANUARY 70.50 FEBRUARY 67.50 MARCH 72.00 JUNE 0.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 451.50 SCHOOL: WATSON AUGUST 4.50 SEPTEMBER 41.50 OCTOBER 33.00 NOVEMBER 34.50 DECEMBER 21.50 JANUARY 54.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 17 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL FEBRUARY 42.50 MARCH 35.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 266.50 SCHOOL: WESTERN HILLS AUGUST 9 50 SEPTEMBER 20.50 OCTOBER 32.00 NOVEMBER 18.50 DECEMBER 10.50 JANU/iRY 30.50 FEBRUARY 25.00 MARCH 19.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 165.50 SCHOOL: WILLIAMS AUGUST 30.50 SEPTEMBER 65.00 OCTOBER 74.00 NOVEMBER 60.00 DECEMBER 39.00 JANUARY 53.50 FEBRUARY 67.50 MARCH 71.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 460.50 SCHOOL: WILSON AUGUST 3.00 SEPTEMBER 17.00 OCTOBER 29.50 NOVEMBER 39.00 DECEMBER 21.50 JANUARY 50.50 FEBRUARY 41.00 MARCH 43.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 245.00 SCHOOL: WOODRUFF Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 18 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL AUGUST 10.00 SEPTEMBER 35.50 OCTOBER 19.00 NOVEMBER 23.50 DECEMBER 12.50 JANUARY 40.00 FEBRUARY 38.00 MARCH 21.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 199.50 GRAND TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 19,601.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 19 of 19 DROPOUT REPORT 3RD QUARTER 1999-2000 Schools ALT LEARN 7th Grade 8th Grade % CLOVERDALE 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % DUNBAR 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % FOREST HTS 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % Enrollment BM 25 8 17 705 251 241 213 739 240 239 260 785 248 257 280 BF WM WF OM OF Total Dmpouts % HENDERSON 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % MABELVALE 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % MANN 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % PULASKI HTS 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % 551 183 192 176 494 172 165 157 842 270 291 281 760 262 253 245 SOUTHWEST 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % TOTAL % DISTRICT TOTALS % 447 150 179 118 5348 0 000 0000 0 0 00001 100 0.1 0 0 0 000000000 000000 00 00 00 0 1 0.02 11 04 0 0 0 00 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 000 00 0 000 0 000 0 0 00 0 00 0001 0.02 0 000 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 001001 0.1 000 0 0 000 0 0 00 000 0 00 00 00 000 00000000001 0.02 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 00 0 0 0000 0 000 00 0000 0 00 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 001 0 00 0 1 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 3 12327 34 0.3 11 0.09 3 0.02 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 50 Revised - 4/7/2000 4 12.5 0 0.1 0 0 0.5 0 00 0 0.1 0.4 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.06 0.4 Schools ACC LEARN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % CENTRAL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % FAIR 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % HALL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % MCCLELLAN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % PARKVIEW 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % ALT LEARN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % TOTALS % Enrollment | BM 204 10 61 53 80 2045 517 518 536 474 954 264 270 233 187 1389 439 398 315 237 1192 332 384 249 227 1157 287 293 295 282 38 19 17 11 6979 I DROPOUT REPORT 3RD QUARTER 1999-2000 0 0 0 00 0 13 1 64 2 0.6 0 01 0 0 0 5 0212 0.4 61 2 21 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 521 1 23.7 33 0.5 BF WM WF OM OF Total Dropouts 0 0 0 0 00 5 02 0 3 0.2 00 00 0 010 0 01 0.07 2 0 110 0.2 0 0 00 0 021 10 0 5.3 10 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 012 0.1 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 3 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000 1 0 01 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 22 2 8 6 8 0 01 00 6 0 2 13 8 13 31 0 00 0 0 11 6 31 1 47 Revised - 4/7/2000 % 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.4 1.5 1.1 1.7 0 0 0.4 0 0 0.4 0 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.2 0.4 0 0 00 0 28.9 31.6 17.6 100 100 0.7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3RD Quarter Dropout Report Comparison -1999-200011998-1999 Schools_______ ACC___________ Central_________ Fair____________ Hall____________ McClellan_______ Parkview_______ ALC____________ Sub-Totals_____ _______% Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH______ Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Mann Magnet JH Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH ALC____________ Sub-Totals_____ % I Year-2000 Enrollmem Black 204 2045 954 1389 1192 1157 38 6979 705 739 785 551 494 842 760 447 25 5348 Totals___________ District Percentages 12327 0 18 0 6 8 0 11 43 0.7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0.04 45 0.4 I Quarter 3[ White 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.02 4 0.03 Other 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.008 Total Dropouts 0 22 0 6 8 0 11 ~~ 47 % 0 1.1 0 0.4 0.7 0 28.9 0.7 [Year-99 | Enrollment Black I Quarter 3~[ White Other Total Dropouts % 1865 728 783 871 933 50 5230 1 0 1 0 0   0 1 3 50 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.06 603 755 779 603 500 840 770 431 21 5302 10532 0.4 Revised - 4/7/2000 51 5 6 46 1 4 113 2.2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 10 14 0.3 127 1.2 11 2 3 1 1 1 19 0.4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0.04 21 0.2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.02 2 0.02 62 7 10 47 2 5 133 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 12 17 150 3.3 1 1.3 5.4 0.2 10 2.5 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0.3 0 57.1 0.3 1.4Ia * 00 * n o sr 0 CM * 0 CM 35 * CM 0 * 0 0 * sr CM 0 * CM  o\u0026gt; * \u0026lt;D (\u0026lt;4 8 \u0026lt;M 0 o O 0 0 CM 0 CM 0 o (D 7^ UJ q\na o 0. UJ (X 5 o Q. o q: Q in o \u0026amp; o co UJ o gq : (O CD \"Z. o z-r. ex Oi \u0026lt; O) 0- T K CUOJ Q 8 Xo w 8 X LU o o O' \u0026gt; UJ UJ : I O\u0026gt; O) I 8 coo 3 8IUki !8 CO s 8 o o\u0026gt;s3 1 UI I 8 i s s co M 3 IlU N CM sr 0 0 0 sr CM O CM 0 sr CM sr CM sr o sr 0 * co * * o sr o sr o sr o # CM 5 0 CM o rt 0 O o o o sr CM sr 0 *CM * * CM 2(! CM CM * *\" ** sr CM *CM 0 0 0 0 0 CM 0 0 CM 0 0 CM CM 0 CM CM 0 n 0 sr o * o sr o * 0 CM 0 * sr 0 * * 0 0 0 o is\nO CM CM CM 0 0 o 0 0 0 CM o 0 O 0 s 0 CM 0 0 00 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 sr 0 0 0 2 0 sr 0 * n * o 0  CM * o 0 CM CM CM 3 0 0 0 CM s 0 S 0 0 CM 0 o 0 I 0 2 O o 0 sr 0 * * o 0 *O o sr o * 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 o CM o o o CM o 0 * 0 sr CM 0 sr o 0 0 0 0 0 o 3/: CM 8 * CM * * o * O sr 0 o 0 O 0 o o 0 o 3CM ! * 8 3 0 h * o 8 * cn e o  * s S CM 0 sr CM o 0 CM 0 sr 0 O * O 0 * 0 0 0 0 sr 0 # CM 0 sr 0 O sr co sr CM o * o CM 0 CM  0 CM CM CM O 0 0 o 0 0 o N 0 I e8 oc o E I   a e Q Ec b I o V) 0 00 o 0 0 00 0 0 3CM 0 CM CM 0 CM 0 3 CM s 0 0 00 0 K e I * 0 8 S 8 or 0 s 0 o sr CM 0 sr CM 0 0 0\nf! o o * 3 I A ? CB o. fi 0 o 0 0 0 CM CM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CM 0 CM 0 M # ? 0 sr CM 0 CM !P 0 0 00 c 0 0 0 o o o o * 0 * CM * * CM CM CM 0 0 * 0 0 0 CM a m0* $2 0 0 s 0 a Z Ou S * CM 0 CM :=  3 \u0026lt;A sr CM CM 0 0 0 O J i (B sr :: SP O 0 o * 0 * CM o 0 0 0 * 0 * 0 0 * o J sr o CM 0 sr CM O CM s CM 0 sr CM CM CM CM o O CM CM 0 CM 0 sr CM CM CM sr 0 * 0 0 CM * 0 0 sr CM CM * * 0 sr *s 0 * 0 CM * I 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 s 0 o 3 o 0 CM ciic a g O a E 7 Z oe 7 o 5 s- \u0026gt; JC   o o z a S S I zot (O 1 o s Central Fair SchooF Hall McClellan Parkview ALC Sub Total Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Haights Southwest ALC Sub Totti TottlOrogout^^^ Dttbtet Pefcenttgee I I 1998| EnroWntent Btecfc 1865 728 783 871 933 50 6230 603 755 779 803 500 640 770 431 21 5302 10632 144 8% 57 8% 63 8% 111 13% 8 .6% 11 22% 392 7% 39 6% 12 2% 16 2% 16 3% 12 2% 1 .1% 8 1% 17 4% 19 90% 142 3% 534 6% PUPIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DTISTRICT DROPOLTT REPORT THREE YEAR COMPARISON BY RACE 1997-1999 -19991 Wte 28 2% 22 13 9 11 1 64 10 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4 .5% 15 13 1 2% 2% .2% 2 2% 1 14 1 61 .1% 3% 5% 1% 146 140% I I I 19977 Othw Totel Dropoute Enrollntent Btecf*\"^ -19981 White I Other Total Propouff I T99^ EnroHmant black -19971 TSBSar I 1 .5% 173 1 3 3 0 0 8 3 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 .1% .4% .3% 0% 0% .2% .5% .3% .3% .3% 0% .1% 0% .2% 5% 12 .2% 20 0.20% 80 79 123 17 12 464 52 18 33 33 13 4 9 32 21 215 9% 11% 10% 14% 2% 24% 9% 9% 2% 4% 5% 3% .5% 1% 7% 100% 4% 699 6.60% 1855 757 790 935 911 6 5254 622 721 648 724 506 858 767 510 10 5366 10620 162 9% 101 13% 78 10% 120 13% 5 .5% 2 33% 466 9% 45 12 22 50 13 0 7% 2% 3% 7% 3% 0% 3 .3% 81 12% 4 40% 55 3% 19 3% 18 2% 14 1% 3 3% 0 0% 109 2% 7 1% 17 2% 9 1% 30 4% 1 .1% 0 0% 0 0% 43 8% 0 0% 210 4% 107 2% 078 640% 216 2% 6 .3% 1 .1% 6 1% 4 0 19 4 5 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 .4% 0% 0% .3% .6% .7% 0% .3% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 13 .2% 32 0.30% 223 121 104 138 8 2 590 56 34 31 82 14 0 3 106 4 330 12% 16% 13% 15% .8% 33% 11% 9% 5% 4% 11% 3% 0% .3% 21% 40% 6% 920 8.72% Prepared by the Little Rock School District Dropout Prevention Office -10/14/99 1745 814 807 910 866 6142 639 775 830 741 468 854 785 594 6486 10028 210 12% 59 7% 69 8% 97 10% 0 0% 436 e% 20 22 41 53 30 3% 2% 6% 7% 6% 6 .7% 6 .8% 27 4% 205 4% 641 6% 59 3% 19 2% 26 3% 18 2% 1 .1% 123 2% 9 1% 23 12 26 32 11 2% 2% 4% 7% 1% 4 .5% 14 2% 131 2% 254 240% 2 .1% 6 1% 9 1% 2 .2% 0 0% 19 .3% 1 .1% 3 .3% 1 .1% 3 .4% 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% a .1* 27 040% Total Dropotrtt 271 84 104 117 1 577 30 48 54 82 62 17 10 41 344 15.5% 10.3% 12.8% 12.8% .1% 11.2% 4.7% 6.2% 8.5% 11% 132% 2% 1.3% 6.9% 6.2% 921 6.70% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 19, 2000 TO: Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent FROM: Linda Watsi ssistant Superintendent SUBJECT: 1999-2000 Third Quarter Disciplinary Management Report The following data represents the Third Quarter Disciplinary Management Report for the 1999-2000 school year. An analysis of the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years is presented. The Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes and Recidivism Reports for the 1999-2000 school year are also included.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1999 - 2000 THIRD QUARTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT During the third quarter of the 1999 - 2000 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced an overall reduction of 340 suspensions when compared to the number of suspensions for the same period of the 1998 -1999 school year. There were 1255 suspensions issued during the third quarter of the 1999 - 2000 school year and 1595 during the 1998 - 1999 school year. The suspension data indicates there was an increase of 101 suspensions at the senior high level\nhowever, there were decreases of 247 suspensions at the middle school and 194 at the elementary school levels. The increase in the number of suspensions at the senior high level can be attributed to the reorganization of the District's grade levels. During the 1999 - 2000 school year, the District established middle schools wherein the 9* grade students were moved to the senior high schools and 6'^ grade students were moved to middle schools. The recidivism report reveals 1201 students actually received suspensions which represent only 4.8 % of the total student population. The number of students receiving suspensions that must be reported to the Arkansas Department of Education was fewer than 1% of the Districts student population.Discipline Quarterly Comparison Report Year: 1999-2000 Quarters to Quarters School Enrollment Black White Other Total % ACC LEARN 205 0 2 0 2 1.0% AGENCIES 103 I 3 0 0 3 0.0% CENTRAL 2045 I 56 8i 0 64 t i I 3.1% FAIR 955 i 92 18 1 111 11.6% HALL 1391 142 14 9 165 11.9% iMCCLELLA 1192 78 4 2 84 7.0% METRO 0 + 5 1 ' 0 6 0.0% IPARKVIEW 1157 25 6 0 31 2.7% 1 Sub-^Tttua ALT LEARN 63 *1^ 3 c 48 jCLOVR JR 705 -- 97 I IDUNBAR 739 54 Jforst HT II 79 iHENDERSN 551 r MABEL JR 494 1_ _ _ 64 iMANN M/S 26 842 I 43 'PUL HT j' 760 53 SOUTHWST 447 64 'I 6 14, 18\n14\n6 6 7 4 1 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 3 53 107 70 98 78 33 49 60 71 ! Sub-Total 5386 528 79 12 619 i Totals 12434 929 132 24 1085 LRSD Information Services Wednesday, April 19, 2000 84.1% 15.2% 9.5% 12.5% T I I 14.2% 6.7% 5.8% 7.9% 15.9% 11.5% 8.7% II 1 J Page 1 of I Discipline Quarterly Comparison Report Year: 1998-1999 Quarters to Quarter 3 i School j AGENCIES Enrollntent i Black White I Other 1 Total % I t I 0 17 6 0 23 0.0% CENTRAL FAIR ! HALL I\nMCCLELLA ! METRO j PARKVIEW I 1865 728 783 871 0 933 41 40 59 71 10 32 7 6 3 2 0 21 0 1 5 2 1 0 48 47 67 75. 11 53 2.6% 6.5% 8.6% 8.6% 0.0% 5.7% I Sub-Total 5180 270 45 9 324 6.3% ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT t 71 603 755 34 152 I 779 84 J '91' 5 8 18 22 1 9 0 4 40 169 102 117 56.3% 28.0% 13.5% 15.0% !HENDERSN I -... - \nMABEL JR I 603 135 6 1 I I 500 61 11 1 142 73 23.5% 14.6% i MANN M/S 840 59 14 0 73 8.7% 'PULHTJ 770 108 6 1 i 115 14.9% i SOUTHWST I 431 67 14 3 84 19.5% Sub-Total I 5352 791 104 20 915 17.1% Totals 10532 1061 149 29 1239 11.8% LRSD Information Services Wednesday, April 19, 2000 I I I i I J I Page I of IName ACC LEARN ACC LEARN AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL MCCLELLA METRO PARKVIEW Totals ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PUL HT J SOUTHWST Totals BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVR EL DODD School Eiirolleii %Blk 58 205 118 2045 955 1391 1192 0 1157 7121 63 705 739 785 551 494 842 760 447 5386 196 312 296 534 348 525 510 426 203 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 76% 77% 49% 57% 80% 71% 89% 0% 50% 68% 90% 88% 60% 65% 77% 73% 52% 60% 91% 69% 91% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 89% 65% LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Third Quarter Short Term Suspension BM BF \\wM WF T otal 0 0 0 O' 0 O' 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 38 46 9^ 49 4 15\n245 32 68 37 53 42 11\n30 37i 44: 354 0 3 li 2 0 6 0 0 0 17 ! 41 46 24 1 6 i 135 7 25 16 25 21 12 10 15 15 146 0 1 2 0 ! 2 2 0 0 7 0 62 11 5 103 18 2 1 1 41 3i 9 12 18i 9! t 6 5 6 73 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 i oi Oj oi 21 5 3 0 5 19 1 1 4 1 3 2i 0 2 1, 15 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 78 6 21 440 43 103 69 97 75 30 46 59 66 588 0 4 3 2 2 8 0 0 2 Long Term Suspension BM BF WM\\WF Total I 0 0 O' 0^ 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 4 0 4 18 7 4 1 0 1 3 2 1 5 24 0 : 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 . 1 . 0 0 ' 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Expulsion Recommendation BM } BF WF Total 0. 0 i 0 0 0 Total ffSiisp T ! %Blk 0 0% oi o' 0 Oi 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 : -..4. 0  0 0 2 0% li 3\nOi 1 Oi oi '!  5' 0 Oi 0 Oi 2! 2L 0: oi Oi 2! oi Oi 0 0 0 0 0\nOi li 0 oi Oi 0! Oi Oi Oi 1 0. Oi Oi Oi oi O'i 21 oi 1, 0\n0 Oi O' 01 Oi 0 Oi Oi 2 8 6 6 0 4 26 10 4 1 1 3 3 3 1 5 31 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 Oi 0 Oi 0 oi o' 0 Oi Oi 0' 21 oi oi oi oi oi 0\nOi O' O' 0 O' 0 Oi 0 0 Oi j. 0 3. J 64 i 100% 88% 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 ! 0! .. 4-,  0 ! 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I---- 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -'L 0 0 0 0 I 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 111 I .__2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ' 0  0 0 i 0 0 i 0! i 0 ' Oj ol 0 + 0 i 0 i 0 0 0 0 i 0 i i 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 84 6 31 466 53 107 70 98 78 33 49 60 71 619 0 4 j _ ?3% I I I t -t 3 2 2 11 0 0 3 I 86% 93% 83% 81% 86% 91% 91% 77% 81% 82% 79% 88% 88% 90% 85% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% Page 1 of 2Name FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN M LKING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL School Enrolled %Blk 221 318 485 410 267 324 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 72% 44% 96% 41% 94% 82% 52% 39% 55% 57% 73% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% WASHNGTN 543 61% WATSON 445 94% WEST HIL 255 75% WILLIAMS 458 51% WILSON 313 89% WOODRUFF 282 80% Totals 12683 68% GTotal 99/00 25190 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 67.9% LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Third Quarter Short Term Suspension BM BF \\WM \\ WF T otal 0 5\n14 0^ 0 1, 4 2: 1, T 20 5 5 O' 1 Oi Oi oi 9 11 0 3i oi 0 Oi 2i 102 O' I 0! 0 i oi oi 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 i 2\n0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 32 i 0 5 0! 0 21 Long Term Suspension BM BF WM ' WF Total 0 0 0 0 Oi 01 0 o\n1 0 0 o! 0 0 1 Expulsion Recommendation BM \\BF \\wM WF Total 0 01 oi 0 ii 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 ' 0 0 Total ttSiisp 0 5 22 i %Blk 4 0 0 0 2 0 2  -t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oi Oi 0! o: 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oi Oi 2 0 1 5 4 1 11 22 6 8 1 1 0 0 1 13 18 0 4 0 0 0 3 146 0 0 0 Oj 0 1 0 II 0 0 o\n! oi 0 ' 0 li oi1 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 ' 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0\n0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1' 0\nO' O' Oi 0, O' 1_ oi .... I-oi 4- Oi o\nt Oi O' 2i oi Oi 7' 0 0 0 Oi 0 Oi M 0 1. oi 0\noi O' oi oi i i 0 0 2 0 1 6 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 24 0 Oi 0 0 I 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4.1 .. o: oi O' 0\nO' 0\nOi 0, -------0, Oi1 Oi oi O' Oi Oi 0\nr 0: Oi oi Oi oi 0 0 oi 0! oi 0 , 0 : 0 0 0 0 0 oi oi 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 ' 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 7 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 86% 0 I 'o'! 0  0 . 0 0 0 0, 0 !  i 0 i 0 ' 0 0 0 i 0 i 0 ' 0 0 Oi 0 0 4 50% 0 2 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 22 6 9 1 2 1 0 1 15 19 0 5 0 3 0 3 170 I 82% 100% 100% 89% 0% i 100% 100% 0% 0% J-------7-3--%-- ! 100% 0% I 100% 0% 33% 0% 100% 89% 1255 i 86% Page 2 of 2 Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2000 Quarter: 3 to Quarter: 3 I9-Apr-00 ,evel School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High ACC LEARN 2 115 Repeat Violation 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 Senior High AGENCIES 2 110 Disorderly Conduct 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Senior High CENTRAL 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 010 030 040 080 100 110 115 121 122 150 091 140 Assault Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 5 0 0 1 25 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 7 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 12 1 1 3 36 2 3 I I I 64 Senior High FAIR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 010 020 040 070 090 100 110 115 120 121 150 000 010 071 072 Assault Battery Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff I I 4 0 5 1 1 26 0 1 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 7 0 1 0 3 13 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 12 5 8 1 4 40 I II 8 2 3 1 2 111 Senior High HALL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 030 040 070 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 150 000 Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA 1 1 0 4 5 11 3 12 5 43 I 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 I 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 1 9 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 10 19 4 15 16 78 1 I 2 4 1 LRSD Information Services ILevel School Lvl Code Offense BM WM (IM. BF WF OF Total Senior High HALL 3 3 3 010 071 072 Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 165 Senior High MCCLELLA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 020 030 040 070 080 090 105 110 115 120 150 071 072 140 Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 0 9 6 0 10 0 5 15 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 I 1 5 1 1 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 12 8 1 17 1 7 27 1 1 1 2 3 84 Senior High METRO 2 2 2 2 010 090 100 123 Assault Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Use of Paging Devices 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 6 Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 040 090 105 110 115 150 072 091 140 Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 7 0 2 2 4 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 2 4 5 3 1 2 I 31 Middle School ALT LEARN 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 040 070 090 100 105 110 115 120 150 000 071 072 090 091 140 Assault Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 9 1 5 1 2 2 4 5 1 1 3 1 I 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 LRSD Information Services Senior High 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 II 1 8 2 3 4 5 5 2 2 4 1 1 I 1 2Level School Lvl Code Offense. BM,, WM ,r OM BF WF OF Total S3 jddle School CLOVR JR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 121 122 072 090 140 Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 12 1 7 2 II 6 27 2 0 2 I 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 4 8 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 3 10 2 18 10 36 4 1 2 1 I 107 Middle School DUNBAR 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 010 020 030 040 060 090 105 110 115 120 121 150 071 Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Alarm Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff 2 3 1 12 0 4 3 1 7 3 1 0 I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 1 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 21 I 6 6 2 16 7 1 I 1 70 Middle School FORST HT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 115 120 121 091 Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Possession Weapon/Knife 6 2 0 29 1 3 0 6 4 I 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 1 1 10 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 3 45 1 7 I 20 8 1 1 1 98 Middle School HENDERSN 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 020 030 040 090 110 115 120 150 010 140 Battery Theft Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Sale/Distribution of Alcohol TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 3 20 5 I 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 1 II 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 36 6 1 25 1 1 2 1 78 LRSD Information Services 3 Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM...... BF ,WF OF Total Middle School MABEL JR 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 100 110 115 121 072 091 140 Theft Fighting Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 5 1 0 4 1 1 I 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 1 4 7 1 1 1 1 33 Middle School MANN M/S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 020 040 050 100 115 120 121 072 091 Battery Fighting Gambling Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife 2 5 2 2 16 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 8 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 2 3 26 1 2 1 2 49 Middle School PUL HT J 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 030 040 080 090 105 110 115 121 122 091 Assault Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Possession Weapon/Knife 0 5 11 1 I 2 0 12 4 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 22 I 4 2 1 15 4 1 1 60 Middle School SOUTHWST 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 123 072 080 081 Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Use of Paging Devices Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Firearm Possession of Firearm/Pistol 2 2 16 1 3 I 0 2 16 1 2 1 2 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 32 2 3 1 1 2 20 1 2 1 2 71 Middle School 619 lementary BALE 2 2 110 115 Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation 2 1 00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 Elementary BASELINE 2 010 Assault 1 0 0 I 0 0 2 LRSD Information Services 4 Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM . OM......BF WF OF Total Elementary BASELINE 2 115 Repeat Violation 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 mentary BOOKER 2 2 010 040 Assault Fighting 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Elementary BRADY 2 2 010 110 Assault Disorderly Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Elementary CARVER 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 115 060 140 Theft Fighting Repeat Violation Arson TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 I 2 11 Elementary DODD 2 2 3 020 090 140 Battery Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 0 0 I 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I 1 3 Elementary\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_332","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 33-36","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":["1997/1999"],"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 law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 33-36"],"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/332"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nPULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS EVALUATION 1997-98 Gerald B. DickinsonACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the help of Ms Donna Grady Creer, her office staff, and the teachers and administrators of Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. This evaluation project was made easier by their honest, forthright and candid responses. The building principals were especially helpful in accommodating the evaluation team members during site visits. A great debt is owed my respected colleagues for their professional work and dedication to the evaluation project. Finally, thanks to my graduate assistants whose help and assistance is greatly appreciated.TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction Section I: Student Achievement Standardized Tests...................................... Magnet Schools - All Students.................. Magnet Schools - Dissagregated Groups, Test Score Disparities................................. Summary Findings......................... 3 4 12 28 30 Section H: Desegregation Enrollment, Placement \u0026amp; Waiting Lists. Staffing.......................................................... Social Interaction - Sociograms.............. Student Interaction - Site Visits............. Student/Staff Interaction - Site Visits.... Summary Findings........................ 32 36 38 89 92 94 Section HI: Magnet Theme Magnet Themes.................... Program Availability........... Coherent Magnet Program. Summary Findings.. 96 97 99 101 Section IV: Sumraative Evaluation Conclusions................. Summary Conclusion, 102 103 Section V: Appendix Appendix. 104PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Evaluation Report December 1998 INTRODUCTION The 1997-98 evaluation report continues the format that has been provided for the past several years. Few changes are noted in order that continuity and consistency may enhance both the short-term and long-term evaluative processes. Any changes in reporting format have been mutually agreed upon by the Magnet Review Committee and the evaluator. Student achievement data continue to be reported in Percentile Ranks (PR) as initiated in the 1996-97 report. In previous reports, only sociogram data for the Fall administration are included, while data analysis for both the Fall and the Spring administrations are provided. Due to requests by the magnet school administrators, and subsequently, the Magnet Review Committee, both Fall and Spring sociogram data and analysis are included in this report. This report also brings together data and findings from previous reports in order to present an element of continuity to conclusions and inferences that assist educational planners in assessment of long term impact of project activities on magnet school goals and purposes. The purpose of this design is to provide a logical, sequential, and continuous accounting of the attainment of evaluation project objectives, assessment activities, and evaluation reports. Section titles are designed and written to correspond to expected outcomes as identified in the evaluation proposal. It should be noted that not all evaluation reports have the same evaluation objectives. Expected outcomes may vary from one project year to another based on the contribution of each component toward assurances that magnet school objectives are successfully met and based on changes in evaluation components agreed upon by the Magnet Review Committee and the evaluator. Some evaluation components may be eliminated or used only during alternative years. Also, data provided during previous or subsequent evaluations may be valuable in providing a degree of confidence about the attainment of specific outcomes. Principal evaluation objectives are retained in each of the project years to assure a continuous measure of magnet school attainment of goals and objectives. Where appropriate, comparisons and contrasts are provided. Comparisons and contrasts that require assumptions about enrollment and program continuity are noted so that any inferences and conclusions drawn might be weighed relative to such assumptions. Additional evaluation objectives may be added in future evaluations as the Magnet Review Committee seeks new and different data regarding the magnet school program. 1Evaluation Objectives 1. Student Achievement  To obtain and analyze the 1997-98 standardized test scores for the following tests for appropriate groups. A. Stanford Achievement Tests - Magnet Schools (All grades) Little Rock School District B. Stanford Achievement Tests - Arkansas (state)\nNational (national) 2. 3. Desegregation  To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of magnet schools toward the desegregation goals of the project. A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the staffing patterns and do they reflect diversity relative to race and gender? C. What are the social interaction patterns between and within the disaggregate groups by race and sex? D. Is there evidence revealed by data during site visits of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? E. What are the interaction patterns of administrators, staff, and students and between teachers and students? Magnet theme  To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program activities. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by the magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel and resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? 2PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Student Achievement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives listed in the evaluation procedures relative to student achievement. Student Achievement - To obtain and analyze standardized test scores for the appropriate grade groups. METHODS/ FINDINGS Magnet school test data were received from the Office of Planning, Research and Development, Little Rock School District. Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) data were received for elementary grades 3 and 5, and for grades 7 and 10 at the secondary level. Test data summaries for the state were provided by the Office of Student Assessment, Arkansas Department of Education. The Department of Education requires that students in grades 5, 7, and 10 take the SAT 9. Previous reports have compared students on the basis of Percentile Rank (PR). Given the acceptability and familiarity of reporting percentile ranks, this report continues to utilize percentile ranks to compare and contrast magnet school students with other students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas and the nation. National norm scores were based on normative data copyrighted by Harcourt Brace \u0026amp; Company. Test data were reported for disaggregate groups, however, percentile ranks for subgroups and for each magnet site were computed by averaging mean NCE scores and converting scores into percentile ranks. Percentile ranks reported may differ slightly due to rounding during computation. Tests results data analysis for Grade Three were accomplished by comparing magnet school student data with scores from the LRSD. Data analysis for grades 5, 7, and 10 were accomplished by comparing magnet school students with student in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. The mean percentile rank for all students nationwide was the 50* percentile. Magnet school students were contrasted on the basis of how they performed relative to the 50* percentile. Students are disaggregated by race. Disaggregate groups are compared with like-type comparison groups. The purpose of this comparison is to determine how magnet school student perform relative to students of the same race. Data analysis is presented in both narrative and graphic form. Test data results were obtained from the 1998 Fall administration of the SAT 9 3Magnet Schools - All Students The first comparison is for magnet schools all students. Percentile ranks are computed by weighting average mean NCE scores. Magnet schools students scores are compared to LRSD, state and national scores. Grade 3 A total of 275 third grade magnet school students took the SAT9 in the Fall of 1998. Test results are depicted in the table that follows. Percentile Ranks are presented for the nation, the LRSD and each of the magnet schools. The Arkansas Department of Education does not require third grade students to be tested. Stanford Achievement Test Third Grades/Percentile Ranks Magnet Schools/ LRSD/ Nation Magnet School N = 275 School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 45 35 40 35 42 42 Booker 40 36 35 40 42 39 Carver 57 47 50 49 55 56 Gibbs 52 38 56 55 50 51 Williams 66 63 67 59 65 64 Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams generally scored higher than students at the national average and students in the Little Rock School District. Booker students scored below the national average and about the same as students in the Little Rock School District. Test results on the complete battery were about the same as for the 1996-97 school year in the magnet schools. Tests scores for the Little School District were slightly higher in 1997-98 than the previous school year. Magnet school test scores were generally lowest in math, with students at Booker and Gibbs scoring well below the national average. Students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams scored above the national average in reading and language arts. 4The graph below depicts Third Grade test scores for magnet school students. Stanford Achievement Test Third Grade ! Stanford Achievement Test J Percentile Ranks 100 so 1 1 I 60 r I 40 I 20 0 1 I Read Math Lang Boviroo B Battery C Battery National LRSD Legend Booker  Carver Glbbi WUlUmi I 5Grade 5 A total of 287 fifth grade magnet school students took the SAT 9 in the Fall of 1998. Tests scores are reported for each of the magnet schools, the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade/Percentile Ranks Magnet Schools/LRSD/State/National N = 287 School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 49 41 46 45 45 47 47 LRSD 40 36 42 34 38 41 40 Booker 40 25 45 40 41 38 39 Carver 54 50 50 49 51 52 52 Gibbs 38 34 34 36 37 37 37 Williams 74 67 70 61 73 71 70 Fifth grade students at Williams and Carver magnet schools scored above the national, state, and Little Rock School District average. Students at Booker scored at about the same level as students in the Little Rock School District but below the state average. Students at Gibbs scored well below the state, LRSD, and the nation. Scores for fifth grade students at Gibbs were considerably lower in 1997-98 than for the 1996-97 school year. Scores for students at Booker, Carver, and Williams were about the same as scores for the previous year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Fifth Grade students. 6Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade ! Stanford Achievement Test I i i Percentile Ranks 100 80 0 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soc. Science B Battery C Battery Legend National Oibbt LRSD WilliamB Booker Arkaneat Carver 0 ( 1 3 1 J Grade 7 Two hundred seventy Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School took the SAT 9 in the Fall of 1999. The percentile ranks for students on all subtests, except math, were above the 50* percentile. The score for math was at the 49* percentile. The table below depicts the test scores for Seventh Grade students in the nation, Arkansas, the LRSD, and Mann Junior High School. Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade/Percentile Ranks Mann Junior High /LRSD/State/National N=270 School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 46 45 45 55 49 48 49 LRSD 39 40 38 42 39 41 41 Mann 57 49 57 59 56 57 57 Mann Seventh Grade students scored considerably higher than students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. The graph on the following page depicts the test scores of Mann and other comparison groups. 8Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 5 SiE 40 - 20 rs.'Cfisw Read Math Laag Arte Sienee Soc Smdlrt B BAttery C Banery Maiional Legend Arkaniaa LRSD Mann 1***^ I{ 0 i 5 I I f 9 Grade 10 In the Fall of 1999, 298 Tenth Grade students at Parkview High School took the SAT 9. The percentile ranks for students on all subtests were above the 50* percentile. The table below depicts the test scores for 10* grade students in the nation, Arkansas, the LRSD, and Parkview High School. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade/Percentile Ranks Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 43 52 46 53 50 47 48 LRSD 36 43 40 45 42 42 42 Parkview 52 55 53 58 54 54 54 Parkview Tenth Grade students scored considerably higher than students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. The graph on the following page contrasts the scores of Parkview students against other comparison groups. 10Stanford Achievement Tests Tenth Grade Stanford Achievement Test ! i I 1 Percentile Ranks 100 so 60 aaaagftT7\n.aBe. 40 20 Read Math Lane * Science Soe Stud B Battery C Battery National Legend Arkansas LRSD Parkview 11 i j 0 I t I Magnet Schools - Disaggregate Groups The following comparisons are designed to compared magnet school student with like-type students across the state, the LRSD, and other magnet schools. Because national student test data are not provided for disaggregate groups, the 50* percentile will serve for comparative purposes. Test data for Grade Three are not available for the state since testing of Third Grade students is not mandated by the ADE. Grade 3 Test scores for 3^ grade magnet school students are compared with other magnet school students as well as with test scores for 3\"* grade students in the LRSD. Subgroups compared are black students and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Third Grade black students in each of the magnet schools with other magnet school black students and black students in the LRSD. Third Grade Black Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/National* School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 37 27 31 25 35 34 Booker 35 28 32 33 34 34 Carver 42 30 33 25 41 40 Gibbs 33 23 35 30 33 33 Williams 58 48 61 48 57 56 * National scores for all students only Third Grade black students at Williams scored well above Third Grade black student in other magnet schools, black students in the LRSD, and all students across the nation. Booker and Carver Third Grade black students scored higher than black students in the LRSD. Gibbs Third Grade black students scored about the same as Third Grade black students in the LRSD. The graph on the following page depicts black third grade students scores. 12Stanford Achievement Tests Third Grade - Black Students 1 t ! \"7 Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks i 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Enviros B Battery C Battery National LRSD Legend Booker  Carver Gibbt Williatnt National scores are for all students only 13 0 * I f f t t it White Students. The table below compares Third Grade white students with in each of the magnet schools with other magnet school white students and white students in the LRSD. t Third Grade White Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/National* School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 62 56 61 62 61 61 Booker 43 44 36 50 49 43 Carver 69 60 64 72 67 67 Gibbs 76 61 81 84 72 74 Williams 76 70 74 71 73 73 i f 1 *National scores for all students only All magnet school Third Grade white students, except at Booker, scored above the national average for all students. Bookers Third Grade white students scored just below the national average. Gibbs and Williams Third Grade white students were above the 70\" percentile on both the basic and the complete battery. The graph on the following page compares Third Grade magnet school white students scores with Third Grade white students in the LRSD and all students in the nation. I I 14Stanford Achievement Tests Third Grade - White Students Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks 100 so 0 40 20 Read Math Lafig E\u0026amp;viron B Batleiy C Battery i I i f Nation al LRSD Legend Booker Carver Olbbi Williams National scores for all students only 15 s 5 i 0 * i 5 ! I Grade 5 Test scores for Fifth Grade magnet school students are compared with other magnet school students, as well as with test scores for Fifth Grade students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation.. Subgroups are black students and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Fifth Grade black students in each magnet school with other magnet school black students, as well as with black students in the LRSD, and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by student race. Fifth Grade Black Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/Arkansas/N ation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 26 26 32 24 26 30 29 LRSD 27 27 32 23 26 31 30 Booker 27 19 36 28 30 28 28 Carver 33 30 34 26 34 33 33 Gibbs 17 17 15 16 22 19 19 Williams 57 52 60 45 64 59 58 * National scores for all students only Black students at Williams Magnet scored well above the national, state, and LRSD average. Students at Carver Magnet scored well above the state and LRSD average. Bookers Fifth Grade student scores were at or about the same as scores in the LRSD and the state. Gibbs scores were below the LRSD, the state, and other magnet school student scores. The graph on the following page provides a visual comparison of Fifth Grade black student scores by disaggregate groups. 1617 White Students. The table below compares Fifth Grade magnet school white students and students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Fifth Grade White Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 57 47 51 52 51 53 53 LRSD 69 59 62 62 64 64 64 Booker 55 34 55 56 52 51 51 Carver 73 66 65 74 66 68 69 Gibbs 71 63 67 67 71 67 68 Williams 87 80 79 76 82 81 81 * National scores for all students only All Fifth Grade magnet school white students (except math-Booker) scored above the state and the national averages. Student at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams posted outstanding scores at or above the 70*** percentile for the basic and complete batteries. The graph on the following page provides a visual comparison of Fifth Grade white students test scores. 18Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade - White Students Stanford Achievement Test t i Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soe. Seieace B Battery C Bflliery 0 Legend E ! 5 1 * National GIbbi LRSD WUliami Booker Arkanaai Carver National scores for all students only 19 i JGrade 7 Test scores for Seventh Grade magnet school students are compared with test scores for students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Subgroups are black and white students. Test scores for (C other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Seventh Grade black students at Mann with black 7th grade students in the LRSD, and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Seventh Grade Black Students Mann/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 26 26 31 30 29 32 31 LRSD 27 23 28 29 27 31 30 Mann 40 34 43 42 38 43 42 National scores for all students only Manns Seventh Grade black students scores were higher significantly higher than Seventh Grade black students in the LRSD and in the state Arkansas. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Scores for Seventh Grade black students at Mann for 1997-98 school years were considerably higher than scores Seventh Grade black students at Mann for the 1997-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School. 20Stanford Achievement Test 7 ! Stanford Achievement Test i Percentile Ranks } i ! i 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Am Science Soc Sndles B Batteiy C Battery National Legend Arkansas  LRSD Mann 0 I i f J I i I ! ! Seventh Grade - Black Students National scores for all students only 21I i White Students. The table that follows compares Seventh Grade white students at Mann with white students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Seventh Grade White Students Mann/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* I I School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 53 51 50 62 56 53 55 LRSD 66 59 62 73 67 64 65 Mann 72 64 70 73 72 69 70 National scores for all students only White students a Mann Junior High School scored considerably higher than white student in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and all students across the nation. Percentile ranks for Seventh Grade students for the 1997-98 school year were slightly higher than percentile ranks for Seventh Grade students for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School. 22Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade - White Students ( i Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks ( 100 so 60 J- 40 20 Read Math Lang Arte Science Soc Stndiec B Battery C Battery 0 Legend National Arkanaas LRSD Mann National scores for all students only 23 fGrade 10 Test scores for Tenth Grade magnet school students are compared with test scores for students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Subgroups are black and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares black Tenth Grade students at Parkview with Tenth Grade black students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - Black Students Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State LRSD Parkview 23 35 29 33 30 31 32 25 38 33 28 32 31 31 31 42 43 43 39 42 36 National scores for all students only Black students are Parkview scored well above Tenth Grade student in the LRSD and across the state of Arkansas. Scores for the 1997-98 school year were not significantly different from scores for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Tenth Grade students at Parkview High School. 24Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - Blacks I ! 5 Stanford Achievement Test ! I Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 f ! i I 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soe Stud B BaRery National U. Legend A rkaneac LRSD Parkview t I 0 C Bfttlery s J I National scores for all students only 25White Students. The table that follows compares Tenth Grade white students at Parkview with Tenth Grade white students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - White Students Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School Nation total reading 50 total math 50 State 50 57 LRSD 65 65 Parkview 67 66 language arts 50 52 67 64 science 50 59 70 73 social science 50 56 70 70 basic battery 50 52 66 66 complete battery 50 54 67 68 National scores for all students only White students at Parkview scored well above Tenth Grade student across the state of Arkansas and all students across the nation.. Scores for the 1997-98 school year were not significantly different from scores for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Tenth Grade white students at Parkview High School. 26Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - White Students 1 Stanford Achievement Test i Percentile Ranks I i { I i 100 80 60 aart3a\u0026lt;t5ns 40 20 Read Math Lang Scleoce Soc Stud B Battery C BaUery National Legend Arkantai  LRSD Parkview 0 National scores for all students only 27 I I I t ITest Score Disparities An objective of the magnet schools is to reduce the disparities between test scores for black and white students. This section of the evaluation investigates the disparities between tests scores for students in grades 5, 7, and 10. Test score disparities for magnet school students are compared to disparities for students in the LRSD and across the state of Arkansas. Percentile ranks for the complete battery are used for the comparisons. Grade 5 The table that follows presents data for comparing differences between test scores for black and white Fifth Grade students. Test Score Disparities Grade 5 - Blacks/Whites Magnet Schools/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Difference 97-98 (96-97) Booker 28 51 23 (27) Carver 33 69 36 (47) Gibbs 19 68 49 (23) Williams 58 81 23 (17) LRSD 30 64 34 (38) Arkansas 29 53 24 (24) Some changes in differences were test score variances for black and white Fifth Grade students which decreased at Booker and Carver. However, disparities increased at Gibbs and Williams. Deviations between black and white student scores in the LRSD decreased while the disparities across the state stayed the same. 28Grade 7 The table below depicts the comparison of test scores for black and white students at Mann Junior High School compared to black and white students in the LRSD and across Arkansas. Disparities between black and white student scores at Maim remained the same from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year. Test score disparities between black and white students increased slightly in the LRSD and in Arkansas. Test Score Disparities Grade 7 Mann/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Differences 97-98 (96-97) Mann 42 70 28 (28) LRSD 30 65 35 (32) Arkansas 31 55 24 (23) Grade 10 The table below depicts the comparison of test scores for black and white students at Parkview High School compared to black and white students in the LRSD and across Arkansas. Disparities between black and white student scores at Parkview increased from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year. Test score disparities between black and white students increased in the LRSD and decreased slightly in Arkansas. Test Score Disparities Grade 10 Mann/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Differences 97-98 (96-97) Parkview 36 68 32 (23) LRSD 31 67 36 (31) Arkansas 32 54 22 (23) 29Summary Findings All Students Grade 3 * Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams scored higher than students across the nation and in the Little Rock School District. Booker students scored lower than the national average and about the same as students in Little Rock School District. Grade 5 * Magnet school students at Carver and Williams scored above the national, state and Little Rock School District average. Booker students scored at about the same level as students in the Little Rock School District but below the state average. Students at Gibbs scored well below the state, national, and LRSD average. Grade 7 * Magnet school students at Mann Junior High School scored considerably higher than Seventh Grade students in the Little Rock School District, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. All subtest scores except math (49 percentile) were well above the 50* percentile. Grade 10 * Test scores for Parkview 10* grade students were above the national, state, and Little Rock School District averages on all subtests and on the basic and complete batteries. 30Disaggregate Groups / Disparities Grade 5 * Fifth grade black students scored 20-30 percentiles below white students. Disparities between black and white students at Booker and Carver magnet schools decreased from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year while disparities at Gibbs and Williams increased. Disparities between black and white students in the state of Arkansas remained the same. Grade 7 * Test score disparities for black and white 7* grade students at Mann Junior High School remained the same from the 1996-97 to the 1997-98 school years. Test score disparities at Mann (28) were less than for the Little Rock School District (32) and more than for the state of Arkansas (23). Grade 10 * Test score disparities for black and white 10** grade students at Parkview High School increased from the 1996-97 (23) school year to the 1997-98 school year (32). Disparities between black and white students at Parkview are less than in the Little Rock School District (36) but more than in the state of Arkansas (22). Disparities between scores for black and white students * Test score disparities between black and white students continue to be about the same as in previous reports. Some changes occur each year due to the scoring patterns of different classes or grade levels. However, the overall pattern appear to be about the same from year to year. 31PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of the following objectives relative to Expected Outcomes. Desegregation  to develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the desegregation goals of the project. A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the staffing patterns and do they reflect diversity relative to race and gender? C. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregate groups of students by race and sex? (Sociograms) D. Is there evidence revealed by data collected during the site visits of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? (Student Observation) E. What are the interaction patterns of administrators, staff, and students and between teachers and students? (Staff Observations) METHODS\\FINDINGS After approval of the evaluation objectives by the MRC, the research team began to develop and review instruments and procedures to collect data for assessment of the objectives. A. Enrollment, Placement and Waiting Lists What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to the magnet school objectives? 32Enrollment Survey forms were constructed by the evaluator to provide information about the enrollment of students at each magnet school site during the visit of the evaluation team. Team members gathered enrollment data from the principals at each of the magnet school sites. School Profiles' provided the available data. Racial allocations for total student enrollments at all of the magnet schools have been maintained at approximately 50-50 for minority and non-minority students. Additionally, a shadow area is designated surrounding each magnet school from which twenty percent (20 %) of the seats (enrollment slots) are filled. The table that follows depicts the student enrollment on the day the evaluation team conducted site visits on May 12-13, 1998. Enrollment data are disaggregated by race and gender for black and white students and for males and females. Students classified as other are not disaggregated by gender. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools Student Enrollment N = 3706 School BM % BE % TotB % WM % WE % TotW % Other % Booker Enr. 598 Carver Enr. 595 Gibbs Enr. 306 Williams Enr. 467 Mann Enr. 843 Prkvw Enr. 897 Total 3706 153 25.6 168 28.2 82 26.8 119 25.5 185 21.9 200 22.3 907 24.5 163 27.2 316 52.8 122 20.4 135 22.6 257 43.0 25 4.2 144 24.2 76 24.8 120 25.7 257 30.5 257 28.6 1017 27.4 312 52.4 158 51.6 239 51.2 442 52.4 457 50.9 1924 51.9 33 150 25.2 73 23.9 103 22.0 156 18.5 164 18.3 768 20.7 109 18.3 60 19.6 111 23.8 221 26.2 234 26.1 870 23.5 259 43.5 133 43.5 214 45.8 377 44.7 398 44.4 1662 44.2 24 4.0 15 4.9 14 3.0 24 2.9 42 4.7 144 3.9Magnet school enrollment for the 1997-98 school year was 3706, only 3 students fewer than the 1996-97 school year enrollment. Blacks students accounted for 51.9 percent of the total. Whites students accounted for 44.2 percent of the total, up from 43.6 percent of the total in 1996-97 and 43.5 percent in 1995-96. Other students accounted for 3.9 percent of the total. Placement Placement by District Total enrollment as a percent of capacity stayed about the same from the 1997-98 school year as for the 1996-97 school year. The table below depicts enrollment capacity for seats allocated for the 1998-99 school year. Data were provided by the Office of the Magnet Review Committee. Enrollment data were taken on October 13, 1998. The total seat allocation remained at 3982. The number of seats filled (actual enrollment) was 3763 or 95 percent. The table below depicts the number of seats available and the actual enrollment for each of the three districts. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools Enrollment! Allocation Blacks - Non-blacks Settlement Capacities/ District 1998-99 seat allocation black 1998-99 actual enrollment allocation actual enrollment white black white B-W % B-W % LRSD 2343 /2313 (-30) 1364 979 1268 1045 58/42 55/45 PCSSD 1154/944 (-210) 458 696 391 553 40/60 41/59 NLSD 485 / 506 (+21) 241 244 261 245 50/50 52/48 Total 3982/3763 (-219) 2063 1919 1920 1843 52/48 51/49 The Pulaksi County Special School District had the highest number of allotted seat that remained unfilled (210) on October 13,1998. The Little Rock School District had 30 vacant seats while the North Little Rock School District had filled 21 seats above it allocation. A total of 219 seat had not been filled at the time this data were provided, however, seats continue to be filled during the school year as they are available. 34Placement by School The table below depicts data for each of the magnet schools. Data are provided for black, nonblack, and total enrollment by allotment and actual enrollment. Placement Data By District/School Blacks/TSlon-blacks School LRSD Black N-Black Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Total Allot/ Enroll PCSSD Black N-Black Total NLRSD Black N-Black Total Booker 248/203 134/133 382/336 Carver 242/194 115/130 357/324 Gibbs 124/117 67/96 191/213 Wilms 187/162 100/106 287/268 Marm 261/262 261/258 522/520 Prkvw 302/330 302/322 604/652 Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Allot/ Enroll Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Allot/ Enroll 57/55 53/59 29/20 43/51 131/111 145/95 133/113 124/106 66/38 99/88 130/106 144/102 190/168 177/165 95/58 142/139 26.1/217 299/197 42/45 42/55 84/100 39/51 21/19 31/35 58/59 50/52 40/52 21/23 32/33 59/40 50/42 79/103 42/42 63/68 117/99 100/94 For the Little Rock School District (LRSD) 2313 of 2343, or 99 percent, of the allotted seats were filled. For the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) 944 of 1154, only 82 percent of the allotted seats were filled. For the North Little Rock School District (NLSD) 3763 of 3982, or 95 percent of the allotted seats were filled. 35B. Staffing to What are the staffing patterns for both certified and classified staff and do they reflect diversity with regard to race and gender? Certified Instructional Staff Data regarding the certified staff were provided by the principals office at each of the magnet school sites. The table that follows depicts data relative to certified staff. Certified Staff Magnet Schools 1997-98 School Black M Black F White M White F Other M Other F total Booker 17 27 50 Carver 13 30 46 Gibbs 18 30 Williams 27 37 Mann 11 16 27 58 Parkvie w 17 13 28 69 total - % 24 - 8.4 79- 27.2 25 - 8.6 157 -54.1 1-0.3 4-1.4 290 1 5 0 0 0 2 8 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 8 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 1 2 As in 1996-97, white females accounted for the largest group of certified staff. However, the percentage of white females continues to decline from 57 percent in the 1995-96 report and 55.7 percent in the 1996-97 report to 54.1 percent in the 1997-98 evaluation report. The percentage of black females increased .2 percent from the previous report and represent the second largest group. The number of black and white males stayed about the same relative to numbers and percent of total certified staff. 36Classified Staff Support staff data were also provided by the principals office. Staffing patterns were also noted on the survey forms. The table that follows depicts the number, race, and gender of classified staff at each of the magnet school sites. The table includes instructional support, food service, and custodial staffs. Classified Staff Magnet Schools 1997-98 School Black M Black F White M White F Other M Other F total Booker 12 17 Carver 15 25 Gibbs 10 18 Williams 11 22 4 0 1 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 Mann 5 1 5 4 0 0 15 Parkview 6 9 2 1 0 0 24 total - % 25 - 20.7 58 - 47.9 9-7.4 29 - 24.0 0-0.0 0-0.0 121 Black females continue to comprise the largest group of classified staff accounting for about 60 percent of the total. The number of white males increased from less than 3 percent for 1996-97 to 7.4 percent for the 1997-98 school year. Additional Comments The use of classified personnel to supervise children during lunch periods and recess continues to appear to be positive. Observations of classified staff in their supervisory roles indicates that they have had in-service training and manifest appropriate behaviors in supervision activities. Students tended to respond favorably to approaches used by aides and other classified staff. 37C. Social Interaction What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregate groups of students by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? (Sociograms) Sociograms Sociometric techniques used for previous evaluation years were continued for the 1997-98 school year evaluation project. Previous evaluation have provided a research foundation relative to the appropriateness and usefulness of sociograms in quantifying students relationships. Social interaction patterns may be more useful if observed over a long period of time, thus, providing data from which appropriate interventions, if needed, can be constructed. The sociogram was developed to enable the evaluation staff to make assessments relative to student interactions in a school setting, both in and out of the classroom. Classroom relationships are assessed by the portion in which students choose other students with whom to sit and with whom to work. Other social relationships are assessed by the students choices of other students with whom they prefer to play. Sociograms were administered to all fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students during the Fall of 1997 and the Spring of 1998. This report include complete data analysis for both the Fall and the Spring administrations of the sociograms. Data analysis is provided for each disaggregate group and for subgroups of males/females and blacks/whites. The Chi-Square test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the student choice patterns. The purpose of the analysis is to determine whether race/sex are significant variables in assessing student choice patterns. Chi-Square is the most appropriate statistical test for nominal data and is used to compare categorical data such as sociometric data. The evaluation null hypothesis is stated as: There is no difference in the choice patterns between student groups in choosing students of the opposite race when disaggregated by race/sex or students choice patterns are independent of race/sex. The .05 level of significance was chosen (to reject the null hypothesis). A statistical difierence is noted for inter-group probabilities of .05 or less. Contingency coefficients which are similar to other correlation coefficient are also provided as a measure of strength of the relationships. The PC utilizing the software package Statistics With Finesse was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms. Sociogram data and conclusions drawn from previous reports were considered when comparing and contrasting student choice patterns when appropriate. 38Findings A total of 857 sociograms were administered in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools during the Fall of 1997. Black students accounted for 52.0 percent (446) of the total, while white students accounted for 48.0 percent (411). There were 759 sociograms administered in the Spring of 1998. Black students accounted for 51.6 percent (392) of the total and white students accounted for 48.4 percent (367) of the total. Students race was disaggregated for only two groupsblacks and whites. Students classified as other were counted as white students. Students were also disaggregated by gender (sex). Males accounted for 52.0 percent (445) and females accounted for 48.0 percent (411) during the Fall administration. For the Spring administration males accounted for 52.2 percent (396) and females accounted for 47.8 percent (363) of the total. Student groups were further disaggregated into four subgroups: black males, black females, white males, and white females. Disaggregated groups were contrasted and compared to assess significant differences, if any, in choice patterns for each of the subgroups. Sit Near Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom that he/she would prefer to sit near. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and the Spring administrations. Changes in statistical significance for each of the subgroups from one administration to the other as reflected by the data analysis are reported in the narrative. Disaggregated by Race  Black Students Compared to White Students In the Fall of 1997 and in the Spring of 1998, no significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of students when choosing students of the opposite race to sit near when students were disaggregated by race. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 3.3897 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0628 and a probability of 0.6401. For the Spring administration, a Chi-square of 6.4800 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0920 and a probability of 0.2623. In the Fall administration, black students, at 17.4 percent, were more likely than white students, at 9.7 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. The same pattern was found in the Spring in choosing students of the opposite race to sit with. Black students, at 17.6 percent, and white students, at 13.1 percent, choose no students of the opposite race to sit with. The percentages for both black and white students choosing no students of the opposite race increased from the Fall to the Spring. Data and statistical analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. 39Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % 51 118 136 93 38 10 446 17.4 26.5 30.5 20.9 8.5 2.2 100.0 White Students % Total % 40 9.7 91 10.6 119 123 96 26 411 29.0 237 27.6 29.9 259 30.2 23.4 189 22.1 6.3 64 7.5 1.7 17 2.0 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 857 3.3897 0.0628 5 0.6401 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 69 101 114 76 29 392 17.6 48 13.1 117 15.4 25.8 93 25.3 194 25.6 29.1 113 30.8 227 29.9 19.4 82 22.3 158 20.8 7.4 23 6.3 52 6.9 0.8 2.2 11 1.4 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 8 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 6.4800 0.0920 5 0.2623 40 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Males at 10.3 percent were only slightly less likely than females at 10.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 13.4937 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1245 and a Probability of 0.0192. For the Spring administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. However, in the Spring, males (16.9 percent) were more likely than females (13.8 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 7.7671 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1006 and a Probability of 0.1695. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students with respect to choosing students of the opposite race to sit near for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 41Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 46 110 135 101 46 446 10.3 45 10.9 91 10.6 24.7 127 30.9 237 27.6 30.3 124 30.2 259 30.2 22.6 88 21.4 189 22.1 10.3 18 4.4 64 7.5 1.8 2.2 17 2.0 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 13.4937 0.1245 5 0.0192 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 67 86 121 90 27 396 16.9 50 13.8 117 15.4 21.7 108 29.7 194 25.6 30.6 106 29.2 227 29.9 22.7 68 18.7 158 20.8 6.8 25 6.9 52 6.9 1.3 1.7 11 1.4 100.0 363 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 7.7671 0.1006 5 0.1695 42 Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall of 1997, sociograms were administered to 446 black students. Black males accounted for 55 percent of the total and black females accounted for 45 percent of the total. Sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 0.3378 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1122 and a Probability of 0.3378. Black males at 12.3 percent were more likely than black females at 10.3 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to sit near. In the Spring of 1998, sociograms were administered to 392 black students. Respectively, males and females accounted for the same percent of total black students as in the Fall administration. As in the Fall administration, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi- Square of 5.4236 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1168 and a Probability of 0.3664. Black males were again more likely (20.6 percent) than females (14.0 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 43Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 21 10.3 51 11.4 22.6 63 31.0 118 26.5 31.7 59 29.1 136 30.5 20.6 43 21.2 93 20.9 10.3 13 6.4 38 8.5 2.5 2.0 10 2.2 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 446 5.6876 0.1122 5 0.3378 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 44 52 59 45 13 214 20.5 25 14.1 69 17.6 24.3 49 27.5 101 25.7 27.6 55 30.9 114 29.1 21.0 31 17.4 76 19.4 6.1 16 9.0 29 7.4 0.5 1.1 3 0.8 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 5.4236 0.1168 5 0.3664 44 Black Males Compared to White Males There were 446 males in the Fall administration of the sociograms. Black males accounted for 55 percent and white males accounted for 45 percent of the total. Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. However, black males were more likely at 12.3 percent than white mies at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 5.7515 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1128 and a Probability of 0.3312. No significant difference was noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. The sociograms were administered to 396 male students, 214, or 54 percent, of whom were black males and 182, or 46 percent, of whom were white males. A Chi-Square of 9.7387 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1549 and a Probability of 0.0830. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 45Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 16 7.9 46 10.3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Students % White Students % Total % 44 20.5 23 12.6 67 16.9 22.6 55 27.1 110 24.7 31.7 58 28.6 135 30.3 20.6 51 25.1 101 22.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 21 10.3 46 10.3 2.5 1.0 8 1.8 446 5.7515 0.1128 5 0.3312 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 396 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 53 59 45 13 24.3 34 18.7 86 21.7 27.6 62 34.1 121 30.6 21.0 45 24.7 90 22.7 6.1 14 7.7 27 6.8 0.5 2.2 5 1.3 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 Total 214 100.0 182 100.0 396 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 396 9.7387 0.1549 5 0.0830 46 0 1 2 3 4 6 2 5 1 4Black Males Compared to White Females A total of 451 sociograms were administered during the Fall of 1997 to black males and white females. Black males (243) accounted for 54 percent of the total with white females (208) accounting for 46 percent of the total. Race/sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 13.4134 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1699 and a Probability of 0.0198. Black males at 12.3 percent were more likely than white females at 11.5 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A total of 399 sociograms were administered with black males accounting for 214 of the total while white females accounted for 185 of the total. A Chi-Square of 7.4947 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1358 and a Probability of 0.1864. Black males at 20.6 percent were more likely than white females at 13.5 percent of choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 47Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 22.6 31.7 20.6 10.3 2.5 100.0 White Females % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 30.8 31.3 21.6 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total % 54 12.0 119 26.4 142 31.5 95 21.1 30 6.6 11 2.4 451 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 451 13.4134 0.1699 5 0.0189 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 44 52 59 45 13 214 20.6 25 13.5 69 17.3 24.3 59 31.9 111 27.8 27.6 51 27.6 110 27.6 21.0 37 20.0 82 20.6 6.1 4.9 22 5.5 0.4 2.1 5 1.2 100.0 185 100.0 399 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 7.4947 0.1358 5 0.1864 48 Black Females Compared to White Males A total of 406 black females and white males completed the sociograms in the Fall of 1997. Black females (203) and white males (203) each accounted for 50 percent of the total. No significant differences were noted in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near when comparing black females and white males. Black females at 10.3 percent were more likely than white males at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 4.4565 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1042 and a Probability of 0.4857. For the Spring administration, a total of 360 black females and white females completed the sociograms. As in the Fall administration, race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Black females accounted for 178, or 49 percent, with white males accounting for 182, or 51 percent, of the total. Black females were more likely at 14.1 percent than white males at 12.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 6.5483 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1337 and a Probability of 0.2565. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 49Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 Race/Sex 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen I I 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 21 63 59 43 13 203 10.3 31.0 29.1 21.2 6.4 2.0 100.0 16 55 58 51 21 203 7.9 37 9.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race/Sex Black Females % White Males % Total % 25 14.1 23 12.6 48 13.3 27.1 118 29.1 28.6 117 28.8 25.1 94 23.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 34 8.4 1.0 6 1.5 406 4.4565 0.1042 5 0.4857 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 49 55 31 16 27.5 34 18.7 83 23.1 30.9 62 34.1 117 32.5 17.4 45 24.7 76 21.1 9.0 14 7.7 30 8.3 1.1 2.2 6 1.7 100.0 406 100.0 Total 178 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 Number of Obsen ations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 6.5483 0.1337 5 0.2565 50 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 Black Females Compared to White Females Sociograms were administered to 411 female students in the Fall of 1997. Black females accounted for 203, or 49 percent, of the total with white females accounting for 208 (51 percent) of the total. Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. White females were more likely at 11.5 percent than black females at 10.3 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 4.1501 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1000 and a Probability of 0.5280. Race was not a significant variable in the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. A totd of 363 sociograms were completed with black females accounting for 178, or 49 percent, of the total and white females accounting for 185, or 51 percent, of the total. Black females at 14.1 percent were slightly more likely than white females at 13.5 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 51Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % 21 63 59 43 13 203 10.3 31.0 29.1 21.2 6.4 2.0 100.0 White Females % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 30.8 31.3 21.6 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total % 45 10.9 127 30.9 124 30.2 88 21.4 18 4.4 9 2.2 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 4.1501 0.1000 5 0.5280 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % 25 49 55 31 16 178 14.1 27.5 30.9 17.4 9.0 1.1 100.0 White Females % 25 59 51 37 185 13.5 31.9 27.6 20.0 4.9 2.2 100.0 Total % 50 13.8 108 29.7 106 29.2 68 18.7 25 6.9 6 1.7 363 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 4.0995 0.1057 5 0.5352 52White Males Compared to White Females Sociograms were administered to 411 white students during the Fall of 1997. White males at 203 accounted for 49 percent of the total while white females at 208 accounted for 51 percent of the total. Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. White females at 11.5 percent were more likely than white males at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 14.1272 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1823 and a Probability of 0.0148. Sex was not a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Males and females each represented approximately one-half of the total 367 white students completing the sociograms. Females at 13.5 percent were only slightly more likely than males at 12.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 9.7181 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1606 and a Probability of 0.0836. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 53Sex Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males % 16 55 58 51 21 203 7.9 27.1 28.6 25.1 10.3 1.0 100.0 White Females % Total % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 40 9.7 30.8 119 29.0 31.3 123 29.9 21.6 96 23.4 2.4 26 6.3 2.4 7 1.7 100.0 411 100.0 5 2 5 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 411 14.1272 0.1823 5 0.0148 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 23 34 62 45 14 182 12.6 25 13.5 48 13.1 18.7 59 31.9 93 25.3 34.1 51 27.5 113 30.8 24.7 37 20.0 82 22.3 7.7 4.9 23 6.3 2.2 2.2 8 2.2 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 9.7181 0.1606 5 0.0836 54 Work With Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom that he/she would prefer to work with. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the narrative and tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms. Disaggregated by Race  Black Students Compared to White Students Results of both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms revealed that race was a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to work with when comparing black and white students. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 31.7260 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1889 and a Probability of 0.0001. For the Spring administration, a Chi-Square of 29.1624 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of0.1924 and a Probability of 0.0001. White students were more likely than black students in both the Fall and Spring to choose no students of the opposite race. Complete data and analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are provided in the tables that follow. 55Race/Sex Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % 40 88 125 117 58 18 446 9.0 19.8 28.0 26.2 13.0 4.0 100.0 White Students % 44 127 124 86 26 411 10.7 30.9 30.2 20.9 6.3 1.0 100.0 Total % 84 9.8 225 26.2 249 29.0 203 23.7 84 9.8 22 2.5 857 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 31.7260 0.1889 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 38 84 116 105 38 11 392 9.7 48 13.1 117 15.4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 21.4 122 33.2 206 27.1 29.6 113 30.8 229 30.2 26.8 60 16.4 165 21.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 56 9.7 21 5.7 59 7.8 2.8 0.8 14 1.8 759 29.1624 0.1924 5 0.0001 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. Males at 8.1 percent were less likely than females at 11.7 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 19.5028 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1492 and a Probability of 0.0015. For the Spring administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. As in the Fall, males at 10.9 percent were less likely than females at 12.1 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 10.1468 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1149 and a Probability of 0.0712. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 57Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 36 8.1 48 11.7 84 9.8 103 116 125 51 15 446 23.1 112 27.2 215 25.1 26.0 133 32.4 249 29.0 28.0 78 19.0 203 23.7 11.4 33 8.0 84 9.8 3.4 1.7 22 2.6 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 19.5028 0.1492 5 0.0015 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % 43 89 129 94 33 396 10.9 22.5 32.6 23.7 8.3 2.0 100.0 Female Students % Total % 44 116 100 71 26 363 12.1 87 11.5 31.9 205 27.0 27.5 229 30.2 19.6 165 21.7 7.2 59 7.8 1.7 14 1.8 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 10.1468 0.1149 5 0.0712 58 Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall of 1997, sociograms were administered to 446 black students. Black males accounted for 55 percent of the total with black females accounting for 45 percent of the total. Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 12.7577 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1668 and a Probability of 0.0258. Black females were more likely at 9.4 percent than black males at 8.6 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to work with. In the Spring of 1998, sociograms were administered to 392 black students. Males and females, respectively, accounted for the same percent of total black students as in the Fall administration. Unlike the Fall administration, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 7.7672 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1392 and a Probability of 0.1695. Black males were more likely (10.3 percent) than females (9.6 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 59Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 19 9.3 40 9.0 17.7 45 22.2 88 19.7 23.5 68 33.5 125 28.1 31.3 41 20.2 117 26.2 13.6 25 12.3 58 13.0 5.3 2.5 18 4.0 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 446 12.7577 0.1668 5 0.0258 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 22 35 69 61 20 214 10.3 17 9.6 39 9.9 16.4 48 27.0 84 21.4 32.2 47 26.4 116 29.5 28.5 44 24.7 105 26.7 9.3 18 10.1 38 9.7 3.3 2.2 11 2.8 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 7.7672 0.1392 5 0.1695 60 Black Males Compared to White Males There were 446 males in the Fall administration of the sociograms. Black males accounted for 55 percent and white males accounted for 45 percent of the total. Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to work with. However, white males were more likely at 8.6 percent than black males at 7.4 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 18.7138 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2007 and a Probability of 0.0022. A significant difference was also noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. The sociograms were administered to 396 male students, 214 (54 percent) were black males and 182 (46 percent) were white males. A Chi-Square of 16.5549 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2003 and a Probability of 0.0054. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 61Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 17.7 23.5 31.3 13.6 5.3 100.0 White Students % Total % 15 60 59 49 18 203 7.4 36 8.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Students % 22 10.3 29.5 103 23.1 29.1 116 26.0 24.1 125 28.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence 8.9 51 11.4 1.0 15 3.4 446 18.7138 0.2007 5 0.0022 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 396 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 35 69 61 20 16.4 32.2 28.5 9.3 3.3 100.0 446 100.0 Total 214 100.0 White Students % Total % 21 54 60 33 13 182 11.5 43 10.9 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 29.7 89 22.5 33.0 129 32.6 18.1 94 23.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 62 7.1 33 8.3 0.6 8 2.0 396 16.5549 0.2003 5 0.0054 100.0 396 100.0 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1Black Males Compared to White Females A total of 451 sociograms were administered during the Fall of 1997 to black males and white females. Black males (243) accounted for 54 percent of the total and white females (208) accounted for 46 percent of the total. Race/sex was a significant variable when the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with were compared. A Chi-Square of 41.3445 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2898 and a Probability of 0.0001. White females at 13.9 percent were more likely than black males at 8.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Race/sex was also a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A total of 399 sociograms were administered with black males accounting for 214 of the total while white females accounted for 185 of the total. A Chi-Square of 32.3012 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2737 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black males at 10.3 percent were less likely than white females at 14.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 63Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 29 13.9 50 11.1 17.7 67 32.2 110 24.4 23.5 65 31.3 122 27.0 31.3 37 17.8 113 25.1 13.6 3.8 41 9.1 5.3 1.0 15 3.3 100.0 208 100.0 451 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 451 41.3445 0.2898 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % 22 35 69 61 20 214 10.3 16.4 32.2 28.5 9.3 3.3 100.0 White Females % 27 68 53 27 185 14.6 36.8 28.6 14.6 4.3 1.1 100.0 Total % 49 12.3 103 25.8 122 30.6 88 22.0 28 7.0 9 2.3 399 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 7 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 32.3012 0.2737 5 0.0001 64Black Females Compared to White Males No significant differences were noted when comparing black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. Black females (9.3 percent) were more likely than white males (7.4 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi- Square of 6.3876 was computed of that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1245 and a Probability of 0.2703. As in the Fall administration, race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whome to work. Black females were less likely (9.6 percent) than white males (11.5 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 6.3966 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1319 and a Probability of 0.2695. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 65Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 19 45 68 41 25 203 9.3 15 7.4 34 8.4 22.2 60 29.5 105 25.8 33.5 59 29.1 127 31.3 20.2 49 24.1 90 22.2 12.3 18 8.9 43 10.6 2.5 1.0 7 1.7 100.0 203 100.0 406 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency CoefTicient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 406 6.3876 0.1245 5 0.2703 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 17 48 47 44 18 178 9.6 21 11.5 38 10.6 27.0 54 29.7 102 28.3 26.4 60 33.0 107 29.7 24.7 33 18.1 77 21.4 10.1 13 7.1 31 8.6 2.2 0.6 5 1.4 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 6.3966 0.1319 5 0.2695 66 Black Females Compared to White Females Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with. White females were more likely (11.5 percent) than black females (9.3 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 16.6625 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1974 and a Probability of 0.0052 Race was a significant variable in the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Black females at 9.6 percent were less likely than white females at 14.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 14.2064 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1938 and a Probability of 0.0144. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 67Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 19 45 68 41 25 203 9.3 29 13.9 48 11.7 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Females % White Females % Total % 17 9.6 27 14.6 44 12.1 22.2 67 32.2 112 27.2 33.5 65 31.3 133 32.4 20.2 37 17.8 78 19.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence 12.3 3.8 33 8.0 2.5 1.0 7 1.7 411 16.6625 0.1974 5 0.0052 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 48 47 44 18 27.0 68 36.8 116 32.0 26.4 53 28.6 100 27.5 24.7 27 14.6 71 19.6 10.1 4.3 26 7.2 2.2 1.1 6 1.6 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 Total 178 100.0 185 100.0 363 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 14.2064 0.1938 5 0.0144 68 5 0 1 2 3 8 2 4 8 5 4 2White Males Compared to White Females Sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. White females, at 13.9 percent, were more likely than white males, at 7.4 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 10.5920 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1585 and a Probability of 0.0601. Sex was not a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Males and females each represented approximately one-half of the total 367 white students completing the sociograms. Females (14.6 percent) were only slightly more likely than males (11.5 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 9.7178 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient ofO.1606 and a Probability of 0.0836. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 69Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 15 60 59 49 18 203 7.4 29 13.9 44 10.7 29.5 67 32.2 127 30.9 29.1 65 31.3 124 30.2 24.1 37 17.8 86 20.9 8.9 3.8 26 6.3 1.0 1.0 4 1.0 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 2 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 10.5920 0.1585 5 0.0601 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 21 54 60 33 13 182 11.5 27 14.6 48 13.2 29.7 68 36.8 122 33.2 33.0 53 28.6 113 30.8 18.1 27 14.6 60 16.3 7.1 4.3 21 5.7 0.6 1.1 3 0.8 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 1 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 9.7181 0.1606 5 0.0836 70 Play With Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom with whom he/she would prefer to play. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the narrative and tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms. Disaggregated by Race  Black Students Compared to White Students Race was not a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to play with when comparing black and white students in the Fall administration\nhowever, race was a significant variable in the Spring administration of the sociograms. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 10.8172 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1116 and a Probability of 0.0551. For the Spring administration, a Chi-Square of 28.4364 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1900 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black students were more likely than white students in both the Fall and Spring administrations to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. Complete data and analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are provided in the tables that follow. 71Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 74 143 125 61 358 446 16.6 50 12.1 124 14.4 32.1 119 28.9 262 30.6 28.0 112 27.3 237 27.6 13.7 87 21.2 148 17.3 8.5 37 9.0 75 8.8 1.1 1.5 11 1.3 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 857 10.8172 0.1116 5 0.0551 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 91 124 103 50 24 392 23.2 48 13.1 139 18.3 31.6 96 26.2 220 29.0 26.3 119 32.4 222 29.2 12.8 69 18.8 119 15.7 6.1 27 7.3 51 6.7 0.0 2.2 8 1.1 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 8 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 28.4364 0.1900 5 0.0001 72 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall admimstration of the sociograms, sex was a not significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. Males at 12.1 percent were less likely than females at 17.0 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 12.8711 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1216 and a Probability of 0.0246. The Spring administration of the sociograms revealed that sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. As in the Fall, males (14.7 percent) were less likely than females (22.3 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 11.6914 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1232 and a Probability of 0.0393. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 73Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Male Students % 54 126 127 83 50 446 12.1 28.3 28.5 18.6 11.2 1.3 100.0 Female Students % 70 136 110 65 25 411 17.0 33.1 26.8 15.8 6.1 1.2 100.0 Total % 124 14.4 262 30.6 237 27.6 148 17.3 75 8.8 11 1.3 857 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 12.8711 0.1216 5 0.0246 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 58 112 123 71 25 396 14.7 81 22.3 139 18.3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 28.4 108 29.7 220 29.0 31.1 99 27.2 222 29.2 18.0 48 13.2 119 15.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 74 6.3 26 7.1 51 6.7 1.5 0.5 8 1.1 759 11.6914 0.1232 5 0.0393 100.0 363 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 6 5 5 6 2Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 3.3305 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0861 and a Probability of 0.6492. Black females (18.2 percent) were more likely than black males (15.2 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race with whom to play. In the Spring of 1998 administration of the sociograms, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 4.9649 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1118 and a Probability of 0.4202. Black females (25.8) were more likely than males (21.0 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 75Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 37 18.2 74 16.6 32.1 65 32.0 143 32.1 27.2 59 29.1 125 28.0 14.4 26 12.8 61 13.7 10.3 13 6.4 38 8.5 0.8 1.5 5 1.1 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 446 3.3305 0.0861 5 0.6492 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 45 69 61 29 10 214 21.0 46 25.8 91 23.2 32.2 55 30.9 124 31.6 28.5 42 23.6 103 26.3 13.6 21 11.8 50 12.8 4.7 14 7.9 24 6.1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 4.9649 0.1118 5 0.4202 76Black Males Compared to White Males Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to play with in the Fall administration of the sociograms. White males were less likely at 8.4 percent than black males at 15.2 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 13.9749 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1743 and a Probability of 0.0158. A significant difference was also noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play in the Spring administration of the sociograms. A Chi-Square of 31.8023 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2730 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 77Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 17 8.4 54 12.1 32.1 48 23.6 126 28.3 27.2 61 30.0 127 28.5 14.4 48 23.6 83 18.5 10.3 25 12.3 50 11.2 0.8 2.0 6 1.3 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 446 13.9749 0.1743 5 0.0158 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 396 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 45 69 61 29 10 214 21.0 13 7.1 58 14.6 32.2 43 23.6 112 28.3 28.5 62 34.1 123 31.1 13.6 42 18.1 71 17.9 4.7 16 8.8 26 6.6 0.0 3.3 6 1.5 100.0 182 100.0 396 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency CoefTicient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 396 31.8023 0.2730 5 0.0001 78 - I Black Males Compared to White Females Race/sex was a not significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 4.5757 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1002 and a Probability of 0.4698 White females at 15.9 percent were more likely than black males at 15.2 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. I Race/sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A Chi-Square of 32.3012 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2737 and a Probability of 0.0001 Black males at 21.1 percent were more likely than white females at 18.9 percent of choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. I I 79Race/Sex Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 33 15.9 70 15.5 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race/Sex Black Males % White Females % Total % 45 21.0 35 18.9 80 20.1 32.1 71 34.1 149 33.0 27.2 51 24.5 117 26.0 14.4 39 18.7 74 16.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 12 5.8 37 8.2 0.8 1.0 4 0.9 451 4.5757 0.1002 5 0.4698 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 69 61 29 10 32.2 53 28.7 122 30.7 28.5 57 30.8 118 29.6 13.6 27 14.6 56 14.1 4.7 11 5.9 20 5.0 0.0 1.1 2 0.5 100.0 208 100.0 451 100.0 Total 214 100.0 185 100.0 399 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 32.3012 0.2737 5 0.0001 80 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 Black Females Compared to White Males For both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms, significant differences were noted in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play when comparing black females and white males. Black females at 18.2 percent were more likely than white males at 8.4 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play in the Fall adininistration. A Chi- Square of 20.4711 was computed of that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2191 and a Probability of 0.0010. In the Spring administration, race/sex continued to be a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. Black females (25.8 percent) were more likely than white males (7.1 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 36.7830 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3041 and a Probability of 0.0001. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 81Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 ace/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 37 65 59 26 13 203 18.2 17 8.4 54 1.3 32.0 48 23.7 113 27.8 29.1 61 30.0 120 29.6 12.8 48 23.6 74 18.2 6.4 25 12.3 38 9.4 1.5 2.0 7 1.7 100.0 203 100.0 406 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 406 20.4711 0.2191 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 46 55 42 21 14 178 25.8 13 7.1 59 16.4 30.9 43 23.6 98 27.2 23.6 62 34.1 104 28.9 11.8 42 23.1 63 17.5 7.9 16 8.8 30 8.3 0.0 3.3 6 1.7 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 36.7830 0.3041 5 0.0001 82 Black Females Compared to White Females Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to play with for either the Fall or Spring administrations of the sociograms. For the Fall, white females (15.8 percent) were less likely at than black females (18.2 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race with whom to work. A Chi-Square of 3.8548 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0964 and a Probability of 0.5705. In the Spring administration of the sociograms, a Chi-Square of 7.0720 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1381 and a Probability of 0.2153. Black females (25.8 percent) were less likely than white females (18.9 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 83Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 37 65 59 26 13 203 18.2 33 15.8 70 17.0 32.0 71 34.1 136 33.1 29.1 51 24.5 110 26.8 12.8 39 18.8 65 15.8 6.4 12 5.8 25 6.1 1.5 1.0 5 1.2 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 3.8548 0.0964 5 0.5705 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 46 55 42 21 14 178 25.8 35 18.9 81 22.3 30.9 53 28.7 108 29.8 23.6 57 30.8 99 27.2 11.8 27 14.6 48 13.2 7.9 11 5.9 25 6.9 0.0 1.1 2 .6 100.0 185 100.0 363 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 7.0720 0.1381 5 0.2153 84 White Males Compared to White Females Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. White females (15.8 percent) were more likely than white males (8.4 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to with whom to play. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 16.5651 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1968 and a Probability of 0.0054. Sex continued to be a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to play with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Females, at 18.9 percent, were more likely than males, at 7.1 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 17.4985 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2133 and a Probability of 0.0036. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 85Sex Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males % White Females % Total % 17 48 61 48 25 203 8.4 33 15.8 50 12.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Sex White Males % White Females % Total % 13 7.1 35 18.9 48 13.1 23.7 71 34.1 119 28.9 30.0 51 24.5 112 27.3 23.6 39 18.8 87 21.2 Chi-Square Test for Independence 12.3 12 5.8 37 9.0 2.0 1.0 6 1.5 411 16.5651 0.1968 5 0.0054 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 43 62 42 16 23.6 53 28.7 96 26.1 34.1 57 30.8 119 32.4 23.1 27 14.6 69 18.8 8.8 11 5.9 27 7.4 3.3 1.1 8 2.2 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 Total 182 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 17.4985 0.2133 5 0.0036 86 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Summary - Social Interactions (sociograms) The table below summarizes the data analysis for the sociograms administered in the Fall of 1997 and Spring of 1998. Summary- Sociograms Fall 1997 - Spring 1998 Probabilities / Categories I Sociogram Categories Fall/ Spring Black/ White Males/ Female BM/ BF BM/ WM BM/ WF BF/ WM BF/ WF WM/ WF .6401 .0192* .3378 .3312 .0189* .4857 .5280 .0148* F Sit Near .2623 .1695 .3664 .0830 .1864 .2565 .5352 .0836 S .0001** .0015* .0258* .0022** .0001** .2703 .0052* .0601 Work With .0001** .0712 .1695 .0054** .0001** .2695 .0144* .0836 .0551 .0246* .6492 .0158* .4698 .0010** .5705 .0054** Play With .0001** .0393* .4202 .0001* .0001** .0001** .2153 .0036 F S F S * Significant at the .05 level\n** Significant at the .01 level Black Students Compared to White Students Race was not significant when comparing white students to black students for choosing students of the opposite race to sit near, race was significant in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work\nand race was inconclusive when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play. Male Students Compared to Females Students Sex was inconclusive when comparing male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to work\nand significant when choosing members of the opposite race with whom to play. Black Males Compared to Black Females Sex was not significant when comparing black males and black females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play and inconclusive when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. 87Black Males Compared to White Males Race was not a significant variable when comparing black males and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near\nand race was a significant variable when students of the opposite race chose with whom they wanted to work and play. Black Males and White Females Race/sex was inconclusive when comparing black males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play\nand race/sex was significant when students of the opposite race choose with whom they wanted to work. Black Females and White Males Race/sex was not significant when comparing black females and white males choices of which students of the opposite race they want to sit near or with whom they want to work\nyet, race/sex was significant when students chose peers with whom they wanted to play. Black Females and White Females Race was not significant when comparing black females and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near or with whom to play\nyet, race was significant when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. White Males and White Females Sex was inconclusive when comparing white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play\nand sex was not significant when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. 88D. Site Visits -Student Interactions Is there evidence revealed by data collected during site visits of stereotyping, graffiti and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Site visits by the research evaluation team were scheduled for May 12-13, 1998. Each magnet school site was visited by two evaluation team members. The visits were scheduled for approximately a half day, including observations of lunch periods at all sites and recess periods at elementary sites. The team consisted of five professionals fiom Arkansas State University and one from The University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff. Team members possessed competencies in speciality areas of elementary, middle level, and secondary education, as well as education administration and program evaluation. Team member also had experience in evaluating magnet school programs. The purpose of the site visits was to collect data relevant to the assessment of project activities. Each magnet school site visit lasted for a half-day, including both classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms developed for previous evaluation were used to record and codify data collected during the observation. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. Stereotyping and name calling Team members observed students during movement in halls between classes and other scheduled activities. Student were also observed during lunch periods and recess periods by at least one team member. The purpose of these observations was to determine whether students used any offensive or racial language or behaviors during general movement and\\or student interaction activities. Observation responses relative to use of offensive language and name calling are provided on PCIMS, Form 1, page 2. 4. Students (were .0. were not_7_) observed using racial slurs and inappropriate language during play. lO.There (was_0_ was not_8_ ) any offensive or racial language or behavior observed during the lunch period. Graffiti Evaluation team members were asked to observe whether or not there were graffiti and\\or offensive language written on walls in the restrooms, halls, and other places in the building. Responses were recorded on PCIMS, Form 1, page 2. 11. There (was_0. was not 8 ) any racial graffiti observed on the walls in the halls, bathrooms, and other places in the buildings. 89Student isolation and solidarity Student isolation and solidarity were not observed by the evaluation team. Students were observed associating in small groups which were disproportionate by race (many members of one race and few of another race) during lunch periods at the secondary schools. Seating behaviors tended to reflect segregation by peer-interest group rather than by race. Groups did not tend to segregate themselves from other groups. Playground Observations Team members were asked to observe playground activities in order to assess the activities of students relative to interaction patterns. Playground activities were observed only at the elementary magnet school sites. Responses from observation forms (PCIMS 1) were used to record the observations of team members. Team member observations are presented below. 1, Student play activities were: (directed_J_ not directed 7 ) 2. If student play activities are not directed, students tend to\nchoose playmates (without 4 with 3 ) regard to race\nchoose playmates (without 2 with 5 ) regard to gender. 3. There (was 0 was not ) evidence of student isolation or solidarity during playground activities. 4. Students (were 0 were not 8 ) observed using racial slurs and inappropriate language during play time. Cafeteria Observations Team members observed the cafeteria at each of the magnet school sites. Data were collected on the appropriate forms and are presented below. Lunchroom observations were made at all magnet school sites. 5. Seating arrangements appeared to be based on: (student choice 4 student assignment 7 ) Seating arrangements at the elementary schools appeared to be on some assignment basis. Students appeared to come to the lunchroom from the classroom in some predetermined manner (lined-up) and took seats in the same order as they took their lunch trays. Seating arrangements at the secondary schools appeared to be by choice. 901 ! 1 i 1 6. If seating arrangements appeared to be by student choice students tend to\nchoose seat mates (with 2 without 2 ) regard to race. choose seat mates (with 0 without 4 ) regard to gender. As mentioned previously, students tend to associate in peer groups which were disproportionate by race (a dominance of one race or the other, but inclusive of both races). These peer groups did not tend to segregate on the basis of the race. 7. 8. 9. Teachers (remained 0 did not remain 11 ) with students while the students were eating. There (was 0 was not 11 ) any visible distinction by race for students who ate free or reduced lunch or paid full price. The cafeteria staff was composed of: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Other The data from this portion of PCIMS, form 1, are presented in the section B, Staffing Patterns. Cafeteria staff appeared to interact with each other and with students and professional staff without regard to race. 10. There (was 0 was not 11 ) any offensive or racial language or behaviors observed during the lunch period. Halls Team members observed students as they passed from classes and other activities at the secondary schools. Interactions patterns between students were noted and recorded (PCIMS, Form 1). classes. 12. Students (did 1 did not 3 ) appear to associate by race while passing between During regular class period changes, students tended to go from class to class without appearance of any bi-racial associations. However, during extended periods, such as lunch periods, students tended to associate in small single race, and\\or mixed race groups. 91E. Site Visits (Student-Staff Interactions) What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students and between teachers, and students and between students and other students. Professional team members were asked to complete observation forms (PCIMS 1, 3) to assess the interactions of administrators, teachers, staff, and students. Observations were in both instructional and non-instructional settings. Playground, lunchroom, and hallway conduct was monitored to note the interaction patterns of staff and students. Interaction patterns of students and classified staff were noted in the previous section. Certified Instructional Staff - Students Data regarding the number, race, and gender of certified staff are presented in the Section B of this section and labeled Certified Staff. Classroom observations for at least one-half hour were also scheduled in order to record student-teacher interactions patterns (PCIMS 2). Student- certified staff interaction patterns appeared to be without regard to race and gender. Classroom Observation Professional team members visited 25 classrooms during the two-day site visit. One purpose of the classroom visit was to gather data regarding student seating arrangements relative to desegregation goals. Classrooms representing all grades were visited. Classes involving all disciplines, as well as the fine and performing arts were observed. Data were recorded (PCIMS 3) relative to the seating arrangements in classrooms and student interactions patterns with teachers. Page two of PCIMS 3 is designed to note the interaction of teachers and student by race and gender. 6. Seating arrangements: Assignment: Assigned 14 Unassigned 9 Could not determine _2_ By race: Segregated 0 Integrated 23 Could not determine _2_ By gender: Segregated 2 Integrated 22 Could not determine _]_ Assigned seating was typically observed at the elementary level, while in most classrooms at the secondary level, unassigned seating was noted. No classes were observed that had segregated seating by race. However, in two classes at the secondary level, evaluation as to whether or not there was segregated seating by race could not be determined due to limited enrollment present of both races. 92There were two classes appropriately segregated by gender in order to engage in class activities. Certified Staff - Administrators No formal evaluation instruments were designed to note the interaction patterns between staff and administrators. During site visits, administrators and staff appeared to interact without regard to race or gender. Both certified staff and administrators appeared to have a clear focus on the nature of the magnet school to which they were assigned and spoke of each other in very complimentary and supportive ways. Students - Administrators Administrator-student interactions were observed to be very typical. Students were polite and administrators appeared respectful of students. 93Summary Findings A. Enrollment Data * The Office of The Magnet Review Committee staff continues to provide enrollment opportunities for students in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District. Allotment rates continue to be above the 95 percent level. B. Staffing Patterns * White females continue to constitute the majority of certified staff, and black females make up the majority of the classified staff. C. Social Interactions -Students * Race/sex was significant when comparing: Work With: Play With\nBlack/Whites: Black MalesAVhite Males: Black Males/White Females: Black Females/White Males Males/Females: Black Males/White Males Black Females/White Males Sit Near\nData were inconslusive D. Site Visits * There was no evidence of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling noted during the site visits. No evidence of student isolation or solidarity was observed. E. Interaction Patterns - Staff Interaction patterns between certified staff and students, as well as, classified staff and students appeared to be without regard to race or sex. Observations of classified staff revealed no interaction patterns based on race or sex. 94PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Magnet Theme Background The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in expected outcomes listed below: Magnet Theme  to provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? METHODS\\FINDINGS Procedures and methods were developed to provide information relative to the evaluation objectives. Data were furnished by the Magnet Review Office and the principals office at each of the magnet schools. Forms were developed to assist in data collection and presentations reflect the times at which data were collected and may differ according to the primary purposes for data collection activities. Magnet school publications and printed materials were provided to the evaluator by the Magnet Review Office, as well as the principals office at each site. 95A. Magnet Themes What are the magnet school themes available in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to offer a variety of magnet school themes at the elementary and secondary level. Elementary themes are provided at four elementary sites and secondary themes at one junior high and one senior high site. The names of the students and school choices from all applications received are placed in the computer after the initial application period. The computer software internally matches students who have applied with the seats available for placement. Students are assigned to a magnet school as they have been selected. Those students who applied but were not assigned are ordered numerically and placed on a waiting list for assignment as seats become available. Sites  Themes Booker Arts Magnet School offers student in grades K-6 an environment of spontaneity, freedom of expression, individuality, and creativity. Booker offers a strong emphasis on the arts, coupled with high academic standards in the basic courses. Reading, writing, grammar, spelling, math, social studies, and science are enhanced with a fine arts emphasis. Students learn by experiencing creative movement, by hearing and performing music, and by creating and seeing art. Students engage in performances for their classmates and parents and both during and after school hours.. \u0026gt;5 Carver Basic Skills/Math Science Magnet focuses on developing A Pathway to Excellence. The staff recognizes that Carver students are culturally diverse and a reflection of a pluralistic society. They strive to promote understanding and respect for individual and cultural differences. It is the staffs philosophy that all children develop self-directed responsible behaviors and an intrinsic life-long love of learning. Teachers believe that all can learn through active participation in a process-focused curriculum. Gibbs International Studies/Foreign Language Magnet School offers an International studies program based upon the belief that people are more alike than different. The curriculum is based in part on universals of culture or commonalities of all people. Each grade level has a different cultural focus. The foreign language program is based on the belief that young children can attain the noviceproficient level in foreign languages. The following languages are offered beginning at the kindergarten level: French, German, and Spanish. Foreign language specialists provide instruction 96on a daily basis. Williams Basic Skills Magnet School boasts high academic achievement with a structured discipline plan creating an environment conducive to learning, and strong parental involvement. Williams is a high-performance, high-expectations school that best serves responsible students who learn well in a highly structured environment and are motivated by competition in all program areas. Williams students subscribe and adhere to a strict dress code policy believing that students who demonstrate discipline in appearance tend to transfer that same discipline into behavior and learning. Uniforms are mandatory for all students. Mann Arts and Science Magnet Schools boasts of motivated and energetic students and staff and numerous course offering. This junior high school houses grades 7,8, and 9. The school consists of two different curricular programs: the School of Sciences and the School of Arts. In the School of Science, students participate in traditional and required curriculum of English, science, mathematics, and social studies, and, in addition, take a laboratory science class. Every student is required to complete a research project each year. In the School of Arts, students also take the traditional and required curriculum, and in addition, participate in courses focused on selected areas of concentration: visual arts, drama, dance, or music. Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet School offers students that opportunity to choose expanded and specialized courses the arts and sciences. The total educational curriculum is enhanced by a variety of extracurricular and athletic opportunities. Students enrolled in the Fine Arts Magnet Program select an area of emphasis from the arts: dance, drama, instrumental music, orchestra, visual arts, or vocal music. Students follow an expanded curriculum in their specialized area. The Science Magnet Program combines the high-tech speciality science courses with a magnet curriculum that will prepare students for an undergraduate, pre-professional, or technical major in the area of medicine and health. B. Program Availability Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policies and procedures? 97Enrollment for the total magnet school program for the 1997-98 school year was 3706, about the same as for the 1996-97 school year of 3709. Black students accounted for 51.9 percent of the total student population, up .1 percent from the previous year. White students accounted for 44.9 percent of the total number of students, up from 43.6 percent in the 1996-97 school year. The number of other students declined from 4.4 percent for the previous year to 3.9 percent in 1997- 98. Black females continue to constitute the largest subgroup of students. The charts below depicts the percentages of students for black, white, and other students for the past two years. The percentage enrollment of black and white students has remained approximately the same for the past two years Enrollment by Race - Comparison 1996-97/1997-98 Enrollment by Race 1996-97 Enrollment by Race 1997-98 [ B M 24.e% | I B F 27.1% [ I B M 24.5% ] M\\F 4.4% I I W M 20 J%1 Vt f 221^ I [V M 20.7% I M I MV' W F 23.5* I I I Black Males I White Males r~l others 1^ Black Females I White Females Black Males While Males Others B Black Females I White Females [   0 The largest group of students is black females (27.4 %), followed closely by black males (24.5%), and white females (23.5%). White males made up 20.7 percent, with students classified as others making up 3.9 percent. Females constituted 50.9 percent and males made up 45.2 percent of the total. Other students, males and females, accounted for 3.9 percent. 98C. Coherent Magnet Theme Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school sites? Classroom Visits A total of thirty-eight (38) classrooms were visited by the evaluation team. Twenty-one (21) elementary classrooms and seventeen (17) secondary classroom were visited. The secondary classrooms by subject matter included: Science Art Math Dance (2) (2) (4) (1) English (4) Social Studies (3) Chorus (1) Evaluation forms (PCIMS 3) were designed to gather data on the assessment of magnet school activities relative to the goals and objectives. Response total for items may not be equal due to the responses recorded by evaluation team members and multiple responses provided for some items. Team members were asked to observe three or more classrooms at each site for at least a 20 minute uninterrupted time period. In some instances, class schedules and student activity may not have allowed for uninterrupted observation. The first three items on PCIMS, Form 3 relate to school name, sex and race of the teacher, grade level, type class, number of students, and classroom seating. The responses for these items have been included in other portions of this report. Items 7,8, and 9 relate to support of the magnet school theme through instruction and non- instructional supplies and materials. Item 10 relates to the instructional practices of teachers in the classrooms observed by the evaluation team. Item 7. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, the particular class and class activities: Yes 35 No 4 Item 8. Bulletin boards, displays, posters student work and other items reflect the magnet theme: Yes 30 No 9 In general, secondary classrooms and the buildings tend to rely less on displays and other practices that appear more appropriate for elementary students. 99Item 9. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme. Yes 29 No 7 Secondary class assignments appeared to require students to utilize the media center/computer laboratory resources. Item 10. Evaluators were asked to record the type of instructional activities used in the classrooms they observed. Responses were as follows: Lecture: Guided Practice Other 7 18 2* Student Presentation Independent Work 11 7 In one elementary class (Carver), the students and teacher were discussing research procedures. Questions and answers flowed from, to, and among students and the teacher. The most predominant instructional methodology was guided practice, followed by student presentation. Instructional activities appeared to be appropriate for the level, discipline, and class activities in which students were engaged. Evaluation Team Comments Very strong discipline and classroom management. Outstanding musical performance. Staff appears to function as a unit. Subject matter integrated well into lesson content. Strong instructional program. 100Summary Findings * PCIMS offers a variety of magnet school programs for students who reside in the three Pulaski County school districts. * Magnet school placement and assignment procedures are in compliance with policies approved by the MRC. * Instructional and non-instructional resources appear to be adequate and in place to support the various programs offered by PCIMS. * There is very strong evidence of a coherent magnet theme at each of the PCIMS sites. 101PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: January 30,1999 The purpose of this summative evaluation is to make an overall assessment with regard to the total magnet program. The scope of this evaluation covers magnet school objectives relative to student achievement, desegregation, and magnet theme during the 1997-98 school year. Conclusions and summary findings are drawn from the insights gained from the review of the literature, previous magnet school evaluations, site visits, and analysis of data collected for the 1997-98 school year. Valuable data were provided by the Arkansas Department of Education, the Little Rock School District Office of Planning, Research and Development, and the office of the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. CONCLUSIONS Student Achievement He * Magnet school students perform better on standardized tests than students across the nation, the state and in the LRSD. He * Both black and white students continue to perform better on standardized tests than like-type students across the state and in the LRSD. HtHt Test score disparities are about the same as in previous reports, although disparities at grade levels may change from one project year to the next. Desegregation *He The Office of the Magnet Review Committee staff provides maximum enrollment opportunities for students in the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaksi County school districts. A* White females continue to constitute the majority of certified staff with black females accounting for a majority of classified staff. Race/sex was not significant in choice patterns of black and white students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Race/sex was inconclusive as a variable in choice patterns of black and white students in choosing member of the opposite race to work with and play with. 102Magnet Theme ft ft A sound educational core program and a coherent magnet theme are provided at each of the magnet school sites. SUMMARY CONCLUSION ft * * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to manifest compelling evidence of fulfilling their purposes and expectations for providing maximum educational opportunities for students in the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County School District. 103APPENDIX 104 PCIMS-3 PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION 1997-98 CLASSROOM OBSERVATION (complete 3 or more, 20 minutes uninterrupted) I. School 2. Teacher (no name) Sex: Race: M B F_ W 0 3. Grade 4. Type class (Eng. Math, ie.) 5. Number/Race of students: Black Males Black Females White Males White Females Others total blacks total females total others Total 6. Classroom seating arrangements: Assignment (check one): By race By gender Assigned ___ Segregated ___ Segregated___ Unassigned___ Integrated ___ Integrated ___ Other comments about seating: 7. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, the particular class and class activities: Yes No 8. Bulletin boards, displays, posters, student work and other items reflect the magnet theme: Yes No 9. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: Yes___ No 10. Presentation (check all that apply): Lecture: Student Presentation: Guided Practice: Independent Work: Test: OtherSTUDENT INTERACTION OBSERVATION (please note student-teacher-student communication) Teacher\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_373","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-Literacy''","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":["1997/2001"],"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 law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Literacy"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-Literacy''"],"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/373"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\"WRITINGS\" ON PROGRAM EVALUATION -LITERACYWritings on Program EvaluationLiteracy Formal Program EvaluationsLiteracy 1. PreK-3 Literacy Plan (with needs assessment, see pp. 12-26), June 1999 2. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, June 24, 1999, requesting their review of the proposed PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan 3. Report on Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers, May 10, 2000 4. Definition of Proficient for the Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2, May 2000 5. Report on Spring 2000 Developmental Reading Assessment, Percent At or Above Readiness 6. Correlation StudyAmount of Training Hours and Student Achievement on the Developmental Reading Assessment, Spring 2000 7. Correlation StudyMultiple Comparisons of Effect of Four Approaches to Literacy Development, Spring 2000 8. Executive Summary, Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, July 2000 9. Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, August 2000 10. Updated Draft of Title I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation, December 2000 11. Progress Report on Elementary Literacy Plan to Board of Education, January 2001 12. Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, June 2001, presented to Board of Education 13. Copies of slide presentation to Board of Education on PreK-3 Literacy Program, June 2001 \u0026lt;^7 14. E-mail to principals and Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of the formal Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan to the Board of Education, plus the Highlights documents, and a copy of the presentation slides. 15. E-mail to elementary principals and other staff from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching tables of DRA results by middle school feeder pattern.Formal Program EvaluationsSuccess for All 16. Evaluation of Success for All Programs, Little Rock School District, Year 1: 1997-98 by Steve Ross, Mary McNelis, Tracey Lewis, and Steve Loomis, University of Memphis 17. Evaluation of Success for All Program, Little Rock School District, Year 2: 1998-99 by Weipling Want and Steven Ross, University of Memphis, July 1999 Success for All 18. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 1, 1999, Learning Links, assigning supervision of the Success for All program in the Division of Instruction for greater effectiveness 19. Memorandum to Kathy Lease from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 31, 1999, attaching a copy of a contract for the evaluation of the Success for All program 20. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA staff, Oct. 8, 1999, setting up training on Success for All 21. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 11, 1999, providing to them copies of their contracts with the University of Memphis for SFA services ^^7 22. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 15, 1999, providing them a study on SFA effectiveness\nattached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, by Jeanne Weiler, ERIC. 23. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, suggesting that data analysis indicates SFA not being effective in their schools\nattached tables.  24. Report on Success for All Inservice activities, 1999-2000 School Year 25. Reports from eight-week assessments in Success for All schools, 1999-2000. ^35 26. Success for All Implementation Report for December 1, 1999 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice aimually) 27. Success for All Implementation Reports for Spring 2001 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) ^^5Formal Program Evaluations-English as a Second Language 28. Executive Summary, English as a Second Language Program Evaluation, July 2000 29. English as a Second Language Program Evaluation (submitted to Office of Civil Rights), October 2000Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Little Rock School District Division of Instruction June 1999 In short, literacy is key. to success in school and beyond, for effective participation in the workforce, the community, and the body politic. This was true in the pasteven more true in the future, (p. 1, Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. NREL, 1998)Table of Contents Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan 1 1 Background The Strategic Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Campus Leadership Plan The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative Title I Other Special Populations Summary 2 2 3 5 5 6 7 8 Methodology Core Committee Members 8 11 Involvement and Communication 11 Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests SAT9 Implications for Social Promotion Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) Professional Community Support for Students Conclusions 12 12 12 12 14 15 21 22 23 Review of Research 24 Plan Goals 26 PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Organizational Changes HIPPY Title I Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios 29 30 30 30 32^Minimized/Eliminoted Pullouts J\\lo New Programs Program Abandonment Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers Waiver Application Requirements Curriculum and Instruction Alignment Daily Schedule Technology in PreK-3 Limited-English Proficient Students Special Education and 504 Students Gifted/Talented Students Frequent Assessment and Regrouping Phonemic Awareness Early Literacy Learning (ELLA) Effective Literacy Thematic Instruction The Social Nature of Learning Role of the Library/Media Center Supplemental Reading Materials Assessment/Srading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment New Elementary Report Card PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation Professional Development ELLA Effective Literacy Success for All Smart Start Professional Development School-Level Professional Development Principal Development Interventions Success for All Reading Recovery Direct Instruction English-as-a-Second Language Reading Clinic ^^Summer School 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 IParent Education/Involvement Par^|-School Compacts Parent Education Conclusions Timelines 48 48 48 49 51Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Little Rock School District June 1999 Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff, interested parents, consulting colleagues, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School District students. This 1996 undertaking became the first of an array of important planning efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 21^ century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the District's desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, was literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue that has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSD is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement, professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. 10^ 4 Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. Strategy 2\" of that plan is as follows\nIn partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. I The Action Plan designed to achieve Strategy 2\" delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. \"Strategy 3\" speaks to the importance of improved student achievement\nWe will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50^^ percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The Strategy 3\" Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3: a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction\nexpansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills\n2the development of an intervention team at each schooj which provides systemic support including professional dev^pment for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3\nand promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the District's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the District's attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Section 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level\nLRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. b. 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\nFocus 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\nd. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\n3z. f. g- h. i. j- k. I. A^nitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to_ochieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\ne Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse 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 Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. e 4jSWo 2.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs ... 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. 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. 2,12.2 LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the District's Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas\n( 51. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and  mathematics. 2. Staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. 3. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. 4. Accountability - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs conducted during 1998-99 included training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the state's Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4, and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams were continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the District's Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the District's elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students \"acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the 6challenging State performance standards developed for all children.\" federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: The a. Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards\nb. Providing children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. c. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences\nd. Significantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development\ne. Coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources, f. Affording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school\n9- Improving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children\nand h. Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all catecories of so-called \"at-risk\" students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students for special programs and services. 7Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSD Strategic Plan\nSection 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nacademic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan\nSmart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability\nTitle I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I\nand the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with oil the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the District's Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court-approved Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School District has established as a goal that \"by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page.\" District personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSD 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the Division of Instruction\n1 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Oy' / 821. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching \"best practices\" within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above\nthe committee first identified and then completed the following action steps: 1. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. 2. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. 3. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. 9I 4. Identified all \"supplemental'' reading programs currently in use in the District's primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative\nalso determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. 5. Compared District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of District curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. 6. Drew conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. 7. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. 10Early Literacy Core CoH^ittee Members: Pat Price, Early Childhood Sene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Suldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement had already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy before the work of this specific plan. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities occurred during March, April, May, and early June 1999 to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee began a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Copies of the draft plan were sent to every elementary principal and every PreK-3 teacher in the Little Rock School District for their review and discussion, and numerous presentations were made to various groups. The June 2-3-4 inservice focused in large part on discussions of the plan. Once the review and input process was completed and the committee had had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal was presented to the Board of Education for their review in June 1999. 11Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the District are performing at the \"Below Basic\" level on the Arkansas criterion- referenced tests, and far too few students are performing at the \"Proficient\" or \"Advanced\" levels. These data are one indication that current practices are not as effective as they must be to achieve District goals relating to student achievement. Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy Summary Report, Spring 1998 LRSb District 42^0 Below Basic 28% Basic 28% Proficient 2%. Advanced Region 34% Below Basic 29% Basic 34% Proficient 2% Advanced State 33% Below Basic 30% Basic 35% Proficient 2% Advanced An area of concern is that 48 percent of grade 4 males performed at the \"Below Basic\" level, compared to 35 percent of females. Fifty-three percent of African American grade 4 students performed at the \"Below Basic\" level, compared to 20 percent of white students. These gaps are, of course, unacceptable and are indicators that current practice is not effective. Only minor improvements occurred in the Spring 1999 results. Sixty-eight percent performed at the \"Below Basic\" and \"Basic\" levels, and 32 percent performed at the \"Proficient\" and \"Advanced\" levels. SAT9, Grade 3 Reading (Stanford Achievement Test) Data from the Fall 1998 administration of the grade 3 SAT9 also confirm that too many students are not learning how to read well by grade 3. SAT9 reports student performance in four categories or levels\n0 12e Level 1 indicates little or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills (roughly equating to the Below Basic\" level on the state tests). Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for satisfactory work (roughly equating to \"Basic\" level on the state tests). Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade (roughly equating to Proficient\" level on the state tests). Level 4 signifies performance beyond grade level mastery (roughly equating to \"Advanced\" level on the state tests). LRSD posted the following percentages at each level of performance on the grade 3 reading subtest of the SAT9 in fall 1998\nSubtests________ Total Reading____ Word Study Skills Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Language________ Spelling_________ Listening________ % Level 1 23 19 20 31 22 15 13 % Level 2 43 46 38 39 40 39 45 % Level 3 28 22 31 23 30 28 32 To Level 4 7 13 11 7 8 18 10 The grade 3 Reading Comprehension subtest of SAT9 is most like the Arkansas reading test in terms of difficulty. In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the \"Proficient\" or \"Advanced\" levels (Levels 3 and 4), again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3. The states proposed new accountability system, ACTAAP, states that 100 percent of the students are expected to perform at the \"Proficient\" level or above. Another indicator of need is that a large majority of all the schools participating in the Title I program in 1998-99 were identified for \"School Improvement,\" indicating that they had failed to make acceptable growth gains for two consecutive years. In such a case the District is mandated by the State and the federal regulations to intervene with \"corrective actions\" 13 to assist schools in improving performance. An analysis of those schools' programs revealea#hat not only were their Title I programs not be^' effective, but neither was the regular education program effective. Implications for Social Promotion The issue of social promotion is a concern throughout the country and in Arkansas. Social promotion is the long-standing practice of administrative placement of overage students at the next grade level even though the student is most likely not academically prepared to be successful at that next grade level. Citizens all over the country are calling for an end to this practice, and LRSD must respond to that call. To do so, however, without changes in programs, practices, and opportunities to learn, the District would simply be punishing the under-prepared, overage student. In the early grades, failure to achieve grade-level expectations in reading is the primary reason for retention. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 267) This PreK-3 Literacy Plan, therefore, includes provisions for the following: Changes in curriculum through the newly developed local academic content standards and grade-level benchmarks\nChanges in instruction through the adoption of research-based instructional strategies and professional development programs\nChanges in assessment through the addition of research-based assessment strategies at kindergarten and grade 1 designed to both diagnose reading difficulties and to assess progress at the student, school, and District levels\n Early interventions for students at risk of not learning to read through the HIPPY program changes, pre-kindergarten program, ESL program, and an emphasis on the reading clinic at grade 1, followed by summer school for K-1 students who are not performing at grade level. 14 Changes in the District's promotion and retention policy that would end social promotion for LRSD students, startin^U^ith grade 1 in 1999-2000. Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) There are several quality management needs that are addressed in this plan. The first relates to what W. Edward Deming called \"constancy of purpose.' For instance, it is difficult to describe or to assess the effectiveness of the current LRSD prek-3 curriculum since what is taught differs not only from school to school, but from teacher to teacher in the same school teaching the same grade level. Such fragmentation and lack of defined curriculum are especially harmful to low-performing, mobile children. Every time the family moves, the young child not only has to adjust to a new environment, a new school, a new teacher or teachers, and new peers, but also, in many cases, a totally different curriculum and approach to instruction. About the time he/she begins to be comfortable, the family may move again, and the confusion returns to the extent that the child may feel that school and confusion are one and the same. These events tend to de-motivate the student to learn and to lessen his/her sense of efficacybelief that he/she can learn. The LRSD Board of Directors approved new Reading/Language Arts Standards for grades kindergarten through grade six in April 1998. Additional work has been done on these standards to ensure that they are precisely aligned with the revised Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and with the intent of the new statewide Smart Start Initiative. Also, specific grade-level benchmarks have been developed in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies so that teachers, students, and parents may be as clear as possible about what it is that students are expected to know and be able to do. These grade level benchmarks will serve as the basis for designing quarterly criterion-referenced tests to be used to check individual student progress in relation to achievement of each grade level standard. Secondly, there is in several schools a proliferation of disparate \"programs,\" and both reviews of those lists and interviews with the principal and teachers of those schools reveal many times a lack of understanding of how 15 the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are intendec^^solve (lack of alignment). The LRSD Title I plan filed with the Arkansas Department of Education, for example, reveals this problem of lack of \"constancy of purpose\" with its long list of Title I programs by school. Many different supplemental programs/philosophies are being used in the elementary schools. Three of these are technology programs\nJostens, New Century, and the Computer Curriculum Corporation Program. The remaining reading and/or language arts programs/methods include the following: Reading Recovery, ELLA, Success for All, Accelerated Reader, Open Court, Shurley Method, Metro Phonics Program, Carbo Reading Styles, McRat, Writing to Read, Companion Reading, Writing to Write, SRA Labs, High Action Reading Program, Discovery Phonics, Junior Great Books, Reading Is Fundamental, DISTAR, and HOSTS. The duration of implementation of these programs varies from one semester to one to four years per school. As many as eight supplemental reading/language arts programs have been implemented at the same time in some schools. For example, four elementary schools are implementing one program, ten schools are implementing two programs, ten schools are implementing three programs, three schools are implementing four programs, four schools are implementing five programs, three schools are implementing six programs, and one school is implementing eight. The program descriptions for the most popular programs are as follows\n Jostens, New Century, and Computer Curriculum Corporation {CCC} These systems are computer-based instructional programs. All three are integrated learning systems that provide lessons. practice, and assessment in reading, language arts, and mathematics. A management system for each one provides individualized instruction for students along with a reporting system on student progress. Jostens and CCC include lessons for grades K-6. New Century is appropriate for grades 3-6. it 16 Reading Recovery. This intensive early-intervention literacy program features the following\n1. One to one tutoring program 2. Individualized instruction 3. Specially trained teachers 4. Literacy support groups 5. Home/school reading connection 6. Ongoing assessment  Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA). This is a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. The content of the staff development consists of the following\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction Reading process Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding 6. Phonemic awareness 7. Letter discrimination/recognition 8. Letter/sound relationship 9. Recognizing high frequency words 10. Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis 11. Vocabulary development 12. Comprehension strategies 13. Classroom management and organization 14. Parent involvement 15. Authentic assessment/standardized test. Success for All. This program restructures elementary schools to make certain every child learns to read in the early grades. It provides specific curricula and instructional strategies for teaching reading. Primary features are as follows. 1. School-wide reading curriculum 2. Cooperative learning 173. Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessment every 8 weeks) 4. 5. Tutoring for students in need of extra assist Family support team. ice Accelerated Reader. This individualized program allows each student to move at his or her own pace and level of ability. This program's strength is the development of fluency/automaticity and the improvement of comprehension skills. Parental involvement is crucial to the success of this program. Primary features are as follows: 1, 2. 3. Students choice of books from a list of carefully selected books Individualized reading that allow students to move at his or her own pace Computerized tests that measures student comprehension 4. Parental Involvement. Open Court. This phonics program centers on student drill, using a wall sound card chart. Shurley Method. This program is a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions through jingles. Metro Phonics Program. This phonics program uses student drills and worksheets and reading exercises. Direct Instruction. This program includes teacher development and carefully organized reading sequences. Through teacher training and in-class coaching, teachers in the lower grades learn to present highly interactive lessons to small groups. Primary features are as follows: 181. Field-tested reading, language arts, and mathematics curricula 2. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training. Carbo Reading Styles. This program is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the student's preferred style of reading. Primary features include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Teachers diagnosing students' strengths and accommodating them with a range of effective reading strategies Carbo Recorded - Book method Comfortable, relaxed settings Individual and small group work. HOSTS (Help One Student to Succeed! This structured mentoring program in language arts/reading, mathematics, and Spanish language arts is an instructional strategy that is tailored to a state's, district's, and school's language arts/reading objectives and philosophies. Primary features as follows: are 1. Database and software programs aligned with the school and district's curriculum 2. Students matched with trained parents, businesses, community volunteer mentors, who work to strengthen students' reading, writing, vocabulary development, study skills, and higher-order thinking skills 3. Mentors provide role models of successful people who motivate, support, and provide individual student attention. McRat. This two-year staff development process helps teachers infuse higher-order thinking, multicultural concepts, and performance-based assessment into the existing curriculum. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 192. 3. 4. Instruction focused on four higher-order thinking skillsanalysis, comparison, inference, and eyc^Oation that students can use in all academic subjects and transfer to practical life situations. Reading and writing skills and strategies that are taught through real reading and writing experiences. Assessment involving performance-based techniques with emphasis on pre- and post-writing assignments. Portfolios used as systematic organized collections of evidence to monitor student growth in skill development. Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. This program is an additional program/philosophy connected with Smart Start and is being pursued by some elementary schools. This program features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers. The content of the staff development consists of the following components\n( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation Reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing 10. Classroom management and organization 11. Assessment 12. Parental involvement. Thirdly, there is currently a lack of alignment in the design of the general education and Title I programs with each other or with the State's curriculum frameworks and its new Smart Start initiative or with what is tested. In a curriculum mapping activity early in 1998-99, the staff found major gaps in what had previously been established as the District's^ 20 curriculum standards and what was actually being tested on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT9) or the State's criterion-referenced tes\n^that are aligned with State academic standards. An obvious conclusion is that it is entirely possible that a major reason for some schools' low performance is that they are not exposing the children to the curriculum on which tests are based. Past implementation of District curriculum, in summary, has been inconsistent from school to school due to a variety of factors. These include time allotted to reading/language arts instruction, pull-out programs, lack of comprehensive teacher training, lack of staff to monitor and assist all schools, incompatible supplemental programs, lack of consistent use of district-adopted reading program, lack of cohesive ongoing assessment, and lack of sufficient funding aimed at achieving continuity of effort from grade level to grade level within each school and from school to school within the district. Additional curriculum coordination is needed to ensure continuity of effort and appropriate transition from experiential learning to skill acquisition among Pre-K, K, and primary level literacy education efforts across the District. Professional Community Research on what works in school restructuring finds that successful and effective schools are those with several identifiable characteristics, including strong professional learning communities. Such schools have a staff who, due to their shared beliefs about student learning and their shared commitment to improvement, engage in ongoing professional development. Their learning is embedded in their work and is totally focused on improvement of every child's academic performance. It will take the form of team meetings where teachers collaboratively plan lessons and thematic units, where they learn and practice effective teaching strategies, and where they collaboratively write and administer assessments and then evaluate student work in the team, not privately. If observing a professional community, one would expect to see ongoing action research, data analysis, discussions of individual and group performance of students, inquiry, reflection, and rich dialogue. 21In speaking with principals and teachers, one would find inconsistent evidence of thes^(|Etivities. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that at least some of the staff do not understand why the school has in place the programs that it has. There is in those schools a lack of opportunities for professional development, lack of research on what works, lack of a theory base, lack of data analysis and program evaluation, and lack of structures and organization that facilitate and make the time for teachers to engage in the very activities that would enhance student achievement. Support for Students Quality management principles insist that processes and procedures should be examined on an ongoing basis so that if students are failing to learn at an acceptable level, then adjustments and modifications must be made immediately to prevent as much failure at the end of the year as possible. End-of-year inspectionstest administrationsare too expensive and too late to modify the practices that led to the failure to start with, and so the cycle begins again with another group of children, many of whom will also fail. Although teachers currently assess on an ongoing basis as a part of their day-to-day work, these assessments do not necessarily lead to changes in school or teacher practices at all or in any change in what the student is experiencing. In other words, those frequent assessments are used more frequently to label students than they are to inform teacher practice, and then at the end of the school year, the school declares many students to be failures. The Arkansas criterion-referenced examinations are administered near the end of the year and only to grade 4 at the elementary level. If schools wait until grade 4 to identify a low-performing student, then the problem is almost beyond solution. SAT9 examinations are administered in the fall, but by the time teachers receive the data and have opportunities to conduct analyses, they are well into the school year and routines/ programs are already set. Students may have already failed one or two quarters, and the results at this point are not very helpful in diagnosing individual student needs. At the end of the year there are currently only three options for a failing K- 3 student\nto be retained in grade\nto attend summer school to earn promotion\nor to be promoted to the next grade without requisite knowledge and skills to be Successful at that level. Only a few elementary schools are 22n currently using their funds for extended day programs, and there does not appear even in some of these a well-designed or articulated program. Clearly, then, the District must put into place the structures and practices that predict student success and prevent failure to every extent possible. In addition, there must be processes in every school to identify as early as possible any learning difficulties, to make immediate adjustments and modifications in instruction, and to provide extended time to learn through pre-school programs and during the school year. Conclusions In terms of quality management, then, the District has reviewed its processes and identified several challenging needs\n improve student achievement and end the practice of social promotion\n ensure curriculum/instruction alignment and coherence\n provide research-based curriculum and instruction\n provide professional development for administrators, teachers, and other staff and create professional learning communities in each school\n improve assessment practices and the use of data\n provide appropriate prevention and intervention programs to support student success\n improve communication with and involvement of parents/guardians.\n23Review of Research 5 This plan reflects the very latest research available on early childhood education, emergent literacy, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someone's reading skill at the end of grade 3. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 31) The following are common characteristics that make a practice a best practice\" (from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 1998, Heinemann). These are the underlying threads that tie together any successful effort in teaching reading and language arts, and the committee endeavored to ensure that each was included in the program design for the PreK-3 Literacy Program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reading means getting meaning from print. Reading is a process. Hearing books read aloud is the beginning of learning to read. Beginning reading instruction should provide children with many opportunities to interact with print. Reading is the best practice for learning to read. An effective reading program exposes students to a wide and rich array of print and goes beyond the use of the basal. Choice is an integral part of literate behavior. Teachers should model reading. Effective teachers of reading help children actively use reading and writing as tools for learning. 10. Children learn reading best in a low-risk environment. 11. Young children should have well-structured instruction in phonics. However, phonics is not a subject in itself, but rather a tool. 2412. Teachers should provide daily opportunities for children to share and discuss what they have been reading and writing. 13. In an effective reading program, students spend less time completing workbooks and skill sheets. 14. Writing experiences are provided at all grade levels. 15. Reading assessment should match classroom practice. 16. Schools that are effective in teaching reading have an ethos that supports reading. .. .the performance of kindergartners on tests of phonological awareness is a strong predictor of their future reading achievement. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 54)_________________________________________ .,. the arguments for including spelling instruction as a major component of the reading program are strong. Learning about spelling reinforces children's knowledge about common letter sequences. It also reinforces their knowledge about spelling-sound relationships and may help children become aware of word parts. Because of this, spelling practice enhances reading proficiency. (Beginning to Read: Thinking Qnd Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 103) According to research and analysis of the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress results on the grade 4 reading examination ( Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able To Do\" by Linda Darling Hammond and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, 1997, in Implementing Academic Standards, p. D-7), there are several teacher characteristics that are highly correlated with student success in reading\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Teachers having coursework in literature-based instruction Teachers having coursework in integrated approaches to teaching language arts and reading Teachers having coursework in phonics Teachers having coursework in study strategies Teachers having coursework in motivational strategies. 25Zemelman, Daniels^ and Hyde also have synthesized the research on *^st practice\" in teachi^^jwriting. The exemplary writing activities are as^\u0026gt; follows\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. All children can and should write. Teachers must help students find real purposes to write. Students need to take ownership and responsibility. Effective writing programs involve the complete writing process. Teachers can help students get started. Teachers help students draft and revise. Grammar and mechanics are best learned in the context of actual writing. Students need real audiences and a classroom context of shared learning. Writing should extend throughout the curriculum. ! 10. Effective teachers use evaluation constructively and efficiently. ... for young or uncertain readers, the potential contribution of writing to reading runs deeper than any concern of form or style. In particular, as children become authors, as they struggle to express, refine, and reach audiences through their own writing, they actively come to grips with the most important reading insights of all. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 104) Plan Goals The Superintendent and the staff of the Little Rock School District propose this PreK-3 Literacy Plan to achieve the following goals\n1. To end the practice of \"social promotion\" (admin itrative placement of students to the next grade) in the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators\n Revised Board policy on social promotion  Focus of resources on extended day, summer school, and other appropriate interventions to prevent failure at K-1 262. To put into place at grades PreK-3 (and then to phase in at higher grades) the curriculum, instruction, and assessments, plus necessary supports for students so that increasing percentages of children meet the rigorous academic standards established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators:  Increasing percentages of students at kindergarten and grades 1-3 who are performing at grade level on literacy measures adopted by the District  Increasing percentages of students performing at the \"Proficient\" and Advanced\" levels on the grade 4 Arkansas benchmark literacy examination 3. To ensure that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. Performance Indicators:  Increasing percentages of students performing at grade level on grade 3 reading assessment  Increasing percentages of students performing above the 50^ percentile on the grade 3 norm-referenced test 4. To improve student achievement in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking as measured by norm- and criterion- referenced tests determined by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators: See #2 and #3 above. 5. To prevent, to the extent possible, the need for special education and 504 referrals and services for reading disabilities. Performance Indicators\n Decreasing percentages of students at grades k-4 referred for special education or 504 identification due to reading disabilities 276. To improve communication with and the involvement of parents of PreK-3 children, including those who speak a language other than English. Performance Indicators:  Results of parent surveys  Records of new communication strategies 7. To meet the obligations and commitments made to the community in the District's Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to align with the State's Smart Start Initiative and Title I regulations. Performance Indicators\n Work Plan Reports  Compliance Reports  Title I reports 8. To improve, over time, the overall academic success and graduation rates of students in the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators\n Building-level report cards  Accountability reports, local and state Effective early reading instruction is crucial to all children. All children must learn to read so that they can read to learn. Since all future learning is predicated on the ability to read, every child requires the best possible foundation in reading. (Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 2) 28PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Many of the ingredients for success are already in place at the District level. The new reading/language arts standards and benchmarks are based on the best thinking within the discipline and are aligned with state and national reading education entities. These standards call for rigorous learning experiences for all students that are focused, comprehensive, and designed to result in maximum reader competency by not limiting students to basic skills alone. The multicultural emphasis on learning district-wide affords all students with access to meaningful and relevant learning experiences that lead to learning mastery. Many LRSD schools, as well, have already pieces of a research-based PreK-3 literacy program in place. Others do not, so the pace of full implementation for all schools will differ. Another determiner of pace will be fundinghow quickly a school can align its School Improvement Plan and Title I budgets, for instance. The PreK-3 Literacy Committee believes, after reviewing current practices in the LRSD elementary schools and after identifying the many supplemental reading programs currently in usesome of which are used in place of the District curriculum, that the bold action necessary for improvement requires a thoughtful, deliberate elimination of \"too much stuff.\" Teachers and students in PreK-3 classrooms across the District have so much to do that the real focus for learning is in many instances lost entirely or, at best, obscured. The learning goals are clear, but the challenge remains how to clear the learning path of the debris that becomes a daily obstacle for teachers trying to teach and students trying to learn. Allowing schools to choose how to address district learning goals and district curriculum is difficult. To successfully allow such autonomy requires clear guidelines and thoughtful district/school partnerships, as well as clear understanding and singular vision about desired results. In a district the size of the LRSD, the choice made by one school can and does dramatically impact the entire district. Continuity is essential as students and staff 29move from school to school. Patrons across the District expect and deserve the same focus and the same quality, regardless of which school their\nchildren attend. Hl This committee has studied the final report submitted by the Curriculum Work Group to the District on August 4,1997, which provided direction for writing the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concur with the sixteen recommendations made by that group for K-3 reading education. The following summary of key components of those recommendations conveys what we believe is most critical in PreK through grade 3 reading education to achieving the goal that by completion of grade three all students will be reading independently. An outline of program design components, including those reflected in the Curriculum Work Group's report, follows\nOrganizational Changes { Hippy, The HIPPY program shall change its focus of service from four- and five-year olds to three- and four-year olds, given that almost all five-year-olds now attend kindergarten. The HIPPY program staff shall report to the Director of Early Childhood Education under this plan, effective fall 1999. HIPPY is a home-based program in which parents serve as the child's first teacher. The program provides children with school readiness skills and makes reading one of many activities parents and children do together. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998,144) Title I. The District shall restructure its Title I program and budgets in conformance with federal and state regulations to support the implementation of the PreK-3 literacy program and all children's success in achieving the academic standards and benchmarks. Components of the restructuring shall include the following: 301. 2. 3. 4. 5. Alignment of Title I programs and services with general education and Smart Start in order to support student success in achieving the rigorous academic standards and benchmarks established by the State and LRSD, Decentralization of decision-making relating to Title I plans and budgets to principals and their Campus Leadership Teams. Embedding the Title I accountability requirements in the LRSD Quality Index. Provision for PreK-3 literacy/mathematics program evaluation under the leadership of the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Establishing the following priorities for school-level Title I funding\na. b. c. d. Professional developmentbuilding the capacity of existing staff to ensure that all students learn to read by grade 3 Technology to support student success Supplemental instructional materials and supplies, especially for those at risk of failure to learn to read Extended-day interventions to support students at risk of failure e. Parent education and involvement f. Focus of programs and services on grades PreK-3 at the elementary level. Schools ore expressly discouraged from continuing to use the vast majority of their Title I funding simply to employ extra staffunless such staff are absolutely necessary for the implementation of this program, e.g., Reading Recovery or Success for All teachers\nteachers for extended day Reading Clinics\netc. Principals wishing to transfer current Title I employees to the regular budget and programs must collaborate with the department of Human Resources to ensure compliance with the PN agreement. 31-WRi--------------------------------------------------------- .,JAontview Elementary eliminated remedial reading teachers as part of its schoolwide Title I program, directing its resources instead to professional learning... . Montview's results are noteworthy.... As a result of the school's hard work, its language arts scores exceeded those in the district's more prosperous, stable schools, (from \"Meeting the Reading Challenge in Low-Income Schools\" by Dennis Sparks, Education Week. Nov. 11, 1998) i Schools are further discouraged from including travel to conferences in their Title I budgets since the District will have already provided awareness-level training in all the components of this design. Travel will be approved only for visits to exemplary schools implementing a similar design or for in-depth training and development not available in Little Rock or somewhere within the State. #1 Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios for Reading/Language Arts Instruction. Each school is encouraged to lower student-to- adult ratio to a maximum of 15:1 through the use of all certified personnel in the school during reading instruction. Further, each school is encouraged to explore and identify effective ways to strengthen teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships and to ensure instructional continuity through such strategies as looping, multiage classrooms, etc. The abilities and opportunities of teachers to closely observe and facilitate the literacy learning of diverse groups of children are certainly influenced by the numbers of children they deal with. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998. 229) 32Closeness in the teacher-child relationship was * associated with better readiness performance. Closeness is an index of warmth and open communication in the teacher-child relationship. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998,130) Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts. Schools must minimize or eliminate entirely pullouts from the classroom during instruction in language arts and mathematics, especially, in PreK-3. No New Programs. The District declares a moratorium on additional new supplemental reading/language arts programs at the PreK-3 levels for at least three years or until the implementation of these changes can be both formatively and summatively evaluated to determine their effectiveness with the diversity of students in the Little Rock School District. Program Abandonment. In order for the District and each school to be successful in the implementation of these program components, many former programs and practices must be abandoned. The mobility of our students requires us to be consistent in our curriculum and instruction. The importance of coherence requires us to have a common research and theory base for the program components. Also, limitations on teacher time and energy require us to abandon some old programs and practices to make room for the new. Fir-ally, in order to fund these new program components, both District budgets and Title I budgets must be reallocated to fund the teacher development, new teaching materials, and interventions now required. Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers. Schools are encouraged to schedule supplemental teachers differently from the traditional school day in order to fund some of the extended- day interventions that will be critical to success. For instance. 33 instead of a Title I teacher working during regular school hours, she/h^could come in at 10:00 a.m. and then work two hours at the end of the day with identified students who require extra time to learn. Waiver Application Requirements. The District provides the opportunity for schools to apply for a waiver from State and District policies, regulations, and programs, if they can demonstrate that their plan has the potential to be more effective with the students in their school. Waivers will continue as a possibility for PreK-3 literacy programs. Schools must, however, address the student mobility factor in their application since a powerful reason for consistency across all the schools in the district is the importance of this consistency for mobile students. i Supplemental reading/language arts programs initiated at the school level must meet the criteria of universally accepted characteristics of \"best practice\" in reading. Curriculum and Instruction Alignment. The PreK-3 LRSb language arts curriculum at each school shall be tightly aligned with the Arkansas and LRSb curriculum frameworks and the LRSb grade-level benchmarks. By combining aspects of phonics and whole language instruction, teachers can explicitly teach students the relationship between letters and sounds while increasing their comprehension skills and enthusiasm for reading by exposing them to interesting stories and real literature. In so doing, educators can actively address the major obstacles to effective readingdifficulty with the alphabetic principle, failure to acquire and use comprehension skills, and lack of motivation. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction\nResearch and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998. 5) 34Daily Sch\u0026amp;^le. All schools shall schedule and keep sacred a minimum of two and one-half hours daily for uninterrupted instruction in reading/ language arts. The following time allocations are not rigid. Rather, they are guidelines for teachers to use in planning how students should spend their timeboth to ensure that all the critical components are included and to ensure adequate time for student engagement in the activities. Twenty minutes ~ The teacher reads good literature aloud. The single most important activity for building the knowledge and skills eventually required for reading appears to be reading aloud to children regularly and interactively. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary-building, and word study (word sorts, word walls, word families, spelling patterns) Letter recognition skills are strong predictors of reading success. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in shared reading (teacher-guided discussions of reading, including language experience stories, big books, other literature) Children learn a great deal about both the nature and function of print through thoughtful interactions with adults. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Thirty minutes - Students are engaged in independent reading at child's fluency level (wordless books, picture books, chapter books) 35Children should be given as much opportunity ang encouragement as possible to practice their reading. Beyond the basics, children's reading facility, as well as their vocabulary and conceptual growth, depends strongly on the amount of text they read. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 127) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in writing (journal keeping, stories, responding to literature\nusing age- appropriate developmental spelling and drawing) Independent writing activities are a means of developing children's deeper appreciation of the nature of text and its comprehension. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 126) Forty minutes - Students are engaged in guided reading instruction (small group in which teacher provides support for development of reading strategies within student's zone of proximal development). The instructional level is the highest level at which the child can do satisfactory reading provided that he or she receives preparation and supervision from a teacher: errors in word recognition are not frequent, and comprehension and recall are satisfactory. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 213) To nudge\" the children toward new understandings about reading, we want to provide assistance so that children can rehearse the text at a level that is just above where they function on their own. (Emerging Readers and Writers\" by Martha Combs, in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996,29) ? II 36Throughout the day, everydayStudents are engaged in activities designed to develop and to provide practice in enhancing their communication and social skills in the classroom, in the cafeteria, in before- and after-school activities, and on the playground. Additional time in language arts is also provided in the other content areas. For example, students should read and write within the context of a thematic unit at other times during the day. ... it is not only the time allocated for reading that is important. How that time is spent is also important. Low achievers generally are given less classroom time to read text than their higher achieving peers. When low achievers are asked to read, the reading tends to be oral, round-robin style, with the consequence that they read far fewer words, stories and books. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 118) Technology in PreK-3 , As with any resource, the teacher is the key to the successful integration of technology into an effective literacy plan. Instructional technology can be an extremely effective tool to engage, motivate, enhance, and accelerate learning if it is correlated to the goals and objectives being taught in the language arts curriculum and if it is seen as an integral part of the instructional day. Instructional technology is rarely effective if it does not meet those criteria. In the LRSD Literacy Plan, technology is to be used as a tool for achieving the teacher's instructional reading goals as planned by the teacher, not as a substitute for instruction by the teacher. Activities utilizing technology must also be consistent with the teaching strategies and principles outlined in the state's ELLA and Effective Literacy programs. 37If computer assisted instructional programs are used,^achers must be able to customize the instruction to include only the stories, concepts, or objectives that they are introducing during the 2 | hour instructional block. Computer assisted software can be used for whole group instruction, small group instruction, or individual instruction. Examples of appropriate use of this type of computer instruction are shared reading, familiar reading, art, music, spelling, language, and writing activities. Some appropriate examples of technology that can be used to enhance literacy skills are computers, video tapes, digital cameras, laser disk players, tape players, CD players, listening centers, TV/PC converters, scanners, camcorders, AlphaSmarts, and Talking Books. Limited-English Proficient Students. The District shall restructure its programs and services for limited-English proficient students in grades PreK-3 to align with this program design and to address the recommendations of the Office of Civil Rights as a result of their compliance review in April 1999. Many studies support the notion of a balanced literacy program as appropriate for students whose first language is not English, that is, programs that provide a balance of explicit instruction and student-directed activities that incorporate aspects of both traditional and meaningbased curricula. (Building a Knowledge Base in Reading by Jone Braunger and Jon Lewis, 1998, 25) Special Education and 504 Students. The diverse needs of special education and Section 504 children are included in this design, and the successful implementation of this plan is expected to reduce the numbers and percentages of children referred for special education or 504 programs and services relating to reading disabilities. 38Gifted/Talented Students. The needs of gifted/talented students are also included in this design. The ongoing^^ assessment of student performance and the regrouping of students for instruction shall enable advanced students to continue their own growth in all areas of the language arts. Each school is expected not only to decrease the percent of students performing at the lower levels, but also dramatically to increase the percent of students performing at the \"Proficient\" and \"Advanced\" levels. Frequent Assessment ond Regrouping for Instruction. Each school is encouraged to create a schedule to facilitate necessary changes and to design a grouping/re-grouping strategy, such as the regrouping strategies employed in Success for All or the modified Joplin plan to customize/ personalize guided reading activities. Tracking of students is unacceptable practice in the Little Rock School District, but short-term, flexible grouping based on individual student needs is a research-based, effective instructional strategy. Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups are strongly encouraged in all subject areas. Some research has found that long-term grouping of students by achievement or ability level is less effective than more flexible grouping based on specific, current skills of students. Such flexible grouping arrangements require that problem readers be monitored frequently on critical reading indicators, so that groups and instruction can be adjusted to their current needs, (p. 5, \"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Phonemic Awareness. All kindergarten teachers shall receive professional development to teach Animated Literacy, an effective, research-based phonemic awareness component that is compatible with the planned overall reading/language arts program. Training for teachers and the necessary instructional materials for this intervention may be funded through the school's Title I budget. As schools acquire technology, there 39 are a,/miTiber of software systems that would also achieve this goal that the Campus Leadership Team may wish to consider. There are basic skills all students must acquire to read effectively. These skills include phonemic awareness, decoding strategies, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction\nResearch and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998. 2) Early Literacy Learning (ELLA). The centerpiece of the K-2 literacy program shall be Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), which includes a balanced literacy program, the reading process, writing strategies, assessment, spelling/phonics development, classroom management strategies, and word building. The instruction of the most effective teachers included attention to explicit teaching of skills, an emphasis on literature, and much reading and writing. The National Research Council synthesis also confirms that the best method for teaching children to read is coherent instruction that combines a variety of approaches. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction\nResearch and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Serieg, 1998, 5) Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. The Little Rock School District will also promote Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 through its professional development program. Instructional strategies developed through this training include those that help all students become fluent readers and writers. Components include\nbalanced literacy, reading, writing, phonetic skills and strategies, recognizing high frequency words, word attack skills, vocabulary development, comprehension skills and strategies, independent reading and 40 writing, class, management and organization, assessment, and parent involvement. Thematic Instruction, Thematic instruction is promoted and encouraged. Schools should provide for professional development, materials and supplies, and collaborative planning time for teachers to develop thematic units and to design assessments. The Social Nature of Learning. Given that learning is a social act, each teacher must acquire the skills to facilitate cooperative learning and other small group strategies so that student learning is mediated not only by the teacher, but also by peers. Additionally, the school must foster social interactions between and among children and between and among children and adults at every reasonable opportunityin classrooms, on the playground, in the cafeteria, and in before- and after-school programs. In this light, the practice of maintaining \"silent\" cafeterias is inappropriate. ... the fact that you learn to talk by talking implies that children should simply be allowed to talk far more than they currently do in school. The school norm of silent classrooms must be abolished\nironically, when teachers enforce the standard of silence, they are in a very real - sense making learning illegal. (Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 14) Young children should engage in reading and writing experiences that integrate language and action in a social context. It is in the social context of literacy activity that children are able to interpret their literacy experiences and internalize knowledge about reading and writing. (\"Emerging Readers and Writers\" by Martha Combs in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996, 26) 41Role of the Library/Media Center. Each school shall ensjjre students' easy and frequent access (no fewer than one wo visits weekly) to the library/media center, and all students shall be encouraged through school-wide strategies to read as many books as possible for pleasure. Summer, winter-break, and spring break reading lists will be distributed to all LRSD children, beginning summer 1999. The library media specialist will collaborate with classroom teachers to make a connection between classroom activities and the library media program. Library media center activities will provide opportunities for students that involve reading, viewing, listening, writing and communicating. The library media program encourages and engages students in reading, viewing, and listening for understanding and enjoyment. (Information Power\nBuilding Partnerships for Learning, American Association of School Librarians, 1998, 66) Supplemental Reading Materials. Each school shall conduct an inventory of its PreK-3 classroom reading materials. Regular budgets and Title I funds may be used to acquire additional support materials, such as classroom literature sets and other sets of books to help teachers help students meet the curriculum standards and benchmarks in ways that address the needs of individual students, particularly those students functioning below the proficiency level. Comprehensive beginning reading programs are supported by adequate resources. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 3) 42Asscssment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment. The District, in collaboration with the schools, shall create a systematic assessment system for grades PreK-3 so that student progress can be frequently monitored and aligned with LRSD benchmarks and Arkansas criterion-referenced tests and appropriate modifications made to the instructional program. The assessment components shall include a minimum of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Running Records, etc., grades K-1 (diagnostic/prescriptive) LRSD Phonemic Awareness Assessment - K-1 (readiness profile) LRSD CRT - Criterion Reference Test - grades 2-3 Individual Reading Inventory, grades K-3 (as needed basis) Student portfolios to examine growth over time, grades K-3. Adequate progress in learning to read beyond the initial level depends on: having a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically\ngetting sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of text\nhaving sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to render written texts meaningful and interesting\nacquiring control over strategies for monitoring comprehension and repairing misunderstandings\nand maintaining interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998^4^ New Elementary Report Card. The District shall form a representative committee of staff and parents no later than June 1999 to redesign the elementary report card so that it reflects the standards-based approach to teaching and learning 43 and so that it provides more accurate and specific information to parents regarding their child's progress in meeting academic content standards of LRSD. b PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Professional Development Teachers who teach reading must receive better training and engage in ongoing professional development in reading instruction. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 4) ELLA Troininq. ELLA training for K-2 teachers will begin in summer 1999 and continue through the school-year 1999-2000 until all teachers receive the basic training. The District will use a training for trainers model in order to accelerate the training and to build the capacity of teachers in each school to provide training and coaching to colleagues in order to ensure effective implementation. Funding has been requested to provide release time for at least three additional elementary reading specialists, who will provide initial training and then be in each school a minimum of one day per week to monitor and provide in-classroom coaching. Effective Literacy Troininq. As resources permit, training for grade 2-4 teachers will begin in the implementation of Effective Literacy. Success for All. Schools implementing Success for All hove been advised to include their training costs in their Title I budgets for 1999-2000. This training is provided by staff at the University of Memphis, with follow-up conducted locally. .T- ! 44Smart Start Professional Development. The District and each school should leverage as much as possible the profe,ssional development opportunities provided by ADE for Smart Start implementation, since the LRSD literacy plan is tightly aligned with Smart Start, which also promotes ELLA and Effective Literacy as recommended language arts programs. School-Level Professional Development. The District and each school shall create a professional development plan that reflects the standards for elementary school professional development (from the National Council for Staff Development) and which reflects the priorities in the School Improvement Plan (including the school's Title I plan), especially the implementation of ELLA. Each school's Campus Leadership Team is charged with the responsibility to create collaborative cultures to support change through activities associated with a professional learning community\n(1) collegial planning/teaming and assessment of student work\n(2) collective responsibility for results\n(3) ongoing, job-embedded learning\n(4) action research and inquiry\n(5) continuous improvement\n(6) empowerment through the activities of the Campus Leadership program. Principal Development. The District shall design and implement a professional development program for elementary principals and other administrators that is aligned with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan components. 45A report published by the Consortium on Reading Excellence advocates that inservice professional development should:  include current theory and research  provide training in assessment and instruction for phonemic awareness  convey dynamic methods to teach phonics and make use of connected texts  demonstrate effective ways to teach spelling that will reinforce reading  include a diagnostic tool kit that will enable teachers to teach what children need  include whole language strategies and powerful uses of literature  provide practice with children in a clinical setting with ample opportunity for feedback and support\nand  assist teachers to effectively implement balanced literacy programs. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998,6) Interventions Success for All. Schools currently implementing Success for All may continue, provided that the curriculum includes the Arkansas and LRSD academic standards and benchmarks. Student performance data should be thoroughly analyzed to determine the success of current practices, and then, if necessary, the program should be modified for improved results or abandoned. 7 46Reading Recovery. Schools implementing Reading Recovery may continue to do so with their Title I funding. Other schools may choose to redirect their Title I funding to this grade 1 intervention if the Campus Leadership Team makes this decision. Direct Instruction. Schools currently implementing Direct Instruction must seek a waiver to continue this program. Direct Instruction differs significantly in philosophy and methodology from the LRSD Literacy Plan, so consideration must be given to the implications for mobile students. Enqlish-as-g-Second Language (ESL). English-as-a-Second Language programs and services will be provided in the four Newcomer Centers for students who are limited-English proficient. These students need similar instruction as that required for other children to learn reading/language arts, but they will also require some extended time to become proficient in English. Limited-English proficient students attending other schools must also receive the necessary instruction, services, and support to move them as quickly as possible into English proficiency. Reading Clinic Intervention. Each school shall include in its Title I budget the funding for an after-school Reading Clinic or another research-based intervention to prevent reading failures before the end of the school year. Although volunteer tutors can provide very valuable practice and motivational support for children learning to read, the research does not show that they are effective in providing primary reading instruction or in helping children with serious learning difficulties. (\"Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice,\" The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998,4^ 47srschool. The District shall !:* funding of summer school programs around the needs of grades K- students. The District shall design on intensive summ reading program patterned after the Reading Clinic approach. / Early identification and intervention are vital. Some children have more difficulty learning to read than others. Therefore, effective methods for preventing and addressing these difficulties must be included in any comprehensive Instruction instructional plan, f Beginning Hooding Research and Practice,' The FRS Informed Educator Series, 1998,4) Parent Education/Involvement Parent- strategies to .School Compacts. Each school is encouraged to identify embed the Title I mandated parent-school this vehicle as a compact in the culture of the school and to use P of improving school-to-parent communication and parent LRSD academic standards and benchmar s means 1 understanding of the and ways they can support their child's success. - J District shall align its parent education/ -3. including those involving Title I parents, ,iK-3 levels with the components of this PreK-3 Plan and with the PreK-3 provisions for mathematics the National Science Foundation project. Also. include the Strategy 2 Action Plan activities Parent Education. The involvement programs at the PreK-3 Literacy and science in this component will recently approved as amendments to the Strategic Plan. Title I parent involvement staff will be moved to the Volunteers in Public schools team so thatthey-con^b e I ,T,uen. .ul In the work of the Collaborative Action T^m, an initiative that will be developed in 1999-2000 with the influential in southwest Educational Development Lobjn Austin, Texas. Title I parent involvement will move more I 48with a concentration on building the capacity of schools to involve parents meaningfully in their children's education. Hess and Holloway (1984) identified five broad areas of family functioning that may influence reading development. They are\n1. Value placed on literacy\nby reading themselves and encouraging children to read, parents can demonstrate that they value reading. 2. Press for achievement\nby expressing their expectations for achievement by their children, providing reading instruction, and responding to the children's reading initiations and interest, parents can create a press for achievement. 3. Availability and instrumental use of reading materials\nliteracy experiences are more likely to occur in homes that contain children's books and other reading and writing materials. 4. Reading with children\nparents can read to preschoolers at bedtime or other times and can listen to schoolchildren's oral reading, providing assistance as needed. 5. Opportunities for verbal interaction\na lower quality of verbal interaction constitutes a risk factor primarily in that it relates closely to lowered child vocabulary scores. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 121- 122) Conclusions These recommendations are the result of extensive study, collaboration, and thoughtful deliberation over more than two years and intensively during the last ten months. They convey a practical, meaningful, and doable framework for action that can and will, if properly sanctioned, lead to realization of the goal that all LRSD students will read independently by the end of the third grade. The committee recognizes that recommendations made by well- 49 meaning people often become unrealized hopes or dreams. We are committed to acti on these recommendations and, therefore, see^lie support of all in the implementation. We have agreed to continue to work together as a committee to oversee implementation of the recommendations. We will meet monthly to review progress and to ensure the cohesiveness of each action component. To help manage the tasks that lie ahead, we have developed a timeline that we believe should be immediately incorporated into the Division of Instruction's work plan for the remainder of the school year. Significant implementation tasks will be included in the 1999-2000 Work Plan of the Division of Instruction. In conclusion, to set as a goal that the District will ensure that all students are reading independently by the end of the third grade is ambitious, at the very least. Such a goal, however, is one that must be achieved, if all students are to have equitable access to an education that prepares them for productive adult lives in the twenty-first century. It is, therefore, imperative that the District provide unwavering support for the clearly focused, best-practice based, district-wide PreK-3 reading/language arts curriculum and program we believe our recommendations will provide. Such support requires dedication of all necessary resources to the effort, whether the resources are school-based or district based, district-funded or Title I supplemental. Campus-based decision making must be based on clear district guidelines and, if necessary, policy so that all schools in the LRSD exemplify \"best practice\" in the delivery of this critically important program. e 50Timelines Activities_______________________________ 1. Plan summer school curriculum, instructional focus, and professional development for summer 1999\nalso complete student selection process. 2, Identify timeline for delivery of training modules\nschedule dates, sites.______________ 3. bevelop criteria matrix for supplemental reading programs.________________________ 4. Conduct awareness sessions with elementary principals and teachers on the PreK-3 Literacy Plan.___________________________________ 5. Write guidelines/regulations for schools to follow when scheduling at grades PreK-3.______ 6. Write guidelines/teacher manual for two and one-half hour language arts block (make grade specific\ninclude how to/what to do/why do it/troubleshooting sections)._______________ 7. besign classroom profile rubrics (make grade specific\nformat status quo to most desirable matrix)._______________________________ 8. besign teacher practice rubrics._________ 9. besign criteria for materials selection (identify required materials\ndevelopment guidelines for additional materials)._________ 10. Complete PreK-3 standards, benchmarks, curriculum maps\npublish for teachers and parents._______________________________ 11, bevelop guidelines for thematic instruction. 12. bevelop assessment plan.______________ 13. bevelop training modules for each component part of plan.___________________ 14. Write guidelines for school implementation of After-School Reading Clinics. bate February 1999 February April April April April May May May May May May April and ongoing May 5 51Activities_________________________ 15. Begin module-based teacher training. 16. Order and distribute ELLA materials. 17. Reorganize HIPPY programs and services to be appropriate for age three and four students. 18. Provide to principals their projected Title I budgets, planning requirements, and other information related to the restructuring of Title I programs.__________________________ 19. Establish criteria for approval of Title I plans and communicate to principals and Campus Leadership Teams.______________________ 20. Compile lists of recommended reading for PreK-3 students for summer\npost in businesses and libraries around the community and provide to parents.________________________-______ 21. Review and approve Title I plans._________ 22. Plan and implement staff development for principals on the administration of the new plan. 23. Design, produce, and publish for fall distribution a parent brochure on the PreK-3 plan, including all components (such as Title I, Smart Start, etc.)._______________________ 24. Redesign the PreK-3 report cards so that communication with parents is improved._______ 25. Design the program evaluation study and set up data-collection procedures. bate June and ongoing June and July June April May May June June June July July 52LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 June 24,1999 To: Board of Education From: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,'Associate Superintendent for Instruction Through: Dr. Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Subject: Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Attached for the Boards information is a copy of the final draft of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The draft presented earlier to the Board of Education has been extensively  K .'-.u elementary principal and PreK-3 teacher received his or her own copy, and there have been multiple opportunities for all to provide reviewed over a three-month period. input, including during the June 2-3-4 inservice. In addition, the plan has been reviewed bv rrQenprrQeCsQenn+tantiiivuAeos orx-ff ODM, 1U I AA LI R, AA Dr-ifE, a__n__d_ i o_atih__e__r education colleagues, as well as by paren*t representatives. As a result of all this feedback, we confidently present this final draft. Responses have been nearly unanimously supportive. They applaud a well-designed, coherent District plan that is clearly aligned with the Arkansas literacy curriculum framework. Smart Start, and Title I regulations and that includes professional development and program evaluation components. All are supportive of doing whatever it takes to improve student achievement. Early implementors of the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), the centerpiece of the K-2 design, and Effective Literacy, the program for grades 3-4, were Dodd Elementary and Gibbs Elementary. The results of the spring 1999 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination for these two schools are extremely encouraging and predict what we as a District can do if we implement well the components of our plan. levels. In W97-98 only 22 percent of Dodd grade 4 students scored at the \"Proficient or Advanced\" -------- This year, 1998-99, 35 percent scored at those levelsan improvement of 13 percentage points! ) Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Two Gibbs posted even greater gains. In 1997-98 they had 28 percent scoring at the \"Proficient or Advanced levels. Their score jumped to 49 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 21 percentage points! The PreK-3 Literacy Plan also allows for the continuation of Success for All, provided that those schools are posting improved performance. Romine Elementary has been a leader in Success for All implementation. Their performance jumped from 13 percent at Proficient or Advanced\" levels in 1997-98 to 48 percent in 1998-99an improvement of a very impressive 35 percentage points! Notable also is that Dodd decreased the percentage of students performing at the Below Basic level from 50 percent in 1997-98 to 30 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 20 percentage points. Gibbs reduced their percentage of \"Below Basic\" performers from 52 percent in 1997-98 to 22 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 30 percentage points. And Romine reduced the percentage of students at the \"Below Basic level from 58 percent in 1997-98 to 32 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 26 percentage points. These very dramatic gains are indicators of the soundness of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan design. To achieve these kinds of results at the District level will require our commitment, focus, and determination, as well as an alignment of our energy and resources behind the implementation. This final draft includes only a few changes from the earlier one reviewed by the Board of Education in March. The following are most significant: Update of section on Involvement and Communication to include March, April, May, and June activities (p. 11)\nUpdate of section on Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests to include spring 1999 results (p. 12)\nAddition of paragraph on schools identified for school improvement for Title I (p. 13)\nAddition of suggested performance indicators under Plan Goals (p. 26)\nAddition of section on \"Technology in PreK-3 in response to questions regarding role of computer labs in current use (p. 37)\nAddition of section on Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4 to show its place in the overall plan (p. 40)\nAddition of section on Role of the Library/Media Center to clarify expectations and involvement (p. 42)\nAddition of more specific information on plans for ELLA training (p. 44)\nAddition of a paragraph clarifying need for waiver to implement Direct Instruction (p. 47).Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Three Remaining changes were those relating to format, editing, and clarifying the original language. Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is already in progress and will continue intensely throughout the summer in preparation for next fall. BAL/adg1 Io Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers in the Little Rock School District 1 Teacher A. Outlaw C.Johnson D. Brooks D, McGowan A. Hesselbein A. McLennan K K 1 1 2 2 School Badgett D 1 X XX X X X D2 X X X XX X D 3 D4 D 5 D6 D 7 D 8 D 9 DIO D11 D12 I I i I M. Hotto K. Rosby K. Shute C. Brown K. Cole T. Littell K K K 1 1 1 Bale L. Cunningham 2 H. Talley M. Balenko 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X r S. Clevenger Lamb B. Love B. Deaton B. Garner M. James C. Sharp B. Thomas D. Neal K K K1 1 1 2 2 Baseline X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Teacher,. Grade K. Bierbaum K School Booker Day 1 Day 2 Day3 Day4 Days Day6 Day7 Day8 Day9 Day10Day11 Day12 V. Jeffries J. Post T. Sexton B. Walls Y. Davis A. Jones J. Taylor J. Wolfe M. McGill D. Fair T. Higdon K. Lang M. Rhines K K K K 1 1 1 1 RR 2 2 2 2 D. Washington 2 F. Dugan P. Jones I. Tolbert M. Griggs S. Rose M. Wood G. Cromedy B. Koon G. Shells K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Brady S. Daniel A. Doyne M. Hooker K K K Carver X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X XX X X XX X X X X X XX X XXX X y X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX X XX X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 72 72 '72 X X K X XX XX XX X X X I X XX X X X X X X X X X X X 72 y X X X XX X 72 X X X X X X X X I X X X X X f X Teacher P. Ruehr H. House D. Moix K 1 1 T. Richardson 1 E. Skubal J.Joseph T. Moore H. Shields 1 2 2 2 L. Yarbrough 2 J. Crum______I L. Glenn_____1 D. Runion R R R School Carver 1 X X X X XX X X X X X X 2 X X X X X X X X X X XX 3 X X X X X X X X 4 X X 5 X X 6 X X 7 X ^2 8X9 10 11 12 X X XX X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X 72 X XX X P. Kerr S. Mims D. Sabo L. Baker P. Teeter K. Chu K Hicks S. Eans L. Neal K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Chicot X XXXX X X XX XXX XXXX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J. Wells J. Burgin I. Baird 2 T1 Chicot V. Gershner T1 K. Murph ESL X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X I I I f J Teacher______ B. Epperson K School Cloverdale M. McClain S. Rolax G. Cokeley S. Hall K. Shuffield D.Johnson G. Miller A. Vanecko K. Wine K K1 1 1 2 2 2 S. Blue V. Hare A. Raines K K 1 S. Chambers 1 J. Meeks K. Palmer C. Price T. Knapp 2 2 3 S. Schouweiler J. Yeager RR David ODodd R, Brown L. Lewis M. Delozier R. Powell T. Goacher B. Corbin O. Rice K K 1 1 2 7. Fair Park D 1 X X XX X X X D2 X XX X XX X D 3 D4 D5 D6 D 7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 f I I X X X XXXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X 1 X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XXX XXX XX XXX XX X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X XX XXXX X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X r Teacher A. Riley Grade T1 School Fair Park D 1 X D2 X D 3 X D4 X D5 X D6 X D7 X D8 X D9 X D10 X D11 X D12 C. Moore C. Signaigo S. White C. Wenger D. Williams K. Isroff S. Bauman L. Gwin J, Ghent J. Hall K K K 1 1 1 2 2 R Forest Park X X X X X X X X XX X X X , X X X XX X X f M. Holley Z. Madison A. Myrick M. Moore T. Anderson B. Butler C. Simpson M. Watson S. Campbell L. Gray Y Stuckey D. Strozyk K K K K1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Franklin P. Washington RR S.Jackson RR X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X XX X X XX XX X X XX X X X XX X X X X XX XX XX X X X X X X X X XX XX XX X X X X X X X X XX X XX X X XX XX X X XX XXXXX X 72 X 72 X X D. Cooper K Fulbright X X X b X X X X XX X X XX X XX X X X X X X X X X XX I I I Teacher  L. Fausett J. Hurd______ G. Wyatt B. Westlake M. Henthorne R. Dukes P. Gray_____ C. Penn____ M. Neikirk B. Hipp RR K K K 1 1 12 2 2 School Fullbright D 1 X X X X X X X X X X D2 X XXXX X X X X X D 3 X XX X X D4 XX XX X D 5 X XX X X D 6 X X XX X D 7 XXX X X D 8 X X X X X D 9 D10 D11 D12 I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X C. Goss K. Holloway T. Arnold April Chandler K. Armstrong E. Miller S. Sims K K1 1 2 T1 2 Garland XX XXX X X X S. Lee______ P. Puckett P. Ross S. Cole K. Ray_____ Gentry Hardesty J. Dumas S. Talley F. Thompson Geyer Springs K K1 1 2 2 RR K K Gibbs X X X X X XX X XX X XX XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X 72 X X X X X I f Teacher A. Walters C. Biome ~ M. Miller T. Skarda S. Hestir K. Huffman Ann Hurd School K. Brotherton B. Dorman S. Richardson S. Hawk B. Ramsey Y. Luckadue M. Lankford B. Muench J. Thornton E. Miller R. Stone J. Lloyd T. Courtney M. Darr ~ G. Glasco J. Pence D, Lawson T. Fleming C. Sanders K 1 1 1 2 2 RR K K K1 1 12 22 RR Sp Ed PK nr K K K K 1 1 Jefferson M L. King D 1 X X X X X X X D2 X XX XX X X D 3 X X D4 XX D5 XX D 6 X X D 7 X X D8 X X D9 X X D10 X X D11 D12 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X I 1 + l X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X __ X X X X X X X X Teacher R. Thorrias 1 School King K. Ashcraft Sp. Ed N. Bohannon J. Brooks M. Cooper L. Fletcher \"B. Harris 2 2 2 2 2 D. Finkbeiner CC I. Betton R C. Hansen D. Hudgens K. Whittaker C. Durham M. Jascuzzi S. Pinkerton J. Kathon J. Moore K. Witt L. Spencer K K K1 1 1 2 2 2 R M. Greenwood K E. ONeal G. Sanders P, Doan S. Thompson D. Willis N. Downing E. James K K1 1 12 2 Mabelvale McDermott D 1 X X XXX X X X X D2 X XX XXX X X X D 3 X D4 X D5 X D6 X D7 X D 8 X D 9 DIO D11 D12 I X X X X 72 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XXX XX X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X f X X X XX X XA I I I I I-Teacher________ M. Washington 2 M. Butts D. Morgan J. Mason K. Thomas L. Bishop K. Burgess K K 1 1 2 2 School McDermott Meadowcliff D 1 X D2 X D3 X D4 X D 5 X D 6 X D 7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 I X X X X X X X X X X K. Potter T. Shorter S. Heffern G. Marshall P. Allen R. Harshaw K K1 1 2 2 Mitchell X XX X X X Ettatricia Hall V. Hall D, Howard K. Vaughn D, Broyles T. Cole_____ V. Mitchell S. Courtois L. Hayes K K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Otter Creek X XXX XX X X T. DeClue J. Neal_____ N. Massanelli KK 1 Pulaski Heights X XX X . X X XXX X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX X X X X XX XX XXX X X X XX X X X X XX X X XX XXX X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X I X X X Teacher,, Y. Petterson School 1 E. Maeweather 2 J. Matheny 2 D 1 X XX D2 X X X D3 D4 D5 D6 D 7 D 8 D9 D10 D11 D12 F. Dodson J. Reb J. Irby B. Fincher S. Walker K K 1 2 2 Rightsell XX X X X X X X X X A. Atwood V. Butts G. Glover C. Blackwell D, Gross J.May_____ B. Kuhlmann P. Maddox H. Williams K K K 1 1 1 2 7. 7 Rockefeller X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X r XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X XI X I I A. Inman M. Jackson L. Nauden P. King C. Twaddle K K K 1 1 D. Waldrop ESL K. Brooks J. Gall J. Moore 2 2 2 Romine X XX X X XX X X X X X XX Teacher. A, Filiatreau Grubbs V. Harkin 7.. Madison B. Gwatney J. Holmes J. Alley A. Batt G. Hoffman A. Moore L. Gilliam M. Meachum B. Samler S. Smelco H. Pruett M. Rowe K iC K K K K 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 ESL R School Terry D 1 X IT XX X D 2 X X X X D 3 X X~ D4 X D 5 X X~ D 6 X T D 7 X D8 X D 9 D10 D11 D12 X X X X X X XXX X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X f X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X 72 M Banks B. Batnes L. Hickerson J. Berry B. Stuart M. Branch J. Manley J. Stage K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Wakefield G. Washington 2 D. Davis B. Thomas R. Broussard R PreK K Washington X XX XX XX X X X X X XXX X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X XXX XX X X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X I X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X I I r I I Teacher. H. Brown M. Sellers R, Steward N. Thomas Lori Jeffrey C. McClain S. Speaks T. Sproles B. Brown K. Bujarski D. Conine M. Smith L. Umerah K. Worsham K K K K 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 School Washington D 1 X X D2 X X D3 D4 D5. D 6 D7 D 8 D 9 D10 D11 D12 K. Bull N. David J. Thomas E. Dupre L. Reed M. Sharpe B. Baggett M. Dawson C. Fox K K K1 1 1 2 2 7. Watson L. Pugh V. Webb M. Thomas J. Welborn K K1 1 Western Hills X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X .. / r Teacher- T. Klaus S. Thomas 2 2 School_____ Western Hills D 1 X X D2 X X D3 D4 D 5 D6 D7 D8 D 9 D10 D11 D12 F. Babbs R, Pulinski M. Bradberry K. Church E. Mobley T. Stoelzing B. Bowden K. Latch F. Martin Lynn Haney K K K 1 1 1 2 2 2 RR Williams X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X I I X X X X X X X X X X L. Carpenter E. Davis M. Dorsey K K K Wilson S. Krannichfeld 1 P. Lemon K. Reeves S. West 1 2 SpED E. Schoemakerljl A. Finn_____ M. Mitchell M. Thomas L. Tygart E. Brooks F. Williamson K K 1 1 2 2 Woodruff X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1/2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 Deflnition of Proflcient $ The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows us to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. 9 To gauge which level on the DRA is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency,' the staff used national reading standards for each grade level and then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: SfaiffeTjeveT Kindergarten Children at the aid of kindagarten should understand that eyery word in a text says somahing specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seat before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and getting most of them correct. ft'S Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a Grade 1 By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to\nread Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 pacent or betta accuracy of wad recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first gradas to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level 1 books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. repeated word or sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects fem iliar to primary children and highly support the text. One ar two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges from ten to thirty-six._______________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond childrens personal expadences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stades. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Gradel By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or better accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond childrens personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath die illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Districtwide 1 2 Below 544 27.8% 908 46.4% 620 32.5% At or above 1414 72.2% 1048 53.6% 1289 67.5% Total 1958 100% 1956 100% 1909 100% K Badgett 1 2 29 78.4% 32 94.1% 30 88.2% 8 21.6% 2 5.9% 4 11.8% 37 100% 34 100% 34 100% K Bale 1 2 22 41.5% 16 33.3% 12 27.9% 31 58.5% 32 66.7% 31 72.1% 53 100% 48 100% 43 100% K Baseline 1 2 22 48.9% 38 70.4% 18 52.9% 23 51.1% 16 29.6% 16 47.1% 45 100% 54 100% 34 100% K Booker 1 2 15 19% 27 30.7% 18 20.2% 64 81% 61 69.3% 71 79.8% 79 100% 88 100% 89 100% K Brady 1 2 9 23.1% 41 65.1% 14 29.2% 30 76.9% 22 34.9% 34 70.8% 39 100% 63 100% 48 100% i. * Cutoff scores: K = 2, 1st = 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2 by School 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Carver 1 2 Below 15 19.5% 16 23.9% 16 18.2% At or above 62 80.5% 51 76.1% 72 81.8% Total 77 100% 67 100% 88 100% K Chicot 1 2 36 43.9% 60 73.2% 43 61.4% 46 56.1% 22 26.8% 27 38.6% 82 100% 82 100% 70 100% K Cloverdale 1 2 24 43.6% 48 71.6% 24 42.1% 31 56.4% 19 28.4% 33 57.9% 55 100% 81 100%, 57 100% K Dodd 1 2 5 13.5% 10 41.7% 14 48.3% 32 86.5% 14 58.3% 15 51.7% 87 100%, 24 100% 29 100% K Fair Park 1 2 13 31.7% 12 37.5% 13 37.1% 28 68.3% 20 62.5% 22 62.9% 41 100% 32 100% 35 100% K Forest Park 1 2 23 44.2% 16 30.2% 5 10.4% 29 55.8% 37 69.8% 43 89.6% 52 100% 53 100% 48 100%  * Cutoff scores: K = 2,1st - 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2 by School 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Franklin 1 2 Below 25 35.7% 28 42.4% 13 78.8% At or above 45 64.3% 38 57.6% 56 87.2% Total 70 700% 66 700% 69 100%, K Fulbright 1 2 3 5.5% 23 39% 12 20.7% 52 94.5% 36 67% 46 79.3% 55 700% 59 700% 58 700% K Garland 1 2 29 59.2% 28 76.5% 33 68.8% 20 40.8% 8 23.5% 15 37.3% 49 700% 34 100% 48 100% K Geyer Springs 1 2 7 14.9%, 25 53.2% 11 27.5% 40 85.7% 22 46.8% 29 72.5% 47 700% 47 700% 40 700% K Gibbs 1 2 4 70.8% 15 34.7% 8 79.5% 33 89.2% 29 65.9% 33 80.5%, 37 100%, 44 700% 41 100% K Jefferson 1 2 6 10.5%, 17 30.9% 22 28.9% 51 89.5% 38 69.7% 54 77.7% 57 700% 55 700% 78 100%, It * Cutoff scores: K-2, 1st= 16, 2nd ~ 24 DRA2 by Schoch 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K King 1 2 Below 32 36.4% 46 43.4% 19 79.2% At or above 56 63.6% 60 56.6% 80 80.8% Total 88 700% 106 700% 99 700% K Mabelvale Elem 1 2 23 39% 30 49.2% 30 50.6% 36 67% 31 50.8% 23 43.4% 59 700% 61 700% 53 100% K McDermott 1 2 3 5.2% 11 79.6% 23 32.9% 55 94.8% 45 80.4% 47 67.7% 58 100% 56 100% 70 100%, K Meadowcliff 1 2 7 22.6% 12 30% 16 42.7% 24 77.4% 28 70% 22 57.9% 31 700% 40 700% 38 700% K Mitchell 1 2 3 9.4% 27 75% 19 57.4% 29 90.6% 9 25% 18 48.6% 32 100% 36 100% 37 700% K Otter Creek 1 2 7 9.6% 21 32.3% 5 72.8% 66 90.4% 44 6Z.1% 34 87.2% 73 100% 65 100% 39 700% 'I \u0026lt; * Cutoff scores: K = 2, 1st = 16, 2nd - 24 DRA2 by School imioo Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Pulaski Hgts Elem 1 2 Below 7 17.5% 24 50% 23 54.8% At or above 33 82.5% 24 50% 19 45.2% Total 40 100% 48 100%, 42 100%, K Rightsell 1 2 3 7.9% 27 64.3% 2 5.3% 35 93.1% 15 35.7% 36 94.7%, 38 100% 42 100% 38 100%, K Rockefeller 1 2 16 24.2% 14 23.7% 16 28.6% 50 75.8% 45 76.3% 40 71.4% 66 100% 59 100% 56 roo% K Romine 1 2 21 33.3% 19 40.4% 15 31.3% 42 66.7% 28 59.6% 33 68.8% 63 100% 47 100% 48 100% K Terry 1 2 8 8.1% 45 52.9% 16 18.8% 91 91.9%, 40 47.1% 69 81.2% 99 100% 85 100% 85 100% K Wakefield 1 2 33 53.2% 46 78% 30 60% 29 46.8% 13 22% 20 40% 62 100% 59 100%, 50 100%, * Cutoff scores: K~2, 1st 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2bySchoot 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* Below I At or above Total K Washington 1 2 13 18.8% 49 64.5% 29 36.7% 56 81.2% 27 35.5% 50 63.3% 66 100% 76 100% 79 100% K Watson 1 2 34 43.6% 55 75.3% 31 45.6% 44 56.4% 18 24.7% 37 54.4% 78 100%, 73 100% 68 100% K WeSeht+iills 1 2 8 25% 8 18.8%, 4 10.5%, 24 75% 35 81.4% 34 89.5% 32 100% 43 100%, 38 100%, K-Williams 1 2 6 10.9%, 10 15.9% 7 10.3%, 49 89.1% 53 84.1% 61 89.7% 55 100%, 63 100%, 68 100%, K Wilson 1 2 19 33.3% 7 17.1%, 19 39.6% 38 66.7% 34 82.9% 29 60.4% 57 100% 41 100%, 48 100%, K Woodruff 1 2 12 30.8% 6 IS.8%, 10 21.7% 27 69.2% 32 84.2%, 36 78.3% 39 100% 38 roo% 46 100% * Cutoff scores: K-2, 1st = 16, 2nd - 24 DRA2 by Schoo/ .Correlations Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Kindergarten Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours ftSAej ftEAD_S' DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours --------TW 379 -.145' .006 358 -.223' .000 352 -.137* .029 254 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Kindergarten READ_F ------7^3' .006 358 1.000 373 .625* .000 353 .142* .021 265 READ_S ------ 7523' .000 352 .625*'' .000 353 1.000 380 .860' .000 265 DRA Change\nFall to Spring 7T37 .029 254 .142* .021 265 .860* .000 265 1.000 265 Intervention = Success for All, Grade = First Grade Correlations Amount of I raining Hours READ_F REAC.S DRA Change\nFall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours --------TW 433 -.130' .009 406 -.181' .000 396 ** -.118* .027 354 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant al the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = First Grade READ_F ----- TW .009 406 1.000 TP* 406 .573' .000 372 -.011 .830 354 lirii READ_S ------TfTF' .000 396 .573**' .000 372 1.000 399 .840 .000 354 I** DRA Change\nFall to Spring 7713^ .027 354 -.011 .830 354 .840*' .000 354 1.000 354 Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Second Grade Pagel Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount of I raining Hours T5EA'CrS DPa Change: Fall to Spring Hearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours n!!3U' 390 -.216 .000 376 -.234 .000 354 .104 .065 314 READ F .000 376 1.000 376 .857 .000 344 -.071 .208 314 READ_S ------723^' .000 354 ,857*' .000 344 1.000 356 .475 .000 314 DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- jnjT .065 314 -.071 .208 314 .475 .000 314 1.000 314 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Second Grade Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Kindergarten Correlations Amount of I raining Hours 'REAC)_P ^aD_S' DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours ------- 384 -.071 .167 378 -.007 .892 377 .025 .648 338 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Kindergarten READ F ----- TUTT .167 378 1.000 381 .835' .000 377 .569 .000 340 READ_S ------TDCT .892 377 .835 .000 377 1.000 380 .928 .000 340 DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- .648 338 .569* .000 340 .928*' .000 340 1.000 340 Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = First Grade Page 2 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours RaD_F DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 378 .061 .247 363 .182 .001 357 .213 .000 343 I *4 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = First Grade READ_F -------TiST .247 363 1.000 364 .604** .000 349 -.027 .618 343 READ_S ------- .001 357 .604**' .000 349 1.000 359 .784 .000 343 Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Second Grade Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours READ_F READ_S DRA Change: Fall to Spring Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 378 -.266' .000 354 -.102 .059 347 .154' .010 282 READ_F ----- 7555\" .000 354 1.000 355 .739 .000 328 -.384 .000 283- **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Second Grade READ_S ----- \u0026lt;137 .059 347 .739 .000 328 1.000 349 .291 .000 283 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Kindergarten DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- 713^ .000 343 -.027 .618 343 .784* .000 343 1.000 343 DRA Change: Fall to Spring -------------13^ .010 282 -.384* .000 283 .291* .000 283 1.000 283 Page 3 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount of I raining Hours F^6AO_F ReAb_S DRA Change: Fall to Spring Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 69 .108 .380 68 .010 .934 65 -.092 .495 57 READ_F .380 68 1.000 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Kindergarten 68 .695**' .000 65 .403**  .002 57 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = First Grade Amount ot I raining Hours 'read_p RAD_S CRA Change: Fall to Spring Correlations Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours nw 75 -.088 .498 62 -.028 .833 60 .004 .978 59 READ_F ----- TCST .498 62 1.000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = First Grade 62 .816* .000 60 .593' .000 59 READ_S W .934 65 .695' .000 65 1.000 65 .947' .000 57 *4 READ_S nw .833 60 .816 .000 60 1.000 60 .950 .000 59 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Second Grade DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------Tcsr .495 57 .403*\" .002 __________57_ .947* .000 __________5^ 1.000 57 DRA Change: Fall to Spring -------------\"W .978 --------------- 5_9_ .593* .000 59 .950* .000 59 1.000 59 Page 4 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations^ Am\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":"umc_awr_50586","title":"Correspondence and General National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1997","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1956-1999\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","Labor movement"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence and General National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50586"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1668","title":"Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, ADE semiannual monitoring report","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":["1997-01"],"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","Knight Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Jacksonville North Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Jacksonville South Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","School buildings","School facilities","School management and organization","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, ADE semiannual monitoring report"],"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/1668"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, Knight, et al.,'s reply to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, Pulaski districts' motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to fix time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for extension of time in which to file notice of appeal; District Court, judgment; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) program planning and budgeting tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  u.s~,\\k~JdRr EASTERN OISiRICT ARK,\\NSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: -----------PLRiN'PfFf1( DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL L-\\ W FIR:.\\1. for their Motion, state: 1. PACT, by and through Knight, et al. Intervenors, filed a Motion for Extension of Time until close of business on Monday, January 6, 1997, to file its Reply to the Response of PCSSD. 2. The data collection for the reply by PACT personnel was severely curtailed during the holidays as they only returned to work on the morning of January 6, 1997. The data collected by PACT did not arrive at its attorneys office untii the afternoon of January 6, i 997 and a proper reply is not possible prior to close of business. WHEREFORE, PACT prays that it be granted one additional day to file its Reply to the Response of PCS SD and be granted all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. c==\u003e____,, ~ Richard W. Roache!! Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIR2v1 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on January 6, 1997 to the follo,,ing persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LC\\l)SEY \u0026 JEi'IN\"L\\,.GS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ ~ Richard W. Roachell FILED u S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 7 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA SAS ERK WESTERN DIVISIO JAMES W McCORMACK, CL l By: -----nioE:i:p,7_C' IL8ER=ii\u003cK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~.'.: ~ 11 .'l~ ~~~~ ~- O!l!ce of Desegrngc.i1cn t,\\onitonng DEFENDANTS I TERVENORS INTERVENORS KNIGHT. ET AL'S REPLY TO PCSSD RESPONSE TO MOTION In its Response to the PACT Intervenor's Motion and Brief, the PCSSD takes the ludicrous position that what PACT is requesting is that the Court approve any contract settlement with PCSSD because PCSSD would be increasing a budgeted line item without court approval contrary to the Intervenors prayer for relief. PCSSD also suggests that PACT's prayer \" ... seems an invitation by PACT to the Court to resolve the contract dispute since any resolution which increases salaries must, according to PACT's request, have the approval of the Court in any event.\" PCSSD's allegations and conclusions are disingenious when PACT's Motion is read in its entirety. PACT neither wishes the Court to resolve the contract dispute between them nor wishes the Court to approve any contract settlement that may result in expenditures for increases in salary. PCSSD's tinkering with the wording of PACT's Motion and Brief inflames an already white-hot labor dispute between the parties and wastes taxpayers money in doing so. What PACT wants is clear: that PCSSD be restrained from fiddling with its budget in spending monies that could and should be appropriated to fund a salary increase and that PCSSD negotiate in good faith. EXHIBIT \"D\" In PCSSD's zeal to further heighten an already supercharged labor dispute in its district, it discusses virtually all of the items in the exhibit that PACT had attached to its Motion as Exhibit \"D.\" It should be noted that in the briefof PACT, it addressed only the issue of a possible transfer of $100,000 in interest from the building fund. However, PCSSD goes to great lengths to try to discredit PACT by discussing that item as well as virtually every other item on Exhibit \"D'' which were not contained or addressed in the subject matter of the motion or brief of PACT. In response, PACT feels the necessity to respond to the allegations of the district as it addressed other items in PACT's Exhibit \"D.\" It should be noted that Exhibit \"D\" was created by PACT prior to this Court's - hearing on the district's Motion for Injunctive Relief. It was initially created for negotiating purposes only during the summer of 1996. PCSSD suggests that the transfer of $133,516.00 generated by the one mill technology millage would be unlawful under Arkansas Law. Hopefully, such is not the case as the district is well-versed in such transfers. It should be noted that the so-called one mill technology millage was not dedicated to math, science and technology on the ballot that was approved by the voters. It is true that the district advertised to the public that it would dedicate one mill of the proposed millage for technology if the millage was passed. However, what is technology is determined by the district itself since there are no parameters in the official ballot on which taxpayers voted. See attached Exhibit \"A.\" What PACT proposed, however, was the transfer of$133,516.00 from the regular budget to 2 the technology mill. This was the total dollars identified by PACT from district records where the district had funded technology programs not from the technology fund but from its regular budget thereby giving more to the technology budget than was generated by the mill when the technology budget is not even fully budgeted for expenditures. This scenario occurred when the budget managers were permitted to overspend their allotted millage amounts and the district, instead of balancing the budget by transferring money from the technology millage reserve to the overspending, chose rather to transfer money to cover the o,erspending from its regular budget. All that PACT requested in its negotiations was that money be returned from the technology fund that was transferred from the district's regular budget. For instance, two substantial expenditures from the regular budget that could have been allocated from the technology mill reserves were the computer lab at Fuller Junior High which was funded from the regular budget and the upgrade of district computer labs which would also qualify for technology funds. PCSSD also faults PACT for suggesting that the district defer $1,165,076.00 in budgeting expenses for the first semester to the second semester and to use that amount to fund teacher raises. The district complains that it is not demonstrated or predicted where new revenue would come from to pay these bills during the second semester. However, as the district well knows, it has done this very thing in the recent past. In the 1993-94 school year, the district similarly deferred expenditures to settle and fund a pay raise in a dispute with PACT by submitting a budget proposal to its Board of Directors for approval which contained three days less work during the second semester. See Exhibit \"B.\" Of course, with the district historically underestimating its revenues, the second semester was funded fully and the three days were restored to the school calendar. What the district finds to be irresponsible now but apparently found responsible only a few years ago is merely further 3 evidence of its unwillingness to settle its labor dispute with PACT and its willingness to create the risk that the labor dispute will boil over again. Next, PCS SD faults that part of Exhibit \"D\" to PACT's motion for representing that Act 917 requires $1,375,000.00 for funding to meet the requirements of the Act. Actually, the revised calculations by PACT are $1,262,752.00. PCSSD further represents that it would only require $117.00 to each beginning teacher salary and $298 to the contract of teachers holding a masters degree with two years experience to complete compliance with Act 917. If such a plan was the intent of the Act, there would be little dispute between the parties. However, PCS SD knows that the intent of Act 917 is not to destroy but to preserve the structure of the statutorily mandated salary schedule for teachers as it is incorporated into Article Xll  3 of the Master Contract. By not raising the base and failing to index a raise through the entire schedule to compensate teachers for - experience and education as provided by the district's plan, over 1,200 teachers would receive no raise whatsoever. Further, this Court did not rule on August 29 (sic) that PCS SD was not abiding by Act 91 7. The Act has not been challenged on the issues raised here. The Court only found that there was a probabilitv that the district was not in violation of Act 917 and that a waiver under the Act is also a possibility. With regard to PACT's projection of $500,000.00 in additional local revenue, the district's chief fiscal officer, who gave his affidavit with the district's response, stated during the first four days of the teacher strike that the $500,000.00 was his \"fudge money\" indicating how much he predicted the underestimation in local revenue. Stewart has since acknowledged his prior statement in mediation ordered by the Court. Again, this admission on the part of the district further 4 underscores the history of the dist1ict in underestimating local revenues. TITLE IX PACT's Exhibit \"A\" to its motion clearly shows that the district is willing and able to find funds for whatever it wants to do. There is no decree or order existing that binds PCSSD to fill additional coaching positions to comply with Title IX. In fact, the whole basis of the filling of the coaching positions was merely an internal memorandum suggesting that it be done. The memorandum itself is confusing and apparently contradictory. It should be noted that in the second paragraph of the memorandum, the recommendation is \"If a team has twenty (20) participants at the end of a (sic) athletic season, the assistant coach allocation \\\\'ill be implemented for the following school year.\" Therefore it appears that the memorandum suggests filling the positions would begin in the I 997-98 school year. However. in the last paragraph of the memorandum, the allocation is projected to increase the budget by approximately $9,000.00 for the 1996-97 school year. What occurred here was based on an internal recommendation that the district increase spending (recurring expenditures with nonrecurring revenues) which was not budgeted and apparently was deemed by the administration and the board to be more important than using the funds at the present time to contribute to a settlement of its labor dispute with PACT. This is the very kind of conduct by the administration and board of PCS SD that contributes to the current state of affairs with its teachers: that is, historically, the district finds a way to generate or divert revenues for programs or things that it deems it needs. To make matters worse, these are not even all Title IX positions. In fact, PACT has asked the board how many of the positions are Title IX and there has been no response as yet. 5 EXHIBIT \"B\" Whine as it will that the August 27, 1996, budget is still the official budget of the district, the shifting sands of dollars coming into the district and being expended by the district changes with each and every monthly report. Certainly, a budget may be corrected or modified. However, to represent to its board that daily changes in expenditures and projected revenues somehow obviate the necessity for a budget which has been approved by the Court is folly. In effect, the district juggles its numbers each and every month by board approval of its Financial Report which modifies the budget even though the Court does not receive it. PACT wonders whether these monthly financial revised budgets and board approval of them are also under evaluation by the ODM as being consistent with sound fiscal practices. In an attempt to clarify the intent of PACT's Exhibit \"B\" to its brief filed on December 10, 1996, a separate summary of\"budget amounts\" for each of three funds is attached hereto as Exhibits \"C,\" \"D\" and \"E.\" Each month, PCS SD generates Financial Reports. In each one of these reports, there is a column labeled \"budget.\" This column reflects the amount budgeted for each object within each function, as well as the total for each function within each of the three funds. Each of the attached summaries, while not specifically generated by PCSSD, do contain the function totals taken directly from all five of the monthly Financial Reports, which have been generated and provided by PCSSD. These summaries provide evidence that PCSSD does in fact change board-approved amounts. In the affidavit of Dr. Stewart attached to the PCSSD Response to Motion, it was stated: (1.) The board-approved budget amounts were entered into the computer in early September, and 6 (2.) to date, no changes have been made in the board-approved budget. If these two statements were true, then the budget amounts in the 9/30/96 Financial Report should reflect the same amounts as those approved by the School Board on August 27, 1996, since 9/30 is the date after the \"early September\" date that Dr. Stewart referred to as the time at which amow1ts were entered into the computer. Furthermore, the subsequent Financial Reports (dated 10/31/96 and 11 /30/96) should also contain the exact budget amounts as those of9/30/96-. However, this is not the case. Changes can be seen in the Teachers ' Salary Fund (Fund 1000) in 18 different functions (1105 , 1110, 1120, 1130, 1140, 1170, 1191, 1220, 1320, 1330. 1350. 1360, 1370, 1390, 1910, 2122. 2222, and 2410) and in 15 different functions (1105, 1120. 1 130. 1140, 1150. 1160, 1170, 1240, 2514, 2620, 2630, 2640, 2710, 2720 and 2740) in the Operating Fund (Fund 2000). In the Desegregation Fund (Fund 2900), it is interesting to note that no changes whatsoever - can be seen in function totals. The fact that all functions reflect the exact same budget amount since 9/30/96 proves that PCSSD can stick to the approved budget when it so chooses. After all, a budget is just that - an overall plan that should not constantly change due to daily changes in expenditures and revenues. Furthermore, because the official budget addresses the entire plan, including function totals, when a change is made in any function, a change has been made in the official budget approved by the board and submitted to the Court, on August 27, 1996. In his affidavit, Dr. Stewart further stated that \"The district has never taken the position that approving the Financial Report constituted a change in the budget.\" If that be the case, just what are board members doing when they approve such a report and why do they have to approve a Financial Report at all, especially one with budget amounts varying from the Court-approved budget? It would seem more logical that the budget amounts in each Financial Report should coincide with the 7 budget amounts approved by the board on August 27, 1996. However, as shown in the summaries, these amounts are not always the same. Therefore, each time the board approves a Financial Report that has different budget amounts, they are, in effect, voting to change the official budget that they approved and submitted to the Court on August 27, 1996. JACKSONVILLE SCHOOLS The money for the reconfiguration of Jacksonville Schools, which will go on line in the 1997-98 school year, was not and is not a part of the budget approved by this court. Additional funds are being spent in preparation for the implementation of the reconfiguration outside the court approved budget, money that could be channeled into a contract settlement with the district's teachers. In fact, the district admits that certain expenditures for substitutes, supplies, materials and training are being spent during this current fiscal year. \"Reconfiguration\" until late August of 1997 is a shallow statement without the expenditures of money in preparation for \"reconfiguration\" which constitutes discretionary spending by the district of money that could be used to help settle the contract dispute between the parties. The district in its response to PACT's motion informs the Court that \"impact aid\" from the federal government is forecast to be sharply curtailed and reduced compared to last year leaving the district with a forecast of a negative ending balance. In fact, as time will show, the district will end its fiscal year with a positive balance and it will do so whether or not it settles its contract dispute with PACT. This settlement depends on the district focusing and redoubling its efforts to bargain in good faith and find the money, as it surely can do, to settle the dispute and not to engage in its game of smoke and mirrors to deny its teachers the much deserved raise as intended by Act 917. If 8 ;:'j T 1 l. I 1 r r I I : : . ,\" :.e - - ~ ' OO,cl / ~ DEP - r:F ECL~rt~ I OFFICIAL BAU.OT l SPECIAL ELECTION  ' P.UUSKJ COUNTY SPECtAIJSCMOOL OISTPJCT !PULASKI COUNT, ARKANSAS I Mays,1, INS'fflJC'nONI TO VOTDa: VOtt on meaure by plld~ .,, x- In the tqu.N ~ !M ffleU\\ltt sltl'I lfOA or AGAINST. ; - . --- ~-  ' -- I I I \"A,:'  Jt.:L. 2 2 zs,z \"'-c.. . . . .  .. ! i. ' --~01- ~ E 8 I X f r c 6 I E ~E,  VAUGHN HCQUARY, HAIY LOVI!i WILLIAMS, AND tin HOL.!il:S. COUNTY aOARD o, !LICTION COMHISSIONDS, WITXIN AHn FOR PULABK:t COUNTY, AJUUNSAS, DO l'IND AND JIEQJ\\\" C?RTU''Y ffE POLLOWt~ usuirs or Tit 1992 PULASll COUN'tY SP!ClAL SCHOOL DIST1'ICT. ILECTIOH HiLD IH TX! VA.RIOOS rRECI~C1'S OP POLAS~I COUNTY FpR THE MEASURI SPIClFiiU HlllSIH: i SPCUHt.AO.OSJLC I TCUO:U NTY SPEC UL SCJ{OL DIS11tICT PROPOSZll 43, 9 KILL I FOR ----~--------------------------------------11  20 VOTES AOAINST ---------------------------------- !117 VOTtS 1-J,.1._,,,, ~Ii .. re, I .J ... ,l. , I ; OF SAID BOA.JU) TRI! JL1L 2 ~ 1992 !raHriio l/.1, J.1y  Program Analysis For The Def et Ing Three Days From Pulaski County Special School District 1993-94 Schoof Year EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pulaski County Special School Dls~SSO) budget ror the 1993.94 flscaJ year is proiected to hav an ending deficit of $1,789,099.  Ar1\u003cansas Slate law provides that a school d1'tria cannot deficit spend. Fur111ermore, the Federal District Court has directed the PCSSD Board 10 maJ\u003ce the nece~ provisions to submit a balanced budQet. On\u0026 way to accompllst'l lhls rs to delete three days from the 19939 sehool year. BACK GR OUN O ~~ ~ ;~; O'/ G:-n--.P'f:,.. The PCSSD spent more money lhan It received (non-recurring revenue durt ht 199293 school year by $1,190.178. Toe endlnQ 0;1ance for the 199.2-93 school year was :3, However, ~00.000 01 the $403.590 was money saved throuQtl the eany retirement incentive program. This money, placao in the Compensatory EdUcatJon TruS't Fund. wlU be invested and is not avaaao1e. Therefore, the ac:tlJal ndl~ balance tNt is availaola to b\u0026 spent for Iha 1993-94 sehoot year Is only $3,590. The cost ot the one-half percent raise for all ecrc,loyeu Implemented after July 1, 1993, II $32S,0\"2. The eost tor the pay scale step inc:..ase for au eligible 1mploytt1 cos~ a;\u003ep1\"0xlmately $800,000. The cost tor lnitlal materiats and equipment for the MUls High School Specialty Program It $300,000. Tht Olst,1e:t wu required to shift elementary assimnt prtncipais from tl'le Chapter I budget to tl'lt OISU'id OJ)eraUng budQet at a cost of $250,000. The cost for lmptememtno the Economic Education Specialty Program it Baker Elementary school ls $60,000. A new board policy requil'ln9 drug lt~ng of bus drivers ccsts $20,000. The total of these new expenses for 1993-94 ls $2,9~.220. In spite of the ract tl'lat focal revenue Increased by ~.305,S55. prfma,uy as a result of the new 6 mill tax. the Joss ot $959,846 in state and federal revenue caused the Olstnct to have only $1.1S9.121 in new available revenue over the expenses of 199293. These racu place the District In the position .t profectlnQ a ($1,789.099) deflol for the 1993-~ school year. PROBLEM 0EFfNITION To develop a balanced budget th, PCSSO -'dminlstratlon and Board had to txplore varlc,us ways lo rtduce expenditures. AU areas of budgeted excenses had to be examined u i,otent1al blJdQet arts In an effort to reduce expenditures by approximately S2,000.000 tor the 1993.94 school year. Slgniffcant ntdUctlons were made in oper;tlcns costs ($510.000} and In debt cests ($200,000). The decision was ffnaHy rNde to delete mree student interadlon days In order to save approximately S1 .soo.900. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The altematlves that were considered were: (1) ReductlOn ot salaries of all personnel (2) Elimination of programs not required by edUcatlon standards or !ht desegregatiOn plan (3) Reouction in lorce ot personnel not required by education $tandards or the dese9regatlon plan. To reduce salaries of all personnel would viol.le At1(a~ Slate Law 6-17-1501 \"'The Teacher Fu - Dismissal Act of 1963.\" Subchapter 6-17-1506 provides that \"(a) Every contract ot emptoyment made ti 1311 betwon a teacttet and the board of directors of a scl'lool district shall be renewed in wrttl~ on the same terms and for the same salary, unless Increased or decreased by law. for the nex1 school year succeeding the date ot termination tlxed therein. which renewal may be made by an endo~ement on the existing contract lnS11t1ment. unless by May 1 of the contract year. the teacher is notified by the school superintenderlt that the superlntendenl Is recommendlnc;, that the teacher's contract not be renewed: Since the May t deadline had passed, ~ was determined that vfolatlon of this statute could lead to lengthy nugatlon and much expense in legal fees. The penalty tor Ignoring this law was an \"Unknown. Furthermore. employees would resent woc1\u003cing a full contract year for less than their contracted salary. Elimination of programs not required by education standards or the des~regatlon plan was considered. However. while programs such as athletics and some other extracunieular programs might be considered as popular budget cuts by some people. it was decided rriat these programs are at least lndirectty (if not directly) a part of the desegr~atlon plari. The court. in Its order of August 3, , 992. directed the reinstatement of the position, Director of Athletics and Physical Education, which had been eliminated earlier. Furthermore. tt,ese programs. withOut a doubt. pmmc,te desagre(Jatton within our schoots and throughout society. Reduction In force of personnel not reqvlred by education staridards or the desegr99ation plan was attempted tn the spring of 1992. The Court. In Its order of August 3. 1992. ordered the reinstatement of approximately eleven supervisory posillons because it was determined tnat to cut these )obs would be detrlmental 10 the desegregation program. Two other positions (Aulstant Superintendents) were voluntarily restored by the Board because the Importance of these posrtlons in the organi2atlon was rruch more s~ntttcam than the amount saved by the cut. Very little consideration was ~lven to cunlnQ seNtce Jobs such as custodians. maJrnenance personnel. mechanics. etc. Significant budget cut.s Implemented since 1984 reduced the number of these persoMel to the minimum necessary to operate an eNecttve sctiool district. AECOMMENOATIONS The PCSSO Board of Education recommends that approximately $2.000.000 in expenditures be reduced from tM 1993-9 budQet by reduction of operation costs of approximately $510,000. reduction in debt costs by approximately $200,000. and by deleting tl'lree studenr interaC11on days at a savings of approximately $1.500.000. It is believed that it is far more educatlonally sound and less disruptive to eliminate these days at trie end of the sctiool year rather tt'lan at the beglnnll'IQ of the school year. The Dtstnc1 recognizes that parents need as much time as possible to prepare for a shOrtened school year. It would not be fair. at this Jate date. to shOrten school at the beginning of tt,e year. OBJECTIVES The objectives are to produce a balanced buctQet by reducing expendttures In such a way as to have the least Impact on the delivery of Instruction to the students of PCSSD, to avoid len9thy and controversial litigation. to provide \u0026QUity amo1i9 employee groups, and to assure the Cour1 that the District is making a good faith effort to manage itS finances in a 11!Sponslble way. IMPACT ANALYSIS The Impact of deleting $510,000 from operation costs and $200.000 from debt service wrll nave llttre tan\u003c.;1ible effect on tne instn;ctlonal program ol the District. Deleting three student interaction days at a savings of $1.500,000 wlll Impact Instruction. but the Instructional supervisors do not believe that ,t w,11 have a measurable effect. The penalty tor v1olat1no State Education Standard Chapter. V, Section A., which requires 178 student Interaction days will be a citation rrom 111e State Education Oepanment. Violation of the same standard for two consecutive years presents the poss1b1llty of consolidation by the Slate Board of Education. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The only atterna1lve available at this time Is to ask citizens to allow the Dlslrtct to restructure ~s bonded debt wfthOut raising their taxes. This question is on the ballot of the September, ,993 school election. Should the citizens allow restructuring of the bonded debt, current year debt payments can be stl'\\Jctured to set aside $1,500,000 In savings to help offset the !oss of desegregation settlement funds and an addHlonal savings of approximately $1,800,000 can be realized by pushing those currently scheduled payments Into future years. This could eliminate the posstblllty of deleting any student Interaction days from the 1993-94 schQQI year. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Forces supporting this approach to balancing the budget ~lleve that the daletlon ot student interaction days will have less n99atlve effect on student Instruction and the desegre\u003cjatlon plan than other attematlves considered. While there Is a state law whlcl'I prohibits a dlstl'fc:r frcm deficit spending, there is a State Law (~M3-620) which provides authonty for a school district bOard of directors to ctose sehool early . and cease paying the teachers ror the remall'lder or the t1scaI year. This approach which provides a imown penalty ls less likely to be litlgated than violatl~ a law with an 4unkrc\u003ewT, penalty. Forces against this approach are employees whO do r.ct want their salartes to be neQatfvely affected and parents who are concerned that their children will suffer educatlonally. IMPLEMENTATION FLAN The PCSSO Board of Educs1lon adopted the 1993-94 budget which provided for deletion of three student Interaction days at a special school board mcetl~ on July 27, 1993. Thls action Is contingent on Court approval. The proposal has already received considerable media attention without any appreciable opposition from patrons. However, students. employees. and parents will be nofl11ed of the possibility of the deletion of the fast three days of the school year so that summer plans can be considered. Should it be unnecessary to delete all three days. constituents will be notified at the eartlest time possible. Every effort will be made lo curtail expenditures durt~ the schOol year in an effort to prevent deletion of any school days. Furthermore, a strategic plan has been Implemented to encourage patrons lo approve the restructuring of the Dfstnct's Indebtedness. The District is considering ways to atfect employee salaries by withholdln9 pay in incremems rather than withholdtng for all three days during the fast pay period. SUMMARY OF \"BUDGET AMOUNTS\" 19')6 - 19'J7 PCSSD FINANCIAL REPORTS FUND 1000 TEACHER SALARY FUl\\.ro 1100 11115 Ill( Jl}f_l 113\u003c) 114' ! 150 IIC,O 1170 1191 121n 12! I 12:!I! !240 12(,(l 1:10 l2S5 1121) l~_~I !.\"\"'1) U5o u~_; ])C,(l 1370 1390 13~.1 15' , 19JfJ 1930 2111 2122 1142 21.:;o ::211 1212 2222 :!321 :!411) :!4~ 2501 ::(;JO 27!0 2i:,, 2PO C.\\(,1 DE3CR!PTION Rc-g P@Jw'Elcm-SccooJa,y Pre-School Ku~ortro Elrnicntary Middle ' Jr 1-hgh lhgh School AthletJcs Stu.Jient Aci.J\\ilic:. Sununc, School ROTC llincrMt lnstrucuon HClUlCOO\u003cJlld instruct.,oo Rc,nun;eRoon, Sp,\u003c:1al Class - I l 0 Scparat~ Day- Pnvat~ Rcs,dcntiaJ Day  !'nVaJA: Ex1,oJl Year Ml.si \u0026 D1stt1bu11Vc Ed Bu\u003cu,es I Oilin: Om,p Heald,('=, Trade \u0026 lndu_-:mal Trad\u003c Ins  SL:ill Trauung llomc Economics CMCCI Ori~oo Special Needs Th Prep ReadJn% Gtlted\u0026 TalrntC'd English  Sond L.~ Super AUm I Social Wed: Couns\u003c\"lulg J's,,clJologicol Tcruni; 1'1,\\-.,cal  Occupauooal Tncr-apy Super lmprovc lnstruc s-,, ln.,t i Curr SJX'('1ahru Schon! L1bmy Ct.lice  Super Lit Otlicc - Pnnc,pal Asst F'n.oc 1pal Ollicc Super Du.sl.Dess Set\\ ices Super Op/ M..mteoance Super Studcot T ran,poct lntnrmat1on Servi~ Sta:t!SCMcn l-r1 ( .her LEAS In Stau: !'L\").1) 1000 TOT.\\L --- ---DAmor- fl:-.A:-;,-L-\\L REPORT-------- 07/~l:1 ~ OS/31f.\\G 09'3(;'1)(; 10.'JJ \"),I., V ~\" -~\"'11~1 ~5St.1_,;.,.~f'K1 l-t217.7J;i.,-, ).!~17.'-.CI' IJ:I '.'.':i'\u003e).),.J 13(l -1::.\u0026-'6 (l() 14S.SIOOO iSI.4::? 00 IJ~. 77 I IY! ~..a9o,;-:. \\)0 ~32.1 :4 (\u003e.,_, J11~,.,,n1_(1 -Y..14.\"~'{') J.,.\u003c_~!-4.00 ~:S.i II 00 lS.ti5$ l lt--.~_--:,c.; ,,fl l-'.':' ~~71111 ..,J  -~ ,, ._1 7\" 7, \"l,lf !(I :,~s.7r:.-: ((1 :G9.53S 00 ~--: 7:7('1 ,. ,l~- l i{H)'I 1.12 11:2 , .J ~A J_'7-l22h(I :_!.;r_:.,ll'O 211.81800 77i l(;Sr,J l ,i.W ... ll1.a) -:.u,, c,~, , 11:1 1,4_.., ,.77 1(1 !\u003c1~ __ 111 2.n,,:.~: 1)1) :!_!)').;_::?.(\u003e') s:.c1 7 oo l~:.87\u003c. 00 ,.., 1,j-! ().j '.'k ..:;:_J ((i j~(J ,..t..t ( (t .1~ .......... 1(1 0 47.()()()()() 2. 7-1~_985 (~) 12.952.~'\u003et-l( 5,8'56,!:\u003e43 (\u003cJ ~.0'.)2.~I 5.00 454,7S8 00 157,709.00 117,920.00 126.806 00 205,304 0(1 512.415 ((J 4,1)44,520 ((I 809,639 \\l() 152,87:.00 691.19:00 611 00 187.7(1lf ,,, O\u003cH.1.J71(1 J(1.'(l(!IICI $4~\\.:!(1'.\" 1i,:_1 f) Gss.:--t:.oo 161.66] 00 21G.567.00 n 42.17f\u003c)\\/ 1.128.Jc,~ f J ,;;:,.,,.,..;2.1.(1 l41J.1l'lYl 2.212.534 00 239.653 00 641.7]100 t~,9.294 (f.) 979,\u003c.\\71\u003c, 1,4~5. ~5 1.1) 1'18.3~2 \"' 2.14J.2fl7 ll() 2.:n.153 _00 86,2-1:.00 147.80700 ;1.-1w,,, 1,0,cn...9_11 201.387((1 3Jl)\"\u003c~ ult 51.710.451.00 L'C 0 .J71Ul{_(I 2. 11\\$; ,;,.,, 11,.-, 12.0 . n.~r-.., 1_{1 5,86'1\"\"1 1'-l;_ t I lj/JC)~.'I' ,,-, -154.'8~ 1)(1 157.709 00 11--:.9:0((1 12(1)1fJn1_1tJ 2(1'.'.1.;..;.1)0 :'-i~  l:'C-1 4.1.~_,:!(!\\_)(I 8tY1r-,_l)(K' '-~ 11 i {)., i~ l1,:h n, JS].'.,._ ,J 00 2lt. :.1.J7(,.) IJ 1.1'.2~ ,,-,~ \u003c ll j 'n.-~I }.Ul. 11,; ,-11, z.;1:. ~34 ('() :39.~\u003c300 t,\u003c,S- __  IJ, 979 :\"-471)11 1.4~~.-l':- ,,. !fJ~. ': 11! :_141 ~!11' 1_1f S6.:5: 00 147.S(J700 57_,-,,,; ~JJ ':.i.;i' , ~ . ~ ~ ~9.l 87.tG9.00 0 ~.23:!50 ~ 77),.~l_t(J(.) 12,'lf').314 5{1 5.S4l.~3.f)(J ~.Ol(l.951.88 -154,71!8.00 157,70') 00 179.9'\".f.)94 12s.1,2 (() 2\u003c15.,94 00 512.-115 ()) 4/1\\',)--1_~:(, 00 SO' "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_987","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' 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":["1997/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' 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/987"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nII   q q II ~ ~ ~ ~ II NORTH L1TTL ROCl{ SCHOOL D1STR1CT RECEIVED JUL 7 1998 OFFIOCFE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING ANALYSIS 0f DISCIPLINARY ACTI0NS DISTRICT LEVEL ll@~7/c~rnJ FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs RECEIVED JUL 7 1998 OFFIOCFE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING NORTH l1TTL ROCl{ PVBllC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIC,NS DISTRICT LEVEL FROM: AUGUST 1997 THRU: JUNE 1998 D18032 e  6/ 1 7 /98 8: 27: i .i Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AU(\nUST Thro u g h JUi'ff ===~=========================================---------==----=====------====== i9'?'6-97 =~=======================-==============---------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU =~==~~==============================-==--===-------====------------------------- '- A. c- 1219 5i. 57: 552 23. 3% 454 i9. .,:\ni=. ,. 142 6. U - :,\n. 2367 483 269 243 84 1079 HCH\"iF SUSP. 460 61. 5% 179 23. 6% 10i i3. 3~,: i2 i. 6~\n- 758 ,-,::\n--, c:. ...-.t ::_ 108 61 9 430 BDVS CLUB 356 58. 7~,: i 1~6 24. 1,,\n. 84 13. 9o/: 20 '', \"' 3% 606 200 95 66 ~?O 381 i::. I. C. 154 70. 3% 30 13. 7% 32 14. 6% 3 1. 4% 219 65 i2 14 ~, i=. 93 F.J.f\"\"ULSION 3 30. 01/. 7 70. 0% 0 0% 0 01/. 10 3 7 0 0 10 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ~~-==================~===========================================-=======--===== ,- .. :., {\\ . C. ,10ME SUSP. COV:J CLUB ... [. C. E,ff'ULSI ON ------Br1-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 1805 53. 9'1/. 670 ~-1 1 67. q, 'I . ~69 ~) 16 65. a1 279 0 0% 0 7 58. 3% 7 -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 863 ,c:\ni=.w. 8% 4ii 125 16. bi~ 78 148 18. 91/. o, , C. 0 O~i. 0 5 4 i. 7% 5 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 550 16. 4'1/. 278 104 1.3. 8 ., 1. 67 112 14. 3'1/. 73 0 0% 0 0 Ot. 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 132 --,,. 9 94 13 1. 7% 10 8 i. 0% 6 0 0% 0 0 o,\n0 3350 i453 753 424 784 450 0 0 12 12 ~~-==~=========================================================================== COMPARISON -=========:=====-============================================================ S. 1\\ C. f-1DME SUSP. 80'{3 CLUB '-- l C. EXPULSION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/--l # REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 586 48. 1 ,~ 311 56.3 I. 96 21. 1 ,: 10- 7. 0-\n. 187 142 35 10 45 9. 7 I. 54- 30.2-\n. 3 3. 0 I. 1 8 . '_\"J_ , I. 17 30- 6 1 160 44. 9 % 2 1. 4 % 28 33. 3 ,~ 12- 60. o-,\n79 3- 7 14- 154- 100. 0-% 30- i00.0-% 32- 100. 0-\n. 3- 100. 0-% 65- 12- 14- 2- 4 i3:3. 3 'X 2- 28. 6-1/. 0 .0 1\n0 .0 1\n4 2- 0 0 983 374 5- 6- 178 69 219- 93- 2 2 DIS032 6/17/98 8:27:24 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE ----~------------------------------------------------------------------------ :!.996-97 ~===~=~============-============-=====------------------------------------------ .. -----DM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----rJBM----# REF PCT /TOT # STU -----r-lBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ====:=======~============================-=------=====-----------------====--- S. (\\ ,~~. 64i .C_::,'\".J_ ,_6 /: .-,i..\"J .,,, 0'1/. 209 i 7. 5/: 82 6. 9'1/. 1195 c:.-1-I c:..c:.. . 268 137 110 50 565 : Ci~if: SUSP 8 57 1 '1/. 6 4 ., c::.. 9:,\n0 Oi'\n0 0'1/. 14 8 6 0 0 14 81]'-r'S CLUI:l 1.91 65. 9'l. 60 20. 7'1/. 32 11. Qi'\n7 c,:,.. 4'1/. 290 115 4:3 26 7 191 E l. C. 0 Ot. 0 0'1/. 0 Ot. 0 o,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 i::/PULSION 0 0'1/. 6 iOO. 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 6 0 6 0 0 6 ===~===================================================---------===========--- l 9 9 7 - 9 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -~========================================================--================== s A C. 738 50. 4'1/. 397 27. 1% 270 18. 5% 58 4. 0% 1463 274 190 132 44 640 '-1\\JME SUSP. ii 1 63. 41/. 31 17. 7% 28 16. O'i'\n5 2. 9'1/. 175 43 14 17 2 76 BOY':::\u0026gt; CLUB .-,.,,., c:.c:.c:. 72 . 1'1/. 37 12. O'l. 48 15. 6'1/. 1 31/. 308 125 29 36 1 191 E 1 C. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX!'ULSION 2 28. 6'1/. 5 71. 4'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 O'l. 7 2 5 0 0 7 :--=========================================================~=================== COMPARISON ~-==~==============:======================================-=================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-i # STU # STU # STU # STU ~-==~========================================================================= 5 A. C. 97 15. 1 '1/. 134 51. 0 '1/. 61 29. 2 '1/. 24- 29. 3-'l. 268 6 53 22 6- 75 i10r1E SUSP. 103 1287. 5 '1/. 25 416. 7 '1/. 28 2800. 0 '1/. 5 500. 0 % 161 35 8 17 ., c:. 62 ' BOVS CLUB 31 16. 2 'l. 23- 38. 3-'1/. 16 50. 0 '1/. 6- 85. 7-'1/. 18 10 i4- 10 6- 0 E. [ C. 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. X tULS ION ., t::.. 200. 0 '1/. 1- 16. 7-'1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 'l. 1 ', c:. 1- 0 0 1 DIS032 e: 6/17/98 8:27:19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE l 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----B:~------- ti REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ H REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 578 49. 3% 289 24. 215 i32 - HCwif SUSP. 3 60. 0% ., c:.. 40. 3 .-, c:.. DCt'r'\nCLUB i65 :-:7, c:... --,':li 86 27 . C:..I 85 52 E i. C. 0 0% 0 () 0 F:XF'ULSION i 50. 0% i 50. 1 i 7% 245 133 0% 0 0 . -,=\n52 C:..I 40 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 20. 9'i. . 0% . 0% 60 34 0 0 i3 13 0 0 0 0 5. 1% ii 72 5i4 U -,,-,. 5 5 4. io/. 3i6 190 U -,,-,. 0 0 0% ., c:.. ., c:.. -===================~========================================================= 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----RM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ~============================================================================= s c'\\. C. 714 54. 3'1/. 359 27. 3% 181 13. 8% 62 4. 7'1/. 1316 252 161 99 40 552 i!OME SUSP. 72 63. ...,., l l. 27 23. 9'1/. 11 9. 7'1/. 3 2. 7'1/. 113 31 16 7 3 57 BO''l'S CLUB 243 63. 8'1/. 85 ,..,.., c...-::... 3'1/. 46 12. 1 '1/. 7 1. 8'1/. 381 124 35 29 5 213 E [ .~ 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0'i. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX F'Li1-SI Ol'J 2 100. 0% 0 U -,,,- 0 0% 0 0'i. ,. .. ., c:.. .-. 0 0 0 ', c:.. c:.. -===========~===~============================================================= COMPARISON --=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF ?CT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----=========:================================================================ s (\\ C. 136 23. 5 '1/. 70 24.2 '1/. 64- 26. 1-% 2 3.3 '1/. 144 37 29 34- 6 38 r-iCIME SUSP. 69 2300.0 '1/. 25 1250.0 'l. 11 1100.0 'l. 3 300.0 'l. 108 28 14 7 3 52 BiJ'lS CL\\JB 78 47. 3 1/. 1- 1. 2--:,\n6- 11. 5-% 6- 46. 2-'1/. 65 39 3 11- 8- 23 !:. I C. 0 .0 ,~ 0 .0 ,: 0 .0 ,: 0 .0 i'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 E/PULSION 1 i00.0 ~~ i- 100 0-\"i 0 .0 ,: 0 .0 '1/. 0 1 1- 0 0 0 DIS032 2. 6/17/98 D: 27: 14 Analysis cf Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-6 From AUGUST Through JUNE ~===============-======~====--=====------------------------------------------ i9'?\"6-97 _c--=--:------~----========-----=--===--===---=----------=---------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -~=================--=--=-----=-=----------------------------------------------- S. i\\. C. HDriE St..iSP. BiJ~i'S C Lt)B 0 0 455 242 , .. V 0 154 65 0 i7i 1 ()0 0 0 30 i2 .-,.-, ~...,J. 1.-.-.:.\n. . ()I'\n0 0 i ~{ 10i 6i o~.1: 0 0 7% \"'.l7 '-'\"'- 14 . 0% i3. 7/. 0 0 i2 9 0 0 .3, c.. . 0% 1 . . ..1,1.1,1.. j 0 0 739 412 0 0 219 93 ,1 E/PULSION c7. . 100. 01~ 0 0 Qi'\n0 . 0'1/. 0 0 ., c.. 2 0 2 ====================================-=========-=========-----------=~==-==--- i 9 9 7 - 9 8 - -~===============-------~-=========-------=-=--========---------------------- ,. 0. A. C. ,. HOMJ= SUSP. .i 1 BOV~, CL.UB -------Hi\"i------# REF PCT/TOT # STU 353 61. 8% 144 328 70. 5,\n. w 5i 53. Ti. -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 107 18. 7% 60 67 14. 4 ,,\n. 48 26 27. 4% -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 99 17. 3~,: 48 65 14. 0% 43 18 i8. 9% -----NBF------# REF PCT /TOT # STU 12 2. 1% 10 5 i. i ~,: 5 0 0% 571 262 465 293 95 qE. 30 8 8 0 46 t. C. 0 Oo/. 0 0% 0 U-=\n, . 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 7 Ei('Ui_SION 'C--j ' iOO. 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 3 0 0 0 3 m========-===========================================================-=======- :,q , i .t. :.:::.. COMPARISON ---=============--------===========----------------=------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----============-----------===================-========-----=---==========--- S. ,\\ C. 353 35300. 0 i'~ 107 10700. 0 1/. 99 9900. 0 i'~ 12 1200.0 % 571 144 60 48 10 262 !10ME SUSP. 127- 27. 9-% 104- 60. 8-i. 36- 35.6-% 7- 58.3-'1/. 274- 45- 52- 18- 4- 119- BOYS CLUB 51 5100. 0 o/. 26 2600. 0 % 18 1800. 0 % 0 .0 '1/. 95 30 8 8 0 46 E 1. C. 154- iOO. 0-,\n30- 100. 0-i'\n32- 100. 0-% 3- 100. 0-' 219- 65- 12- 14- 2- 93- EXPULSION 1 50. 0 % 0 .0 ,\n0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 ,\n1 i 0 0 0 1 DIS032S e: 6/17/96 8:27:27 oo). 012 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 ====-==---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 :=-==~====================-=--=--=--==----===----------------------------------- :. 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----NBF----~ REF PCT/TOT # STU ===~=====================================================---=-----------=-=-= C: 1\\ C. 160 56. i\n,\n45 i 5. 8'1/. -..J. 9i 38 dOt-ii: SUSP. \"7 - 40. O. .\".J. ., 60. O. 2 3 BOIS CLUB 40 70. 2. 9 i 5. 8. :34 8 ~ r. C. 0 Qi'\n0 O. 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0% 2 100. 0% 0 2 i 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU i53 49. 8 .,,. 92 30. 0 .,,. 99 64 H0J-1E SUSP. 6 60. o\n,\n3 30. 0'1/. ~, c:. 7 c:.. 44 83. o~~ 5 9. 4 ,\n. 33 5 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 0 o:,,\n0 O'Y. 0 0 60 2i. i 'I. 42 0 0'1/. 0 7 1.-, c:... 3. 7 0 O. 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----# Rl::t- t-'C I / I U I # STU 47 15. 3 .,,. 38 1 10. 0% i 4 -,\n. 5% 4 0 o:,,\n0 0 O'Y. 0 20 7. o\n,\n14 0 o~~ 0 1 j__ Bi'\n1 0 O. 0 0 O. 0 -----NBF----' lf Hl::t- t-'CI/IUI # STU 15 4. 9. 15 0 0'1/. 0 0 U - ,,,.. 0 0 0% 0 0 O'Y. 0 285 185 5 5 57 50 0 0 \"\"I c:. \"\"I C. 307 216 10 5 53 42 0 0 0 0 -~--=~=========================================================================== COMPARISON ---============================================================================= -----fiM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU . ---=========-================================================================== ~ (\\ C. 7- 4. 4-'Y. 47 104. 4 'i': 13- 21. 7-'1/. 5- 25. 0-'1/. 22 8 26 4- 1 31 iOME SUSP. 4 200. 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 1 100. 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 5 0 1- 1 0 0 BtJY:3 cLUB 4 10. 0 1\n4- 44. 4-\"1/. 3- 42. 9-'1/. 1- 100. 0-'1/. 4- 1- .,_ ._, 3- 1- 8- - I. C. 0 0 ,~ 0 0 /~ 0 .0 ,: 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i::lPULSION 0 0 1\n2- 100. 0-\"1/. 0 0 'i': 0 0 '1/. 2- () 2- 0 0 2- D!S0325 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/17/98 by School 8:27:34 From AUGUST Through JUNE 013 NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ====~==--------====-----===------=------====-------------------=====----==~-= i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT w ~~~ ~c111uT ff STU # STU # STU ~ STU ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 481 5 '\") 9~,~ 2i8 24. 0% i48 16. -J7!.j \"- 6'.J 6. 81/. 909 .., ,. i78 99 67 36 380 SUE:P. 6 66. 7% 3 33. 3% 0 01/. 0 U - ,,\n. 9 6 3 0 0 9 CLUB i5i 64. Bo/: 5i 2i. 9% 25 iO. 1=\n6 ., , ,. 61/. 233 \"- Bi 35 19 6 i4i 0 01/. 0 0% 0 01/. 0 Oo/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIOi'i 0 01/. 4 iOO. O 0 Oo/. 0 O 4 0 4 0 0 4 --============================================================================= i 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --=========================================================================== 584 50. 6 307 26. 6'1/. 220 19. 0'1/. 44 3. 8/ 1155 176 129 93 30 428 SUSP. ., ._, 75. 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 1 25. o,\n0 . 0'1/. 4 \") 0 1 0 4 ..I CLUB 177 69. 7'1/. 32 12. 6'1/. 44 17. 3'1/. 1 . 4'1/. 254 91 24 32 1 148 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Qi'\n0 . o,\n0 . o,\n0 C, 0 0 0 0 EXPULSI hi .2, 28. 6,\n5 71. 4'1/. 0 . Oi'\n0 . 0% 7 c.. 5 0 0 7 --=======--================================================================== COMPARISON -----=~==============-========-================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) tt STU # STU # STU # STU =~==-================~==================~======================================= 103,, _ 21. 4 '1/. 89 40. 8 '1/. 72 48. 6 '1/. 18- 29. 0-'1/. 246 r. 30 26 6- 48 SUSP. 3- 50. 0-'1/. 3- 100. 0-'1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 5- 3- 3- 1 0 5- CLUB 26 17.2 '1/. 19- 37. 3-'1/. 19 76. 0 I. 5- 83. 3- 21 10 11- 13 5- 7 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 ',I . 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2~ . 200. 0 o/. 1 25. 0 '1/. 0 .0  0 .0 o/. 3 \"- 1 0 0 3 DIS032:J e. 6/17/98 8: 27: 3S OGJ. 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY l 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----t'IIBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----f'JB F ----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=~-==========================================================------==-----=== ....,_ ('. C . 0 o,: 0 01: 0 Or: 0 o:,: 0 (j 0 0 0 0 :+Jfi-= f:USP. 0 Of~ 0 o,\n0 Or: 0 Or: 0 \u0026lt;) 0 0 0 0 8J]'i:3 CLUB 0 Or: 0 0 .,, . 0 0%: 0 Or: 0 0 0 0 0 0\n:_ I. C. 0 01: 0 0% 0 0%: 0 O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E1sPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~============================================================================== i 9 9 7 - 9 8 ------BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT /TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU - ~==========================================================-=========~========= s A 'r-. 1 100. 01. 0 . 01. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 1 1 0 0 0 1 !-l1Ji'1E SIJSP. 186 64. 1\n. 57 19. 7% 40 13. 8% 7 ,, ,::... 4'.1/. 290 70 25 21 4 120 EO'y'S CLUB 0 O'l. 0 . 0% 0 . 0Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0\n:: t !\" 0 . 01/. 0 . 0% 0 . 0'i. 0 . 0Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 r..XF'ULSI OH 0 . Oo/. 0 . Oo/\n0 . 0% 0 '0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~==~========================================================================= COMPARISON --========================================================-====-============== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --=~================~========================================================== .::\n(\\ C. 1 100. 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 Y. 1 1 0 0 0 1 -FJt-1E SUSP. 186 18600. 0 Y. 57 5700. 0 '1/. 40 4000. 0 '1/. 7 700. 0 Y. 290 70 25 21 4 120 BO''/S CLUB 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,. i. C. 0 0 % 0 0 i'~ 0 0 ~~ 0 0 Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.\u0026lt;PULSION 0 0 :~ 0 0\n. 0 0 i': 0 0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS0323 t-/17/98 .\u0026gt;JO). 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RTDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 ----~- r~M------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~============================================================================= s t-. C. 360 51. .-,.,. 176 .-\n,,=_ O\nC.I, 126 i 7. 9'1/. 41 5. 8'1/. 703 .,__..,_ ,. 1i6 7-3 62 2i 272 i-iCiMi:: SUSP. i 50. 01/. i 50. 01/. 0 0% 0 OY. --\nC'.. i i 0 0 --\nC. BD'i'S CLUB 93 55. 0% 40 2 , -.J. 7% 26 15. 4i': 10 5. 9% 169 40 27 .,., c.c. 10 99 --- I. C. Ci 0'1/. 0 Oi': 0 o,\n0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0% 1 100. 0% 0 0% 0 Or. 1 Ci i 0 0 1 =-====~========================================================================= i 9 9 7 - 9 8 ~===~========================================================================= -----BM------ tt REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU - ~===:========================================================================== s A C. 416 54. 8'1/. 209 27. 5'1/. 95 12. 5% 39 5. 1 '1/. 759 125 80 43 23 27i t-i0i'1E SUSP. 4 40. 0'1/. 3 30. 0% 2 20. 0'1/. 1 10. 0'1/. 10 4 3 2 i 10 BOYS CLUB 124 6 ~, \"' 6'1/. 41 20. 7'1/. 29 14. 6'1/. 4 2. 0'1/. 198 62 28 16 ~, C. 108 E T. C: 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 . 01/. 0 . 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 F:\u0026lt;fULSION c~.., i00. O,\n. 0 . Oi'.: 0 . 0'1/. 0 Or. 2 ~, c.. 0 0 0 2 - ============================================================================= COMPARISON ----=========~=========-======================================================== -----B~------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~=--============================-============================================== S. t\\. r 56 15.6 '1/. ~.-.\",':). ..., 18. 8 '1/. 31- 24. 6-% 2- 4. 9-% 56 9 7 19- ,, ca. 1- HOME SUSP. ...,, 300.0 1/. 2 200.0 1/. 2 200. 0 1/. 1 100.0 r. 8 ., -., --\n2 1 8 ,:. Bovs CLUB 31 33.3 I i ., cc. 5 '1/. 3 11. 5 1: 6- 60. 0-'1/. 29 22 1 6- 8- 9 t:.. I. C. 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 i'\n0 .0 i'\n0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i::lPULSION 2 200. 0 '1/. 1- 100. 0-1/. 0 .0 i'~ 0 .0 r. 1 2 1- 0 0 1 e: Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School - i n1e. DIS032S 6/17/98 8:27:42 o:ic:\nFrom AUGUST Through JUNE ~ , oo l: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL ---------------------------------------------------------------------===-==== i 9 9 6 - 9 7 ------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------== '!. 7' # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCTiTDT # STU -----tmF----# REF PCTiTOT # STU ~==========--==========-=----====----====-----===----=====-----------========== S. \" ,~ 1, ~, i24 49. 81/. 64 25. 71/. 52 20. 91/. 9 3.6% 249 58 40 39 5 142 HDi\"iE SUSP. i 100, 01/. 0 01/. 0 o,\n0 o,\n1 1 0 0 0 1 B!J'{S CLUB 35 58.3'1/. 19 31, 7'1/. 6 10. o,\n0 0% 60 ~'J C::,.,J 14 3 0 40 ,_ I. C. 0 Oi'\n0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100. 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 i -----=========================================================================== 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT U STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -==:=============-============================================================= C -' !'\u0026gt;.. C 144 54. 5'1/. /4 28. 0'1/. 40 15. 21. 6 ~, ,:,., 3'1/. 264 68 40 27 6 141 HOME SUSP. 1 33. 3o/. i 33. 3% 1 33. 31/. 0 0% 3 1 1 1 0 3 BDYS CLUB 4i 67. 2o/. i6 26. 2% 4 6. 6% 0 0% 61 25 9 3 0 37 E. 1. C 0 0% 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 01. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~w~--==============~============================================================ COMPARISON ---==:============-============================================================ C' (',. C. ..J, HOME SUSP. BOV3 CLUB [. I. C. i::XPULSION -----HM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 20 16. 1 '1/. 10 15.6 I. 12- ',,:',J.- ,, 1-'1/. 3- 33.3-'1/. 10 0 12- 1 0 0 '1/. i 100. 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 0 0 % 0 l 1 0 6 17. 1 '1/. 3- 15.8-'1/. 2- 33. 3-'1/. 0 0 '1/. .-, 5- 0 0 c.. 0 0 1\n0 0 7\n0 0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 i- 100. 0-'1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 i'~ 0 0 '1/. i- 0 0 0 15 1- 2 2 1 3- 0 0 1- 1- [IS032S e. 6/17/98 u11e: 8:27:45 Q,'J J. 026 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL ===:==================-===-=======--====-----------===---------------=------- i 9 9 6 - 9 7 _____ .n.r.,.r,' i _ ____ _ # REF P\u0026lt;::T/T DT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU =~=~============~============================================================ t.\\ C. 94 /1\"1 5~~ 49 '\")'\") ,..,., - . ...,..,__ c:.c:.. C:. /a 46 \u0026gt;\"'1 c:.=- HCJt1\"ES.U SP. (j 0i'\ni i00. 0i'\n0 1 r3G'{S CLUB 37 4 ~, c:.. 5 .,,., 27 31. 0'1/. 7'\"J C:....J i4 i:: I C. 0 0'i 0 0'1/. 0 0 E:\u0026lt;:PUi_SION 0 0i'\n0 O'i. 0 0 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU s A. C. 155 52. 4'1/.. 75 25. 3% 67 42 riJMi= SUSP. ~, c:.. 66. 7% 1 33. 3% ~, c:.. 1 BOYS CLUB 78 63, 9% 28 23. 01: 40 19 E. [. c.: 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 F. X PULS I Oi'l 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 COMPARISON 68 30. o\n\\.Jlo :33 0 0'i. 0 20 23. 0/~ 15 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 49 16. 6% 30 0 0i': 0 13 10. 7% 10 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 10 4. c:\nj -.JI 8 0 01/. 0 .\".J. , 3. 41/. 3 0 o,\n0 0 0'1/. 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 17 5. 7% 11 0 0% 0 3 r\nc:.. So/\n3 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 221 109 i 1 87 55 0 0 0 0 296 150 3 3 i22 72 0 0 0 0 -============================================================================= -----Br'!------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~~~-=~=========================================================================== .C_ , (\\ C. 61 64. 9 1/. 26 53. 1 % 19- 27. 9-1/. 7 70. 0 I. 75 21 20 3- 3 41 rl01'1E SUSP. 2 200. 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 1/. 0 0 % 2 2 0 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 41 i 10. 8\n1 3. 7 1/. 7- 35. 0- 0 0 I. 35 17 5 5- 0 17 l:: I. C. 0 .0 1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E:\u0026lt;PULSION 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:- DIS032S 6/17/98 8:27:46 030 A. , '-' HCJiiF SUSP. BDVS Ci...UB E. r. C. EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU ij U -,\nI 0 0 0% 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 o~~ 0 0 0o/: 0 0 01/. 0 0 0o/: 0 0 0'1/. 0 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ============================================================================= ::' l\\. C. 273 57. o:,,\n98 20. 5'l. 98 20. 5,: 10 r\n-' \"'-. 1 '1/. 479 108 52 47 8 215 HDrE SUSP. 10 83. 3:,:. 2 16. 71 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 12 9 . .., .::. 0 0 11 BiJV3 CLUB 52 54.2'1/. 26 27. 1 '1/. 18 18. Br. 0 . 0'1/. 96 :31 JL_ JL 0 47 E I. C 0 . o,: 0 O'l. 0 . o,: 0 . 0% 0 (j 0 0 0 0 EX:PULSION .-.:l. ., 100. o,: 0 0o/: 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 3 \":} .., 0 0 0 3 =~=======~=================================================================== COMPARISON ----============================================================================ -----Bi\"l------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PGT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # STU # STU # STU # STU =---==-=========================================================================\n:, A. C. 273 27300. 0 I. 98 9800. 0 I. 98 9800. 0 '1/. 10 1000. 0 '1/. 479 108 52 47 8 215 HOliE SUSP. 10 1000. 0 '1/. ,.., C. 200. 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 12 9 ~, C. 0 0 11 :5D'Y5 CLUB 52 5200. 0 '1/. 26 2600. 0 I. 18 1800. 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 96 31 8 8 0 47 E. 1. C. 0 0 ,\n. 0 0 /. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 3 300 0 % 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 I. 3 3 0 0 0 3 DIS032S :.e: l,/17/98 8: 27: 4.:,\n,col: 031 AMBOY Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ELEMENTARYS CHOOL ====-===================-===========--=======---------------------------------- i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT :ii' STU -==---=---------------------------------------------------------------------- s A ,.-. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 HDi'iF. SUSP. 5 45. 51/. 0 0% 5 0 Bm 1S CLUB 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0 - I. C. 0 o~~ 0 o~~ 0 0 Eif'ULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 i 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----HM------ -----BF------ # REF FCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU S. i\\. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 ilDl'iE SUSP. :J3 68. 8% 5 10. 4% 18 5 BOYS CLUB 0 . O'l. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 E I. C 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 '1:::-\u0026lt;:PULSIOhi 0 . O'l. 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 6 54. 5% 6 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . 0% 0 10 20.8'1/. 7 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 U -,-,,,.\n0 0 0% 0 -----~JBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . 0% 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 11 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ~4===========-================================================================= COMPARISON -============================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF ?~T(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # STU # STU # STU # STU --============================================================================== S. A. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOi1E SUSP. 28 560. 0 '.'i. 5 500. 0 '1/. 4 66. 7 }': 0 .0 'l. 37 13 5 1 0 19 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 1. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 F XP~iLS I ON 0 .0 o/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/17/98 8: 27: 47 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL l 9 9 6 - 9 7 ==~===========================================================================~= ------BM------ ~~ REF PCT /TOT ,f~ STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~===~========================================================================= ~ A C. 0 U -,\n,. 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0% 0 \u0026gt;J 0 0 0 0 1,iJME SUSP. 18 90. 0% ,.., c:. 10. 0% 0 0'1/. 0 01/. 20 10 i 0 0 11 BiJYi:, CLUB 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0'1/. 0 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 D!PULSION 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~--~==-===============~========================================================= S. /', C. HOME SUSP. .BG\\'S CLUB E. I C EXPULSION 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . Or. 0 6 ss. n: 5 0 . 01\n0 0 . 01\n0 0 . 01/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . Or. 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 . 01\n0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 01/. 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . 0'1/. 0 1 14. 31\n1 0 O 0 0 Or. 0 0 . Or. 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . Oi: 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~- ============================================================================= COMPARISON =--~-============================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-i # STU # STU # STU # STU =~:-==~========================================================================= S. A. C. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 1/. 0 0 r. 0 0 1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HtJME SUSP. i2- 66. 7-% 2- 100. 0-% 1 100. 0 r. 0 0 1/. 13- 5- i- 1 0 5- B0VS CLUB 0 0 ,,\n. 0 0 % 0 0 1/. 0 0 o/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. l. ,.\n_ 0 0 1/. 0 0 :,\n. 0 0 1/. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 % 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S .,. 6/17/98 8: 27:48 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ,ocl: 033 BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # Her ~CI/IUI ~ Her ~CI/IUI # STU # STU # STU # STU ~========================================-===------======--------------------- s A. C. 0 U - ,\n. 0 0 .,\n. 0 0% 0 Oi: 0 C,i 0 0 0 0 HCtME SUSP. io8 58. '-i :,\n. 79 27. 7% 29 i0. 27: 9 ''\"\"j ' 27~ 285 \"/3 4i 19 -,, 140 BOVS CLUB 0 o=\n0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. i. C. 0 0% 0 0% 0 Oo/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX1-ULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~=============================================================================== S. I\\.,:. HOME SUSP. BOYS CLUB i:.. TL. C E.\u0026lt;PULSION 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 79 88. 8'1/. 35 46 76. 7'1/. 24 0 . 01\n0 Q . or. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 8, 9.0% , 12 20. or\n6 0 . 0% 0 Q . 0% 0 0 . 0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 1 1. 1 ,\n. 1 '\") 3. 3'1/. c.. 'c\".l. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . Oi\n0 0 . Oi'\n0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 1 1. 1 '1/. 1 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 01, 0 0 . 0% 0 0 . 0% 0 89 44 60 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 -============================================================================= COMPARISON =---=================-========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~==-============================================================================ S. A. C. 79 7900.0 '1/. 8 800. 0 I. 1 100. 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 I. 89 35 7 1 1 44 HOME SUSP. 122- 72. 6-'1/. 67- 84. 8-% 27- 93. 1-\"1/. 9- 100. 0-% 225- 49- 35- 17- 7- 108- BOVS CLUB 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 /: 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 \"1/. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i7 DIS032S 6/17/9E: 8:27:48 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ===--==-=------=====--------===---------===--------=----------------==-======= o. A. C. t-iOfiE SUSP. BiJy:::\nCLUB i.:: [. C. F.XF'ULSI Oi'i l 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----Bi'\"i------ U REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 :, I. 0 3 75. 0% 3 0 o\n~ 0 0 0 ,1. 0 1 iOO. 0'1/. i -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0'1/. 0 i 25. 0'1/. 1 0 Oo/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 o,\n0 0 0'1/. 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 Oo/\n0 0 0% 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 i i ======~========================================================================= 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------- # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----l'JB F----# REF PCT /TOT # STU ============================================================================== S. t'.. C. 0 . 0% 0 . O'l. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOl''!E SUSP. .,,..., \u0026lt;=-\u0026lt;.:. 81. 5'1/. 3 11. 1 '1/. 2 7.4% 0 . 0'1/. 27 16 3 1 0 20 BDYS CLUB 0 . O'l. 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E I. C 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'l. 0 . 01. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX:PULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -============================================================================= COMPARISON ---==~=======~=============-===================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+i-i # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+i-i # STU # STU # STU # STU ~\n--============================================================================ s A. C. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 I. 0 0 ,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 HDME SIJSP. 19 633. 3 ., .-, ,. 200 0 'l. 2 200. 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 23 C. i3 ~. C. 1 0 16 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 /. 0 .0 % 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 o/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 ,: 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ExPULSION 1- 100. 0-% 0 .0 /. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- . 111,e: D!S032S 6/17/98 8:27: 48 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----l'~B M----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -============================================================================ is. t\\. C. 0 IJ \"\".,\\, .. 0 0% 0 0% 0 O,\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1r-l1Jt1E SUSP. 30 66. n: 9 20. o,: 6 13. 3,: 0 O'l. 45 21 7 5 0 33 BIJ:l'S CLUB 0 o~~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 c I. C. 0 0/~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ElPULSION 0 Oi': 0 0'1/. 0 Oi'\n0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==========-================================================================== 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ~===-~======================================================================== -----BM------ tt REF PCT /TOT H STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU - ~====================================-======================================== ,-.\n:) A. C. 0 O'.'I: 0 01/. 0 . o,\n0 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1HOi1E SUSP. ~, I c.0 74. 3'.'i. 7 20. 0'1/. 1 c... .. ., 9% 1 \".'-- , 9'1/. 35 i9 7 1 i 28 BJYS CLUE 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 . O'X 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E [ C 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E):PULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 O'l. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---=~========================================================================= COMPARISON =~---~=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-, # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~=~-==-======================================================================== s ('.. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 'l. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOl'iE SUSP. 4- 13. 3-'i. 2- 22. 2-'i. 5- 83. 3-'1/. 1 100. 0 ,: 10- 2- 0 4- 1 5- 80VS CLUB 0 .0 'i. 0 .0 'i. 0 0 i'~ 0 .0 ,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 i'~ 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 c. ,:PULS ION 0 .0 /: 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 'l. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/17/98 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School - .:.r11e. 8: 27: 49 From AUGUST Through JUNE - IOQ): 038 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY ===========================-=======--------=---------------------------------- i 9 9 6 - 9 7 _____ i..1r .. _____ _ ,_,,' # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ==~==============~===--------------------------------------------------------- s (.\\ -. J. I\niJMi:: SUSP. BJVS CLUB E I. C. EXPULSION s A. C. HOl'ii=. SUSP. BOYS CLUB E. i C EXPULSION 0 01\n0 0'1/. 0 0 67 65. o:,,\n12 11. 7'1/. 37 8 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 154 71. 6'1/. 30 14. o,\n65 12 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'Y. 0 0 i 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----Bi1-----\nf REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 o\n~ 0 0 o~~ 0 0 0% 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 O'.'i. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 23 '\")'\") c.i::... 3:,,\n10 0 . 01/. 0 0 13. o,\n11 0 0'Y. 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 o:,,\n0 1 1. 0'1/. 1 0 01/. 0 0 1. 41/. 2 0 0'Y. 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 103 56 0 0 215 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~=~=========================================================================== COMPARISON ---================-============================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-1 # STU # STU # STU # STU ==--~=========================================================================== S. t\\. C. 0 .0 \"I. 0 .0 \"I. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 67- 100. 0-'1/. 12- 100. 0-Y. 23- 100. 0-'1/. 1- 100. 0-'1/. 103- 37- 8- 10- 1- 56- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 ~~ 0 .0 ,\n0 .0 ,\n0 .0 ,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 I:.. l C. 154- .0 '1/. 30- .0 \"I. 28- .0 r\n3- .0 'i. 215- 1- 1- 28- 3- 90- i::.\u0026lt;PULSION 0 0 'i. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 D!S032S / ,e: 6/ i 7 /98 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADO~ PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------------------------------------------------------------===== i 9 9 6 - 9 7 _____ n r.ri ____ _ ...,', -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # ST~J ==-==========================================================================\n.\\ __,_ \\.,. 0 01: 0 Qi\n0 O'i 0 0% 0 '' ,. 0 0 0 0 0 1r-\nOtic SUSP. 4, .-:_l , 53. Bi'\ni6 20. 0i'\ni9 23. 8'1/. ---\nr\n51: 80 C- c... )\"'1 8 6 1 37 \"'-\"'- i:iO'-/S CLUB 0 Oi\n0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 C -,,,,-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 '-- I C. 0 Qi'\n0 0'1/. 0 0i'\n0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIO~~ j_ 100. O\"i 0 0% 0 o'i\n0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 -----=========================================================================== ft 1997-98 ~---~=~========================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT ~ STU # STU # STU # STU --~=========================================================================== 0 0% 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUSP. 40 80. 01/. 2 4. 0% 7 14. 01/. i ., c... 01/. 50 13 r\nc.. 5 1 21 BDVS CL_UB 0 0% 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~=========-================================================================= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===~==============~===-======================================================== S. 1\\. C. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. ,.-.:,__ , 7. 0-'l. 14- 87. 5-% 12- 63. 2-'l. 1- 50. 0-% 30- 9- 6- 1- 0 16- B:JVS CLUB 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:. I. C. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 /: 0 .0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l::J:'.PULS ION 1- 100. 0--:,\n0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'i~ 0 .0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions A/17/98 by School 8:27: 51 From AUGUST Through JUNE 041 NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL '============================================================================= i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----Bt'i-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ------NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ============================================================================= !S. (\\ ,: . 0 or: 0 0'1/. 0 01\n0 o~,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ii lfit\"it: SUSP. 24 6 ..,. ..,_2 7: 4 i0. 51/. iO 26. 3/: 0 0% 38 14 4 10 0 28 bl3'lS Ci_UB 0 0'1/. 0 01\n0 0\n. 0 O',I . 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:.. I. C. 0 01: 0 01\n0 100. 0\n. 0 01/. ,., c.. 0 0 2 0 ,., c.. EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0\n. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================================================================================ s A C. HOI-JE SUSP. BOYS CLUB E. [. C\nEXPULSION 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 36 69. 21/. 23 0 0% 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 14 ,.,, c..tl. 9% 8 0 0% 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% ,0. , c.. 3. 8% ~, c.. 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 0 52 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~============================================================================= COMPARISON ----============================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT{+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=~=========================================================================== S. i'.. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 r. 0 .0 1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 12 50. 0 r. 4- 100. 0-\n. 4 40. 0 r. 2 200. 0 '1/. 14 9 4- 2- 2 5 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 I::., I. C. 0 .0 ~~ 0 .0 7\n2- .0 ~~ 0 .0 % 2- 0 0 2- 0 2- EXPULSION 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 r. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ie: 6/17/98 by School 1\n,,e: 8: 27: 51 From AUGUST Through JUNE  1 001: 0~2 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - l :.7  i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~============================================================================= !~. ,.. . C. 0 o~,: 0 0% 0 O'/: 0 O'/: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 d:Jl1E SUSP. 2i 55. 3% i6 4 ., \"'- D\n1 ., c:... 6'i. 0 01/. 38 '.\n...J . , i2 1 0 26 'BO''l'S CLUB 0 0% 0 0% 0 O'i. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I C. 0 O'i. 0 0'1/. 0 O'/: 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX:PULSIOi\\l 0 o\n,: 0 o\n,\n0 o\n,\n0 o,\n0 0 0 0 0 0  i997-98 t============================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----ff REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT H STU # STU # STU # STU _s=A=c===========~=======o,.=====g=o=,.===== ~=====O='.i .=====g====o=,=.=. ====g IHOME SUSP. 15 57. 7% 7 26. 9% 4 15. 4'i. 0 0% 26 11 7 2 0 20 1 BOYS CLUB O 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 01/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :EXPULSION O 0'1/. 0 . 0% O . 01/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 --~============================================================================= COMPARISON ~--============================================================================= SUSP. :soys CLUB EXPULSION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I,, 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 6- 28. 6-% 9- 56. 3-1,, 3 300. 0 /~ 0 .0 I. 2- 5- 1 0 0 .0 1: 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I,, 0 0 0 0 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 .0\n,\n0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 .0\n,\n0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12- 6- 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ,e: 6/17/98 111,e: i:-1:27:51 ,ool 043 ~s I\\. C. ,riiJMi:: SUSP. ii. BiJYS CLUB a C '- J C. 17 EX:PULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------- # REF P,:T iTIJT # STU 0 . Or. C, ii 61. 11: 8 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 ., I. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 01: 0\n:\u0026gt; 27. 8% 2 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 O'l. 0 -----NBM-----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 01: 0 ,2. ., 11. i % C- 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----i'mF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 . 0% 0 0 01: 0 0 o\n,: 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 i8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- ==:========================================================================== 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 --============================================================================ -----Bi'1-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU ---=========================================================================== 0 . 0% 0 O'l. 0 m: 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUSP. 33 54. 1% i2 i 9. 7% 15 24. 6% i i. 61/. 61 25 6 12 i 44 BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 0% 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01: 0 01: 0 O'l. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 --~~-=========================================================================== COMPARISON -~~--=-========================================================================= -----Br1------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT\u0026lt;+i-) # REF PCT\u0026lt;+i-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -=~==-=========================================================================== S. t .. C. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 22 200. 0 1: 7 140. 0 '1/. 13 650. 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 43 17 4 10 1 32 BOYS CLUB c) 0 1: 0 0 i\n0 0 t: 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i:.. I C. 0 0 ,: 0 0 1: 0 0 ,: 0 0\n,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ElPULSION 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 () 0 0 0 0 - DIS032S 6/17/98 8:27: 5.? oaf 044 Pi~ .. E Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ============================================================================= i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU S. /\\ C. 0 O,\n. ,\"\"\\ f\"\\i V v,. 0 0 HCJM:i: SUSP. 2i 72 4\n,\n6 20. n\ni5 6 i3\nJ\\iS CLUB 0 0'1/. 0 O,\n. 0 0 C.. l. C. 0 o\n,\n0 0'1/. 0 0 E:\u0026lt;PULSIDN 0 0'1/. 0 0'. 0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 1v1,. .1 0 2 6. 9/: r\nc:.. 0 01/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 o,\n0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0 29 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 --====--========================================================================= l 9 9 7 - 9 8 ============================================================================= S. A. C. IHOME SUSP. BOiS CLUB E. i C F.i.f'ULSION -----Bi'i-----tf REF PCT/TOT tt STU 0 0'1/. 0 ii 84. 6% 9 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 -----BF------ ti REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 0% 0 i 7. 7% l 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0o/. 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 1 7. 7% i 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0o/. 0 0 0 13 ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~=========================================================================== COMPARISON --=---========~================================================================== II -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU .---=- --:::==~============-============================================================ II s i\\ C. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOl\"ft:. SUSP. 10- 47. 6-% 5- 83. 3-'l. 1- 50. 0-'l. 0 0 'l. 16- Ill 6- 5- 1- 0 12- BOYS CLUB 0 0 I. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 !.2 E. I. C. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.\u0026lt;PULSION 0 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 ,~ 0 0 1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 _7 DIS032S e: 6/ 1 7 /98 8:27: 52 col: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================--======----===-===------------------------===----=====-===-- S. (\\. C. HOME SUSP. CLUB - J. C. EXPULSION l 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. C .-, \u0026lt;:.. 40. o,\n7 .::.. 0 o,\n0 0 01/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 o,\n0 0 o,\n0 0 Or. 0 0 01/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 OY. 0 3 60. o,\n1 0 Or. 0 0 O,\n. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. 0 0 0% 0 0 0~'~ 0 0 o,\n0 0 0% 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 --====\n========================================================================= 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU --=-========================================================================= S. A C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 5 83. 3'.'I. 1 16. 7'1/. 0 0'.'I. 0 O'.'I. 6 4 1 0 0 5 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0'.'I. 0 0% 0 . Or. 0 . 0'.'I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. 1. C 0 o\n,\n. 0 01/. 0 . 0% 0 . o\n,\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 r:XPULSiON 0 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----=~==============================================================~============ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~===:=========================================================================== S. t-, C. HOME SUSP. BOYS CLUB - EXPULSION 0 .0 0 .3, 150. 0 c.. 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 '1/. 0 .0 1/. 0 'l. 1 100. 0 1/. 1 '.'I. 0 .0 'l. 0 ,: 0 .0 ,~ 0 1/. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 0 0 3- 100. 0-'l. 0 .0 'l. 1 1- 0 2 0 .0 '.'I. 0 .0 '.'I. 0 0 0 0 0 .0 o/~ 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions e: 6/17/98 by School ime: 8:27: 5? From AUGUST Through JUNE ool 046 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 ~-=~===============-=------------=-==---===--------=-=--=------==------======== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----~~BF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -============================================================================ C: t - '-'. (\\. C. 0 0~'~ 0 0'1/. 0 Oi'\n0 0 .,,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOtiE SUSP. 9 100. 0'1/. 0 o~~ 0 Or. 0 Oi'\n9 8 0 0 0 8 CLUB 0 0% 0 Qi'\n0 Or\n0 Oo/\n0 0 0 0 0 0 t:.. I. C. 0 Qi'\n0 0'1/. 0 100. Or. 0 Qi'\n.-, c:\n. 0 0 1 0 1 EiPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 Oi'\n0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==-============================================================================ - 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -~=========================================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ----------------------------=================================================== S. A C. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOl'i:E SUSP. 9 81. 8'1/. 2 18. 2'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 11 6 2 0 0 8 BCJVS CLUB 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 I. C 0 0'1/. 0 OY. 0 0'1/. 0 OY. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E\u0026gt;(F'ULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----=========================================================================== COMPARISON -=----=========================================================================== -----RM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~==~=========================================================================== S. t\\. C. rl!JME SUSP. BOYS CLUB 0 0 0 2- 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 '1/. 0 % .0 1: .0 '1/. .0 ,: 0 0 '1/. 0 7 c:.. 200. 0 '1/. 2 0 0 1\n0 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 I. 0 0 0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1/. 0 .0 I. 2 0 0 0 0 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 2- 0 '1/. 0 0 ,~ 2- 2- 0 1- 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 . DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions --~ 6/17/98 by School lfile: 8: 27: 5? From AUGUST Through JUNE -ool: 048 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~=~==~======-=====--=-======--====================-===========-=============== IIJ 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU lls.= r\\. c. ==========o====0=%= =. ====o= =====o. ,~= ====o = =====o_, ~====o== =====0.1 . =====o .HOi1E SUSP. \ni ~ i3!JYS CLUB -L r.. .. ,,-:. .. i 7 EX:PULSIC.m 0 0 0 0 0 14 53. 8% 12 46. 2% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 26 10 6 0 0 16 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0% 0 0 '0'1/. 0 0 . 0% 0 0 '0% 0 0 ------=====:===========-===-===================================================== ===:=====:============!=:=:=:=====~============================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT Ill:===:==========#= STU=========S=T#=U ==========ST#=U =========S=T#=U =============== )9 S. A. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 IIHOi'iF: 0 0 0 0 0 SUSP. i7 68. Oo/: 6 24. Oo/\n2 8. 0% 0 0% ,,c:\nc.~ 12 6 2 0 20 ~ l i -l::B0\\ 1 .,s ~-CLUB 0 Oo/\n0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. c-. 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ' ' . ~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPUL.SIDN 0 0% 0 0% 0 O,t. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---============================================================================= Cot1Pt-,R ISiJI'~ ~~w~-===~======================================================================== IIJ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~~==~=========================================================================== II -- .C.'. ,, 1\\. ,-. 0 0 1/. 0 0 \"I 0 0 '1/. 0 0 /. 0 \\.,, ,. 0 0 0 0 0 1 () HOME SUSP. 3 21. 4 1/. 6- 50. O _.,,.. 2 200. 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 1- 2 0 ., C. 0 4 BOV:J CLUB 0 0 % 0 0 /: 0 0 ,~ 0 0 ,\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 c I. C. 0 0 y\n0 0 o/: 0 0 o/\n0 0 ,: 0 EXPULSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o/: 0 0 1: 0 0 1: 0 0 o/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -II DIS0:32S e: 6/17/98 8:27: 5? a o 1: 049 Analysis of Disciplinary A~tions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 =============================================================================== -----RM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU C t\\ C. 0 ,-,2\nv,. 0 0'1/. 0 0 , fU(4~ f\niJSP. 2c, 69. Oi'\n9 :3i. Qi\ni3 7 CLUB 0 O'i 0 0'1/. 0 0 [: 1 C. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 - -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. 0 0 0\n,\n0 0 o:,\n0 0 o:,\n0 0 0'1/. 0 -----i'JBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. 0 0 Q~l~ 0 0 o:,\n0 0 0'1/. 0 0 O 0 0 0 29 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ------------=====--------------=============================================== l 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 --=~========================================================================= -----BM------ t-t REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =~===========================================================================\n:\nA. C. 0 o~~ 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOr-iE SUSP. 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 50YS CLUB 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 .. /. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I. C 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 F~F'ULSION 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----=========================================================================== COMPARISON -~-============================================================================ -----8M------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~~============================================================================= - - S. I',. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 20- 100.0-1/. 9- 100. 0-'1/. 0 0 i'~ 0 0 '1/. 29- 13- 7- 0 0 20- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 1\n0 0 1/. 0 0 ,~ 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E r. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i::/..PULSION 0 .0 i:: 0 .0 i'\n0 0 i'~ 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH l1TTL ROCl{ PVBL1C SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIC,NS DISTRICT LEVEL 199i-98 Action 09: S.A.C. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 DISTRICT LEVEL Action 10: Home Suspension 700 ...--------------~ ~ 96-97 1~~4 I ::s [4:~ -~!: l D96-97 1,801 862 547 132 -~-- Action 11: Boys Club Suspension 600 ---------------, 300 200 100 0 ~96-97 Fo97- 8  96-97 0 96-97  96-97  97-98 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  96-97  97-98 BM BF 591 208 511 125 NBM l25 104 ----+-~ Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 200 -------------~ 150 100 50 0  96-97  97-98 BM 154 0 - BF 30 0 ~B_MINBF j 32 3 o a  96-97 0 97-98 Action 17 Expulsion DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 DISTRICT LEVEL 8.....---------------, 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 97-98 6 -1--~5- NBM 0 0 i:96-971 B~ 7 ____,___ -'-------'- NB 0 0  96-97 0 97-98  L- uAn_'-n_lJ1'~ DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 ELEMENTARY LEVEL Action 09: S.A.C. 90 ~----------------, 80 1---.--,---------------------i 70 -- 60 - 50- 40~ 30 -- 20 --  96-97 10 - I I 0 96-97 0 '-------L----lL....---L--'-------====-.J ~-~ BM Bf NBM NBF  96-97 0 0 0 0 096-97 79 10 1 2 BM  96-97 322 O 97-98 299 Action 10: Home Suspension BF NBM NBF 112 64 5 58 59 5 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 196-97 BM BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 097-98 0 0 0 0  96-97 0 97-98  96-97 1197-98 BM 135 0 BF 24 0 NBM NBF 29 3 0 0  96-97 0 97-98  96-97 fl 97-98  0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 ~ 96-9~ 8 :  97-98 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 ELEMENTARY LEVEL Action 17 Expulsion ---  96-97 0 97-98 i ~i NB Nr~ 0- 0 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL Action 09: S.A.C. Action 10: Home Suspension 1200 ~--------------. 600 400 200 0 BF 290 455 NBM 250 279 60 72 r\n9,6 -97 f ~~ tE96 -97 985 NBU -L-----'---------'-- Action 11: Boys Club Suspension 350 ~------------, 150 100 50 0 ~ BM BF  96-97 165 86 D 97-9=-8-+---,2\"'9--.4 BM NBF --5=2~--13 64  96-97 D 96-97  96-97 D 97-98 BM BF NB  96-97 186 73 52 097-98 ~01 36 17 MEBF 12  3 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class BM BF  96-97 19 - 6  97-98 0 0  96-97 D 97-98 Action 17 Expulsion DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL 6 ~---------- 5 4 3 2 1 0 Action 09: S.A.C. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL Action 10: Home Suspension 800 ~--------------, 120 .----------------, 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 f.9 6-\nT ~fi~-+-J!~~ ~~1 N8~F l l9_96-97 t ~397 267 58 150 100 50 0 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension  96-97 0 96-97  96-97 0 97-98 100 80 60 40 20 0 -- BM  96-97- 83  97-98 111 BF NBM NBF 23 9 0 31 28 5 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 --- --- 0 .......__ ________ _ BM I BF i  96-97 0 0  97-98 0 0 NBM 0 tEI 0  96-97 0 97-98  96-97  97-98  NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL Action 17 Expulsion 7~-----------, 61----~ 5 1-----c 41-----1 3 1-----c 21-----, BM  96-97 0  97-98 1 BF 6 5  96-97 ,-----, 097-98 NBM NBF 0 0 0 O  NORTH l1TTL ROCl{ P\\/OllC SCHOOLS . DISCIPLINARY ACTI'-?NS [5 YEAR TRENDS] NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 09: Student Assignment Class (SAC) 2000 ...--------------------, 1500 1-- 1000 0 r- BF  9~_...-,--------..~--+------,,~------t-----.....---t-----,06 -  94-\"9o 460 20  gs-=gs- 1,0 446 ---_,_ 41f-a oo=g----- ~.2~ 1~  97-98 1,~--l---~--+---~-~-t- 3~ -~- --'-----  93-94 EJ 94-95  95-96 IIJ 96-97  97-98 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 10: Home Suspensions 700 .--------------------, 600 500 400 300 ,_ _ ----------- -  93-94 200 100 0 [TI 94-95  95-96 IT] 96-97  97-98  II II .-.-.. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 11: Boys Club 600 ~--------------- 500 1------------- 400 1------------- 300 ,_ _ 2 00 1---- 100 - 0  93-94 rn 94-95  95-96 ~ 96-97  97-98 II II II II NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 12: Elementary Assignment Class (E.I.C.) 2000 ---------------- 1500 1000 0 ---- 1' 54  93-94  94-95  95-96 el 96-97  97-98  ... .-.-- NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 17: Expulsions a.---------------------. 7 1--------------~---------I 6 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0  93-94 IT:] 94-95  95-96 ~ 96-97  97-98\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_404","title":"Discipline, management report","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":["1997/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management report"],"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/404"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Year: 99 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM Senior High ACC-LEARH - 0 2 0 AGENCIES- 19 1 Junior High Elementary  AlTJ^iiABN------- \\J CENTRAL ' FAIR HALL /mcclella HiETRO^- PARKVIEW -Am.EAeu '/CLOVRJR J J J DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN siWABEL JR MM, 4m, MANN M/S /pUL HT J SOUTHWST J, BADGETT 'BALE J BASELINE J BOOKER 7 BRADY 7. 1. J, CARVER 'CHICOT CLOVR EL DODD Tuesday, July 27,1999 15 81 55 95 103 16 37 ---------68--. 145 87 14- 118 87 54 109 . 1_ . 40 39 54 52 21 18 65 40 1 86 58 55 32 46 3 ------ -1 - 30 7 7 5 15 9 5 5 1... 26 ----------- 10 26 47 9 20 24 17 0 32_ 1^ 4 9 17 6 13 10 4 7T_ ?I7 15-^ JU?: _8 5 2 10 19 21 9 11 60 1 6 3 4 5 2 2 18 0 2 ' 3 0 1 0 8 1 1 1 1 1 10 2 0 5 0 2 'I RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION UOmORIIIS OF 0 ..... -1 - 0 0  O' 1 1 9 1 1.. - -Q 1^ ienior High  1 - 5 2 6 2 3 2 2 Junior High 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 \u0026gt; 0 2 2 3 0 Ll 0 - 1 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 3 25 2cr 159 109 184 169 26 117 842- 98 230 166 300 194 178 123 178 153 *620 8 16 25 36 14 15 91 1 15 Page 1 of 2 PRecidivism Report - Bl ack/White Year: 99 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary FAIR PRK 16 24 6 1 0 1 0 V FORST PK 0 0 0 0 3 4 7 'FRANKLIN 38 52 FULBRIGH 11 16 8 3 2 0 1 I 4 1 0 0 0 GARLAND 0 0 0 6 2 4 0 GEYER SP 15 13 29 ^GIBBS 14 22 ^JEFFRSN 11 25 M L KING 21 12 39 MABEL EL 19 13 44 MCDERMOT 21 10 35 I 'MEADCLIF si J. y 14 22 MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E 22 14 40 RIGHTSEL 11 18 J 7 2 2 9 3 9 5 1 0 6 0 6 3 3 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 ROCKFELR 3 4 3 0 0 1 11 '' ROMINE 7 1 2 0 1 0 11 TERRY 20 31 6 4 1 0 0 WAKEFIEL Aa/ashngtn 6 1 1 0 0 0 8 3 4 4 0 2 0 13 \u0026gt;/WATSON 1 2 0 0 0 0 9 -WEST HIL Z/VILLIAMS 17 32 10 WILSON 46 13 63 9 5 1 0 0 7 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WOODRUFF 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Tuesday, July 27,1999 Elementary 805 V - ifiCrand Total 3237 Page 2 of.Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 98 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM Senior High -ALT LEARN ^JENTRAL ^4^ 43- 127- 60-1 28-1 Junior High Elementary /FAiR ^HALL 90-3 50 -I 4 ^CCLELLA METRO vPARKVIEW ALT LEARN CLOVR JR i/DUNBAR '/FORST HT 'BENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S /pULHTJ y^OUTHWST ,j6ADGETT / BALE /baseline -BOOKER /brady vCARVER CHICOT DODD , FAIR PRK /FORST PK J FRANKLIN 115 -V 41 M received AUG 8 1999 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF Total 4______ 3------ 14 0 4 8 42 8'1 6 13 -3^ 30 17 22- 118 Senior High 3. 95-^ 10 8 11 73-1 Tuesday, July 27,1999 XT 0 1 0 7 0 4 3 3 6- 0 -56- - 229 1 63 149 Us 188 181 -43  82-yi -903 4t^------ 9 6 299 JJg*? 111 -1 133-5 lilt 179'3 J'l 92 - -I 79 ll'i 121 57 38 -  21 8 2 2Z7 66 -T 32-' 14 4 1 250 142- 67-1 65-4 34 40-9 69 -- llle 1^-7^ 4 4 20 -J- 18 19-1 11 19 ' 0 1^^ 8 3 1 278 2Ti 9 1 1 186 ns 10 3 3 142 IIO 4 2 0 136 13 3 10 0 5^ 3 lunior High iS- 223 Ilf 0 0 10 32 25 21 27 56 - 11 10 18 29 6 2 0 0 0 18 12 4 0 0 0 48 3 5 0 1 0 34 6 2 3 2 0 34 4 5 0 1 0 37 13 13 3 2 1 B8 4 5 0 0 1 21 13 10 5 1 2 3 0 1 0 25 1 0 0 31 2 0 0 39 Page 1 of 2 Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 98 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary FULBRIGH 20 10 3 3 0 0 36 J GARLAND 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 ! vGEYER SP 7 7 2 1 0 0 17 GIBBS 7 1 2 0 0 0 10 -^JEFFRSN L KING '/ MABEL EL JMCDERMOT 18 34 8-' 12 13 MEADCLIF 19 39 65 16 25 / 1 1 0 8 0 5 4 7 6 2 1 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 MITCHELL 8 5 1 0 0 0 14 J OTTER CR 11 2 1 0 0 0 14 PUL HT E 32 16 51 4?IGHTSEL 12 15 xTROCKFELR 18 34 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 8 1 1 0 1/ROMINE 8 1 6 1 0 0 16 7TERRY 23-1 35 / WAKEFIEL 23 11 34 vWASHNGTN 21-3 ^^/ATSON -Awest hil 61 15 ./WILLIAMS -Wilson 35 '0 15 86 28 11 46 5 5 2 0 0 1 6 8 0 0 7 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 36 32- 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 . WOODRUFF 9 1 3 0 0 13 62^^ BY 1^ Elementary 3 Grand Total 4018 |Q 1.:^ \\ Tuesday, July 27,1999 SMBca Page 2 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 1 i SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT 6LK WHT TOT Foul Lan CLASS 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 2 2 062 090 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 INSUBORD CLASS 05 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting PROSTAFF CLASS 07 2 2 040 090 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Pos Weap CLASS 09 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Tardies Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D FIREWORK AL-DRUGS V As Sf In Riot Gang Mem CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 050 060 062 100 133 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 140 150 072 120 123 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 8 1 39 15 1 11 SUBTOTAL 87 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 10 1 1 8 1 2 1 10 1 40 25 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 22 109 8 8 3 1 7 16 2 6 5 2 11 1 12 8 1 20 4 9 4 9 1 1 13 13 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis 1 1 1 050 060 062 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 8 1 2 1 11 1 42 36 1 1 11 4 9 1 142 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 7 1 17 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 11 1 2 1 12 1 45 37 1 1 18 4 10 1 159 1 1 2SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SUSMRC 6/03/98 07/27/98 PAGE 2 I SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conn Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS2 In Riot Gang Mem CLASS 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 092 120 123 2 7 3 1 11 8 12 SUBTOTAL 48 5 5 3 7 1 1 5 1 28 2 12 8 1 14 15 1 1 17 1 k 1 k 1 1 1 1 1 76 7 3 2 3 1 21 1 1 2 8 3 2 3 2 23 1 2 4 1 1 2 5 2 1 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 3 12 8 3 15 19 1 1 17 1 1 k 8 3 6 1 8 1 1 7 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 9k 2 3 2 1 24 1 3 13 12 3 23 22 1 3 20 3 1 1 7 1 118 Fighting Loi ter Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 040 070 080 105 110 123 150 072 091 120 1 1 1 1 8 3 1 k k 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 14 10 24 3 4 7 2 2 4 2 1 2 14 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 30 1 2 1 1 2 7 4 2 2 k 15 1 5 1 1 2 SI 153 64 217 33 14 47 20 13 33 23, T Ik 2 21k 49 323 yvSCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 12 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT 8LK WHT TOT Dis Cond AL-DRUGS CLASS 08 2 2 110 150 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruts CLASS 09 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Gambli ng PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS WEAPONS1 CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 070 080 090 110 010 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 150 091 11 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 11 1 9 1 23 7 6 Ti 1 8 3 3 4 2\\ 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 12 1 26 11 6 1 4 5 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 9 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 19 1 12 1 26 13 6 1 99 2 1 4 1 1 9 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 21 1 13 1 30 14 7 1 108 FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Ref Det Foul Lan Battery Fighting Gambling Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 060 062 090 110 020 040 050 070 080 090 105 110 123 072 090 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL Mi nA I ter LeftSchl FAILOBEY 1 1 1 030 050 060 6 1 1 1 3 11 6 1 38 1 1 4 4 1 4 15 2 1 10 1 1 1 7 12 10 1 53 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 5 2 2 2 10 1 1 1 7 13 12 1 2 2 62 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 6 2 2 2 11 1 1 1 8 14 14 1 2 2 68 2 1 2 ISCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 13 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSi WEAPONS2 CLASS 12 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 062 080 090 110 010 020 040 070 090 105 110 091 092 9 2 1 3 2 5 7 1 SUBTOTAL 32 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 145 1 1 1 2 5 1 5 1 1 25 61 10 3 2 2 8 2 9 8 6 1 1 57 206 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 5 6 10 3 2 2 1 1 8 2 9 8 9 2 1 63 1 1 2 10 3 3 2 1 1 8 2 10 8 9 2 1 65 10 6 16 8 9 17 1 1 (5 (D 4 227 17 244 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 3 SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 07 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF INSUBORO CLASS 08 2 2 090 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Hi nA I ter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smok i ng Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Ueai UEAPONS, In Riot CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 100 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 120 123 150 072 090 092 120 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 4 1 5 7 1 1 4 1 12 1 1 1 1 2 44 9 1 5 3 1 79 2 11 8 4 55 17 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 10 8 1 1 1 1 10 9 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 9 2 13 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 107 23 1 24 1 14 5 1 19 4 4 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 4 58 22 2 5 3 5 2 1 1 131 1 1 1 13 9 1 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 14 1 5 71 31 2 6 3 6 2 1 1 159 Mi nA I ter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging D AL-DRUGS Poss Exp In Riot CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 010 020 030 040 105 110 122 123 150 100 120 2 2 7 1 3 1 3 12 15 1 6 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 3 2 7 1 3 1 8 13 17 1 8 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 LeftSchl SUBTOTAL 55 12 67 6 1 050 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 1 3 9 1 3 9 3 2 7 1 7 1 8 13 18 1 8 2 2 3 76 1 1 5 1 1 1 9 3 2 7 1 8 1 13 14 19 1 8 3 2 3 85 1SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT WM WF SUSMRC 6/03/98 WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 4 TOT FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting False Al Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D WEAPONSI In Riot Weapon CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 060 010 020 040 060 070 090 105 110 120 123 091 120 121 1 2 4 8 6 1 4 1 SUBTOTAL 28 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 164 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 13 53 2 7 12 7 1 4 1 41 217 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 36 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 8 10 44 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 12 7 1 !\u0026gt; 1 2 1 1,1 1 1 3 3 1 1 10 2 1 2 4 1 2 8 15 10 2 5 1 2 1 57 28 5 33 4 4 6 c 256 48 304 z' \u0026gt; C'\"' V J 'f I 'LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 19 SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS 09 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONS2 CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 050 060 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 072 092 5 7 4 1 2 2 5 7 6 3 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 16 3 1 2 13 1 2 29 3 1 1 1 9 34 24 3 3 2 1 14 9 1 1 11 1 48 33 3 4 1 1 2 2 1 4 111 47 158 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 10 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 2 3 16 1 1 1 1 6 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 7 6 3 1 2 2 31 3 1 14 1 49 34 3 4 2 1 169 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 1 17 5 1 7 5 1 2 2 32 3 1 1 18 1 53 36 3 7 3 1 186 MinAI ter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Battery Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONS1 CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 060 062 070 080 090 020 040 050 090 100 105 110 120 150 072 091 1 2 14 1 4 1 3 18 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY 1 060 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 18 9 1 9 2 2 1 1 45 5 2 1 1 9 1 11 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 54 6 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 2 5 2 5 1 1 1 2 11 1 10 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 59 6 1 2 2 1 6 1 3 19 2 1 1 1 2 13 1 11 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 65 6 ISCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 20 TOT Ref Ruis Battery Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS WEAPONSl CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 020 040 050 080 090 105 110 123 150 091 9 1 4 1 1 5 1 2 SUBTOTAL 29 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 186 2 2 2 1 1 9 65 11 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 38 251 1 1 1 1 4 15 11 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 11 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 39 1 1 1 1 4 12 1 7 1 1 2 2 7 1 2 1 43 26 12 1 13 4 4 1 1 268 27 295 I aSCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE\nSANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 8 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting INSUBORD CLASS 07 2 2 040 105 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Smok i ng Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 062 100 030 040 070 090 100 105 110 150 3 5 2 1 1 5 1 SUBTOTAL 18 2 5 2 1 1 8 1 15 2 6 2 2 1 13 2 33 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 7 5 1 16 4 3 1 10 11 8 2 26 1 2 1 2 3 b 2 2 1 13 2 1 35 1 1 3 11 8 2 26 5 1 3 7 2 5 1 21^ 10 3 61 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Loi ter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 040 070 090 105 110 120 123 150 072 090 091 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 2 5 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 3 2 3 15 1 3 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 1 2 1 1 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 8 3 1 1 It 3 1 1 31 Smok i ng Fighting Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 AL-DRUGS CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 100 040 070 080 090 105 110 123 150 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 41 2 2 4 22 3 1 2 1 2 9 63 1 1 3 2 1 2 10 34 1 2 3 5 1 2 6 2 1 2 15 3 1 1 18 52 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 10 1 2 6 2 1 2 15 1 3 1 1 4 7 3 1 It 2^^ 4 4 (3\u0026gt; 1 67 53 120SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 23 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF CLASS 04 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loi ter M i sch i ef PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Forgery Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 123 071 072 120 1 9 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 22 1 3 8 1 73 25 1 16 1 21 8 1 2 1 38 1 3 9 1 94 33 1 2 1 2 3 5 1 1 5 5 2 2 1 9 1 1 148 48 196 10 2 15 1 5 11 2 20 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 1 38 1 3 9 1 96 34 1 2 1 1 1 1 207 3 5 1 11 2 22 1 9 1 1 3 5 1 43 1 3 10 1 107 36 1 2 1 1 1 1 229 Mi nA I ter FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 010 071 072 7 20 1 1 11 1 40 16 2 1 1 3 3 1 13 1 2 4 14 12 2 1 10 3 1 33 2 3 15 1 54 28 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 7 3 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 4 33 2 3 15 1 54 29 2 1 3 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 10 4 34 2 3 18 1 60 34 2 1 3 1 1 2SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 24 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT WEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 08 3 3 091 120 SUBTOTAL 100 56 156 12 5 17 1 9 4 1 13 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 173 18 1 2 191 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Assault Battery F i ght ing Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 09 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 090 091 120 1 6 1 3 1 9 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 1 3 20 2 50 27 2 4 133 382 5 4 20 8 1 21 1 3 24 2 70 35 1 2 4 1 1 4 6 1 6 5 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 175 147 529 2 1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 11 14 8 22 2 2 2 4 2 4 1 9 6 12 21 1 3 25 2 70 35 1 2 I, 1 4 1 1 2 201 1 1 1 2 4 4 13 1 9 7 12 22 1 4 27 2 74 39 1 2 4 1 4 1 1 2 214 32 16 48 31 13 44 3 2 5 (!) 10 583 53 636LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 10 I SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ois Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Al Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Coma Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS 1 Extort In Riot CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 060 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 091 110 120 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 9 2 20 7 3 1 1 1 12 3 1 9 7 2 1 1 1 2 31 1 1 1 12 3 29 14 5 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 69 36 105 2 8 2 8 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 3 24 6 6 3 1 11 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 30 7 3 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 32 2 1 1 12 3 29 15 5 1 3 2 3 1 2 8 1 1 3 1 11 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 117 1 32 2 3 4 40 2 1 1 13 4 32 16 16 1 6 2 3 1 1 1 149 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS1 Weapon CLASS 08 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 091 121 4 3 7 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY Foul Lan 1 1 060 110 1 2 13 1 1 10 3 1 2 23 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 5 7 11 7 3 43 1 4 1 1 22 15 8 2 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 2 23 1 4 1 16 8 1 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 65 18 2 20 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 74 1 1 4 1 22 7 1 2 2 28 1 7 3 20 8 1 1 7 2 3 1 2 96 1 1 1 1 1 1 1SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 11 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging 0 FIREWORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI Extort In Riot Gang Mem CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 140 150 071 072 090 091 110 120 123 3 3 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 10 2 1 2 25 8 1 3 1 1 1 60 173 5 4 4 7 1 1 22 80 1 15 2 1 6 29 15 1 1 3 2 1 1 82 253 1 5 2 7 5 1 2 1 25 67 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 13 21 I, 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 16 2 1 6 1 32 17 3 7 5 3 7 8 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 38 88 14 27 6 9 2 b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 36 1 1 4 6 2 3 6 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 3 3 b 3 1 1 4 2 109 5 1 2 1 44 5 2 4 23 2 1 11 4 39 25 1 1 1 8 3 7 5 2 1 4 2 153 9 CD 3 12 d) 1 301 98 399SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 14 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Battery CLASS 01 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF INSUBORD Forgery CLASS 02 2 2 2 090 105 122 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Assault Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 090 105 110 123 150 010 071 072 1 1 1 24 11 35 33 1 1 1 7 1 7 9 2 1 1 31 12 42 42 1 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 110 25 1 1 135 1 6 4 15 8 2 38 1 6 7 1 7 I, 21 8 2 45 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 4 5 4 5 2 4 1 31 12 42 42 1 1 1 1 6 144 2 1 7 4 22 8 2 46 4 4 2 38 16 64 50 1 3 1 1 6 190 MinAlter LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fi ghting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery V As Sf CLASS 08 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 050 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 072 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 12 1 16 1 17 33 1 11 14 1 87 9 12 2 1 1 53 1 1 3 1 2 1 23 1 30 1 26 45 2 2 1 140 1 1 6 3 6 4 2 22 2 3 1 3 4 13 2 9 1 3 9 8 2 35 1 1 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 1 23 1 30 1 27 46 2 2 3 150 1 2 10 1 3 10 8 2 37 1 1 4 1 8 3 33 2 33 1 37 54 4 2 3 187 MinAlter Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 062 070 110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 15 TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Arson Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI WEAPONS2 CLAS\n09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 123 150 060 071 072 091 092 2 3 1 10 10 44 42 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 121 PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 2 090 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 321 1 3 1 6 9 7 1 2 34 114 2 3 2 13 1 16 53 49 1 3 1 5 155 1 1 435 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 3 1 1 20 1 1 81 1 1 2 22 5 8 3 1 1 1 22 1 1 103 1 1 1 1 4 7 2 3 13 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 20 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 13 1 16 54 52 1 3 1 2 5 1 1 1 5 8 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 163 1 23 3 3 3 14 1 21 62 55 1 4 3 2 5 1 1 186 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 462 107 569SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT WM WF SUSMRC 6/03/98 WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 21 TOT INSUBORD CLASS 03 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD CLASS 06 2 105 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm FIREWORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONS1 WEAPONS2 Poss Exp CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 062 070 090 110 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 140 150 071 072 090 091 092 100 4 8 1 1 4 1 1 3 SUBTOTAL 3 3 54 1 13 3 46 9 1 2 2 2 1 1 159 1 1 16 5 1 11 1 1 5 1 3 3 70 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 7 21 6 1 1 59 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 20 3 67 15 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 218 1 4 5 20 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 21 1 10 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 11 1 1 5 1 5 3 70 1 1 21 4 68 17 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 1 1 232 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 4 5 22 6 2 12 1 1 5 2 6 lb 1 2 25 73 17 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 2bl, MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling False Al 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 050 060 062 100 110 010 020 030 040 050 060 1 2 10 1 3 1 1 1 21 3 3 5 3 1 1 15 3 1 2 15 1 6 2 2 1 36 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 15 1 6 2 3 1 37 4 1 1 2 1 4 4 1 2 17 1 6 2 4 1 41 4 1SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 22 TOT Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Forgery Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 08 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 080 090 100 105 no 120 122 123 130 150 071 072 090 9 2 30 5 3 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 98 1 5 7 1 1 1 1 45 1 14 2 37 6 3 1 1 3 2 1 143 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 5 6 11 10 3 13 1 14 2 39 7 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 156 1 1 1 11 1 15 2 40 8 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 167 MinAlter LeftSch I FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling False Al M i sch i ef PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Extort Weapon ROBBERY CLASS 09 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 080 110 010 020 030 040 050 060 080 090 105 110 120 150 071 072 110 121 130 1 2 2 29 1 6 1 3 6 22 2 2 10 5 8 2 8 1 SUBTOTAL 111 Dis Cond CLASS 11 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 372 3 7 7 1 2 20 124 1 2 5 36 1 6 1 3 6 29 2 2 11 7 8 2 8 1 131 1 1 496 5 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 18 43 1 1 8 6 1 1 1 19 51 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 13 33 1 3 8 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 16 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 5 36 1 6 2 3 6 29 2 1 2 11 8 9 11 3 3 1 2 1 149 5 3 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 23 1 2 10 39 1 7 3 4 6 35 2 1 2 12 9 9 U 12 5 1 2 1 172 1 2 3 (5 4 7 2 1 1 1 1 541 56 597SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/93 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 25 TOT Fighting CLASS 02 I PROSTAFF CLASS 04 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS 07 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI WEAPONS2 In Riot CLASS 08 Ref Ruis Foul Lan 2 040 SUBTOTAL 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 040 060 062 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 130 150 071 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 092 120 SUBTOTAL 1 1 062 110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 16 1 1 2 13 16 1 1 1 1 1 32 2 1 3 14 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 4 3 1 40 22 62 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 7 32 2 1 3 16 1 1 1 1 69 1 2 1 1 6 1 3 5 3 1 34 2 1 4 17 1 1 1 1 75 3 6 1 1 1 4 7 1 1 1 2 2 13 1 3 1 16 10 4 3 8 1 5 1 4 1 2 2 2 21 2 8 1 17 14 5 5 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 4 3 1 1 3 3 6 65 25 90 12 5 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 6 14 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 7 1 2 5 2 21 2 8 2 17 20 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 107 1 4 3 2 4 3 1 18 8 1 2 5 2 25 2 11 2 19 24 5 9 1 1 1 2 1 125 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 7 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 26 I SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf FIREARM2 WEAPONSl WEAPONS2 In Riot CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 040 090 105 110 123 150 071 072 082 091 092 120 1 11 6 4 5 2 1 11 3 3 8 1 22 9 7 13 2 1 3 7 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 36 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 142 1 1 2 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 26 62 5 9 14 7 2 6 2 13 5 1 3 1 8 1 3 22 9 7 19 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 83 10 1 2 14 1 3 32 10 7 21 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 97 74 216 23 14 37 21 13 34 1 1 5^ 11 261 38 299SCHOOL: 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 5 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Harass FAILOBEY FAILDET Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS CLASS 07 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 060 080 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 2 1 18 1 2 10 1 6 1 1 2 1 24 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 35 2 1 1 1 13 I, 11 1 1 1 48 3 2 3 5 3 3 7 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 6 20 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 24 2 1 4 12 1 1 1 50 1 5 3 3 9 21 1 1 2 1 29 5 1 7 21 1 1 1 71 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm AL-DRUGS WEAPONSI CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 080 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 120 150 091 1 2 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 11 2 14 3 1 37 1 5 1 9 2 19 1 3 2 1 1 16 1 2 23 5 1 56 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 14 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 16 1 1 2 5 6 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 5 24 6 1 5 1 1 19 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 62 6 3 1 1 20 1 3 3 1 2 21 2 1 5 30 9 1 1 2 82 LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 062 010 030 040 051 081 090 100 105 110 123 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 2 3 11 9 1 6 3 3 3 3 1 12 2 1 5 6 14 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 12 2 1 5 6 15 12 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 15 2 1 5 6 16 15 1 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 6 i SCHOOL: 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK tot UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT AL-DRUGS CLASS 09 2 150 SUBTOTAL 2 40 18 2 58 2 8 1 5 3 13 1 1 2 59 3 13 5 72 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 112 51 163 36 16 52 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 172 54 226 ISCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 16 TOT Battery Theft Fighting PROStAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 020 030 040 090 105 110 122 072 2 18 5 10 14 1 11 2 1 1 3 29 5 12 15 1 3 3 SUBTOTAL 49 16 65 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 30 5 12 15 1 1 68 3 3 1 3 33 5 12 15 1 1 71 Ref Ruis Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONS1 UEAPONS2 CLASS 08 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 062 030 040 070 090 105 110 123 072 090 091 092 3 5 22 1 3 16 8 1 7 5 3 6 29 1 3 21 8 3 1 4 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 62 1 14 2 1 1 1 76 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 29 1 3 21 8 3 1 2 1 78 4 1 1 2 1 1 10 3 6 33 1 4 22 10 1 3 1 3 1 88 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf Pos Ueap In Riot CLASS 09 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 060 062 110 010 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 090 120 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 7 1 1 3 18 129 14 3 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 21 1 2 1 2 21 51 2 2 2 6 1 6 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 3 39 12 1 13 180 19 6 25 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 6 3 3 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 46 2 1 1 16 1 2 1 1 3 22 1 1 2 8 5 2 2 (\u0026gt; 3 1 1 b2 6 3 9 4 4 (S) 3 192 29 221LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 17 SCHOdfL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT Of SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 no SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf CLASS 07 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 072 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 3 23 1 2 k 2 19 11 1 1 69 15 2 3 3 1 25 1 3 38 1 2 6 2 22 14 2 1 94 3 3 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 6 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 7 3 39 1 2 6 4 23 15 2 1 1 3 2 1 12 1 5 1 17 1 1 1 111 1 8 1 1 5 8 3 42 1 2 6 4 23 17 3 1 1 1 119 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS V As Sf Extort CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 090 110 010 020 040 080 090 105 110 150 072 110 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 19 16 20 10 2 73 11 1 4 19 8 45 1 30 1 20 39 18 2 118 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 5 3 5 1 2 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 11 5 16 8 3 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 8 30 1 21 39 18 2 2 1 130 2 5 1 2 5 3 18 2 1 1 2 1 1 10 35 2 23 44 21 2 2 1 148 LeftSchl Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 010 020 030 040 050 080 1 1 2 24 1 4 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 32 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 8 1 32 1 4 1 1 4 2 4 8 1 36 1 4SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 18 J DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS1 Extort Weapon CLAS^ 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 110 121 8 1 18 8 1 5 5 11 9 13 1 29 17 1 5 4 1 1 2 5 3 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 75 35 110 9 5 14 INSUBORD CLASS 10 2 105 SUBTOTAL Z 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 11 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 14 1 29 19 1 5 2 4 1 1 1 128 3 3 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 11 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 221 106 327 25 1 1 1 1 13 38 31 12 43 5 2 7 (3) 4 374 1 5 3 2 1 18 14 2 34 22 1 5 2 6 1 2 1 146 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 45 419SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 29 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORO Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 no SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Theft Fighting CLASS 05 1 2 2 062 030 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 040 110 1 subtotal 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 5 3 8 1 1 2 10 10 I ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 27 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis fighting Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 2 062 040 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 Theft Fighting Ind Exp Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 3 030 040 100 110 091 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 5 1 6 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 8 2 2 1 2 1 8 Ref Ruis Loi ter INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 3 062 070 105 110 091 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 SUBTOTAL 2 6 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 9 2 1 2 3 1 9 INSUBORO CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF CLASS 10 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 7 22 2 2 2 1 3 25 2 27SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOI BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 32 TOT I I i i I FAILOBEY Foul Lan Assault PROSTAFF CLASS K 1 1 2 2 060 110 010 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting X As Sf CLASS 01 Ref Ruis CLASS 02 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Loiter V As Sf CLASS 03 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis foul Lan Assault Fighting Loiter Ass Staf CLASS 04 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft F i ght ing Loiter INSUBORD V As Sf CLASS 05 Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 2 2 2 3 110 010 020 040 072 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 4 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 3 060 062 110 070 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 040 060 062 110 010 040 070 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 110 030 040 070 105 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 062 110 5 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 1 16 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 3 1 1 17 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 3 4 3 2 1 1 12 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 14 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 4 1 5 1 2 1 18 5 5SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 33 TOT Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 7 2 1 17 3 1 7 10 2 2 24 10 2 2 24 10 2 2 24 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 55 14 69 6 6 1 2 3 1 1 72 7 79SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 9 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS K 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Assault INSUBORD Ois Cond CLASS 01 2 2 2 010 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 Assault INSUBORD Ois Cond Har Comn V As Sf CLASS 03 2 2 2 2 3 010 105 110 120 072 SUBTOTAL 2 4 1 1 8 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 1 1 11 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 010 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 6 Theft Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 030 080 105 110 2 2 SUBTOTAL 3 1 6 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 7 Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 040 105 110 120 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 1 1 5 1 8 INSUBORD CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 34 4 38 6 6 1 1 39 6 45SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 28 TOT FAILOBEY Dis Cond CLASS K 1 2 060 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis RAPRINGS Ass Staf CLASS 01 1 1 1 2 3 040 060 062 130 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Foul Lan F i gh t i ng Dis Cond RAPRINGS CLASS 02 1 1 2 2 2 062 110 040 110 130 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 8 FAILOBEY Foul Lan Fighting CLASS 03 1 1 2 060 110 040 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 5 2 2 5 1 1 7 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault CLASS 04 1 1 1 1 2 030 060 062 110 010 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 8 MinAlter Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 030 062 110 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 07 2 040 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 6 28 5 3 8 1 1 3 1 4 2 2 29 1 1 3 1 1 5 2 2 8 37 ISCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM I I I i 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 31 TOT Theft CLASS K 2 030 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 01 Dis Cond CLASS 02 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 Assault Theft Fighting bis Cond CLASS 04 Battery Theft Fighting INSUBORO CLASS 05 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fighting Ind Exp Har Conm V As Sf UEAPONS1 CLASS 06 1 2 2 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2 2 050 060 030 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 010 030 040 no SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 020 030 040 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 030 040 100 120 072 091 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 1 2 2 1 1 3 10 1 2 2 1 1 3 10 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 I, 13 1 1 5 2 9 5 1 6 1 1 2 2 2 1 9 39 1 1 2 4 1 1 5 2 9 1 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 1 9 43 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 9 1 1 1 1 6 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 10 44 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 6 1 9 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 12 51 I I ISCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 39 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT I I I I I i j i FAILOBEY Ref Ruis INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS K 1 1 2 2 3 060 062 105 110 071 1 2 2 4 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 9 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 11 2 1 3 1 2 4 5 2 14 MinAlter Ref Ruis Fighting IN SUBORD Dis Cond Y As Sf GLASS 01 Ref Ruis Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf WEAPONSI CLASS 02 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 MinAlter Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Arson Ass Staf WEAPONS? 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 062 040 105 110 072 4 3 4 3 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 12 1 3 1 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 3 1 3 1 12 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 4 1 14 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 062 020 040 090 105 110 071 091 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 9 1 2 1 1 9 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 9 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 12 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 010 100 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 1 3 10 2 1 3 t, 1 2 1 U 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 k 1 2 1 4 13 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 I. 15 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 062 110 010 040 090 105 110 060 071 092 3 1 1 5 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 7 1 1 8 1 2 1SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 21 4 25 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/')i, PAGE 40 4 1 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT i I I I 1 26 4 30 MinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Theft Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Arson Weapon CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 062 010 030 100 105 no 060 121 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 14 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 5 1 1 16 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 !, 5 1 1 18 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI CLASS 06 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 110 010 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 150 071 072 091 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 10 2 1 3 6 1 1 34 106 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 i-t 24 3 12 3 1 3 8 2 2 1 2 48 130 1 1 3 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 1 10 1 3 1 3 3 3 4 1 1 3 12 3 1 3 8 2 2 2 2 1 51 3 4 1 2 10 3 3 4 1 1 3 15 7 1 4 10 2 2 2 2 1 61 22 3 25 7 7 1 1 T 1 138 26 164SCHOOL: 032 DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 43 TOT MinAlter Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 02 1 2 3 030 110 071 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting INSUBORD Har Comm CLASS 03 2 2 2 040 105 120 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Assault Battery INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 2 010 020 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 7 Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSl CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 090 105 071 072 091 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 9 MinAlter FAILOBEY Assault Theft fighting PROSIAFF INSUBORD WEAPONSl CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 010 030 040 090 105 091 1 2 1 2 SUBTOTAL 6 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 18 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 6 7 12 25 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 7 1 8 1 1 2 2 12 26 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 14 10 36I I SCHOOL: 023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 34 TOT Foul Lan Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 02 1 2 2 2 2 3 110 010 040 105 110 091 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Ref Ruis Assault Theft CLASS 03 1 2 2 062 010 030 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 5 INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting INSUBORD Har Conm CLASS 05 2 Z 2 040 105 120 1 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 1 6 5 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 8 6 1 1 8 Foul Lan Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 110 040 090 105 110 071 072 091 1 1 1 4 2 1 4 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 3 6 9 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 13 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 13 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 13 25 3 3 5 5 1 1 30 4 34SCHOOL: 024 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BT REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 35 Dis Cond CLASS K 2 no SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 Z Z 1 1 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 Z Z 1 1 3 3 FAILOBEY Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 2 2 2 060 100 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 Foul Lan Theft CLASS 02 1 2 110 030 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ind Exp Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 100 110 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Harass Ref Ruis Extort CLASS 04 1 1 3 040 062 110 3 1 SUBTOTAL 4 1 1 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 1 1 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 06 2 2 Z Z 2 3 040 090 100 105 110 072 1 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 4 1 3 6 2 1 1 5 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 1 10 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 12 FAILOBEY CLASS 07 1 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 21 13 34 2 1 3 34 3 37LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 36 I I SCHOOL: 025 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE\nDISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ind Exp INSUBORD WEAPONSI CLASS K 2 2 3 100 105 091 2 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 5 Assault PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 2 2 2 2 3 010 090 105 110 091 01 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 8 1 1 2 3 1 8 INSUBORD Dis Cond 2 2 105 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 t. 2 2 4 F i ghting INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm AL-DRUGS 2 2 2 2 2 040 105 110 120 150 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 5 5 1 1 14 1 1 2 b 5 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 2 6 5 1 1 15 1 1 2 7 b 1 1 16 Foul Lan F i ght i ng Mischief PROSTAFF Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 2 110 040 080 090 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 6 11 3 1 1 b 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 11 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 12 Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond 2 2 2 2 040 090 105 110 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 2 7 2 1 3 1 2 5 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 10 1 1 2 2 5 2 11 Foul Lan Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 2 2 110 020 040 090 105 110 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 2 1 9 1 1 3 1 2 1 9 1 1 3 1 2 1 9 1 1 3 1 2 1 9 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 53 6 59 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 60 5 65 ISCHOOL: 048 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE\nSANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 61 FAILOBEY CLASS 01 1 060 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 FAILOBEY CLASS 02 1 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 FAILOBEY CLASS 03 1 060 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 FAILOBEY CLASS 04 1 060 SUBTOTAL 4 4 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 FAILOBEY Bus Regs Foul Lan Fighting CLASS[ 05 1 1 1 2 060 070 110 040 SUBTOTAL 23 1 1 1 26 23 1 1 1 26 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 27 3 3 27 1 1 1 30 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fighting CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 060 062 030 040 5 1 9 1 SUBTOTAL 6 1 11 14 1 1 1 17 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 43 18 61 2 2 2 4 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 17 62 3 3 7 17 1 1 1 20 69SCHOOL: 026 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 37 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Pos Weap CLASS 05 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pos Weap CLASS 06 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 CD 1 2 2 I I I i tSCHOOL: 037 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SUSMRC 6/03/98 07/27/98 PAGE 48 I SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS K 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting CLASS 01 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault INSUBORD CLASS 02 2 2 010 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 INSUBORD CLASS 03 2 105 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting PROSTAFF Har Comm CLASS 04 2 2 2 040 090 120 3 3 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 5 MinAlter Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS CLASS 05 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 030 040 105 110 150 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 3 8 1 1 2 3 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 11 INSUBORD CLASS 06 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 11 18 3 1 4 1 1 2 20 4 24SCHOOL: 027 GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 38 DISCIPLINE BT REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT MinAlter F i ght i ng CLASS 03 1 2 030 040 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 F ighting Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 040 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 MinAlter Fighting CLASS 05 1 2 030 040 SUBTOTAL 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 Ref Ruis CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 2 2 10 2 12 I I I iSCHOOL: 030 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SUSMRC 6/03/98 07/27/98 PAGE 42 I I OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Mi nAlter FAILOBEY Fighting INSUBORD Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 060 040 105 123 130 150 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 8 8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 46 SCHOOL: 035 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT False Al INSUBORD CLASS K 2 2 060 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Battery INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf WEAPONSl CLASS 01 2 2 2 3 3 020 105 110 071 091 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 6 INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSl CLASS 02 2 2 3 105 110 091 3 4 1 7 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 5 8 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 8 1 1 2 8 1 1 10 Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 03 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 090 105 110 120 3 1 4 2 1 SUBTOTAL 10 1 2 3 1 5 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 1 5 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 6 3 1 16 Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 04 2 2 2 2 040 105 110 120 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 Battery Fighting INSUBORD CLASS 05 2 2 2 020 040 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 3 5 Assault Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Har Cornu CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 2 2 010 020 040 090 105 120 1 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 8 1 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 1 30 10 40 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 2 11 7 6 13 1 1 1 41 14 55LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 57 SCHOOL: 046 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT FAILOBEY Assault PROSTAFF CLASS K 1 2 2 060 010 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 MinAlter Foul Lan Battery Fighting INSUBORD CLASS 01 1 1 2 2 2 030 110 020 040 105 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 7 Ref Ruis Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Poss Gun WEAPONS2 CLASS 02 1 2 2 2 2 2, 3 062 010 040 105 110 080 092 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 2 1 4 1 1 3 2 3 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 8 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 11 Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 2 2 2 062 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 3 3 8 16 1 1 2 2 4 3 9 18 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 9 18 1 1 3 4 3 9 19 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 040 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 12 5 5 1 12 2 2 2 2 1 4 4 5 5 1 12 2 2 4 1 2 1 5 1 16 MinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 010 040 105 110 1 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 3 3 2 12 2 2 5 3 2 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 5 5 3 2 14 1 1 1 2 5 1 4 1 6 5 2 19 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Battery 1 1 2 060 062 020 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2SCHOOL: 046 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 58 TOT Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 040 090 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 9 4 2 2 10 5 1 4 4 19 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 5 20 4 4 9 1 4 5 24 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 55 14 69 22 6 28 1 1 2 1 1 71 29 100 ISCHOOL: 020 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 30 DISCIPLINE BY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT PROSTAFF Dis Cond Pos Ueap CLASS 02 2 2 3 090 110 090 2 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 040 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 4 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 Mischief INSUBORO Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 080 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 I, 1 2 1 4 Theft F i ght ing INSUBORD Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 5 030 040 105 110 072 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 6 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 8 1 1 2 1 5 2 1 1 10 INSUBORO CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 9 21 2 1 3 21 3 24 I i 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 44 SCHOOL: 033 MEADOUCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS 01 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD CLASS 02 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conrn Pos Weap CLASS 03 2 2 2 3 105 110 120 090 1 2 1 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 2 010 040 105 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 7 Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 3 040 090 105 110 091 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 6 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 8 3 1 2 1 1 8 Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 4 26 1 1 2 2 2 28 2 30 ISCHOOL: 034 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL UF WHT TOT BLK WHT 45 TOT Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting CLASS 03 2 040 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 04 1 2 2 3 062 010 110 071 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Assault Fighting PROSTAFF CLASS 05 2 2 2 010 040 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 Fighting CLASS 06 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 08 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 5 13 1 1 1 1 14 1 15LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 62 SCHOOL: 050 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS K 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLAS^ 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MinAlter Fighting PROSTAFF CLASS 03 1 2 2 030 040 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Ref Ruis INSUBORD Ois Cond Har Conm CLASS 04 1 2 2 2 062 105 110 120 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 Fighting CLASS 05 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 040 090 110 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 6 4 1 1 6 4 1 1 6 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 2 18 1 1 18 1 19SCHOOL: 038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 49 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS K 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 7 8 4 4 1 11 12 1 11 12 1 11 12 Fighting Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 02 2 2 2 040 110 120 1 2 SUBTOTAL 3 2 1 3 1 i. 1 6 1 4 1 6 1 4 1 6 Theft Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 2 2 062 110 040 110 SUBTOTAL 1 2 2 5 2 2 4 1 4 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 10 1 1 1 1 4 5 11 FAILOBEY Fighting Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 05 1 2 2 3 060 040 110 091 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 9 1 3 2 6 1 7 6 1 15 1 1 1 1 1 7 6 1 15 1 1 1 8 6 1 16 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting False Al Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Conm V As Sf CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 110 040 060 100 110 120 072 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 7 1 9 2 1 5 9 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 1 1 14 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 16 Dis Cond CLASS 11 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 37 23 60 4 4 1 1 61 4 65SCHOOL: 039 RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 50 TOT Fighting CLASS K 2 040 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Foul Lan INSUBORD CLASS 02 1 1 2 062 110 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 MinAlter F i ghting INSUBORD CLASS 03 1 2 2 030 040 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 F i ght i ng INSUBORD Dis Cond FIREWORK V As Sf CLASS 05 2 2 2 3 040 105 110 140 072 3 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 5 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 Fighting CLASS 06 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 5 21 21 21 ISCHOOL: 036 ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 47 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS K 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Theft Loi tdr Ind Exp Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 2 2 030 070 100 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 6 9 1 1 1 6 9 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 6 10 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 9 13 2 2 Foul Lan Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 2 2 110 040 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 5 FAILOBEY Theft Fighting Loi ter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 060 030 040 070 090 105 110 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 12 1 3 6 1 3 b 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 12 1 3 6 2 1 4 3 1 4 7, 18 Theft Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 Fighting Loi ter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 2 040 070 090 105 110 3 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 2 3 9 2 3 9 2 2 2 2 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 28 9 37 15 2 17 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 10 4 3 1 1 2 7 14 3 3 40 17 57SCHOOL: 040 ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 51 TOT Assault CLASS K 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault CLASS 01 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ind Exp INSUBORD Weapon CLASS 02 2 2 3 100 105 121 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 PROSTAFF Ind Exp CLASS 03 2 2 090 100 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 FAILOBEY CLASS 04 1 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault Fighting Ois Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 010 040 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 MinAlter Assault Fighting INSUBORD Weapon CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 3 030 010 040 105 121 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 3 9 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 6 2 2 2 2 11 8 19SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 59 TOT Ind Exp Har Conm Pos Ueap CLASS K 2 2 3 100 120 090 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 01 2 3 110 072 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 MinAlter Ass Staf CLASS 02 1 3 030 071 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 030 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 5 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 13 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 6 15 Assault Fighting Har Conm Ass Staf CLASS 04 2 2 2 3 010 040 120 071 3 3 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 6 Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 090 100 110 120 1 2 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 8 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 11 1 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 12 Assault Theft Fighting Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond Har lomn CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 010 030 040 080 105 110 120 1 1 6 4 2 SUBTOTAL 14 1 1 1 7 1 2 4 2 1 16 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 4 2 1 16 1 1 1 1 7 1 4 2 1 17SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 39 6 45 4 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 60 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 5 4 4 2 1 3 1 50 8 58 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 63 SCHO(|L: 051 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT MinAlter FAILOBEY Foul Lan Assault Pos Weap CLASS 01 1 1 1 2 3 030 060 110 010 090 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 9 1 5 1 1 1 9 1 5 1 1 1 9 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Battery Dis Cond Har Comm Ass Staf CLASS 02 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 010 020 110 120 071 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 4 5 6 1 Theft Fighting CLASS 03 2 2 030 040 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 7 1 1 FAILOBEY Battery fighting CLASS 04 1 2 2 060 020 040 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 Pos Weap CLASS 05 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 MinAlter Foul Lan Battery Fighting Dis Cond Har Conm V As Sf CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 030 110 020 040 110 120 072 2 1 4 1 1 4 1 SUBTOTAL 8 1 7 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 15 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 15 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 15 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 23 17 40 3 3 43 43SCHOOL: 042 WASHINGTON MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 52 TOT Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS K 3 3 071 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 Assault Battery WEAPONS2 CLASS 01 2 2 3 010 020 092 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 Assault AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf Assembly CLASS 02 2 2 3 3 3 010 150 010 071 122 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 Assaul t Battery Theft Pos Weap CLASS 03 2 2 2 3 010 020 030 090 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 1 1 3 2 1 1 7 Battery INSUBORD Pos Weap CLASS 04 2 2 3 020 105 090 1 1 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 5 Assault Battery Fighting Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging 0 Weapon CLASS 05 I Assault Battery CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 040 080 100 110 123 121 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 010 020 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 2 2 1 5 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 1 1 12 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 3 3 9 1 1 1 10 5 5 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 31 9 40SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 64 TOT FAILOBEY Assault Battery INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS K 1 2 2 2 2 3 060 010 020 105 110 071 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 a Ref Ruis Foul Lan Battery Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Pos Weap CLASS 01 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 062 110 020 040 105 110 090 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs Assault Battery Theft Fighting Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Pos Weap CLASS 02 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 070 010 020 030 040 100 105 110 090 2 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 14 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 16 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 16 2 1 1 1 1 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 22 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fight i ng PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 03 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 060 062 030 040 090 105 110 120 SUBTOTAL 4 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 16 2 2 4 6 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 20 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 20 1 1 6 1 1 5 1 4 2 1 21 Harass FAILOBEY Foul Lan Theft Fighting 1 1 1 2 2 040 060 110 030 040 5 1 1 8 1 1 1 5 1 2 8 1 5 1 2 8 1 5 1 2 8SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 65 DISCIPLINE SY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT False Al PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 2 060 090 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 4 22 2 1 1 1 k 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 25 1 1 1 5 25 MinAlter FAILOBEY Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 060 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 5 2 2 12 1 1 2 2 5 2 2 13 1 1 2 3 4 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 2 2 13 2 4 6 2 2 7 2 6 19 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Battery Fighting Ind Exp INSUBORO Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 060 062 110 020 040 100 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 14 3 2 5 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 6 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I, 1 I, 2 1 1 6 20 1 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 1 6 21 Theft CLASS 08 2 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Foul Lan CLASS 09 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 93 16 109 10 4 14 2 2 1 1 2 111 16 127 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 41 I SCHOOL: 029 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY INSUBORD CLASS K 1 2 060 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 105 110 2 2 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 UEAPONS1 CLASS 02 3 091 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 5 4 MinAlter Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 2 2 030 040 105 110 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 Fighting PROSTAFF Di s Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 040 090 110 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 4 4 7 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 7 Z 1 10 FAILOBEY Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 060 110 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 4 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 1 6 7 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 18 8 26 8 8 26 8 34SCHOOL: 043 WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 53 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault CLASS 06 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 54 SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Dis Cond CLASS K 1 1 2 2 060 062 040 110 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 8 3 3 1 1 8 3 3 1 1 8 3 3 1 1 8 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Dis Cond CLAS: 01 1 1 1 2 050 060 062 110 SUBTOTAL 6 2 1 9 1 1 1 3 1 7 3 1 12 1 7 3 1 12 1 7 3 1 12 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 1 060 062 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Bus Regs Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 1 2 062 070 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 04 1 1 1 1 2 3 030 060 062 110 110 071 1 5 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 9 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 11 2 5 1 1 1 1 11 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 060 062 030 090 110 2 1 2 1 3 SUBTOTAL 1 7 1 1 5 2 1 5 1 1 2 12 2 1 5 1 1 2 12 2 1 5 1 1 2 12 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 110 010 090 110 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 6 1 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 3 3 11 2 1 1 1 3 3 11 2 1 1 1 3 3 11SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 42 16 58 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM 1 SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 55 DISCIPLINE BY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 59 59SCHOOL: 045 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 56 TOT Battery CLASS 02 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Battery Ind Exp INSUBORD CLASS 03 2 2 2 020 100 105 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 Assault WEAPONSI CLASS 04 2 3 010 091 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 2 010 105 110 130 150 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 3 3 1 1 11 3 14LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 68 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 I SANCTIONS BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF LONG TERM BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT DISTRICT TOTALS tomtit #### 1,3/^ 4829 625 210 835 296 117 413 45 16 61 75 24 99 9 1 10 5341 906  6247 o or o o (V' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 09/28/98 PAGE 68 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT DISTRICT TOTALS *1 o f* u n u u 4830 625 210 835 BM 297 SANCTIONS BF 117 LONG TERM BLK TOT 414 WM WF WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK TOTAL WHT TOT 45 16 61 75 24 99 9 1 10 5343 906 6249LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS DISTRICT TOTALS I BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 68 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS BF LONG TERM BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK TOTAL WHT TOT #### 1^3/^ 4829 625 210 835 296 117 413 45 16 61 75 24 99 9 1 10 5341 906* 6247 o ty O O ' J' a c\\ I ISCHOOL: 004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 7 / TOT Foul Lan Gambling Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf CLASS 09 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 110 050 080 105 110 123 072 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 15 Ref Ruts Smoking PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 062 100 090 105 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 Ref Ruis PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 11 1 2 2 062 090 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 INSUBORD CLASS 12 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 2 17 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 22 2 24 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 67 SCHOOL: 714 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 07 1 2 2 2 2 3 062 040 090 105 110 071 1 3 4 8 1 1 2 3 4 9 1 1 SUBTOTAL 16 2 18 2 3 6 1 1 2 1 3 7 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 4 2 3 I, 12 1 22 1 2 1 3 7 1 2 5 5 15 1 29 Battery Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONS1 CLASS 08 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 020 040 080 090 105 110 071 072 091 1 3 3 5 2 1 3 2 2 1 4 6 7 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 12 8 20 7 7 2 2 4 4 2 2 1 4 6 11 6 6 1 1 1 1 26 3 2 1 1 1 8 2 2 1 4 9 13 1 1 1 34 Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 3 080 090 100 105 110 071 2 1 3 5 1 2 2 2 1 1 5 7 1 1 SUBTOTAL 11 5 16 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 5 9 1 19 1 1 2 1 1 5 10 1 20 PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 2 2 090 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 6 1 1 4 b 1 1 4 6 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 41 19 60 14 1 15 10 3 13 1 1 73 16 89LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1998-1999 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORTLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS DISTRICT TOTALS BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL IJ It II 11 It It II n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS SUSMRC 6/03/98 07/27/98 PAGE ( 68 BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF LONG TERM BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK TOTAL WHT TOT 4829 625 210 835 296 117 413 45 16 61 75 24 99 9 1 10 5341 906 \u0026lt;6247 O GIT' O 1/ OSCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 1 ( DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Foul Lan CLASS 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 2 2 062 090 110 1 INSUBORD SUBTOTAL 2 105 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL Fighting PROSTAFF 2 2 040 090 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL Pos Weap 3 090 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Smoking Tardies Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D FIREUORK AL-DRUGS V As Sf In Riot Gang Mem 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 050 060 062 100 133 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 140 150 072 120 123 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis 1 1 1 050 060 062 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 8 1 39 15 1 11 87 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 10 1 1 8 1 2 1 10 1 40 25 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 22 109 8 8 3 1 7 16 2 6 5 2 11 1 12 8 1 20 4 9 4 9 1 1 13 13 1 1 1 3 3 2 8 1 2 1 11 1 k2 36 1 1 11 4 9 1 142 1 3 1 3 1 7 1 17 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 11 1 2 1 12 1 45 37 1 1 18 4 10 1 159 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 2 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS2 In Riot Gang Mem CLASS 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 092 120 123 2 1 3 1 11 8 12 SUBTOTAL 48 5 5 3 1 1 1 5 1 28 2 12 8 1 14 15 1 1 17 1 4 1 It 1 1 1 1 1 76 7 3 2 3 1 21 1 1 2 8 3 2 3 2 23 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 It 1 1 1 1 1 3 12 8 3 15 19 1 1 17 1 1 I, 8 3 5 9 6 1 8 1 1 7 1 9 1 1 1 7 1 94 2 3 2 1 24 1 3 13 12 3 23 22 1 3 20 3 1 1 7 1 118 Fighting Loiter Mischief INSUBORD Ois Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 040 070 080 105 110 123 150 072 091 120 1 1 1 1 8 3 1 4 It 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 14 14 10 153 64 1 1 1 24 3 4 7 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 30 1 2 1 1 2 7 4 2 2 4 15 1 5 1 1 2 37 217 33 14 47 20 13 33 23 1 24 2 2 274 49 323 , / /SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 3 \u0026gt; DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT ' BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting CLASS 07 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 08 2 2 090 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Weal WEAPONS, In Riot s CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 100 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 120 123 150 072 090 092 120 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 4 1 5 7 1 1 4 1 12 1 1 2 44 9 1 5 3 1 79 2 11 8 28 4 55 17 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 10 8 1 1 1 1 10 9 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 9 2 13 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 5 1 3 3 107 23 1 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 5 1 19 4 4 3 1 1 3 1 1 5 5 4 58 22 2 5 3 5 2 1 1 131 1 1 1 13 9 1 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 14 1 5 71 31 2 6 3 6 2 1 1 159 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging 0 AL-DRUGS Poss Exp In Riot CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 010 020 030 040 105 110 122 123 150 100 120 2 2 7 1 3 1 3 12 15 1 6 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 3 2 7 1 3 1 8 13 17 1 8 2 1 1 1 4 4 SUBTOTAL 55 12 67 4 1 6 LeftSchl 1 050 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 1 3 9 1 3 9 3 2 7 1 7 1 8 13 18 1 8 2 2 3 76 1 5 1 1 1 9 3 2 7 1 8 1 13 14 19 1 8 3 2 3 85 1 1SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 4 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting False Al Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D UEAPONS1 In Riot Ueapon CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 060 010 020 040 060 070 090 105 110 120 123 091 120 121 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 8 6 1 4 1 3 4 1 2 1 12 7 1 It 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 28 13 41 7 3 10 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 It 1 2 1 12 1 1 4 1 2 1 ttl 1 1 3 3 1 1 10 2 1 2 It 1 2 8 15 10 2 5 1 2 1 57 164 53 217 36 8 44 28 5 33 4 4 6 6 *7 256 48 304SCHOOL: 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 5 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 Harass FAILOBEY FAILDET Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 060 080 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 2 1 18 1 2 10 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 35 1 6 1 2 1 1 1 13 1 2 1 24 2 4 11 1 1 1 48 1 1 3 2 3 5 3 3 7 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 6 20 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 24 2 1 It 12 1 1 1 50 1 5 3 3 9 21 1 1 2 1 29 5 1 7 21 1 1 1 71 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS WEAPONSI 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 080 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 120 150 091 1 2 2 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 062 010 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 123 1 11 2 14 3 1 37 1 1 1 6 2 1 2 3 11 9 1 1 5 1 9 2 19 6 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 16 1 2 23 5 1 56 1 1 1 12 2 1 5 6 14 12 1 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 16 1 1 2 5 2 2 6 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 5 24 6 1 5 1 1 19 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 62 6 3 1 1 20 1 3 3 1 2 21 2 1 5 30 9 1 1 2 82 1 1 1 1 1 12 2 1 5 6 15 12 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 15 2 1 5 6 16 15 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 6 i SCHOOL: 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET FROM DATE\nDISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT AL-DRUGS CLASS 09 2 150 SUBTOTAL 2 40 18 2 58 2 8 1 5 3 13 1 1 2 59 3 13 5 72 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 112 51 163 36 16 52 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 172 54 226SCHOOL\n004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 7 / DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Foul Lan Gambling Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 V As Sf CLASS 09 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 110 050 080 105 110 123 072 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 15 Ref Ruis Smoki ng PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 062 100 090 105 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 Ref Ruis PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 11 1 2 2 062 090 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 INSUBORD CLASS 12 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 2 17 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 22 2 24LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 8 SCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting INSUBORD CLASS 07 2 2 040 105 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Smok i ng Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-ORUGS CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 062 100 030 040 070 090 100 105 110 150 3 5 2 1 1 5 1 SUBTOTAL 18 2 2 1 1 8 1 15 5 2 6 2 2 1 13 2 33 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 7 5 1 16 4 3 1 10 11 8 2 26 1 2 1 2 3 6 2 2 1 13 2 1 35 1 1 3 11 8 2 26 5 1 3 7 2 5 1 24 10 3 61 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 040 070 090 105 110 120 123 150 072 090 091 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 2 5 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 3 2 3 15 1 3 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 1 2 1 1 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 8 3 1 1 4 3 1 1 51 Smoking Fighting Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS CLASS 12 1 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 100 040 070 080 090 105 110 123 150 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 41 2 2 4 22 3 1 2 1 2 9 63 1 1 3 2 1 2 10 34 1 2 3 5 1 2 6 2 1 2 15 3 1 1 18 52 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 10 1 2 i\u0026gt; 2 1 2 15 1 3 1 1 4 7 5 1 25 4 4 1 1 67 53 120SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 9 TOT INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS K 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 2 010 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 I, 1 1 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm V As Sf CLASS 03 2 2 2 2 3 010 105 110 120 072 SUBTOTAL 2 4 1 1 8 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 1 1 11 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 010 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 6 Theft M i sch i ef INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 030 080 105 110 2 2 SUBTOTAL 3 1 6 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 7 Fighting INSUBORD Ois Cond Har Comm CLASS 06 2 2 040 105 110 120 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 1 1 5 1 8 INSUBORD CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 34 4 38 6 6 1 1 39 6 45SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 10 TOT Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Al Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSl Extort In Riot CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 060 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 091 110 120 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 9 2 20 7 3 1 1 1 12 3 1 9 7 2 1 1 1 2 31 1 1 1 12 3 29 14 5 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 69 36 105 2 8 2 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 6 3 1 11 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 32 2 1 1 12 3 29 15 5 1 3 2 3 1 2 8 1 1 3 1 11 3 24 6 30 7 3 10 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 117 1 32 2 3 4 40 2 1 1 13 I, 32 16 16 1 6 2 3 1 1 1 149 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSl Weapon CLASS 08 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7. 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 091 121 4 3 7 7 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY Foul Lan 1 1 060 110 1 2 13 1 1 10 3 1 2 23 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 5 11 7 3 43 1 4 1 1 22 15 8 3 1 65 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 18 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 4 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 23 1 4 1 16 8 1 5 3 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 74 1 1 4 1 22 7 1 2 2 28 1 1 3 20 8 1 1 7 2 5 1 2 9b 1 1 1 1SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 11 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D FIREWORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI Extort In Riot Gang Mem 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 140 150 071 072 090 091 110 120 123 3 3 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 10 2 1 2 25 8 1 3 1 1 1 60 173 5 4 4 1 1 1 22 80 1 15 2 1 6 29 15 1 1 3 2 1 1 82 253 1 5 2 7 5 1 2 1 25 67 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 13 21 3 7 4 1 7 7 1 5 1 1 38 88 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 16 2 1 6 1 32 17 3 7 1 5 1 1 1 14 27 6 9 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 36 4 2 6 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 3 3 6 3 1 1 k 2 109 5 3 7 8 1 5 1 2 1 44 5 2 It 23 2 1 11 It 39 25 1 1 1 8 3 7 5 2 1 it 2 153 6 3 9 9 3 12 1 1 301 98 399SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 12 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond AL-DRUGS CLASS 08 2 2 110 150 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 09 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS WEAPONSI CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 070 080 090 110 010 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 150 091 11 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 11 1 9 1 23 7 6 73 1 8 3 3 4 21 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 12 1 26 11 6 94 1 1 2 1 4 5 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 9 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 19 1 12 1 26 13 6 1 99 2 1 4 1 1 9 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 21 1 13 1 30 14 7 1 108 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Battery Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 060 062 090 110 020 040 050 070 080 090 105 110 123 072 090 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY 1 1 1 030 050 060 6 1 1 1 3 11 6 1 38 1 1 4 4 1 4 15 2 1 10 1 1 1 7 12 10 1 53 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 5 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 5 2 2 2 10 1 1 1 1 13 12 1 2 2 62 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 6 2 2 2 11 1 1 1 8 14 14 1 2 2 68 2 1 2SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 13 TOT Ref Ruis FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Loi ter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI UEAPONS2 CLASS 12 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 062 080 090 110 010 020 040 070 090 105 110 091 092 9 2 1 3 2 5 7 1 SUBTOTAL 32 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 145 1 1 1 2 5 4 1 5 1 1 25 61 10 3 2 2 8 2 9 8 6 1 1 57 206 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 5 6 10 3 2 2 1 1 \u0026amp; Z 9 8 9 2 1 63 1 1 2 10 3 3 2 1 1 8 2 10 8 9 2 1 65 10 6 16 8 9 17 1 1 3 1 4 227 17 244SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 19 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS 09 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONS2 CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 050 060 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 072 092 5 7 4 1 2 2 5 7 6 3 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 16 3 1 2 13 1 2 29 3 1 1 1 9 34 24 3 3 2 1 14 9 1 1 11 1 48 33 3 4 1 1 2 2 1 4 111 47 158 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 10 1 1 1 6 4 2 3 16 1 6 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 3 1 2 2 31 3 1 14 1 49 34 3 4 2 1 169 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 1 17 5 7 1 3 1 2 2 32 3 1 1 18 1 53 36 3 7 3 1 186 MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Battery Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONSI CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 060 062 070 080 090 020 040 050 090 100 105 110 120 150 072 091 1 2 14 1 4 1 3 18 FAILOBEY SUBTOTAL 1 060 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 18 9 1 9 2 2 1 1 45 5 2 1 1 9 1 11 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 54 6 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 2 5 2 5 1 1 1 2 11 1 10 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 59 6 1 2 2 1 6 1 3 19 2 1 1 1 2 13 1 11 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 65 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 20 SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM' EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis Battery Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS WEAPONSl CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 020 040 050 080 090 105 110 123 150 091 9 1 4 1 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 5 1 2 2 1 1 11 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 29 186 9 65 38 251 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 11 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 39 1 1 1 1 4 12 1 7 1 1 2 2 7 1 2 1 43 15 11 26 12 1 13 4 4 1 1 268 27 295SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 23 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF CLASS 04 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 123 071 072 120 1 9 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 22 1 3 8 1 73 25 1 16 1 21 8 1 2 1 38 1  3 9 1 94 33 1 2 1 5 5 2 2 1 9 1 1 2 3 5 1 1 148 48 196 10 2 15 1 5 11 2 20 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 1 38 1 3 9 1 96 34 1 2 1 1 1 1 207 3 5 1 11 2 22 1 9 1 1 3 5 1 43 1 3 10 1 107 36 1 2 1 1 1 1 229 MinAlter FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 010 071 072 7 20 1 1 11 1 40 16 2 1 1 3 3 1 13 1 2 4 14 12 2 1 10 3 1 33 2 3 15 1 54 28 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 7 3 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 4 33 2 3 15 1 54 29 2 1 3 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 10 4 34 2 3 18 1 60 34 2 1 3 1 1 2SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 24 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT UEAPONS1 In Riot CLASS 08 3 3 091 120 SUBTOTAL 100 56 156 12 5 17 1 9 4 1 13 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 173 18 1 2 191 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conrn Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 09 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 090 091 120 1 6 1 3 1 9 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 1 3 20 2 50 21 2 4 133 382 5 4 20 8 1 21 1 3 2 70 35 1 2 4 1 1 4 6 1 6 5 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 175 147 529 2 1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 11 14 8 22 2 2 2 4 2 4 1 9 6 12 21 1 3 25 2 70 35 1 2 4 1 4 1 1 2 201 1 1 1 2 4 4 13 1 9 7 12 22 1 4 27 2 74 39 1 2 4 1 h 1 1 2 214 32 16 48 31 13 44 3 2 5 8 2 10 583 53 636SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 14 TOT Battery CLASS 01 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF INSUBORD Forgery CLASS 02 2 2 2 090 105 122 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Assault Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 090 105 110 123 150 010 071 072 1 1 1 24 11 35 33 1 1 1 7 1 7 9 2 1 1 31 12 42 42 1 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 110 25 1 1 135 1 6 4 15 8 2 38 1 6 7 1 7 4 21 8 2 45 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 t, 1 1 4 5 4 5 2 lo 1 31 12 42 42 1 1 1 1 6 144 2 1 7 4 22 8 2 46 4 4 2 38 16 bk 50 1 3 1 1 6 190 MinAlter LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery V As Sf CLASS 08 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 050 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 072 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL MinAlter Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 062 070 110 12 1 16 1 17 33 1 11 14 1 87 9 12 2 1 1 53 1 1 3 1 2 1 23 1 30 1 26 45 2 2 1 140 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 3 2 3 1 2 9 1 3 1 5 6 1 1 6 4 2 3 4 9 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 13 35 1 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 1 23 1 30 1 27 46 2 2 3 150 1 2 10 1 3 10 8 2 37 1 1 4 1 8 3 33 2 33 1 37 54 4 2 3 187 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 15 SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Arson Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI WEAPONS2 CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 080 090 105 no 123 150 060 071 072 091 092 2 3 1 10 10 44 42 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 121 PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 2 090 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 321 1 3 1 6 9 7 1 2 34 114 2 3 2 13 1 16 53 49 1 3 1 5 155 1 1 435 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 3 1 5 8 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 13 1 16 54 52 1 3 1 2 5 1 1 1 5 8 3 1 2 20 1 2 1 22 4 3 7 1 1 1 1 163 1 23 3 3 3 14 1 21 62 55 1 4 3 2 5 1 1 186 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 81 22 103 7 13 20 3 3 5 2 7 1 1 462 107 569SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 21 TOT INSUBORD CLASS 03 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD CLASS 06 2 105 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm FIREUORK AL-ORUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONSI UEAPONS2 Poss Exp CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 062 070 090 110 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 140 150 071 072 090 091 092 100 4 8 1 1 4 1 1 3 SUBTOTAL 3 3 54 1 13 3 46 9 1 2 2 2 1 1 159 1 1 16 5 1 11 1 1 5 1 3 3 70 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 7 21 6 1 1 59 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 20 3 67 15 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 218 1 4 5 20 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 21 1 10 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 11 1 1 5 1 5 3 70 1 1 21 4 68 17 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 1 1 232 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 4 5 22 6 2 12 1 1 5 2 6 4 76 1 2 25 I, 17 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 254 MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Smok ing Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling False Al 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 050 060 062 100 110 010 020 030 040 050 060 1 2 10 1 3 1 1 1 21 3 3 5 3 1 1 15 3 1 2 15 1 6 2 2 1 36 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 15 1 6 2 3 1 37 4 1 1 2 1 4 4 1 2 17 1 6 2 4 1 41 4 1SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 22 TOT Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Ois Cond Her Comm Forgery Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap CLASS 08 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 123 130 150 071 072 090 9 2 30 5 3 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 98 1 5 7 1 1 1 1 45 1 14 2 37 6 3 1 1 3 2 1 143 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 6 11 10 3 2 1 1 1 4 13 1 14 2 39 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 156 1 1 1 11 1 15 2 40 8 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 167 MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling False Al Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Extort Ueapon ROBBERY CLASS 09 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 080 110 010 020 030 040 050 060 080 090 105 110 120 150 071 072 110 121 130 1 2 2 29 1 6 1 3 6 22 2 2 10 5 8 2 8 1 SUBTOTAL 111 3 7 7 1 2 20 Dis Cond CLASS 11 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 372 124 1 2 5 36 1 6 1 3 b 29 2 2 11 7 8 2 8 1 131 1 1 496 5 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 18 43 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 19 1 13 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 5 36 1 6 2 3 6 29 2 1 2 11 8 9 4 11 3 3 1 2 1 149 5 3 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 23 1 2 10 39 1 7 3 4 b ^5 2 1 2 12 9 9 4 12 b 5 1 2 1 172 51 33 8 41 1 2 3 3 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 541 56 597LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 25 SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting 2 040 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF 2 090 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 040 060 062 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 130 150 071 072 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI WEAPONS2 In Riot 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 092 120 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 062 110 16 1 1 2 13 16 1 1 1 1 1 32 2 1 3 14 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 4 3 1 40 22 62 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 7 32 2 1 3 16 1 1 1 1 69 1 2 1 1 6 1 3 5 3 1 34 2 1 4 17 1 1 1 1 75 3 6 1 1 1 4 7 1 1 1 2 2 13 1 3 1 16 10 4 3 8 1 5 1 4 1 2 2 2 21 2 8 1 17 14 5 5 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 65 25 90 12 5 4 3 2 4 3 17 1 1 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 6 14 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 7 1 2 5 2 21 2 8 2 17 20 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 107 1 4 3 2 4 3 1 18 4 8 1 2 5 2 25 2 11 2 19 24 5 9 1 1 1 2 1 125 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 7 1SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 26 TOT Assault Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf FIREARM2 WEAPONSl WEAPONS2 In Riot CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 040 090 105 110 123 150 071 072 082 091 092 120 1 11 6 4 5 2 1 11 3 3 8 1 22 9 7 13 2 1 3 7 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 36 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 142 1 1 2 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 62 5 9 14 7 2 6 2 13 74 216 23 14 37 21 13 34 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 1 2 1 2 1 3 6 1 8 11 1 3 22 9 7 19 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 83 10 1 2 14 1 3 32 10 7 21 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 97 261 38 299SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 16 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 020 030 040 090 105 110 122 072 2 18 5 10 14 1 11 2 1 1 3 29 5 12 15 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 49 16 65 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 30 5 12 15 1 1 68 3 3 1 3 33 5 12 15 1 1 71 Ref Ruis Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONSI UEAPONS2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 062 030 040 070 090 105 110 123 072 090 091 092 3 5 22 1 3 16 8 1 7 5 3 6 29 1 3 21 8 3 1 4 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf Pos Ueap In Riot 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 060 062 110 010 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 090 120 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 62 1 14 2 1 1 1 76 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 7 1 1 3 18 129 14 3 21 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 21 51 2 2 2 5 39 180 6 1 2 12 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 25 4 6 1 2 3 1 6 9 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 6 29 1 3 21 8 3 1 2 1 78 1 2 1 1 3 21 2 2 2 2 5 2 1 1 46 192 4 1 1 2 1 1 10 1 1 1 6 3 2 1 1 16 29 3 6 33 1 4 22 10 1 3 1 3 1 88 1 2 1 1 3 22 1 1 2 8 5 2 2 6 5 1 1 62 221SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 17 Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf CLASS 07 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 072 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 3 23 1 2 4 2 19 11 1 1 69 15 2 3 3 1 25 1 3 38 1 2 b 2 22 14 2 1 94 3 3 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 6 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 7 3 39 1 2 6 4 23 15 2 1 1 3 2 1 12 1 5 1 17 1 1 1 111 1 8 1 1 5 8 3 42 1 2 6 4 23 17 3 1 1 1 119 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS V As Sf Extort CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 090 110 010 020 040 080 090 105 110 150 072 110 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 19 16 20 10 2 73 11 1 4 19 8 45 1 30 1 20 39 18 2 118 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 5 3 5 1 2 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 11 5 16 8 3 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 8 30 1 21 39 18 2 2 1 130 2 5 1 2 5 3 18 2 1 1 2 1 1 10 35 2 23 2} 2 2 1 148 LeftSchl Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 010 020 030 040 050 080 1 1 2 24 1 4 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 32 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 8 1 32 1 4 1 1 4 2 4 8 1 36 1 4SCHOOL: on SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 18 J TOT PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONS1 Extort Ueapon CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 110 121 8 1 18 8 1 5 5 11 9 13 1 29 17 1 5 4 1 1 2 5 3 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 75 35 110 9 5 14 1 1 11 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 14 1 29 19 1 5 2 4 1 1 1 128 1 5 3 2 1 18 14 2 34 22 1 5 2 6 1 2 1 146 INSUBORD CLASS 10 2 105 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 11 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 221 106 327 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 38 31 12 43 5 2 7 2 2 4 374 45 419LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 27 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 2 062 040 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 (\u0026gt; 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 Theft Fighting Ind Exp Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 3 030 040 100 110 091 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 5 1 6 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 8 Ref Ruis Loiter INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 3 062 070 105 110 091 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 SUBTOTAL 2 6 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 9 2 1 2 3 1 9 INSUBORD CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF CLASS 10 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 7 22 2 2 2 1 3 25 2 27SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 28 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Dis Cond CLASS K 1 2 060 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis RAPRINGS Ass Staf CLASS 01 1 1 1 2 3 040 060 062 130 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting Dis Cond RAPRINGS 1 1 2 2 2 062 110 040 110 130 2 1 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 8 FAILOBEY Foul Lan Fighting 1 1 2 060 110 040 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 5 2 2 5 1 1 7 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault 1 1 1 1 2 030 060 062 110 010 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 3 3 6 1 2 1 2 6 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 8 MinAlter Ref Ruis Dis Cond 1 1 2 030 062 110 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 5 Fighting 2 040 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 6 28 5 3 8 1 1 29 8 37LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 29 t\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":"loc_rosaparks_48483","title":"Ebony Parks, 15 years, 1997 [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997"],"dcterms_description":["Title from item."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American girls"],"dcterms_title":["Ebony Parks, 15 years, 1997 [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48483"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc","portrait photographs1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_497","title":"\"Education Policy Analysis: A Catch-22 and More, Little Rock's Incentive School\"","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":["Morgan, Bob","Arkansas Policy Foundation"],"dc_date":["1997"],"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 improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"Education Policy Analysis: A Catch-22 and More, Little Rock's Incentive School\""],"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/497"],"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\nCo \\ --- IIP ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Oftportunitv Throng Innovative Change RECEWSD 4. 0' '''\"O JUN 2 1997 OrriCEOF DEScGREGA'nQH E D U CATI 0 N POLICY ANALYSIS A Catch-22 and More Little Rock^s Incentive Schools (After Catch 22, A novel by Joseph Heller) by Bob Morgan Summer 1997 For those that never knew or have forgotten, a Catch-22 is: 1. a. A situation in which a desire outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions\nb. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. 2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. 3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. 4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition. Ill Center Street, Suite 1610, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-376-9967 Fax: 501-376-6556 email: Aggiemw2@AOL.comin ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Opportunity Through Innovative Change I I I I - I  I  I ' I 4 'JUN 2 W97 EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS A Catch-22 and More Little Rocks Incentive Schools (After Catch 22, A novel by Joseph Heller) by Bob Morgan Summer 1997 For those that never knew or have forgotten, a Catch-22 is: 1. 2. 3. 4. a. A situation in which a desire outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions\nb. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. A tricky or disadvantageous condition. 111 Center Street, Suite 1610, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-376-9967 Fax: 501-376-6556 email: Aggiemw2@AOL.comIMP ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Oplmrhmity Tfirou^ Innovative Change Foreword With special acknowledgment and appreciation to the University of Arkansas Little Rock (UALR) and an unequivocal endorsement for its timely and candid study...  Plain Talk: The Future of Little Rock's Public Schools II In introducing, last February, their milestone analysis of Little Rock's deeply disturbing school crisis and the serious challenges represented by our city's long-running desegregation case, UALR authors quoted Thomas Jefferson. II II n II fl H II II II II II II I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves\nand if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion. Thomas Jefferson Jefferson was right to trust in the power of citizenship and the innate will of people to do what is right and best. And UALR was right to sound a call for the broadest possible citizen involvement in solving our education woes. The key to ending the school crisis in Little Rock hinges on bringing the full community back into the process of changefully armed with facts, knowledge and information, and empowered to get the job done. Responsibility for repairing and restoring high quality education in Little Rock cannotmust not be solely left to those with narrowly defined agendas. They are destined to fail\nand as evidence of their failure, nothing has happened after all these years that resolves our crisis in spite of their continuing actions. Those who would, at all costs, preserve and protect their own interests in this tragedy perpetrate a great wrong on our community and its children. Resolution can never come from the war of competing interests. Nor will courts and government get the job done. They can, however, play a pivotal role in facilitating a return of local control and autonomy. Give responsibility back to the people who own the system and who pay for it. When this happens we will fix our schools and rescue future generations from the continued failure that has characterized public education in Little Rock. The UALR study, in a stunning rebirth of community frankness and intellectual honesty, offered up more \"plain talk\" on our schools than we have heard in years. It is refreshing beyond measure. The Arkansas Policy Foundation pledges to continue the trend by offering more \"plain talk\" from time to time. We begin with an insightful analysis of the \"Catch 22\" aspects of our incentive schools. The commentary that follows was developed by Bob Morgan, a former Associate Monitor with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We commend it to your review and believe it to be a timely and eye-opening analysis. Michael Watson President, APF Jack T. \"Steve  Stephens, Jr. Chairman, APFSchools 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\nany recruitment and/or any II assignment shall be in accordance with each districts student assignment plan. (Point 2) ll As to Point I - This provision is a Catch-22 because as the white enrollment decreased in size there were no applicants for these seats yet the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has insisted that the seats be held long after black parents who could have used the seats had made other choices) Point 2 - For at least six years the LRSD must keep incentive schools but could not phase them out as intended, yet another Catch-22 situation. As inter-district schools were built only a small number of seats were taken out of service at Ish and Stephens compared to the seats added at M. L. King, Washington, Crystal Hill and Clinton The double funding obligation is also ordered by the plan: \"Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated \u0026gt;1 n I I I I experiences/activities. (Point 1) The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. (Point 2) It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district.\"(Point 3) As to Point 1 - Certainly with the high percentage of black students in area schools and the low percentage of white students there is not much meaningful opportunity for desegregated experiences/activities\". Catch-22 once again! Point 2 - The purpose of the incentive school program should not be confused with the purpose of the schools which was to put enough black students into them to create a situation where a 60 40 black white ratio would have been possible. Point 3 - The incentive school program is too broad and nebulous to accomplish this goal. How would meaningful and long-lasting desegregation promoted by this tool be measured? At the time the desegregation plan was sanctioned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in December of 1990 there were 9,344 children in the LRSD area schools. There were 5,980 black children and 3,364 of other races. To attain the 60/40 ratio 934 black children would have to be assigned to incentive schools. To the credit of the LRSD the enrollment numbers confirm that about 400 black students were transferred to incentive schools and there was an increase in other race enrollment, improving the area school ratio in the 91-92 school year. In the 92-93 school year incentive school enrollment decreased by 298. Analysis of enrollment numbers is difficult because of the variables to consider: demographic changes out of the inner city, the closing of Ish and Stephens, the construction of inter-district schools, etc. The almost explosive growth of four- year-old classes also distorts the analysis. However, the strict adherence to incentive schools limited the ability of the district to adapt, and to devise and execute policies that would have retained and attracted more white and other race children. The Little Rock incentive schools fit the description of a Catch - 22! 2I A CATCH 22 AND MORE - LITTLE ROCK INCENTIVE SCHOOLS [AFTER CATCH-22, A NOVEL BY JOSEPH HELLER] For those that never knew or have forgotten a Catch-22 is 1. a. A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions: b. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. 2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. 3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. 4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition.' p I For those new to the Little Rock school desegregation case, you might not be aware of what an incentive school is or why we happen to have them in the Little Rock School District. Some of the explanation will become evident as we continue, but the incentive school remedy to the wrongs of discrimination is traceable back to a law case involving the Detroit School District commonly referred to, as \"Milliken 11\". In this case the United States Supreme Court ordered additional funds to improve Detroit's segregated minority schools. The decision stated that the education components were a means to \"restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have enjoyed in the absence of such conduct\". p p The parties in the Little Rock school desegregation case in January 1989 incorporated the Milliken case approach into their agreement thereby creating the \"incentive schools\" as the vehicle to desegregate the district. They were to motivate black children to higher achievement despite a segregated setting and the program quality was to be an \"incentive\" for white parents to choose them. Why are the Incentive Schools a Catch-22? p The desired Incentive Schools solution is plainly spelled out in the Inter-district Plan page 4: 11' There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, 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 area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish^, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. (Point 1) As new Interdistrict 1 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright  1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. Ish closed at the end of the school year 1992-93. ^Stephens closed at the end of the school year 1993-94How did Little Rock get into this Catch- 22? I Federal Judge Henry Woods rejected the Little Rock School District plan that had been submitted to him for approval and prophetically said \"The plan adequately explains why the Incentive Schools, but fails to explain how...The availability of \"double funding\" is meaningless if the programs on which the money is spent are not designed and implemented to achieve educational excellence. M He knew the plan would fail by saying \"Approval of the LRSD long range plan would have resulted in progressive segregation of elementary schools over a six year period.\" In fact that has happened. I I The Little Rock School District appealed Judge Woods' rejection of the plan to the Eighth Circuit Court. Judge Woods recused himself from the case and it was assigned to Judge Susan Weber Wright, who still has the responsibility for it. In its argument for the acceptance of its desegregation plan the district promised everything, with an attitude that getting out of court was the primary objective. The district naively thought that the court would release them on their own recognizance to do whatever they wanted once the desegregation plan was approved. The district must have been surprised when the Eighth Circuit Court Order of December 1990 continued court supervision and created the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with primary responsibility for monitoring the incentive school implementation. I Do the Incentive Schools provide a workable, equitable solution? I I The Eighth Circuit order* states A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law in an ongoing equitable decree which is manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged, indeed they are not permitted to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. II I I Reference also the years of Incentive School Monitoring Reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Basically these reports are quality control reports on the efforts of the LRSD to follow the plan. They find that the district either by design, ineptitude or poor execution is unable to make the schools work. The District Court has expressed reservations about the Incentive Schools and the plan in general but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals imposed the terms and conditions of this desegregation plan and in effect gave the District Court its \"marching orders\". The District Court judge has made suggestions to the parties as to remedies that they might seek, even asking that the law be researched to determine if another case involving a consent decree could be used to seek relief on the basis of \"changed circumstances\", but no motions were ever filed using \"changed circumstances\". Circumstances have changed in the LRSD. In regard to the Incentive Schools the parties have failed to acknowledge the shift in population out of the so called inner city to southern Little Rock. That shift was recognized by the Joshua Intervenors when they brought suit to reapportion the school board zones, but they have failed in their representation of those children that moved from Incentive Schools to the 09 zip code or to address the westward growth of the city. The District Court also took the unusual step of holding hearings on its own to determine if the Incentive Schools were a viable tool in this desegregation case. Nationally recognized 4 Page 35 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals order of December 1990 3professionals were invited to appear in open court to help provide the District Court and community with some indication if the incentive schools were effective, and if ineffective what new strategies might hold promise for Little Rock. Dr. Herbert Wahlberg, an educational psychologist, testified that the extra funding and enhancements of incentive schools had failed to raise the achievement scores of black children. He stated that he did not believe that incentive schools were effective in raising achievement levels anywhere: he stated that he did not know whether the failure was caused by poor implementation or whether the theory simply does not work. Wahlberg testified that the schools failed in three aspects: They failed to attract white children, achievement scores of black children were not raised, and the \"exotic\" curriculum was inefficiently implemented so that it harmed learning. Wahlberg was asked what he would do to help disadvantaged students in the Little Rock School District. He stated that there is a crisis of achievement in the United States, not just in Little Rock. He said that he would concentrate on learning, would assign more homework, extend the school year and would also change methods of teaching to incorporate mastery learning and cooperative learning. Dr. David Armor stated that most efforts to desegregate schools are counterproductive and do not improve achievement. He said \"my opinion here is that one of the reasons why racial balance by itself doesn't have an impact is that, in fact, it has to overcome really major kinds of family background differences in economics and education. And there's not really a single desegregation plan to my knowledge that has ever overcome those economic conditions, because they are not aimed at the family. They are aimed at school buildings and students and faculty.\" In his expert opinion then, the LRSD desegregation plan was not a workable solution toward reducing the disparity or improving the achievement of black children. Dr. Gary Orfield, of the Harvard Project on School Desegregation, led the writing of a report Giving Separate But Equal Another Chance\", which goes into some detail as to how unworkable the LRSD incentive schools are, also testified. One telling comment on how unworkable the plan was is \"The implementation of Little Rock's Milliken II plan illustrates how unchecked planning and design procedures common in such remedies can produce fundamentally incoherent, ill- conceived and unaffordable programs which so far have demonstrated little promise for reducing educational inequity.\" In his testimony here, he stated that the incentive school plan had lots of conceptual problems magnified with poor implementation. The incentive school plan, he said, was burdensome and complex, required big energy for a low payoff, and contributed to administrative overload. In response to a direct question Orfield said the benefits expected couldn't be obtained. The District Court, having heard this testimony, has not issued an order or opinion, perhaps waiting for a \"white knight\" or \"silver bullet\" solution to this \"Catch-22\" that would free it from issuing a controversial opinion. To the LRSD this testimony could be a \"silver bullet\", but so armed the LRSD has not asked for relief from the District Court. p p p p p p p p p p p Are the Incentive Schools unfair to class members? k This desegregation case is a class action suit and all black children in the LRSD are members of the class\nthose black children for whom relief was sought from the courts. The double funding (LRSD has expended far above the actual double funding obligation) has proven ineffective in improving achievement in the incentive schools and promoting k 4desegregation. Those 64% of class members attending area schools are consequently deprived of scarce resources. In year after year of budget cuts, when computer aides, instructional aides, music teachers, new computers etc. were stricken from the budget, area schools bore the brunt of cuts while incentive school budgets were sacrosanct. The attached chart shows clearly the extent of the inequity to class members in other than incentive schools (area schools, magnet schools and inter-district schools). The LRSD unfortunately has a large percentage (58.52%) of its elementary students that are considered \"disadvantaged\". Of 7,824 disadvantaged children most of whom are black, only 1,167(15%) are enrolled in incentive schools while 6,658 (85%) are in other schools. Of the ten schools (41% of the total) with the highest numbers of disadvantaged children, only Franklin is an incentive school. The 6,658 children needing help require our attention. If one black child was being physically abused in these schools the public outcry would be loud and clear to correct that inequity. Yet this is a different form of abuse inflicted on thousands of children that is ignored. These abused children need early and concentrated help to ever achieve at an acceptable level. I The editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on April 15, 1997 (tax day) addressed the same question, albeit in a different context: \"The greatest social injustice of American society is no, not the back-breaking tax burden foisted on poor working families (including a tax on their groceries in Arkansas) but a system of public education that deprives the children of the poor and ghettoized of anything like an equal chance at acquiring knowledge, self-discipline, and the self- respect that comes with real accomplishment. These kids are being set up for one heckuva fall.\" I I I I I I I I 5School WASHINGTON WAKEFIELD CHICOT FRAhKUN MABELVALE WATSON CLOYffIDALE WEADOWCUFF BOOKS? WLSON Totd StiKlerts 602 426 430 377 429 423 402 402 601 366 Hack 391 365 333 352 306 350 348 304 319 297 Other 211 61 97 25 123 73 54 98 282 69 Black% 64.95% 85.68% 77.44% 93.37% 71.33% 82.74% 86.57% 75.62% 53.08% 81.15% Frcc/Rcduccd Meals Percent 6298% 81.07% 77.31% 86.52% 73.88% 74.83% 77.97% 73.33% 46.94% 73.70% Totd Disadvantaged 379 345 332 326 317 317 313 295 282 270 ML KING DODD MITCFELL BASELINE BALE GARLAhD GEYB? SPRINGS CARXiER \"ROCKEFELLB? MCOB?MOTT 488 284 243 284 307 237 278 627 314 484 252 188 237 223 224 223 223 323 211 262 236 96 6 61 83 14 55 304 103 222 51.64% 66.20% 97.53% 78.52% 7296% 94.09% 80.22% 51.52% 67.20% 54.13% 51.71% 86.90% 98.45% 81.73% 74.93% 94.55% 76.56% 33.02% 65.92% 41.32% 252 247 239 232 230 224 213 207 207 200 p B P WESTERN HILLS JEFFB^SON BRADY FULBRIGHT PULASKI HTS FAIR PARK ** RIGHTSELL FOREST PARK TERRY ROMINE 320 506 374 509 422 242 205 434 537 277 209 220 238 247 201 198 197 204 241 192 111 286 136 262 221 44 8 230 296 85 65.31% 43.48% 63.64% 48.53% 47.63% 81.82% 96.10% 47.00% 44.88% 69.31% 61.32% 38.34% 49.61% 36.15% 43.55% 75.46% 8296% 36.95% 28.65% 54.59% 196 194 186 184 184 183 170 160 154 151 P   P BADGETT WOODRUFF GIBBS OTTER CREEK WLLIAMS 185 202 309 332 513 13371 151 136 164 135 264 8728 65% 34 66 145 197 249 4643 35% 81.62% 67.33% 53.07% 40.66% 51.46% 77.73% 68.46% 39.35% 34.83% 2242% Total Disadvantaged in Incentive Schools Total Disadvantaged in Other Schools 144 138 122 116 115 7824 58.52% 1167 6658 15% 85% Mt Incenthe Schools The enrollment figures are based on the 1995-96 school year. The chart is based on information obtained from the LRSD. II P I 6Is money being wasted? On page 40 of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals order of December 1990, the Court wrote \"If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. tl Some people have argued that none of the money spent on children is wasted money. But a prudent person would suggest that there is waste if spending on \"exotic\" programs is done carelessly or if there is a vacant seat in a classroom or on a school bus, if facilities are neglected, if necessary supplies are not purchased, or expensive items are purchased then are not used or are misused. The extra staff at the incentive schools including underutilized teachers, and class size limitations is waste. The old buildings that are in constant need of repair and are energy inefficient constitute a waste of resources. A particularly embanassing waste was the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) on which almost twenty million dollars was expended with poor results. I I I The excess number of seats with the resultant overstaffing in the school district and the failure of the school board to reduce the excess by closing schools is waste of the highest magnitude. In other school districts (Cleveland Ohio, Hartford Connecticut and the District of Columbia) the Court recognized the waste of excess capacity and ordered schools closed. Cleveland closed 14 at one time\nD.C. is under order to close 16. Most of the old incentive schools already have replacement schools in the area (M. L. King, Carver, and Washington) or seats available in the new PCSSD Interdistrict Schools (Clinton and Crystal Hill). For year after year the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has calculated the double funding obligation of the LRSD for the incentive schools and in almost every year expenses in the incentive schools have exceeded that obligation. In the December 18, 1996 ODM report on incentive school double funding Recommendation 1 stated \"In each annual budget, allot an amount of money adequate to meet the double funding obligation in the incentive schools, and then control expenditures to prevent overspending that budget category.\" This is a classic \"Catch- 22\" for the only way to control expenditures is to cut the wasteful programs and extra staff, but cuts have not been looked on favorably by the District Court. Would a prudent person say there is waste in the LRSD Incentive Schools? I Why are the Incentive Schools so important? The Incentive Schools are the crux of the LRSD desegregation plan. The Interdistrict Plan still would exist and the Financial Settlement still would exist, but if the Incentive School provisions in the LRSD Desegregation Plan were removed there would not be much left. Most of that remainder is obsolete timelines or has lost its significance i.e. the pages devoted to curriculum at Parkview High School. In its December 1990 order, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said on page 38 \"In order for some schools to be well integrated it may be necessary to tolerate a small number of all-black 7schools.\" (Emphasis added) and on page 39 \"The commitment to provide double funding for the incentive schools is crucial to our holding that the settlement plans are not unconstitutional per se.\" This would imply that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals felt too, that the Incentive Schools were the crux of the desegregation plan for the LRSD. Our schools have not become well integrated and we have created a class within a class. The continued existence of the incentive schools serves the purpose of various special interest groups. These groups could be called the \"desegregation establishment\". Their interests might be power, influence or continued existence. It has little to do with children, black or white. n What Next? v The importance of doing something now to help our disadvantaged black children to be successful is obviously important to the black community but it is important to the white community as well. As a society we cannot tolerate a perpetuation, under a new guise, of the two tiered education system of segregation. We cannot allow a black child to fail to learn to read in the first grade and then whine when lack of accomplishment by that child leads to discipline problems in the fourth and tragically later on, a prison sentence. II II The Incentive Schools are not the answer to this problem! II Time has run out on the Little Rock School District. The Incentive Schools have been around since 1990 and certainly have not achieved their objective. The district is about to start the tenth stanza of the same old song. To put it another way we have a 1966 Buick and if we paint it, put new tires on it and get the best radio money can buy we still have a 1966 Buick not a 1997 Cadillac. We need a new transportation system not a fixed up old car! II I A noted management book \"High Velocity Culture Change\" warns \"Culture change moves at a slow crawl if the existing culture gets to call the shots on methodology. Or to put it another way, you'll have trouble creating a new culture if you insist on ways that are consistent with the old one.\" They also point out that we are in an era where organizations must adopt a \"do what works\" mentality instead of trying to live out a \"do what feels good\" philosophy. V R The LRSD is too tied to the old culture and lacks the board leadership and management capability to even ask for change. The chilling effect of being involved in court for so many years has created a paranoid mentality that stifles innovation. The current efforts of the district using various \"work groups\" while commendable are simply those new tires on an old car. We need the money that is being spent on this tired old, out of gas car to provide equity to our children and the seed capital for innovative change. R R By any basic category for evaluation  such as educational, managerial, financial, and discipline  the school system has failed our children placing itself in a state of educational and operational crisis. Fundamental justice for the school children, their parents, and all the taxpayers and citizens who support and depend upon the LRSD, requires a complete overhaul in governance structure and management systems. 8I Because action by the parties is lacking the District Court appears to be the only authority with the capability to force the necessary systemic change that is needed. It should act unilaterally to change the status quo and provide the guidance towards new solutions and reform. There should be a new approach to the issue of governance. The present system is not working but we pretend that it is as evidenced by the \"business as usual\" search effort for a new superintendent and the failure of the board of directors to address the financial situation. Other districts have faced the same types of problems and different authorities have imposed new governance for failed school systems as precedent. In the District of Columbia, Chicago, Hartford and Newark, the existing leadership systems were replaced by structures more accountable for education performance, less bureaucratic, and less sensitive to politics. I Most recently, the Connecticut legislature on April 16, 1997 took control from the Hartford School Board and created a trusteeship. In New Jersey three school districts, Jersey City, Patterson and Newark have had new governance imposed on them. On a larger scale the Kentucky Supreme Court in 1990 ordered complete school reform from finance to curriculum for the entire State of Kentucky and the latest reports are very favorable. Is it a transferable system? H There are some who feel the Kentucky story is too unique to be transferable, because it was n5 launched by a court case and swept out the old system. \"But that may be its very strength: I Improving America's schools may demand radical surgery rather than piece-meal experimentation. By dumping an inadequate system and starting from scratch, by investing more and tying funding to performance, Kentucky has boosted its children's academic prospects. Arguably, that has lifted I .,6 its economic prospects as well. Those are important lessons from an unlikely place. The goal of sweeping change is to not only improve the efficiency of management, but also, and more importantly, educational effectiveness. The mission of any school system is to educate students and its failure in this mission provides a compelling basis for intervention. For Little Rock a governance structure would have to be established to insure accountability to the District Court and community. Accountability not based on numbers of tasks performed, bodies counted, maps on the wall, color of the paint etc. but on the financial stability of the district and the achievement of our children. Plain Talk, the UALR report identifies several \"backlog\" items as priorities and there are others but the issues and problems are overwhelming for this district to address. A court appointed Chief Operating Officer with court and community support, working with a new superintendent might provide a radical format for success. We know where the current path leads - to failure. The problem of achievement in the early grades is another issue requiring immediate court intervention. The District Court should order that attention be directed to improving achievement. Currently there is no Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, no direction and the usual dysfunctional result. There needs to be professional leadership by staff with proven track records of curriculum development, staff development and innovation. Plain Talk, the UALR report called for bold experimentation to identify \"things that work\". We have some people in the district that 5 Susan Traiman, Director of the Education Initiative for the Business Roundtable from Business Week April 7,1997  Peter Galuszka in Harlan County Ky. -Business Week April 7, 1997 9are successful in implementing programs and the new leadership should use them as examples that the LRSD can do things successfully. Instead of a new desegregation plan the court should order that an education plan with the goal of increased achievement for all LRSD students be implemented. Again from \"High Velocity Culture Change\": II It's time for tough love. Caring Harder. Caring enough to take the company (district) through the tough, unpopular struggle of culture change so that it can survive. Trying not to disturb people, seeking to appease everybody by taking it slow and easy, can be the crudest move of all.\" p Parting Words p As the Little Rock School District searches for a new superintendent and the work groups continue their tasks. Plain Talk, the UALR report on the LRSD, has appropriate comments in Chapter 7 that bolster the previous section and are worth repeating. II p It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the problem is systemic. Changing the p players, specifically the superintendents, has not changed the outcome of the game. Figure 7-1 indicates that they are simply burning out sooner. It is also hard to avoid the conclusion that some important changes a modem urban school district should undertake simply will not occur, given the current complexity of the decision-making environment. For example, a strong case can be made for offering a calendar and schedule deliberately constructed to fit the needs and schedules of parents and families today. But it is obvious that LRSD officials do not have the time and energy to develop and put into place a revised or p p p expanded calendar and schedule. II Continued: p What Does It Add Up To? Several observations seem unavoidable after this review of the sources and consequences of complexity as faced by LRSD officials. p The environment within which LRSD officials operate is so complex that it is crippling. The superintendent and the central administration frequently suffer \"system overload\"like an electrical power system sometimes does in extremely hot weather, or like a tractor does when too many heavy wagons have been hitched at one time. p k The LRSD cannot unilaterally simplify the decision-making environment within which it operates. The keys to a manageable future lie outside the LRSD itselfin the hands of the community and the court. k k The LRSD needs stable leadership to give it direction and consistency and to assure soundness in all its operations. Since 1982, however, the LRSD has had six \"permanent\" and four interim superintendents\na total of 10 leadership changes in k 10 k riI I 15 years. Frequent changes in leadership have meant that instability and uncertainty have become almost permanent features, with negative effects on the morale and performance of school personnel. Frequent changes in leadership also undermine public confidence in an organization. In a fundamental sense, it does not appear to matter who the superintendent is. We conclude with an assessment of the status quo as reflected in comments by former superintendents:  Little Rock would be one of the top five most troublesome desegregation cases in the country. The district has the reputation of just not being workable at all.  The Little Rock desegregation plan is so complex and so difficult to administer, it is preordained that people cannot carry out the plan in the schools.  The desegregation plan in Little Rock is unworkable. It is so prescriptive that it ties the hands of the superintendent and the board. The system is like a dysfunctional family. You have a system that is set up to fail.  The way things are now, a superintendent cannot succeed. I Observations and Options The status quo is an option that could be chosen deliberately or by default. But the plans that were intended to be a pathway out of an undesirable situation in 1989 have become an impediment to progress.\" I Post Script I Only fundamental change will reverse the situation as described in \"Plain Talk\" and this paper. The community of Little Rock must have the civic will to institute a structure for the public schools that puts students first, links performance and accountability for education results, and provides a disciplined environment in which learning can occur. Achieving this objective requires that the District's parents and children, its teachers, and other school system employees recognize that the status quo is harmful to the goals of a quality public education and therefore is unacceptable. At this time the civic will is lacking and the responsible officials don't have the collective strength to make necessary changes. Action by the court would be loudly decried as \"more federal intervention\" but it could force change and prepare the district for a return to complete local control. Since 1957 the federal court has been involved with this district\nlet 1997 be the year that the court defines the terms of disengagement. 11I Afterthoughts on Bob Morgan's Suggestions I Where there is a will, there is a way. The people have the will. Even the Judge may have it. The school board doesn't. I I I Bob Morgan's timely suggestions are born out of a sincere desire to avert the serious consequences of an almost certain economic collapse of the Little Rock School District. He is among a handful of area business and political leaders who have astutely discerned that the district simply cannot operate, or move forward, with any real success under the status quo of the current desegregation plan. Something must changeand quickly. The Catch-22 of the incentive schools in Little Rock is, indeed, a convoluted and complex barrier to freeing our schools from federal oversight and the clutches of a \"consent decree\" that, in many respects, seems unbreakable. I Dire situations often call for unprecedented solutions and Little Rock is surely a case where bold actionas opposed to no actionis warranted. The judge has reason to intervene even in a consent decree if there is a defect in the plan (this plan is demonstrably unworkable) or if there is a change of circumstances (as LRSD has had) or to further the original purpose of the plan. What better purpose could be served than restoring a measure of equity to disadvantaged black children. I I Still, while there may be some precedent for a judge's unilaterally intervening in a desegregation case ( Hillsborough County in Florida), several APF legal experts on desegregation issues feel it is unlikely that Judge Susan Weber Wright would take such action. The responsibilities she would take upon herself would be enormous-with no real guarantees of success. It would be risky for one person to assume such a burden-especially a judge. Moreover, in a time when \"judicial activism\" is an issue dominating the national policy debate, judges are taking care to stick to their role of upholding law rather than making it. Never-the-less, Bob Morgan has made the all-important first part of a critical argument that provides compelling reasons to dissolve the plan. The Catch-22 of incentive schools and the structure of the plan itself make it \"impossible\" to break or to administer. I What would further compel a judge to \"break a contract\" between parties? APF believes it hinges on a demonstration of political and civic will by the people. The current obstacle is, of course, the local school boardthe seven member elected body representing the people. Some school board members are captive to special interests who clearly have a stake in the case. Others fear the personal or business consequences of being too bold or aggressive. The people of Little Rock have been content to tolerate a board unwilling to unify on this issue and seek its resolution. So have many local politicians and business leaders. The political and civic will is simply not there yet, or a school board reflective of that will would be in place. And until the Judge sees an expression of such will, it is likely she will not act regardless of who may file a motion or seek to intervene. I I In the meantime, a growing number of business leaders are suggesting that it may, in fact, take the district's financial collapse to disrupt the status quo and set the stage for a whole new paradigm of education...one open to ideas such as charter schools and parental choice. They may be right. The war of competing interests will rage on in Little Rock's desegregation case\nthe peoplefrustrated by the dominance of those interestswill continue exhibiting a sense of futility in affecting change, and the Judge will sit and wait...and wait...and wait. I And in her waiting there is a disturbing irony. Why? Because Judge Wright likely wants relief for Little Rock's schools as much the people in this city want it. But she needs visible evidence in her courtof a community and its leaders united in their common will to take responsibility for such a dramatic change. Little Rock is more than ready\nweary of the disabling and divisive effects of the nation's longest running desegregation case (forty years). But the school board itself, representing the people, cannot seem to muster the wisdom or courage to lead a desperately needed initiative for the sake of our schools and our children. They cannot find their own collective political will to band together, putting children above all else, and move for our release. Until they do. Little Rock will remain a community torn by competing education interests and hostage to its past. Will we ever move on? The answer, at least for now, appears to be no. Michael Watson, President, APF\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\u003eMorgan, Bob\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas Policy Foundation\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1097","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case (Pulaski County Special School District unitary status)","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":["1997/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case (Pulaski County Special School District unitary status)"],"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/1097"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 438-446\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_36652123","title":"Federal immigration law enforcement in the Southwest : civil rights impacts on border communities","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Arizona Advisory Committee","United States Commission on Civil Rights. Western Regional Office"],"dcterms_spatial":["Mexican-American Border Region","United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997"],"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":["Los Angeles, CA (3660 Wilshire Blvd., Rm. 810, Los Angeles 90010) : U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Western Regional Office"],"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":["Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Collection (Thurgood Marshall Law Library)"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights--Mexican-American Border Region","Noncitizens--Civil rights--Mexican-American Border Region","Emigration and immigration law--United States","United States. Immigration Border Patrol","Illegal immigration--Mexican-American Border Region"],"dcterms_title":["Federal immigration law enforcement in the Southwest : civil rights impacts on border communities"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12im6.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_36652123"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["[7], 125 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47783","title":"[Flyer with Rosa Parks' portrait for \"Pathways to Freedom '97\" program celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Flyer with Rosa Parks' portrait for \"Pathways to Freedom '97\" program celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47783"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["fliers (printed matter)color1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":444,"next_page":445,"prev_page":443,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5316,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"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":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"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":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}