{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_681","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"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","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"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/681"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL EXHIBIT LIST DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The following Exhibits, copies of which have been delivered to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, are submitted in support of LRSD's \"Motion to Close Stephens Incentive School\" which will be heard on June 7, 1994: 1, Letter from Ann S. Brown to Dr. Henry P. Williams dated February 18, 1994 with attachments\n2. Stephens School Relocation Timeline\n3 . Fast Track Evaluation Program: School\nStephens Elementary 4. Facilities Study Recommendation Concerning Stephens and Garland schools\n5. Computer printout showing cost per occupant to operate various LRSD schools and other facilities\n6. Excerpt from facilities study showing estimates for renovation and repair of Stephens school\n7. February 24, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Mayor Jim Daily\n8, March 9, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Foster Strong, President, The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation\n9. March 25, 1993 Memorandum to LRSD Board of Directors regarding Stephens site selection. 10. July 28, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 11. August 11, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 12. Petition of Stephens community residents. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By^ Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Exhibit List has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of June, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hei Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each docmnent. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and I met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours. t Cid-- \"Ann S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All Counsel EXHIBIT 1School Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Hts. McDermott Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller Interdistrict Washington King Romine Magnet LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Principal Capacity Black White Total 93-94 Black Available Percent of 93-94 93-94 93-94 Percent Seats Capacity Booker Williams Carver Gibbs Carolyn Teeter Francis Cawthon La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Mac Huffman Lillie Carter Mike Oliver Pat Higgenbotham Julie Davenport Patricia Howse Scott Morgan Mary Menking Jerry Worm Otis Presler Mary Golston Eleanor Cox Gwen Ziegler Willie Morris Levanna Wilson Barbara Means Mary Jane Cheatham Teresa Courtney Frederick Fields Franklin Davis Robert Brown Samuel Branch Lonnie Dean Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Karen Buchanan Sadie Mitchell Lionel Ward Dr. Cheryl Simmons Dr. Ed Jackson Mary Guinn Donna Davis Incentive school capacities reflected in the 1992 Desegregation Plan Totals for Elementary Schools Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; Percent of Capacity 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 544 346 346 298 346 425 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 1482 1809 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51 47% 45.03% 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97% 102% 109% 115% 96% 106% 98% 103% 147 311 189 215 .263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 4074 1629 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 88 27 36 -4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73% 95% 89% 101% 85% 93% 91% 74% 88% 90% 91% 76% 75% 88% 90% 78% 87% 300 181 215 141 184 240 45 24 15 4 5 100 345 205 230 145 189 340 2305 * 1261 193 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63% 59% 66% 49% 55% 80% 63% 939 692 487 2118 656 517 613 353 2139 16332 2456 451 357 247 1055 321 257 325 170 1073 270 196 87 721 553 334 553 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 218 139 153 510 77% 80% 69% 76% 274 215 270 129 595 472 595 299 888 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 61 45 18 54 178 91% 91% 97% 85% 92% 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Total Black White Franklin Incentive 345 544 63 199 270 260 10 Garland Incentive 205 346 59 141 118 117 1 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 66 116 131 127 4 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 Stephens Incentive 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 Sub Total Incentive Schools 1,454 2,305 63 851 769 749 20 Booker Magnet 595 656 91 61 N/A N/A N/A Carver Magnet 595 613 97 18 N/A N/A N/A Gibbs Magnet 299 353 85 54 N/A N/A N/A Sub Total Magnet Schools 1,489 1,622 92 133 0 0 0 King Interdistrict 553 692 80 139 90 89 1 Washington Interdistrict Magnet 721 939 77 218 262 253 9 Sub Total Interdistrict Schools 1,274 1,631 78 357 352 342 10 Woodruff (Area) 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 Central Kindergarten 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A Satellite Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 747 722 25 Contiguous Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 Grand Total 4,503 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,081 117 Live downtown and attend downtown Total Black White 281 190 192 165 238 136 1,202 130 130 102 362 331 406 737 156 46 N/A N/A s 2,503 263 172 177 163 192 135 1,102 116 124 88 328 317 383 700 113 46 N/A N/A 2,289 18 18 15 2 46 1 100 14 6 14 34 14 23 37 43 0 N/A N/A 214 Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White 55 28 27 14 29 22 142 9 271 461 465 198 1,124 217 314 531 75 4 N/A 2,005 6 8 21 17 62 6 140 202 206 83 491 17 65 82 33 4 N/A 750 8 5 80 3 131 259 259 115 633 200 249 449 42 0 N/A 1,255 Note: Incentive school capacities are based on a 20 to 1 ratio in kindergarten through sixth grade, 18 to 1 in programs for four-year-olds, 18 to 1 in programs for three-year- olds, 17 to 1 in programs for trwo-year-olds, and 10 to 1 in the programs for infants.There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area: Brady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targed school 66 33 33 16 180 66 114 23 162 60 102 29 273 71 202 29 191 72 119 32 138 25 113 29 124 39 85 22Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended Incentive Zone School Attending School Franklin___________________ Garland___________________ Mitchell___________________ Rightsell__________________ Rockefeller_______________ Booker___________________ Carver____________________ Gibbs_____________________ Williams Badgett___________________ Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fullbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek_______________ Pulaski Heights Elem Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson__________________ Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Total of Incentive School Zone Blocks i I ! T T T I T ! I - i I cc c s u, o t IO O  I S! q\u0026gt; i W ! ib 194\n101 51 41 41 101 41 _IL 12! 21 261 31 151 51 01 141 181 161 81 201 7! 2! 351 30! ___r 18! 71 10 12' 1 3i ___0. 11 111 10! 1! 1 21 7i 136i 6i 211 II 0| 2i 3! 01 __4^ 3! 4 3 0 4 6 7 1 1 5 1 109 6' 71 2 6 9' 2\\ 31 4 8 539! 14 5 0 81 181 41 1| 21 191 141 11 7 11 141 41 -51 11 01 9 _3L 5j 31 lOi 51 4! 6 12i 5! 15\n14! 7' 7\\ 01 3! 3! 2! 41 01 9? 1\\ 11 0 II 312 318 Ol 11 8! 1291 71 8! 6 31 1| 01 31 21 31 ~6r~ 1! 31 1i 5, 61 131 4! 2'. 31 111 3! 9 0 01 61 6i 291 IT 2. 11 . 41 31 01 01 O I It ' 41 41 31 4 118 8 3 7 1 4 4 2 4 6 3 6 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 4 IO c v -c Q. o W 3 9! 11 Ol 1 0 o o c u tn -0 -o 320 01 2! 31 0! 1 0 9 31 11 3! 1 0 6 3 20 0 1' 3 4 6 2 1 257 2! II i\n8! 51 2! 01 151 O' Ih 1. 01 1 0 821 121 2 3 0 51 _L1 51 3! 01 01 200 a c J? S) 25 213 161 132 144 138 33 21 60 22 9 44 14 43 31 8 19 32 52 26 25 69 35 11 76 83 16 39 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 29 35 25 4 4 1946 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedSchools Sending Students to Incentive Schools Incentive School Sending Zone School Franklin_____________________ Garland_____________________ Mitchell______________________ Rightsell_____________________ Rockefeller__________________ Stephens____________________ Badgett______________________ Bale_________________________ Baseline Brady Chicot_______________________ Cloverdale Elem____________ Dodd________________________ Fair Park____________________ Forest Park_________________ Fullbright____________________ Geyer Springs______________ Jefferson____________________ M.L King___________________ Mablevale Elem____________ McDermott__________________ Meadowcliff_________________ Otter Creek_________________ Pulaski Heights Elem_______ Romine_____________________ Terry Wakefield___________________ Washington_________________ Watson_____________________ Western Hills_______________ Wilson Woodruff___________________ North Little Rock____________ Pulaski County Legal Transfer______________ No zone I I I I i I I I I I Total of Students Attending Incentive Schools .c c 194 1 5 01 41 3 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 - 31 Ti 01 71 201 61 4 31 91 21 9i 3l 21 3i 0! Oi 11 II I 1 336' O c \u0026lt;D c (0 O \"O) c: 4a  Qi  .O) S \u0026lt;b u o K 101 1361 11 11 4l 91 01 61 01 4' 1\n1! 31 1 0\n0 01 1' 01 0\n81 61 2\nO' 01 3, O' 4 01 1 2' 0! 0 01 O' 0 51 109 8 3' 1 0 1' 0 3 4l 11 6j 1291 4 0 0 4I II 21 71 4. 204\n01 11 2i 31 21 11 61 71 Ti 31 31 20 1i 21 1 0i 11\n3\n0! 4\n2^ Oi 01 Oi 0! I 221! 01 o' o' 3 2 o' 1 ' 0 4' 3! tT 01 81 2! 11 Qi 31 01 0: 31 11 0 1' 0! 01 4- 2 11 1 187' 1181 ZT 81 TT 91 T 61 31 21 81 121 ___ 391 __ 21 ___ 7! 6 61 31 8' 41 311 5i 1! 41 10 1 131 1. O' 380' c (1) c Q. .jU W 10 19 3 0 0 82 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 01 6 1  0 0 1 4 0 5i 0 0 4 1 1 0 01 145 o o _ c X a o Q C co 42 c c O QI o l~ W N 227 170 131 145 133 96 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 22 15 51 19 3 38 39 35 11 12 25 6 63 12 7 14 16 8 17 8 2 1473 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedWashington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 17 17 17 17 Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central McClellan McClellan McClellan 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Bale Bale Bale Bale Brady Brady Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett I Badgett Name Class K K K K IK K K K K K K 03 04 05 P4 01 05 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Student ID Zone Block 939926 940177 958755 959096 959252 959506 959807 959812 950081 960545 960805 929207 950598 918916 959373 952488 916865 936007 937049 927595 928747 930971 933965 934913 935342 936452 929232 931103 937535 919341 922211 925877 961005 908367 910318 913061 916045 918958 918964 918967 919347 920475 932327 895059 896341 896527 897157 905235 910119 910347 910385 913270I 913968 925876 926004 937531 482 482 481 481 484 481 240 483 124 301 484 481 123 481 220 474 478 240 483 220 240 220 123 240 220 220 240 126 483 220 126 126 123 220 240 220 240 482 123 483 220 220 240 220 124 123 482 240 220 124 126 220 474 126 483 483 Page 1Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett McDermott McDermott McDermott McDermott Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Name Class Student ID Zone Block 06 K K K K K K P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 01 02 06 06 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 K K 01 03 K P4 01 01 01 02 02 03 03 03 03 06 06 06 K K K 01 01 03 03 961311 939897 939944 939946 952423 959551 961273 956706 956789 956798 957014 957442 958430 959481 959478 909989 959477 936945 951189 930498 936457 936467 930382 930884 917043 924017 911525 915454 918878 932095 932096 951930 959515 934286 929357 960765 958854 938480 950814 960294 929108 960292 929935 935767 935783 960649 918997 935784 950740 951261 956384 959345 934018 935131 925116 930446 220 240 220 220 220 125 220 481 240 125 126 483 220 483 483 481 483 240 124 126 124 124 124 478 126 124 124 478 240 481 481 126 478 240 240 126 483 126 124 483 125 483 240 220 126 123 126 126 123 124 220 125 483 482 482 481 Page 2Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 25 I 25 I 25 I 25 25 26 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Garland Garland Garland Garland Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Western Hills Western Hills Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson I Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem 03 05 06 K P4 02 K K P4 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 04 05 05 06 06 K K 04 06 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 06 06 06 K 01 01 951919 930447 896347 938615 957032 952489 952490 960770 957595 935182 951670 951917 961153 961239 961470 928428 929776 933656 934065 934387 935564 935766 961152 930745 951869 923996 913547 951872 896357 951672 959482 961295 923304 896342 950885 961465 930524 930525 930865 932094 936961 924292 929835 930397 937012 937277 930572 932018 937851 957844 910115 911236 957846 956673 934242 951957 481 481 124 482 482 474 474 127 220 124 478 123 482 478 240 481 126 484 482 123 240 220 482 126 478 483 123 483 126 478 124 220 220 220 124 483 125 125 125 481 125 124 482 126 220 481 123 220 482 123 127 126 123 220 126 125 Page 3Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller' Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller 02 04 05 K 01 01 02 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 06 K 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 06 K 01 02 03 03 03 04 05 05 05 06 K 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 i03 04 04 04 05 935085 916339 918115 951336 931558 933883 937378 916712 916958 960998 910860 914224 912606 914018 960997 960360 951496 951497 926800 931798 935969 928641 936600 918895 936601 917160 896351 940141 961203 930135 922914 929087 932037 917590 910227 919152 920191 912910 959352 934077 934479 934849 935715 926278 928123 928183 928187 928301 928360 928510 930459 930461 918346 921616 922162 913922 125 483 484 125 126 127 126 482 127 484 484 127 126 124 484 127 124 124 127 483 124 124 481 124 481 127 124 482 240 220 240 482 481 220 220 126 484 125 240 482 482 220 483 220 220 478 220 301 483 301 220 220 124 220 220 220 Page 4Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Romine Stephens ' Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 K K P2 P3 P4 P4 P4 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 06 K K 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 06 06 06 06 06 K K 01 03 05 05 01 04 04 04 06 02 03 04 04 05 06 916520 917227 896368 905240 910579 910629 930206 939636 939895 939176 952196 956808 956973 958660 950305 953072 928204 929152 935764 935765 937347 937348 931438 932294 935781 961082 961083 959811 928486 933344 923617 959509 917620 957969 893243 894270 896417 910527 959005 959100 960511 934154 927548 910809 930496 935180 917504 923334 925326 895902 932736 930750 915829 924742 924360 896432 220 301 220 220 483 220 240 220 478 482 220 220 220 220 478 474 483 474 482 482 482 482 478 482 482 484 484 484 125 124 482 481 124 474 220 220 220 482 478 482 124 474 474 220 126 124 124 483 124 240 474 126 220 220 474 240 Page 5Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 44 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Terry Terry Terry Terry Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson 06 06 K K K 01 01 01 01 01 04 05 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 K 01 06 06 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 05 05 06 K K 01 02 03 04 06 06 907223 912946 957974 959908 960923 951862 934208 935650 950854 952103 930414 911752 950976 928038 959669 959670 951921 928039 936097 936420 925592 931927 919839 961394 951013 955199 955201 933364 952129 961258 925000 926057 928808 932135 908112 923295 931269 907724 910429 913208 910438 957988 961259 938481 930250 922739 927950 894474 914000 126 220 125 123 220 484 220 124 125 124 478 124 240 481 478 478 220 474 481 481 220 220 220 220 483 481 481 483 125 126 125 125 483 125 125 124 482 240 124 478 478 125 126 220 220 125 127 127 240 Total Students: 329 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Unaudited Page 6Dept. Name \"Western\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 47 24 20 38 48 30 18 40 Terry Forest Park McDermott Pulaski Heights Fullbright Jefferson Brady Romine * Excluding Williams T otals / Averages LRSD Per Pupil Expenditure by Elementary School 1993-1994 Budget Budget 93-94 $1,145,178.91 $988,864.02 $1,248,156.17 $978,390.22 $1,324,665.59 $1,299,887.52 $1,046,436.40 $1,267,911.36 $9,299,490.19 \"Southwestern\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 46 33 51 50 29 52 37 31 22 32 28 44 Mablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield Otter Creek Western Hills Watson Geyer Spnngs Cloverdale Baseline Dodd Chicot Wilson $1,127,741.07 $1,008,936.95 $1,062,990.19 $844,592.87 $846,932.77 $1,131,673.02 $748,975.30 $1,011,782.28 $974,301.85 $834,015.87 $1,550,045.51 $1,144,796.51 PTE 45 37 42 40 47 45 43 45 46 33 41 30 34 43 34 42 41 35 64 40 Enrollment Black Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget Spent on Black Children T otals! Averages $12,286,784.19 \"Fringe\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 23 17 19 Fair Park Bale Badgett $867,162.06 $1,117,713.33 $708,951.85 32 43 28 T otals / Averages $2,693,827.24 \"Inner Citv\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45 35 42 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Woodruff M L. King Washington Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $644,242.24 $1,588,019.16 $2,278,100.33 $1,567,895.14 $1,764,565.19 $1,311,925.10 $1,238,154.99 $1,408,766.58 $1,273,272.88 $70,411.25 27 77 90 62 72 50 44 50 46 \"Inner City Schools as a Group Incentive Schools Only Woodruff. King \u0026amp; Washington $13,074,941.61 $8,564,579.88 $4,510,361.73 *Excluding Carver,Gibbs and Booker Magnets Total Black Enrollment Black Enrollment in Non-lncentive Schools Black Enrollment in Incentive Schools 561 458 509 398 520 504 397 334 243 200 262 190 233 213 263 247 43 44 51 48 45 42 66 74 $2,041.32 $2,159.09 $2,452.17 $2,458.27 $2,547.43 $2,579.14 $2,635.86 $3,796.14 $496,040.06 $431,818.35 $642,469.38 $467,070.71 $593,552.08 $549,357.23 $693,231.17 $937,647.02 3681 1851 50% $2,526.35 $4,676,271.76 488 434 447 341 332 442 288 386 343 292 509 354 311 306 337 141 215 353 208 304 265 189 356 263 64 71 75 41 65 80 ,72 79 77 65 70 74 $2,310.94 $2,324.74 $2,378.05 $2,476.81 $2,551.00 $2,560.35 $2,600.61 $2,621.20 $2,840.53 $2,856.22 $3,045.28 $3,233.89 $718,703.84 $711,370.29 $801,404.24 $349,230.48 $548,465.50 $903,802.21 $540,926.61 $796,844.08 $752,740.50 $539,825.34 $1,084,118.27 $850,512.66 4656 3248 70% $2,638.91 $8,597,944.01 263 303 189 755 236 553 721 345 340 230 189 205 145 2964 1454 1510 200 225 132 557 147 357 451 300 240 215 184 181 141 2216 1261 955 7372 6611 1261 76 74 70 74% 62 65 63 87 71 93 97 88 97 75% 87% 63% 100% 84% 16% $3,297.19 $3,688.82 $3,751.07 . $3,567.98 $2,729.84 $2,871.64 $3,159.64 $4,544.62 $5,189.90 $5,704.02 $6,551.08 $6,872.03 $8,781.19 $4,411.25 $5,890.36 $2,986.99 $3,256.57 $2,739.83 $5,965.67 $659,438.83 $829,985.15 $495,140.97 $1,987,366.59 $401,286.48 $1,025,176.93 $1,424,997.57 $1,363,387.08 $1,245,575.43 $1,226,364.77 $1,205,399.57 $1,243,837.81 $1,238,148.11 $10,374,173.74 $7,522,712.76 $2,851,460.98 $25,635,756.09 $18,113,043.33 $7,522,712.76 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng based upon inforrnation supplied by the Little Rock School Distnct Based upon Octi, 1993 enrollment data and LRSD 1993-94 Budget Unauditedstudent Counts of Sending and Receiving Schools - LRSD Elementary Grades - Summary Sending Zone School  Attending School Badgett ______ Bale __________ _ _____ Booker _ _____ Carvw___________ Chicot 1 Cloverdale Elem D odd  _____________ Fair ___________ _ Fran^ FdIxyM____________ _ ____ __ \u0026lt;^er Spongy____ JeflerMn _ __ ML King _ ______ McOermqn ___ Meadowdifl _________ __________ __________ Pulastd Heights Bem Righlsei____________ RockefeKer___________ Ronine_____________ Stephere____________ ____________ W^ehetd WasNngIqn _ We^n HiMs _____ Woodufi Central Kindergarten Fair kmdagarten Hal Kindergarten_____ McClelan Kindergarten Partvrew Kindergarten 106 _ 1 b i Ip 1 11 1 q 2 0 0 0 0' 0 1 b q q q q 0 0 1 0 8 Zq 1 b q 1 Ji 2 ZI q 1 i J 2 158 _q 14 7  _ 4 0 ' 9 _5  5 14 3 _6 3 12 4 5 '0 _7 .1 2 6 0 14 14 Z_ 1 _5 21i _ b 11 12 7 '2 i S 1 _q 0 ' 196 Z's \"1 3 8 J2 6 2 2 5  o' _q 11 ' _2 3 'is _q _i 0 3 0 0 _2 _ q 0 _8 Z 111 2 __6 q 0 0 I _ q 3 n izi J _i _i -12 6 _l _4 _2 _7 11 _ 1 b J3  b 3 1 2 0 1 13 2 is 2 ^b J pi 2 5 ' b Grand Total Sendng Schod I 1 li 20  112 _ 4 ^io 269 28 J 3 i _q' _3 1 1 li' _4 0 5 _ii 2 __8 __3 __7 1 0 J2 __1 0 4 'i2 J2 35 Z_1 4 9 i 0 _i^ _q 9 ' 17 1^ _9 190 _1 11 _1 Z i _b 1 to 5 1 7 20 _1 4 0 6 1 -3 6 \"j Jq 2 14 ie 12 '0 3 0 b ' 0 1 2 _2 2 li ' J 11 1 146 2 1 1 3 3 1 i 1 .... 4 8 0 2 3 23 0 3 0 _4 b J12 9 it 0 0 1 I I c ? c i q 0 1 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 2 0 0 2 0 1 q 1 b 'i 1 q 0 0 1 b 1 2 135 369 336 361 533 375 276 0 _3\" q '13 6 _8 1 i o' 141 9 9 3 1 2 11 lb 2 q 25 6 __2 0 13 0 6 1 li 2 q 8 _41 2 6  i 0 3 0 0 343 1 5 11 5 1^ 0 _2 J2' 265  2 22 b 0 Z 9 11 3 11 __3 3 2 9 1 8 _o __q _2 4 8 0 '2 ii 1 19 1 q b 0 0 2 26 3 lb 15 4 5 0 _0 1] 10 194 16  10\" _0 2 '20 7  2 35 _3q 5 1 18 4 4 7 lb  12 3 lo _J1 12 ii io i 1 b 0 2 0 9 0 ' 19 \" 44 Zzi 4 _q' _2 5 7 5 336 0 2 _P __0 2 0 26 _3 2 1 10 0 12 21 3 19 q 23 Zl 2 13 JZ 5 b 2 '2 0 4 I 0 4 3 _0 4 2 3 4 6 _ I 7 i 136 1 4 J4 5 0 8 10 6 (rt o I is 1 0 0 2q Z 6 b 4 5 '9 0 _q 0 3 0 q 122 5 I 3 0 0 JO 6 38 2 0 3 8 30 1 9 1 ti o\u0026gt; c 2 1 314 441 539 637 _4 I 1 1 2 14 1 2 J 14 3 4 5 1 J b 0 0 q 2 '0 J2 1 2 4 6 _ 1 J 2 17 J4 4 1 6 q 2 0 b ' 0 0 0 10 1 7 JI 6 2 17 3 39 2 i J 2? 3 2 11 3 3 ' 2 Jo i 1 0 2 0 1 _1 _5 _6 10 2 '0 __7 __5 __3 1 _P _ 1 io 11 253 1 o I 0 2 6 i 5 28 26 i 0 q 0 0 0 3 'q q 0 7 264 0 Zq 7 18 6 7 2 -1 0 2 2 Zl 1 2 2 i ' i 2 b J  1 0 2 2 J 3 _q 0 ~2 J b 0 _i 9 23 q ^4 3 0 0 I b 2 b 312 271 5941 407 397 ! s 1 o \u0026amp; I _6 -I 5 \"13 ' ' lb' 1 ' 0 ' 7 _!? _1 7^' Z21 8 1 2 Ji 4 _b 295 q 3 ~~ b 10 8 _ 6 8 6 I12 q ZO b li .JI 5 9 0 1 1 b 0 0 11 _ 0 _i2 6 _P 2 _] 7 ' _4 Jl _ 5 '6 is Ji _7 2 5 5 247 _3 2 6 2 7 0 __1 5 '_7 7 2 2 _6 _ 3 8 0 0 527 450 .1.. J 3 6 '4 ' 7 8 6 9 3 Jl 3 11 J5 5 _ 1 4 9 6 12 J 5 _i5 II 109 _ 7 7 6 7 0 3 3 ' 2 2 JZl _q 2 9 7 II b b 0 1 318 J 3 3 0 2 2 16 sb _9 6 Z1 6 Jl 2 6 3 i 15 Z 1 J0 20 260 1 1 6 3 q 4 4 V1 16 0 6 '2 i 3 3 b  2 1 551 g m w  ra 3 0 2 0 3 3 4 1 2* g q '3 2 2 11 6 I 4 S g IX 0 4 2 8 4 3 5 2 7 17 ii I \u0026amp; 55 q ' 1 0 q 9 '0 g- q 0 12 2 _ 6 4 ' 5 q 0 19 10 5 b 6 1 i ~ b 205 2 _ 6 3 \" q 3 6 1 ' 3 1 ' i lo 2 1 6 31 ?3 4 2  3 II 0 3 __1 129 7 _ 0 q 6 6 3 q  7 0 4 Z2 7 1 2 2 4 3 '3 3 4 118 II b 6 2 b 24 3 ' 2 3 '2 '0 b 2 4 i i 9 ' b 2 _o 3 _3  3 2 \"i  i 8 5 3 2 9 q 2 15 5 b ii 7 I 0 1 b I 2 5 4 '16 12 '26 2 '4 \" i 2 8 9 3 3 \" 0 3 2 2 i 13 3 i i 1 g 2 \"7 9 15 12 6 ^2 I 4 1 4 2 _2 \" 0 17 7 15 0 8 177 0 2 1 41 0 7 0 q 8 I 19 i 0 I 0 0 327 6 29 i 3 'b 2 i i 4 3 b 0 q 0 1 i 3 4 6 2 b 0 1 0 4 1 19 3b II ' I 0 3 b q \"4 12 2 3 0 4 116 1 I4 0 0 b 4 2 _ 4 q 0 q _4 i \"b b 323 7 o R) s _52 4 Ii 32 2 23 ' 6 '2 4 9 ' 6 4 13 '4 20 ib 6 4 12 I 3 14 3 31  i 5 4 ' 16 '6 c   1 g I S S 5 q '2 8 PO b 1? 132 5 0 1 4 q 3 \" 2 2 3 31 b 2 J 8 q  1 5 _ 0 _q q \"it 'q 295 0 6 _1 2 3 I 2 1 i 3 2 J 1 b 5 b b 2 2 J q 0 J 0 Zi 8 q 7 1 2 i _q 12 q Z^'* ^1 _'3 Z 1 1 15  4 3 14 ' 2 \"q ' It 3 1 0 _i __4 0 __3 1 4  25 0 17 2 30 2 1 3 0 0 2 4 _2 i 0 ' 0 \" i 3 q P q 4 \" 4 2 b 2 _ 1 'i J2 0 12 0 10 R c e co a _l ex I b c z o s s OJ s I 1 s 320 257 411 S 1 c 5 3 i 5 3 q q q 0 J 20 t 5 2 q 2 '~o ' 1 1 4 2 i 0 0 1 4 b 2 5 ii i 6 b b 3 '0 1_ 2 0 1 1 b 3 0 190 _7 24 \"2 0 i b _q 1 JO 10 216 1 i b  3 _q 1 t 4 1 q 1 b 0 1 b 93 0 q 0 0 0 200 582 457 690 491 290 467 153 1 2 I 2 q 0 J 0 2 t _q q q q q q q 7 b q J J 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 P 0 0 J 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 00 11 111 q _1 _1 0 _ q q 0 0 b 30 q 0 i b Z_q 0 _i b 7 0 1 b 0 35 ZJo 0 59 _2 6 6 ' b Z P 0 b 0 _3 q _3 101 \" 0 0 3 _0 _b _ 1 7_ 0 \"0 _45 b 151 'i __b _ q _'q 0 10 2 J3 _4 _1 ~2 q 02 ' 0 1^ 117 Ip  3 0 Zb i q 0 0 q q 4 1 2 2 2 0 2 q 3 b q 12 2 1 2 q 0 0 1 0 b b Zq 1 \" 1 2 b 2 i  i 0 b b q 0 184 304 319 Ml 386 595 107 284 261 336 520 204 ^3 500 548 4^ 420 '221 ~345 392 187 335 'M3 448 7M 421 324 473 366 231 50 19 120 2Q 357 785 451 14032 Pnnled February 1994 Prepved by tw Office o\u0026lt; Oesege^aton Montoring based i\u0026lt;ion nfonnakon s^iphed by l\u0026gt;e LiMe Rock School Dtsticl UnaudtedLRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E Attending Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Bodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski HtS- Elem Race BL WH BL wh\" BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL Whi BL WH BL WH  BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL wh' BL WH BL wh BL_ wh BL WH BL Whi BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL 9 ot i 67 39 1 0 4 2 0 b 1 2 q 0 1 2 P 0 2 2 2 2 p 2 2 2 q 0 p 0 1 b 0 0 p 2 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 b p 0 1 n m 1 i 111 '47 0 8 6 13 __2 5 2 3 1 0 0 9 0 _4 __ __4 __1 12 '2 3 __q _5 1 i 6 6 1 3 3 2 P 0 4 3 4 0 6 0 2 2 9 C LU o  ta 0 b _P 0 153 43 11 4 1 ' 6 2 1 __3 5 14 5 1 5 __q 2 __q 5 __q q __q 0 0 __6 __5 __2 0 0 0 2 i 12 3 0 b 0 1 _P __q __3 0 __q e \u0026lt;a p 0 3 0 2 1 2 9 66 74 2 1 2 0 1 b 1 b 2 3 3 '9 2 4 1 0 4 0 2 0 2 '5 2 12 0 i 0 0 5 6 0 0 3 0 1 b 0 o u O 1 0 1 0 J? 6 4 8 3 1 _1 __3 173 96 M  ii _ P 3 P 0 P ' 0 o O 1 b _0 b 8 1 1 W 3 i _ 3 e 24 3 147 43 _ 1 ' b _0 b 1 p ' 2 1 ' i g n K n  6 5 c e o 3 1 2 1 ' 0 _1 b 5 6 3 1 0 0 3 '2 26 is 2 b 5 * 3 3 0 4 3 1 J 2 0 1 0 b 0 1 9 1 5 0 1 0 4 3 19 1 P 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 ' 0 8 '3 1 b 5 0 1 1 1 0 80 66 2 b 0 i 1  b 3 b 0 ' 3 _i i 1 0 0 1 1 b 2 2 0 i 1 b 2 2 4 4 0 0 3 0 b 4 9 3 5 3 5 1 0 1 '0 q  0 66 45 P 9 3 6 2 1 __l 0 2 b 1 \"ib 4 6 q 2 p  0 _ 4 i 6 0 2 \"o 0 0 3 1 b _5 0 0 b 3 2 4 b 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 __3 60 205 1 i _4 18 0 0 q 0 4 3 1 8 4 7 3 0 6 10 3 0 1 2 T 0 7 2 0 22 4 _ 3 0 7 3 13 ~2 _ 4 0 5 0 q 0 q 0 13 'i 18 0 190 4 15 'i 6  4 6 0 4 3 20 0 6  1 2 b 33 2 30 b _ 3 2 1 0 18 p 0 6 3 q 0 11 6 26 15 13 2 3 1 _ P 0 2 0 4 1 _4 3 3 2 126 210 _ 9 0 D C n c ra O 0 b _4 0 _p 0 0 b 4 0 0 3 0 P 0 4 0 6 0 _6 1 7 b 1 0 123 '13 1 1 3 6 3 5 1 i q 0 14 12 3 0 2 0 _1 0 6 1 b 4 0 14 0 4  i p 0 8 0 18 0 6 0 _4 0 1 0 D) C c   O 0 b --P 0 17 '3 4 2 P 0 3 i 3 2 9 0 0 b p 0 0 0 3 0 p 0 _P 0 ip3 49 _3 2 0 1 q 0 p 2 0 b 8 4 1 b 1 b 2 o It a\u0026gt; o\u0026gt; c E iu 5 3 b q '0 p o 1^ \"5 3  3 36 2 _ 1 1 P 0 3 0 5 14 16 _ 0 1 1 8 1 0 __b 5 6 75 239 9 i 1 b 0 1 1 0 _ 6 0 2 ' 0 15 2 q 0 _i b 0 b 14 0 5  0 6 b 10 0 2 b 0 0 1 b 4 i 3 b 1 b 0 b 7 b _16 Q 6 0 245 8 7 0 0 b 3 0 _5 2 IP 0 6 \u0026lt;Q 2 0 b _p 2 6 1 2 4 1 b 5 b J7 11 2p 6 _q i 0 b _ 0 b q 0 p 0 p 0 2 i _P 0 0 b 0 b 139 125 2 b 2 ' 0  o 2 0 1 6 0 3 1' 1 0 I' 1 Q p 5 6 1 6 4 p 1 _p 0 4 3 12 0 8 1 4 3 8 12 6 2 6 1 P 2 2 4 2 2 p 0 109 186 0 0 3 0 q 0  1 x (Q  2 0 b _14 5 _0 0 Ip \"2 6 0 _5 4 1 i o u 2 3 0 6 0 4 b 6 1 S o e s 1 b 3 0 Page 1 E LU (/\u0026gt; w 3 0 6 o c P 1 2 5 4 0 6 i 16 '4 5 0 6 b 9 9 i 1 0 \u0026amp; b 6 0 _8 1 3 0 5 0 3 0 1p 0 5 0 5 b 1 i 1 b 4 0 9 ' 0 6 0 1? 1 5 b 5 0 134 113 2 i 2 0 5 5 b 15 0 14 0 104 5 tt \"o 6 _ 1 2 8 0 2 0 2 0 11 5 43 7 5 4 6 0 3 b 5 i 1 b 2 b 6 ' 0 3 0 0 1 13 2 33 2i 0 b 16 '0 18 2 71 189 1 i 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 2 q 0 P 0 3 b 0 2 1 5 q 4 1 4 0 b 0 b 2 IZ 5 5 P 5 p 0 4 2 p \" 0  P 0 3 0 1 i 8 0 3 0 4 2 6 ' b 1 b 3 b 1 b 4 i 0 b 2 b 1 b 6 0 3^ 1 1 0 p 0 46 13 0 4 b 2 b 3 b 11 b 8 b 3 b 8 0) 1 or 4 ' 0 4 ' ' 0 2 _q. 6 2 4 0 3 0 4 ' 2 3 0 6 b 0 0 1 Q 4 0 0 0 4 b 6 0 3 4 1 0 2 b 2 b 4 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 e c E o or 0 0 5 ' 0 _2 b 6 i 14 '3 10 i o 0 0 1 i 2 b 0 0 19 '5 2 1 1 i 3 0 14 i P 0 0 0 2 b 4 2 0 1 1 2 9 0 p 0 2 0 q 0 3 1 b 0 2 0 2 9 2 0 2 0 1 b 1 b 8 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 5 b 0 b 11 b 1 0 2 3 4 b 6 10 5 11 5 21 2 0 4 0 9 c u ra g 2 ' b 5 2 8 1 o c 1 b 1 i 6 2 6 3 17 1'4 3 0 0 b 6 9 q 2 4 2 9 3 4 1 2 0 i 4 2 1 i V) (0 g 5 3 1 16 0 30 2 2 0 42 b 22 1 J 0, 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 2 1 PL 6 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 2 0 b 0 0 4  0 6 0 12 0 4 0 15 b 9 b 8 0 3 1 J2 'i 4 0 20 0 9 i c o 13 n g 0 b _2 0 8 2q 8 2 p 0 12 b 28 4 15 5 1 4 0 b 1 b 3 0 4 b 0 b 3 0 q 2 0 2 2 i i E  g 0 0 6 0 1 2 4 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 q 2 1 b 1 6 3 -Pj 0 g 0 b 8 4 0 0 4 ib 4 6 9 4 1 0 0 12 3 1 0 1 0 12 1 1 4 2 q 2 0 0 2 6 0 4 0 12 ~b 9 2 3 0 14 26 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 4- 1 1 1 3 2i ?! 0 1 b 2 0 4 ' 1 0 0 2 2 q 2 2 0 1 b q 0 0 0 3 _9 C e 5 o   c 3 o O jn 8 u jj W 1 2 5 9 1 1 0 b 2 9 1 2 1 b 0 b 7 4 q 'i 2 2 0 0 3 g p ' 0 p 0 2  0 0 2 0 p 1 1 0 0 n O) 0) 1 0 1 0 q '1 1 1 q 0 q 0 p 1 0  o z p 0 0 0 p 0 42 46 0 0 51 64 p 0 0 n w  O. _ 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 ioo _q 3 65 126 0 0 b^ 01 g Z P 0 0 0 0 0 _1 3 1 0 2 b 2 0 2 o 0 e e o \u0026lt; 135 49 '1^ 63 318 213 253 133 330 265 J48 139 295 0 0 b 0 j 0 0 0 3 b 0 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 b 0 0 Oi 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 b 0 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 0 i 0 1 3 2 b 0 0 2 0 1 b J 0 J 1 0 0 6 p 0 q 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 q 7 0 b p 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4. 9t 14-1 0 0 1 Q 6 0 0 0i _Pi -4 18 16! 27 o' 0 0 b 0 1 0 4 q 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 '1 p 0 _0 b 0  0 0 o' 2 0 0 3 6 0 b 0 0 1 1 ii 2 0 0 i 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 85 179 ibs 195 '66 164 261 291 '45 233 2ii 178 26 214 89 1?1 129 211 289 334 214 300 178 259 249 2^ 125 J 68 23 1^ 199 189Attending Schools Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Hall Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Grand Total Zone Schools [Race WH BL WH BL WH ' BL WH BL WH BL WH~ BL WH BL wh' BL- WH BL wh' BL wh' BL WH BL WH  BL bl WH WH BL WH BL t) e o 1 0 _ p 0 3  5 0 b 1  b p 0 _0 b 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 _b 0 0 1 b 1 p 0 0 0 1 b 0 9 4 0  0 5 * 9 4  jo 0 0 3 2 1 b 3 8 0 0 JO 0 9 3 6 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 _ P 0 0 135 369  c S 0 p\" 0 2 ' 1 A 0 o' 0 0 b 3 5 0 4 ^5 5 2 ' 0 6 b p  0 p 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 E 2  p ' 0 _P 1 9 \"4 _J 0 7 8 2 0 9 16 P 0 1 b 11 ib 1 i 1 4 0 0 2 _0 0 p ' 0 1 o o \"o -P 0 8 4 1 b _g 0 3 ' 1 9 3 4 8 26 7 _6 0 4 b 5 4 0 1 0 1 b p 0 p 0 1 336 361 533 LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E e ui 1 o O b 2 1 _ J '2 0 1 0 \"o 2 0 14 ' 0 JO 8 JO '2 0 0 _ 3 b 0 0 P 0 0 _ p 0 _1 b p ~ 0 0 375 o  0 2 0 2 1 6 15 0 0 _ 1 2 0 0 2 2 _0 0 JO 2 i 9 P P P p 0 P g J 2 276 K (S 10 p ~ 0 1 1 6 0 1 Zp p 3 2 0 3 17 0 0 8 0 6 35 1 i p 6 1 1 2 0 0 P 0 0 343 e  1 5 c e oi -c 3 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 i 4 0 5 3 p 0 2 Q 2 9 1 b 16 1 1 p 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 6 JO 0 12 0 1 'b 3 b 0 0 JI b 12 b 11 b 10 0 p p 0 2 4 _P 0 7  _5 16 '5 3 0 9 io _P 0 9 14 0 0 2 0 _7  6 15 2 4 1 0 1 i 2 0 P 0 4 o c 5 (0 O 0 1 0 vt O) c 'C (d c o c 2 441 539 637 J 'o 2 0 10 0 1J \"o 1 0 _7 b J ' 0 JJ 0 3  0 _ J 0 5 ' 0 1 P \" 0 1 _o 0 0 \"b 9 o 0 4 0 2 1 b 1 0 2 0 11 6 3 i 0 1 ~ 0 6 b P 0 2 ' 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 2 3 0 32 1 2 6 0 1 _1 b 3 0 25 4 3 \"o _ 2 0 p io 2 b 1 Q 2 '0 1 b 0 0 2 0 2 0 6 b E o UJ e 5 9  (0 2 b _o 0 A 0 1 0 0 0 p 0 312 271 1 2 2 1 2 0 P 0 _1 0 0 1 b 2 p 2 p 1 b 1 p 2 p 0 0 0 1 b 2 1 21 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 P 0 0 p 0 p 1 594 1 0 0 2 0 0 o \u0026lt;5 u 2 0 8 0 p' 6 3 _5 6  0 -3 9 p ' 0 3 16 0 0 5 \" 0 9 _9 5 0 4 5 0 _ p 1 0 0 g 0 0 1 s 2 1 2  2 1 6 407 397 527 Page 2 S d I 0 E e ui 1 4 3 0 1 b 4 i 5 2 4 2 1 i 1 i 4 2 3 6 2 1 1 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 '3 6 3 0 p 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9 'o 5 2 11 p 0 P 0 0 0 5 i 3 0 0 2 n  Q. 159 0 \"0 2 ' 4 2 1 0 \"b 3 2 4 0 1 4 12 4 0 0 6 0 P 2 1 0 J 0 0 J 0 2 0 1 1 450 318 551  O)  1 126 1  e 1 c 0 1 E a 0 2  1 5 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 3 -J. OI 101 '17 1 b _o 0 6 b 3 b 18 2 J 0 3 0 22 J 0 39 2 p 0 J 2 n' 0 1 b 11 o: 1 0 6 o: 0 gi t, o! 0 ft aI 0 0 8 4 3 11 1 1 0 P ~0 g p. 0 327 oL-l-: 3i 0 0 0 jO 0 6 0 2 0 ol 6 + 0. 1 1 b 16 '~3 30 0 11 \"b 1 ' 6 0 p 0 2 ~ 1 g ' 0 4 Vi   a q\u0026gt; W b p _o _g 1 0 b 62 0 12 b 2 0 3 b p 0 _5 0 3 0  3 0 0 6 2 1 1 3 1 85 261 1 b 4 id 0 b 0 0 11 \u0026lt;  b _g 0 1  3 1 0 0 0 0 0 237 66 3 4 J 2 1 .. 11- 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' - 0 2 j_ p 0 p 0 1 1 _b 4 Q 2 b 0 i 0 1 p 4 0 320 257 411 200 582 c  (A n $ b 3   0  26 5 1 ' b _5 0 4 0 16  ~ 0 263' 5 6 0 2 0 4 __i 11 b 1 0 __8 P 0  P 0 3 ' 0 0 457 5 0 1 b 5 0 6 0 P ' 0 0 0 7 4 5 3 235 60 1 \" b _6 b w i E i 5 0 0 0 0 1 i c E 8 I c 3 o o 690 1 1 p p p 0 1 p 2 J 0 491 2 '6 0 0 _6 1 1 0 _ 1 i _1 0 87 103 _5 __2 M i 2 0 __p P 0 J P 0 p S 5 0 _ 1\" b 3 1 ' 1 ~ is 0 b 7  lb 2' ' b 3 27 2 ~0 _13 '7 16 3 1JJ '72 0 1 __1 _ p 3 P 0 0 5 4 0 0 6 1 '0 4 ' 0 1 b _g 0 0 1 0 0 _ 0 b n S 290 1 1 b p 0 57 36 0 p 0 0 0 _0 0 0 P, p 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 p 0 1 b 4 b p 0 p ~o 0 b p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z i 0 b 3 4 0 b 0 1 0 6 p  0 p 35 0 0 0 ' 6 26 33 _ 1 i ) n  9 0 4 9 0 4 0 ' 1 0 g 8 z 0 J 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 2 0 467 153 0 8  o fl \u0026lt;/) o cn H c c c o' 0 0 0 26 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61 0 0 0  1 44 73 0 0 p 3 0 _0 1 0  0 P ' 0 0 1 0 1 b 2 b p 0 1 i 1 b 0 1 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 \u0026amp; s 203 _i6g  7 254 '126 243 '92 141 4 238 315 OJO ' 108 _JJ8 212 63 _2O7 117 258 215 267 99 _JJ5 85 50 ___1 ____12 _16 3 _18 2 20 357 7851 45 14032 Printed February 1994 _ led UM Rock based tyon Morrallon s\u0026lt;43^^ by Vw Ufa Rod   I 1 \"lurwuiiled [ ~ I t r t School DIstid I \"11TEL: Jun 02.94 10:35 No.002 P.03 LilUe Rock Scliool Di*tricl Stephens ^r^^Relocation Timely Task Date 1. 2. 3- 4_ Fs. Fiia motion with Court to relocate File revisions to current filings gb Hants from Stephenx Schoc^ miatinq to Stephens which_are------- ~ ~ LRSD Board of Directors \u0026amp; approved 5/18/94 before the courts 5/18/94 5/26/94 Business Case presejtedjothgj^Sg^ggEB^^ Contact the wh-^j-hould be contacted Incl .',?i!*!^?^.^'budget reduction strategy TTotify finance person to include this as a pu ---------------- '5/27/94 Person Williams Williams ~ ~~Willlam5 Ingram 5/27/94 Modeste Williams Neal \"Wagner Wagner 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 building ..\u0026gt;h the Stephens community , community informolion meeting tor. 7. Inventory puiiaing --------- 8 Plan and schedule public meeting 9. 1) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches, media (press release) a: b) c) 10. (neai dnor-to-door delivery ........................................ asking\" ^velop letter to Parents and community meeting. 'LlTXo^commJntt^ information meeting at S'r.phcav A'chno/ to answer for a Include invite to community---------- q uest\ngns^tch^^^-----------------------------sf^bTE^i^ti55d |..\u0026gt;-i. .He PTA president and ministers.-------------- ----------- Students who do not choose a school ------- with the principal, faculty, and staff , of all students living in the Stephen School meetings.__________ 12. De^gn follow-up plan for 13 Conduct Informational meeting attendance zone and those schedule d ,.naanco zone a) those who attend Stephens School but live outside of the attendance zone mrse Who Xd stephens School but live in the attendance zone\nand^ c) tltose Who do not attend Schon/ but live m the attendance zone b) 15.Obtairt' Gciy fir 'ii\n?.' iT send notice of relocation and d^e of community information meeting to: community groups and churches. a) b) press release students with announcement and choices asking for 17 Mail letter to parents and --------- -aunn a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at 57ep/7en.r \u0026amp;/ioo/ to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 1H noiivpr fliers door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting, l^implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their Choice of school______________________________________________ 20. Send assignment notices_____________________________ 21 Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline.-- 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 23. Reroute transportation of students__________________ 24. Secure building______________________________________________ 25. Reassign staff____________________ 26, Send assignment notices__________ * Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. EXHIBIT 2 6I\u0026amp;IQA 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/8/94. 6/15/94 6/20/94 7/6/94 7/29/94 7/29/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Williams Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Eaton Montgomery ~ Eaton Hurley LeeFAST TRACK EVALUATION PROGRAM\nSTEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I PROGRAM DESCRIPTION\nThis specific program is the construction of the Inter-District Elementary School. new Stephens It is an aspect of the tridistrict desegregation plan and the section pertaining to inter- -------- The program is to outline all steps necessary to locate and construct the second of two (2) schools in the Little Rock School District. district schools. new inter-district II GOALS\nThe goal of this program is the successful and timely construction of a new Little Rock School District inter-district elementary school. III - EVALUATION CRITERIA\nSchool The evaluation criteria is the successful completion of the school at the date agreed upon established by the Little Rock District. IV - EVALUATION RESULTS\non time, and The most accurate and successful evaluation result of this program would be the opening and operation of the school, on time, and within the desegregation racial composition as established in the Desegregation Plan. V - OBSTACLES TO GOAL OBTAINMENT\nThere appears to be numerous obstacles to obtaining the goal of completing this new inter-district school: 1. School location 2. School necessity 3. the Time to design and construct - (The obstacles laid out under this program description deal purely with the physical requirements of locating and constructing the school and not with such administrative matters as theme, program, nor recruitment.) VI RECOMMENDATIONS\nThis recommendation does not constitute a change to the inter- concept of the Desegregation Plan, but rather requests the addition of a criteria to be considered in the construction new Stephens Elementary School, of the 1. Background\nSection III of the Tri-Dlstrict District Desegregation Plan entitled II Inter- Student Choices and EXHIBIT 3Options It district outlines the concept of construction of interschools. Within that concept is the construction of the Stephens Elementary School to be located within the Little Rock School District boundaries, and is to be one of two schools constructed by the District to support this concept. The plan further states that the existing Stephens School would then be closed. The plan does not go into the background nor the rationale nor specifically mentioned any other considerations for the location and construction of the Stephens School other than to support the desegregation effort. Historically, there are two principal considerations that lead a School District to construct a new school: 1) or The student population is such that the present number size of schools in various locations is not capable of supporting the student population\ntherefore, a new school should be constructed\nand, 2) Periodic evaluations dealing with the age and condition of the existing facilities will warrant the construction of new schools to replace facilities that are too costly to repair or expand, or have outlived their usefulness to meet the current educational needs. I am addressing in this recommendation the criteria dealing with plant replacement. By separate study, as submitted to the Board in November of 1993, it has been shown that preliminary figures do not indicate sufficient student population in certain portions of the inner city to warrant adding additional seats through new construction. This is extremely important and is a critical factor in analyzing the total area to be impacted by the construction of a new school. It would lead consolidations, student population. one because to of believe that the overall possible decrease in 2) might require new schools to be constructed convenient to students, and subsequent closure of older, smaller facilities. Objective\nmore the The objective of this recommendation is to add to the criteria for the construction of the Stephens School, a consideration that reaches beyond desegregation and attempts to encompass the District's financial state with regard to the operation of schools, its need to possibly look at rezoning attendance zones in the inner city to support new construction and the need to look at its need to the age and condition of inner city schools with a view toward replacement where renovation and expansion is ^o^~prhibitive and will not meet the educational goals of the District. 23) 4) In evaluating this objective, we will need to review a general criteria of existing facilities in light of educational programs and present needs, and compare this to anticipated costs to meet current needs and future demands. It is expected that the constiruction and operation of newer, more modern, up-to-date facilities with possible consolidation and staff and the closure of older, more antiquated schools will lead to a more efficiently run financial operation and a program that better meets the students' needs. ImpactAnalysis\nThe overall program is that of integration. Larger, more modern, up-to-date schools with more innovative programs have a record of better modern attraction of a varied student body than do older, smaller schools who have had to have been haphazardly renovated to meet educational needs. This is generally true throughout the country. It is expected that a new, modern, up-to-date school in the inner city would better attract Pulaski County Students than our present existing facilities. It is expected that a new This impact is predicated on the fact that the end result would be the closure of at least two or more smaller schools with all students attending the new Stephens The risk of considering this concept of school closure of outdated schools to support new plants are two-fold: 1) If we are successful, we could conceivably be too successful, in which case the new school may not be of sufficient size to meet our needs. Careful analysis of census projections must be made and careful rezoning must be considered during the planning stage of this school. 2) The second risk is one of not considering plant within the normal course of action of School. new construction. The continued operation of schools that are becoming outdated and outmoded most definitely causes a rise in operational costs. It is imperative that we consider normal plant replacement of an entire school as well as we consider plant replacemejit of individual items such as heating ventilation units, intercoms, windows, etc., in order to insure that we are operating in a most efficient manner. Resource Analysis\n----------------------With the decrease in student numbers in the inner city and the consolidation into larger, more efficiently run schools, they'll most certainly lessen the duplication of instructional efforts as is presently found in teaching in multiple locations. Cutting back on administrative staff is obvious, and maximizing class size will allow -- \"----- Cutting back on us to decrease teacher populations. It is expected that operating costs for newer, more modern energy efficient schools will be less than that presently 35) 6) incurred for operating multiple sites of schools as old as 1906. Although a detailed analysis has not been done, the average elementary school cost per occupant for the Little Rock School District is $173.75. There are twelve schools above the average\nof these, twelve schools, six are Incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). Ish, Mitchell, The District has an average energy cost per elementary occupant of $113, There are fifteen schools that exceed this average\nof those, six are incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). average Little Rock School District maintenance cost is The $21,601 per elementary school, eooupent. Eight schools exceeded that average\nof those, three were incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell and Rockefeller), maintenance figure is skewed by the large amount of dollars spent in the past couple of years through bond projects to increase the general maintenance of the schools. The District has no historical data with regard to the operational costs of newer schools\nhowever, theoretical, operational costs can be calculated The once a specified school size Is determined based on the norm. Force Field Analysis\nSupport of a new elementary school appear to be generally positive within the community\nhowever, this support is over-shadowed by the facters of location and schools possibly identified for closing. is difficult at this time to predict the strength for the new Stephens School without a careful study and much community interface regarding possible closures, identify schools at this time for possible closure, without coupling that identification to the final selected premature. site for the Identification Stephens School, would It To be Data exists showing recommendations based on perceived maintenance costs and age of facilities. C______11^ speaking, the incentive schools date back to 1906 with the last ones being constructed in the late 1950' schools constructed in the 1950's years old. General Implementation Plan\nimplemented as follows: picked primarily to Generally s. Even are forty-some odd My recommendation would be If the Stephens School site is support the needs of the Desegregation Plan, that will mandate what schools immediately adjacent to that site are considered for plant replacement. on consideration If the Stephens site is picked based of implementation would be: plant 1) replacement. then the Of after having considered 4census block projections and cost analysis of ^chool operations a community effort would begin to gather support for the closing of certain schools. It Is perceived that both goals can be reached, i.e., the one stated in the desegregation plan that the Stephens School would be closed upon construction of the new Stephens School and an analysis of existing plants which could meet both criteria. I make my recommendation so as to offer a consideration for building a new inter-city elementary school based purely on the need to decrease the schools' operational expenditures and to enhance education through modern, and to close outdated up-to-date facilities, new, facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet our current needs. DCE/rlh/ftep 5-10- RECOMMENDATIONS The cost of epb'an'cen.s:hasVeeSes^X^^^^^ - -a.lor or n.u.cc Of specialized rooms that have been prodded and that . necessaiy to bouse the K alternative proposals have been assigned to these schools. buUdi^sseach of abou/eS s?ud clpa'cT^'S \"o bnng Its capacity to 600 students. rcqulniM founeen^k^ms'^-??'?^ Garland Schools ,V?nX' capacity of about 600 students. in one new bulldlniVihYSipb^^ :ire'tf,l to Franklin Elementary School a-Kasa a^aeoiiuin tiementaiy to Accommodate King Elementary School Ss\" ^S^ddiOoSaUlassmlms.\"Se.S mSns^f 780 sX?'yf based on the new Carver Magnet _size of rooms under space. Adding the necessaiy circulation mUeSsquare feet of m about 16.000 square fcetifXss aS At S5O S-r /\"T 'uld resuk Career Magnet School, the addlTor^X7id^oS SsS OOo?eSS\"' \"\"8 fo upgrading Franklin School, first through the minnru be added the costs for 622.350 and. secondly. the^tobKeS f fSrthe^lm\n?'\"\" *\" aiObPt S Frankhn School. These costs can be detSned rno^^ Jee necessary to upgrade parted on the project. The amount of $100 000 ha Jheeirately when architectural studies The total cost is estimated to be $922,350 ' tentatively allocated for the p students is based on the are project. Major enhancement of King Elementanr capacity of 136 students. unLngedX the erJianc^^^ cost $1,187,815. With a The new Carver Magnet School W1 have a co^fmPer student and the like, of about $4,000 per student. construction, equipment, grounds, fees,. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School The new Carver School has measures of crpaciZs\"P?\" and using the same classrooms by using the staffe as a muci analysis, of about 568 students Addin? twn would result a oapaXX\nXXstl^^^^^^ for spe^al^^d'^K capacity of approximately 600 students. ^Ing the cost of the Carver School The combined budgets for enhancerr^n^ school would cost about $2 500 000 bearmg walls and wood frame. Garland School is constructed with brick It Is suggested that ^^^c^edordyPaSt^e^e^^^^ rt f Garland and Stephens e.xpand the site.  abandoned houses that could be secured to EXHIBIT 4-59- Name of School: Stenhens El. (30.954 SF) Update of Estimates of Cost for Renovation of Little Rock Public School Buildings Comments: This school is to be replaced. No further expenditures are recommended at this time.EXHIBIT 5 EXECUTIVE SUWWRY 17/11/92 thru 16/31/93 SYSTEM SITE ID SITE WANE TOTAL COST TO DATE ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS NUnBER OF OCCUPANTS GROSS I OF SQUARE FEET COST GROSS COST PER OCCUPANT PER SB. FOOT A A A 8 A A A A A A C . A A A A A C A A A C c A A A A A A A A A A A C C A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A 154 ADMINISTRATION 861 ADMINISTRATION ANNEl 114 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING TI4 BACKHOE 119 BADGETT 117 BALE 122 BA5ELIIE 116 BOOKER 118 BRADY 858 CAFETERIA DEPT NI4 CARP. SUPPLIES 121 CARVER 881 CENTRAL HIGH 128 CHICOT 831 CLOVERDALE ELEM 115 CLOVERDALE JR HIS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 132 DODD 817 DUNBAR 853 EAST SIDE 1982 ELECT. SUPPLIES HU ELECTRONICS SUPPLIES 818 FAIR 123 FAIR PARK S83 FAIR STADIUM 189 FOREST HEIGHTS 824 FOREST PARK 825 FRANKLIN 848 FULBRIGHT 826 GARLAND 837 GEYER SPRINGS 127 GIBBS 111 GILLIAM H86 GROUNDS SUPPLIES H81 H/AC SUPPLIES 812 HALL HIGH 813 HENDERSON 149 ISH 831 JEFFERSON 135 KING 174 KLRE/UALR 162 LEE HI9 LOCKSMITH SUPPLIES 846 HABELVALE ELEN 116 HABELVALE JR 813 HANN 812 HCCLELLAN SI4 HcCLELLAN STADIUM 128 HCDERHOTT 133 HEADOWCLIFF 884 HETRO 834 MITCHELL 68,232.48 23,265.53 45,894.86 192.64 44,579.81 51,624.89 58,161.38 139,843.77 47,137.49 36,575.74 9,662.58 81,743.26 264,448.68 83,662.49 49,191.58 118,345.22 1,878.42 51,461.97 123,298.77 39,167.46 5,815.18 2,316.85 155,882.88 62,524.87 16,315.77 119,645.86 68,965.83 88,258.89 75,738.88 39,122.83 39,974.39 41,796.14 6,159.23 7,468.73 2,835.43 188,429.78 191,217.13 37,478.52 68,674.65 8.88 8.88 38,293.69 2,685.42 62,836.12 71,933.53 222,797.22 ,221,649.65 21,877.83 74,788.62 54,912.12 146,531.77 6G,539.66 51,784.48 13,971.92 33,783.38 1.81 27,248.82 33,437.83 49,929.82 67,681.11 34,689.61 29,686.13 8.88 68,185.41 212,583.58 57,893.11 28,481.81 89,645.79 8.88 33,898.55 183,868.42 31,949.71 8.88 8.88 129,977.19 41,887.79 6,474.94 86,764.87 48,327.83 53,178.83 55,188.82 29,134.18 33,318.38 29,618.86 3,148.87 8.88 8.88 158,165.98 125,813.52 17,254.94 49,116.88 8.88 8.88 25,876.75 8.88 44,763.87 54,588.61 152,139.24 173,851.48 2,187.23 53,327.86 31,864.45 138,614.43 58,957.17 16,517.19 9,238.68 11,386.28 192.64 16,891.85 17,711.27 7,987.69 71,188.11 12,411.71 6,841.46 9,662.51 28,464.16 51,758.16 25,563.78 28,732.49 28,315.67 1,878.42 17,218.23 19,673.22 7,217.75 5,815.18 2,316.85 25,641.61 28,589.42 9,848.83 32,621.88 28,491.82 26,935.46 28,111.21 9,838.64 6,516.93 12,814.47 3,811.16 7,468.73 2,835.43 21,785.83 64,188.55 28,883.96 19,432.88 8.88 8.88 13,188.66 2,685.42 16,848.63 17,346.22 78,538.68 47,613.88 17,889.88 28,843.58 23,788.46 15.836.38 17,459.88 11.89 62.93 4.48 I. II 439.94 475.79 242.79 274.65 26.17 48.15 l.ll 173.71 178.86 215.61 58.11 383.76 l.ll 161.19 549.13 l.ll l.ll 8.81 184.88 287.66 1.18 258.39 146.98 135.88 518.85 157.21 147.88 171.61 8.88 8.88 8.88 478.85 212.96 211.62 124.89 1.88 1.18 36.28 l.ll 424.42 78.71 127.38 984.45 1.18 537.26 147.21 88.96 122.61 I I 446 I 212 321 339 615 398 8 I 589 1,999 535 366 775 I 314 715 I 8 8 915 243 8 787 441 411 538 256 282 333 8 8 8 994 914 187 463 8 8 I 8 518 667 858 985 8 519 448 1,818 264 26,791 26,273 37,361 I 23,414 33,626 51,455 74,531 36,259 38,456 I 61,695 266,823 59,687 33,263 81,894 I 46,712^ 99,397 89,133 I I 131,628 28,867 I 71,137 31,914 68,588 66,892 38,632 41,788 37,237 23,727 I I 152,348 113,212 31,812 43,546 I I 47,951 I 55,568 59,981 113,131 118,425 8 48,121 36,931 129,546 39,283 l.ll l.ll 111.11 l.ll 221.69*- 161.63 171.56 226.19 - 116.1B l.ll l.ll 137.19 132.29 156.38 134.41 152.71 l.ll 165.99 174.86 l.ll\n:3 172.1^ 257.31  l.ll 152.13 138.24 195.26 - 142.98 152.82 141.75 125.51 8.81 8.88 8.88 181.52 288.11 288.38 - 142.18 1.18 1.88 8.11 1.18 124.17 117.85 262.11 225.13 1.18 146.78 .124.81 146.53 259.62 - 2.55 1.89 1.21 l.ll 1.91 1.54 1.15 1.87 1.31 1.95 l.ll 1.31 1.99 1.41 1.48 1.45 l.ll 1.18 1.24 1.44 1.18 8.88 1.18 2.17 1.18 1.71 1.91 1.17 1.13 1.81 8.96 1.12 8.26 8.88 1.18 1.18 1.84 1.18 1.58 1.18 8.18 1.81 8.11 1.12 1.21 1.97 1.87 1.18 1.56 1.49 1.13 1.75SYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUHHARY 87/81/92 thru 86/38/93 ENER6Y COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS GROSS I COST GROSS COST NUHKR OF OF SOUARE OCCtffANTS FEET PER PER SO. OCCUPAMT FOOT C A A C C A A A C A A A . A A A A A A C A C A A A 8 B 8 B A B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 8 8 HB7 ROTOR POOL SUPPLIES 135 OAKHURST 858 OTTER CREEK R28 P.H.SUPPLIES R85 PAIMT SUPPLIES 136 PARKIN/IRC 885 PARKVIEW 888 PLANT SERVICES n83 PLUHB. SUPPLIES 838 PULASKI H6TS ELEM 818 PtRJISKI HSTS JR 885 PtffiCHASINE SBl OUIELEY STADIUM 839 RI6HTSELL 836 ROCKEFELLER 848 ROMINE 119 SAFETY AND SECURITY SB2 scon FIELD H77 SMALL ENGINE REPAIR 811 SOUTHNEST H8B STADIUM SUPPLIES 841 STEPHEMS 864 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 847 TERRY TB2 TRACTOR 82 TBl TRACTOR 1 TB3 TRACTOR 3 TBS TRACTOR 5 883 TRANSPORTATION V48 VEHICL 48 V81 VEHICLE 1 VIB VEHICLE IB Vll VEHICLE 11 V12 VEHICLE 12 V13 VEHICLE 13 V14 VEHICLE 14 V15 VEHICLE 15 V16 VEHICLE 16 V17 VEHICLE 17 V18 VEHICLE 18 V19 VEHICLE 19 VB2 VEHICLE 2 V2B VEHICLE 28 V21 VEHICLE 21 V22 VEHICLE 22 V23 VEHICLE 23 V24 VEHICLE 24 V25 VEHICLE 25 V26 VEHICLE 26 V27 VEHICLE 27 V28 VEHICLE 28 V29 VEHICLE 29 VB3 VEHICLE 3 2,453.37 7,698.62 62,433.67 127.49 1,772.9B 14,588.65 187,132.64 88,797.85 1,173.48 68,349.37 138,129.83 27,736.84 36,288.33 83,727.71 121,393.38 96,964.85 7,858.78 21,599.81 2,248.62 133,867.83 145.94 54,253.21 11,218.42 62,922.68 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,881.87 2,386.77 68,865.68 39B.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.28 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88  2,897.82  692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1,839.99 B.BB 4,873.28 47,889.31 8.88 B.BB 18,988.66 159,766.18 29,264.35 B.BB 43,795.84 67,856.48 19,911.82 4,838.21 35,284.16 88,841.13 49,738.47 5,213.89 3,255.74 B.BB 88,843.86 B.BB 37,188.82 8,977.61 43,266.35 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 44,348.32 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 2,453.37 3,579.99 15,296.87 127.49 1,772.98 3,591.99 26,815.39 59,269.33 1,173.48 16,279.47 61,792.91 7,773.81 32,258.12 48,257.49 32,369.49 47,191.84 1,844.81 18,343.27 2,248.62 45,586.87 145.94 16,958.29 9 212.41 19,587.53 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,BB1.B7 2,386.77 15,437.76 398.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.2B 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88 2,897.82 692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1.839.99 8.11 37.43 127.49 8.88 8.88 8.88 551.87 263.37 8.18 274.86 488.52 58.41 8.88 186.86 182.76 42.54 8.88 8.88 8,88 318.78 8.88 186.18 28.48 148.72 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 287.52 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 B 252 353 8 B B 888 B B 379 774 B B 249 361 361 8 B B 67B B 2B9 B 541 8 B B B 8 8 B B B 8 B B B 8 8 B B B B B B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 33,788 36,551 8 8 8 166,477 28,914 I 58,252 73,216 28,914 I 37,638 64,561 42,314 6,881 B.BB 3B.S2 176.87- B.BB B.BB B.BB 218.73 B.BB B.BB 159.23  168.13 b.b| B.BI 336.2i- 1.88 8.23 1.71 1.88 8.88 8.88 1.12 4.25 8.88 1.84 1.78 r.33 8.88 2.23 336.27*^ 1.88 B 8' 82,968 I 268.61 1.88 8.88 8.81 199.88 8.18 2.29 I.IB 8.88 8.88 1.61 8.88 34,384 6,418 45,312 8 8 8 8 259.58*^ 1.58 19,558 8 8 8 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 8 B B B B 8 B.BB 116.31 B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB -B.BB B.BB 8.88 1.75 1.39 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 3.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 e.BI 1.18 l.ll 8.88 1.18 8.88 8.81 8.18 8.88 8.88 8.88 1.81 1.81 8.88 8.81 8.88 i ISYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUNNARY 87/11/92 thru 86/38/93 ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST SRDSS GROSS  COST GROSS COST NUHBER OF OF SQUARE TO DATE OCCUPANTS FEET PER PER sa. XCUPAHT FOOT B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B C A ti A h fl A V36 VEHICLE 36 V31 VEHICLE 31 V32 VEHICLE 32 V33 VEHICLE 33 V34 VEHICLE 34 V35 VEHICLE 35 V36 VEHICLE 36 V37 VEHICLE 37 V38 VEHICLE 38 V39 VEHICLE 39 V84 VEHICLE 4 V95 VEHICLE 5 V66 VEHICLE 6 V67 VEHICLE 7 V88 VEHICLE 8 V69 VEHICLE 9 651 WAKEFIELD HU HAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 642 HASHINGTON 852 WATSON 629 HESTERN HILLS 643 WILLIAMS 644 HILSON 845 HOODRUFF 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 45,516.23 3,743.72 86,597.63 73,398.25 48,527.55 54,161.86 57,679.73 43,825.84 6.68 6.86 6.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 6.88 8.86 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.68 6.68 8.68 32,592.84 8.68 65,115.52 48,583.42 35,425.18 46,131.21 42,543.48 38,836.61 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 12,837.66 3,743.72 21,849.77 24,456.28 12,938.92 13,896.79 15,868.48 12,182.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.88 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 08.53 6.88 432.34 358.55 163.53 133.86 67.85 6.36 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 588 8 822 451 335 499 355 234 e 37,395 8_ 89,688 53,646 41,991 47,266 37,875 38,688 8.88 8.66 8.68 8.66 8.88 8.88 6.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 8.66 8.68 6.66 8.68 6.86 91.82 6.66 165.35 162.75 1*4.86 166.5j 162.48 183.87*^ 6.88 6.68 6.88 6.68 6.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 1.22 6.68 6.96 1.36 1.16 1.15 1.56 1.13 5,251,694.87 3,621,656.78 1,616,918.98 13,118.39 27,888 3,699,811 188.8555 1.4198 sssssu (-71- Beriod: 1949-1960 Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES FDR RENCVATICN AND REPAIR, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, LITHE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Note: All unit costs, except as noted, are correlated to total square feet of finished building based on estimated ratio of amount of each item in average single story structure of 1949-60 period. All cost figures and quantities are approximate and unit costs are based on early 1981 data. All cost A. BASIC IffiCOMXENDATIONS Category and Task Estinated Lhit Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. II. Sanitary Replace plunbing fixtures (kitchen not included\nserving only) Exterior Replace non-functioning window operators .32-.40 50/lkiit III. Interior Replace asphalt tile remni ning Replace suspended ceilings-1950 Install insulation-1950 bldg Refinish doors, paint walls, i Install new toilet enclosures bldg etc. 1.12 .57 .30 .65-.75/SF 275-300 ea. IV. Electro-Mechanical Replace lighting-1950 \u0026amp; '58 bldgs Replace boiler/air handling units Mise, V. 80% 20-25 40% 12-13,000 SF 18 Stalls 1.49-1.50/SF 12-13,000 SF 1.30-1.55/SF 31,000 Subtotal Building Special Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - 30% Ibtal Building Cost per Sq. Ft. 8,000-10,000 1,000-1,250 14,000-15,000 7,500-8,000 3,600-3,900 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 16,800-19,500 40,000-48,000 103,700-121,150 31,100-36,350 134,800-157,500 4.35-5.08 Site Work Develop plan for utili2a,tion and landscaping Paving-play areas -basketball area -walks 2.20-2.50/SY EXHIBIT 6 5-6 Acres 2000 SF 12,000 SF 15-1800 SF 1,500-3,000 500 - 600 3,000-3,500 400 - 500-72- Table 26 ALTERNAIE ESTIMATES, STEHIENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDOL (cont'd) V. Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ Site Work (cont'd) Grass Area-seeding -sprinkling Planting trees/shrubs Equipment Lifting Fencing 5500/A 1500/A 7-8,000 3000-3500 1100-1200 10,50-11/LF 2 Acres 3 Acres Basic 1 Set 2 Boles 800 LF @ 6' Subtotal, Site Work Mise and Contingency - 10% Ibtal Site Work 10,000-11,000 4,500-5,000 7,000-8,000 3,000-3,500 2,200-2,500 8,400-8,800 40,500-46,400 4,000-4,600 44,500-51,000 B. LPCRADING \"Pie extent of work under (A) is essentially that required to bring the facility ip to reasonable \"as is\" standards. ~ ' ----- n S, reasonable \"as is\" standards. In the building the quality of lighting would be the cmly ipgrading resulting but the extent of site inprove- rants reconmended, while basic to a full utilization of an inteimediate level school with comnunity participation, would from the present lack of development. prove an autcmatic upgrading Looking forward to extending the proper role of this school VO extenoing me proper role of this school another 20 years, considerable ipgrading and major replacements would be in view. , present building upgrading to systenwide standards probably would involve converting to fully air conditioned environment which in turn would inply optimal insulation policies. Thus in addition to ceiling ' insulation as in (A), the balance of the buildings' roofs and all window areas should be considered. Ihns in addition to ceiling In any event, it is likely the standard steel sash of the 1950 structure would be replaced with lower maintenance aluminum insulated glazing perhaps and possibly reduced glass area. Consideration of providing a larger sized recreational unit than the limited sized (1800 SF) cafeteria, but for educational and grams, should be part of the ipgrading estimate. coranunity pro- storm drainage or diverting its location could vide grass playfield on the northwest corner of the overall site. pro--73- Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SOEOL (cont'd) B. imiADING (cont'd) Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. Sanitary Replace drinking fountains Food service (preparation) II. Exterior Replace all windows, 1950 unit Paint all trim 350-400 ea, Lunp Sum .75-.80/SF III. Interior Carpet all classrooms Refinish interior New toilet partitions IV. Electro-Mechani cal Replace present HV system, except for work under A. 1300-1500/Room As in (A) 3.50-4.30/SF 6 75% 18 25,000 SF Building Subtotal: Mise, Spec Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - Add 30% Building TOTAL: Cost per Sq Ft incl A., BASIC REC'S V. New Construction hiulti-purpose gym/stage A/E Fees, Contingency, Equipment 30-35/SF 20% 4-5000 SF Subtotal: VI. Site Work As in (A) Develop play field w/ baseball backstop, etc. - allow for 12\" fill Additional lighting Additional equipment Additional planting 7000/Acre 7-8/Cy 1100-1200 ea. Net 3 A 20,000 CF 4 Subtotal, Add'l work Mise, Fees, Contingency, + 15% Total Site Work 2,100-2,400 10,000-35,000 18,000-19,000 1,000-1,200 23,400-27,000 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 87,500-107,500 154,800-217,600 46,400-65,280 201,200-282,900 10.80-14.21 120,000-175,000 24,000-35,000 144,000-210,000 40,500-46,400 20,000-22,000 30,000-36,000 4,400-4,800 3,000-3,500 3,500-4,000 32,400-36,000 + 102,900-118,400 15,100-17,600 $118,000-136,000-1^- Ihble 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDQL (cont'd) SUMMARY OF COSTS Action Required Oode Range of Est Cost in 1981 Dollars A. BASIC RECCWENnATICNS R 134,800-157,500 B. UPGRADING, excluding air conditioning and energy conservation measures R 201,200-282,900 SCBTOTAL-R 336,000-440,400 Equipment E Site Development S 118,000-136,000 Construction C 144,000-210,000 C. TOTAL RENOVATION TOTAL, excluding air conditioning $598,000-786,406 The configuration of Stephens School and its siting are among the poorest of the entire system, Ihere is little or no flexibility to the plan or structure to adapt to substantial alteration such as grouping of classroOTs or expansion. The rooms, however, are good sized squares which can be equipped in numerous ways for varying assignnent. Once rehabilitated this school should serve at its present capacity for another 20-25 years at which point it will be over 50 years and, because of the above constraints, may well prove to be expendable as _ part of the total system. It is very doubtful that such a building would lend itself to the major renovation concept followed at Mitchell, for exanple. Thus it is suggested that in the 2000-2010 period the ^rd will face either demolition or another igjgrading effort to maintain the status quo. aCity of Little Rock Jim Diiley C Mayor City Hill. Room 203 SOO W. Mark him Litll* Rock, AR 72201-142T (SOt) 371-4516 FAX (301)371-4496 I February 24, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 cws\n.nioN_ Re: Stephens Intmdistrict School Site Selection Dear Dr. Bernd: ADMKSEC. I have been informed by City staff from the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, that the current Stephens Elementary School located at 3700 W. 18th St. has been selected as the site for the new Stephens Interdisttict School that will open in 1994-95. . .... . , ..................................... We applaud the efforts of the LMD Board and the diligence of the Site Selection Committee in the selection of this site that will provide an innovative and exeiting alternative to not only the Stephens School neighborhood students, but also to other students located in Pulaski County who wish to attend. The City of Little Rock has made a long-term commitment to revitalize and stabilize our older and traditional neighborhoods and by the selection of this new school in the Stephens School area, makes our continued commitment even more important I have taken the liberty to outline some of these programs and housing initiatives that has and will have a tremendous impact on the St^hens School neighborhoods quality of life in the current, as well as, its future realm.  Community Development Block Grant/Public Works Projects and Expenditures in the Stephens School Area The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program defines iu Stephens School CDBG area as bordered on the north by 1-630, on the south by Roosevelt Road, on the east by the Union Pacific railroad traclu and the west by Elm Street. In that area the program has completed reconstruction of 16,939 linear feet of streeu (more than three miles) and 21,700 linear feet of drainage facilities (more than 4 miles) at a total cost of approximately $3,875,805. In addition, the program will reconstruct Maple Street from 25th to Asher Avenue and 26th Street from Pine to Maple within the next year at an estimated cost of $152,000. In the immediate vicinity of Stephens School itself, the improvements include underground drainage along Oak Street and reconstruction of Oak Street from 16th to 19th. The program also reconstructed Valentine from 14th to 18th and placed underground a drainage system that paralleled Valentine. EXHIBIT 7A map depicting these improvements in the first 16 years of the CDBG program is atuched. Housing Revitalization Efforts The City of Little Rock is actively involved in numerous programs to promote the revitalization of neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area along with its housing stocL We have actively been involved in fostering neighbortiood partnerships and giving long-range planning to these neighborhoods. We have seve:^ programs, jeach design^ to meet the special ne^ in the Stephens School community - these programs include: Save-A-Home The City acquires a house and repairs it to code standards using C.D.B.G. funds, then sells it to a low or moderate income family at cost or below cost. The buyer must be able to secure bank financing to purchase one of these homes. Affordable Housing The City is allowed to build new homes on vacant lots in existing - neighborhoods. These homes are designed and constructed in a manner to keep the sale price low enough to obtain financing by low and moderate income families. (We are currently building (3) homes in the Central High Area.) ReaAal Rehab Funds Funds are made available to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of rental property to meet local code standards located within the neighborhood revitalization program area. Homebuyers Group The City assists 40-60 citizens by providing counseling on home purchasing and credit managing skills. Each person will participate in a 12 month consumer education program designed to train them on how to effectively use credit to improve their quality of life through the purchase of a home and/or other retail items that require a good credit history. Homebuyer Assistance Program The City provides financial assistance, paying one-half of the minimal downpayment cost, including insurance and taxes\nto assist low and moderate income families in purchasing a home anywhere within the city limits of Little Rock for a house not to exceed $55,000. Community Development Corporations CDC The City along with the banking and business community have developed a public/private partnership to provide assistance to developers and community- based organizations for building/renovating low to moderate income housing and improving commercial services in older neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area. 2We have garnered the services of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LlSC) which is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization with a proven track record in community development. With the 1.5 million loan pwl in place, they will provide support in three principal ways: Building neighborhood CDC's capacity through administrative support grants\nprovide project funding\nand working with others to estoblish reliable systems for volume production of housing and other CDC development projccu. The Greater Little Rock CDC has selected the Stephens School neighborhood for their initial project focus that will encompass (12) blocks of housing and vacant lots near the current Stephens School location. The major thrust of their program will be to provide affordable housing opportunities through both rehabilitation and new construction. Leverage Loon Program The City has developed a joint loan program with First Commercial Bank to provide help to low and nnoderate income homeowners to fix up their older Little Rock homes and meet City code standards. Through this joint venture arrangement an applicant, if approved, will receive a below-market interest rate loon. This is a city-wide program. .......Neighbariiood Alert Center -3924 W. 12th aad Cedar - The Neighborhood Alert System/Center is a neighborhood-based center designed for available resources and various City services to be more accessible to the residents of Little Rock. The system/ocatcr serves as a collaborative and concentrated effort between residents, religious groups, businesses, schools, neighborhood and civic organizations, youth groups, and City Hall to improve the conditions and quality of life for its citizens. Even though this Alert Center is located on the northern boundary of the Stq)hens School neighborhood, it serves as the nucleus for existing and pro^xed programs in this area. This center currently has integrated (3) city departments along with their delivery efforts to create positive image of change in this neighborhood. service Department of Neighborhoods and Planning - Offers code enforcement officers, and premise inspectors that are responsible for enforcement of environmental codes, deteriorating homes, abandoned cars and weed lots. Fighting Back InKbtive - Offers Neighborhood Alert Center Facilitators to help coordinate neighborhood-based efforts to alcohol and other drug abuse abatement and alternatives. Little Rock Police Department - Offers community policing to develop a working relationship with neighbors for overall safety and crime reduction. (Currently has 3 foot patrol officers.) Volunteers - The most important element toward the effectiveness and success of the Alert Centers is the neighborhood volunteers. There is a role for all citizens to be a part of the solution in unifying to take back our neighborhoods. 3Intensified/Sy sterna tic Inspection Program This is a program that is just getting started. It requires the code enforcement officer to regularly inspect all properties in this neighborhood for obvious code violations such as improper garbage disposal, abandoned autos, high grass, weeds, litter, and vacant we^ lots. The code officer assigned to this area is responsible for taking the necessary enforcement action to ensure conection of the violations. This program currently includes vacant and abandoned structures. Hopefully, in the future we will have the resources to expand the program to include occupied structures^ Drug House Elimination Program On February 27, 1993 this program will kick-off. It is a comprehensive effort to unite all avail^le resources, including the citizens in this naghborhood, to eliminate drug houses and drug activity in the area. This program includes participation by the Code Enforcement staff, Little Rock Police Department, Fighting Back personnel and citizens. Paiirt Your Heart Out '93 The Stefdiens School neighborhood was selected for this years program. On May 1, forty homes within a 2-3 block radius of Stephens Elementary School will be painted by volunteer citizens from throughout the City. Preceding this event on AprU 17, a neighborhood clean-up effort is being planned. This effort involves all citizens in this neighborhood having City resources available, i.e. dumpsters, knuckle boom trucks, chipper/shredder to assist them in removing discarded furniture and appliances, rutile, trash, etc. from their premises. Again, we applaud your efforts in retaining die school on the current site and we are in full support of the Stephens Interdisthet School Site Selection Committee's recommendation to the LRSD Board. Respectively Submitted, Sun Dailey Mayor JD/TP:sc Attachment DIRECTOR PAC. COOR. cc: Charles Nickerson, Interim City Manager Billy J. Bowles, Assist. Superintendent for Desegregation Doug Eaton, Little Rock School District Lou Caudell Jim Lawson Wendy Salaam Tim Polk MAJNTCNWCE _ CUSTODIAL CONSTRUCTION^ AOMIN. SEC. 4Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 664^3334 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, --4 Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection Committee EXHIBIT 8I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I I COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN 1 CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. IGLRCDC) COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I 1 Introduction......................................................... Building Community Capacity........................ The GLRCDC............................................ Management Structure................................... Staffing ................................................................. Financial Resources ............................................ Geographical Area Served............................... Housing ................................................................. Initial Target Area .............................................. Community Obstacles to Overcome............ Actions to Overcome Obstacles ................... Coalition Building ............................................. Network Members ........................................... Network Objectives ........................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary ............................................................. APPENDIX Census Tract Map .............................. Midtown Service Area Map ............. Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile ............... 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I I I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I I IBUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! 1 Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network Is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. I I The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a kriowledfleable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and individuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts arxJ brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks:  Gt the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I I I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. I * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wHiing and able to allocate to the network. I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford except through network participation. [ For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners In revitalizing Greater Little Rock's Inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved In planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC. (GLRCDC) I I i I The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residential/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I i To sell renovated structures to low-income Individuals arxJ small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services'of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4I I I INTRODUCTION i The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I I The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each communitynetwork member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I 1 I* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wMing and able to aNocate to the network. I I I i Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford excepi through network participation. f I i For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners in revitalizing Greater Little Rocks inner city communities. 1 To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. will 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I I J The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Reverrue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC Is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residenfial/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and smaM disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residentlal facilities in the area. 1 To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! i Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and irtdividuals about the networking concept, The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Get the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is in place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three (3) years. The manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined arxl controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation. The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience in the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: I i Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 5Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. Staffing I The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). I During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be contracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources I i- During the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 15% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1 992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6I state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE   The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area Is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing Infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong Impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). - The primary goal of the neighborhood and Its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. ( i ! i The quality of life, including social aspects, is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. I i f I I. I 1 There are three pockets of substandard housing\ntwo are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should-be identified as priorities for any home Improvement programs that ard initiated in the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading in these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are\ngang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME I I Recognizing the need for \"bottom up planning\" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy\nI Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems)\n) Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection\nOrganization Obstacles The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must prove that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES I Organization Actions A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. I Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members 1 The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I i I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities\nCommunity Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the project's financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities\nProvide safe recreational activities and social services for youth\n11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens\nIncrease code enforcement\nDevelop safe, decent and affordable housing. Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. I In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. I A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) (Syyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #4 #5 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning GLRCDC 12 1993-1994 1993-1994 1993-1995 #2 ^2Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives ( . |. ... I The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, housing opportunities and information about the purpose and services of the network will be mailed to residents of the service area. The network will attract and motivate area residents to care about and work to address the neighborhood's problems and inform them about the market advantages of the Midtown area (proximity to the interstate, shopping malls, ' downtown and affordable homes). Objective I: Crime Prevention The Stephens School area has recently experienced gang related activities. The primary gang in the area is the \"Oak Street Posse\". A cooperative effort between the Little Rock Police, the GLRCDC and neighborhood activists will help to rid the area of drug activity. Other non-profit organizations are necessary to address the drug education and rehabilitation needs of area residents. Initial program activities for this area will be to request that the city provide street lights on high crime streets, increase police presence and assist neighborhood residents in forming crime watch and reporting groups. To decrease crime and gang activity, the network will implement a crime prevention program. The Little Rock Police Department is the designated network crime coordinator. A youth task force will be formed 13 to develop youth programs for the area. The goal of the task force is to work through the city's young people to check the tide of crime and gang activities and to channel this energy to useful purposes. I The networks' Drug Intervention Program will implement drug education training activities targeted to adults and youth in the service area. EducationaJ activities will focus on providing literature and referrals i for drug counseling and treatment. The network will maintain a list of rehabilitation or treatment organizations which provide counseling and rehabilitative programs. The list will contain the following information: 1 Name, address, and phone number of the organization. Types of services provided. Hours of operation, including emergency hours. The contact person's name and phone rximbers. I Fee structure, including insurance coverage. I The drug intervention youth activities will include providing drug free social activities, and community work activities. Weekend social functions will be provided that are properly supervised by adults and security personnel for youths up to 18 years of age. Community work activities such as the Self-Help Paint Program, vacant lot cleaning, and yard maintenance activities will provide minimum wage earning opportunities for service area youth. Adult drug education and training activities will focus on training them to recognize symptoms of drug use and provide intervention training to combat the use and sale of drugs in their neighborhoods. In cooperation with the Little Rock Police Department, GYST House, the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Division and other drug and crime prevention programs in the community, training materials, training facilitators and training activities such as a Drug Awareness Week will be implemented. Priority drug intervention activities will be implemented in the Oak Street area and education and training activities will be conducted at Stephens school. 14Objective 11: Safe Youth Recreation and Social Activities During the summer months, there is little for the youth to do. The lack of excitement, zest, thrills, fun, and challenges have created a dull routine life that has fostered the increased involvement of youth in criminal and other socially undesirable activities. I The cooperative network will begin planning youth activities in the first quarter of 1993. New Futures will be asked to serve as youth activities coordinator. The network will implement educational, recreational and work activities for service area youth. I I I Educational activities will include career exploration and tutorial assistance for summer school youth. Recreational activities will include supervised and organized sports activities such as bowling, skating, swimming, softball and other sports-in which male and female youth can jointly participate. The disadvantaged youth in the service area win be provided work opportunities through the city's Job Partnership Training Program. Some work activities will take place in the service area with youth supporting the network's vacant lot enforcement activities. Emphasis will be placed on recruiting parents and other adults in the service area to participate as mentors, supervisors and other program support roles. Objective III: Senior Citizen Social Service Activities The explosive growth in the older population deserves our special attention. For older residents to maintain independent lifestyles, the network will have to develop a variety of housing alternatives and support systems that address the social needs and health limitations of this group. Many older residents live alone and may suffer from chronic and disabling diseases. The housing and support system needs of these mostly widowed, largely female, often frail elderly are of major concern for the network. Many of their homes are large enough to house a four or five member family, making shared housing a viable alternative that helps residents share expenses while providing them with companionship. Unused space can be converted to accessory apartments which permit the sharing of a house without requiring the merger of two nuclear families. 15For our older residents to retain their independent living status, however, a mix of transportation, social, nutrition, and health services to accompany housing programs is necessary. t Central Arkansas Agency on Aging will be asked to serve as senior citizens activity coordinator. The senior citizens network will plan and implement transportation services to aid older residents with access to supportive services and nutrition programs that provide them with at least one hot meal, frozen, or supplemental meal (with a satisfactory storage life) at least five days during the week. I i The network will provide health education, recreation, and referral services for health and recreational activities. The network will encourage and assist older residents to use the services available to them. ( Objective IV: Code Enforcement Fair Hoosing and Code Enforcement Many of the vacant lots, abandoned and boarded houses are owned by absentee landlords. Priority code enforcement will be directed toward the cleaning of vacant lots and the abandoned and boarded houses in the service area. I The GLRCDC is the designated code enforcement network coordinator and will identify vacant lots that need trash removal and grass cutting. A list of these properties will be compiled, their code deficiencies specified and the list will be presented to the Code Enforcement Department of the city. The city will provide the owners with a formal notice of the code violations and a deadline to make the needed corrections. If the corrections are not made within the specified time, the city or its designated agent will make the corrections and invoice the owner for the services. The network coordinator will also identify abandoned or boarded property in the service area. The network coordinator will request that the city inspect the properties for code violations and provide owners with a formal notification of the code deficiencies. If the owner is low income, elderly, handicapped or disabled, the program counselor will seek assistance from the city to bring the property within code. Other code violators who are unable or unwilling to make needed repairs will be asked to donate the property to the program for removal or repairs. 16Objective V: Safe, Decent, Affordable Housing A Homeowner Training Program is projected to begin during the second quarter of 1993. The Urban League of Arkansas is the designated network homeowner training coordinator for the activity. The training is projected to provide not less than 1 5 participants during the first year. I k ( f I The program will provide participants with credit counseling similar to the loan origination by a rnortgage company. The counseling will analyze a participant's sources of income and liabilities to establish whether the client's financial status is adequate to support the desired loan. A credit report on each participant will be obtained at a cost of five dollars per person. If the participant has credit problems, the program workers will assist the participant toward establishing good credit, writing letters of explanations and/or structuring payment plans. If the income of the participant is inadequate, the program workers will assist the participant in locating a more affordable house. The program will also provide pre-qualification services for people who have not selected a house, but want to know how much they can afford and if they will have problems at the bank. The program will assist participants with completing finance application documents, provide each participant with a bank referral letter and educate clients on the merits of using checking accounts. Housing Development The network will initially concentrate its rehabilitation and housing development efforts in the area bordering Stephens School. The GLRCDC is the designated network housing development coordinator. The area is experiencing a high percentage of deteriorating housing units. The structural conditions are deteriorating faster than other parts of the service area. The network will identify a four square block area adjoining the north boundary of Stephens School within the area, and seek to obtain the cooperation of block home owners. The network will seek to h\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_656","title":"Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School buildings","Wakefield Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary"],"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/656"],"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\nNews clippings and computer printed images of school destroyed by fire in 2002\nArkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 1. 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist, will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman. the schools tapes will be shown each Friday 1... Qjg school via closed circuit Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie dramatizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie, chairman of the theatre arts department at the UniAmericans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people who will make black history come alive for students in the Little Rock School District this month. Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield Africa or black history in the United States. Third-graders are television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous I Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark the month. -------------- In other schools around the studying Kenya this month while district similar events are being fipn. .........11 c-------------------------planned jerry Rayford, a district fifth-graders will focus on the civ- il rights movement in the United States. patron, will visit Terry Elemen- pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama department will perform a skit at tary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana, read books about black history and illustrate them in various art forms. At the end of the month. Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the fhz. .-.1, 1 I? u no .-----------\nschool will celebrate Underground the school on Feb. 23. A group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style.   ' performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. Stud- Other students vdll attend the At Gibbs Magnet Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of Buffalo Sol- School. which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium. The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit At Dunbar International Stud----------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- ent Mary Swift, mances of a musical entitled Kikukuu, a Swahili term that Railroad, at Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. Ajjv 11 r. 1 of the U.S. Army that was sent to Additionally Dunbar students guard the western frontier in will select or produce videotapes 1866.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie drama-  ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman, the schools tapes will be shown each Friday in the school via closed circuit tizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie. chairman of the theatre arts department at the Uni- Americans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous 1 Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark - --- Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people Africa or black history in the who will make black history United States. Third-graders are hT studying Kenya this month while distocLsimifaT^wnuare bemg tie Rock School District this fifth-graders will focus on the civ- -----' '  .. . ** rights movement in the United Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield States. come alive for students in the Lit- faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama dethe month. In other schools around the planned. Jerry Rayford, a district patron, will visit Terry Elementary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana read books about black history and illustrate them in various art Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance ------ of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the the entire school will celebrate Underground Railroad at forms. At the end of the month. partment will perform a skit at ccieuraie .  group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style, performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. 1 Stud- Other students will attend the Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of \"Buffalo Sol- School, which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium, The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit and Creole populations. At Dunbar International Stud---------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- mances of a musical entitled ent Mary Swift. Railroad,\" Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. of the U.S. Army that was sent to Kikukiiii  a Swahili Additionally, Dunbar students guard the western frontier in MKUKuu, a Swahili term that will select or produce videotapes ----- 1866.Atkansas l\u0026gt;\nnMM\nrat iW\u0026lt;O'Zfllc )  TUESDAY, OCTOBERS, 1999 Arkansas Domocfnl-Ga.otle'STEVE KFESEE a supervision aide at Wakefield Monday lor the first day of a joint preschool program sponsored by the Little Rock School District and Pulaski Counly Head Start. Rodrick Hicks, Elementary, dressed as Leo the Lion, leads 4-year-olds  _ _i._ 1  1. I :iln Dz-./'L' erhnn wearing ariimal masks into the Little Rock school LR preschoolers benefit from new space Multiagency program expands early childhood educational offeiings  Head Start is a long-standing, fed- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARfCANSAS DF.MOCR.\\T-OA7F.TTE tume of a lion mascot and snacked on animal cookies while assorted The elastic band on Brittany dignitaries looked on and video Austins chicken face mask had cameras rolled. erally funded preschool program for children from low-income families. About half the children in the Wakefield program qualified under Head Start's family income limits. The district and Head Start eu uui, __ J The parade and subsequent good day for the 4-year-old speeches marked the opening of -  -   ^1^. early childhood education classrooms at Wakefield, the result snapped but. otherwise, Monday was a on her first day of preschool at Lit-tie Rocks Wakefield Elementary. The ponytailed marched in a short parade with Brittany of a now multiagency collaboration that includes the Little Rock her 35 classmates, each of whom -S-c-h--o-o--l -D--i-s-t-r-i-c-t and the Pulaski was hidden behind an animal County Head Start program, which have served preschoolers for several years, but Wakefield is their first formal independently mask. She petted an infant lion cub, fearlessly touched the cos- Fourth  Continued horn Page 1D trict has provided preschool class-county iieau oiaii piugiuu., v,,...... - .- is operated by the University of joint venture. Tlre Littte^ Arkansas for Medical Sciences. See FOURTH, Page 3B After Monday's ceremonies, ------------ Brittany and her Wakefield class- increase in preschool prograins mates moved into two spacious partly as a result of new state tund-classrooms, each fVeshly decorated ig for elementary schools where and newly equipped with the kinds 75 percent of more ot students of things that stir a youngsters come from low-income families, imagination\nbrightly colored al- The money is earmarked tor P . . _____1 ____1.1  fhrniioh tir^t The district is able to finance an e.s for more than 700 children a imagination\nbrightly colored ai- me moiwy is eannaiKeu year at 21 of its 3.5 elementary phabet rugs, tricycles, sand tables prekindergarten through first  schools. Pulaski County Head Start play kitchens and a plastic tool grades. this year has 29 preschool centers bench. Staff from Satoi P^k serving almost 1,000 children. The classroom space was made Faulkner County pronded teo Hon  -  -    possible by the transfer this year of cubs and a tiger cub for the chil-all Little Rock sixth-grade classes dren to study Monday as part ol from elementary schools to middle their fii'st day of school activities, schools. Besides the space, tlie dis---------- trict is providing daily lunches and tu uApuuu . ............. .. v-v. a curriculum that gives children ex-grain from 800 to as many as 1,300 periences with dramatic play, children within a year. , blocks, art, language, hand eye-co-  Little Hock Superintendent Les  Carnine told parents, scliool district officials and university representatives gathered in the Wakefield library that the district wants to expand its early childhood pro... liaren wnnin a year. , This particular agreement with not only UAMS but with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock will help us maximize our efforts in the school district to serve 4-yciir-olds, Canline said. This is exciting to us. This is the first of what we think is a inaivclous agreeiiicnt among the agencies. Dr. Charles Ecild, a UAMS pediatrician at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and executive director of Pulaski County Head Start, in an inteivicw later in the day, praised ,Caniine's interest in expanding early childhood education. He said the Wakefield program should prove to be a model program that could work in all three of the Pulaski County school districts. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, like Little Rock, are partners in the collaboration. Pulaski County Head Start uses sjiace in some county and North Little Rock buildings but the agencies are not yet jointly planning preschool programs. ordination, science and matli. The classes are staffed with teachers and aides jointly provided by the district and Head Start. Both agencies helped to equip the rooms, as well. Head Start is paying for a family enrichment specialist for the early childhood program. In that position, Mysti Norman will coordinate the delivery of medical and social services, such as dental care, vision and health screenings, nutritional and developmental assessments and referrals to family service agencies. Plans are under way to establish a class for 4-year-olds at Meadowcliff Elementary within the next several weeks. Other potential sites for preschool programs are Western Hills, Terry, Otter Creek and Forest Park elenieiitaries, depending on the availability of space.  SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 2002  J Ferocious blaze guts grade school in LR Fire crew never had a chance to stop it BY DIANA RASCHKE AND CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Voegele Mechanic^ Contractors of North Little Rock began a $551,000 renovation of the school Little Rocks Wakefield Ele- this summer, including installa-mentary School was destroyed tion of central heating and air by fire on Friday, canceling a conditioning. summer community program for Ninety students in prekinder-about 90 children and throwing garten through fifth grades were into question where nearly 400 ^t the school earlier Friday parpupils will attend classes this ticipating in a five-day-a-week fall, summer program sponsored The southwest Little Rock by the University of Arkansas at school, at 75 Westminister Drive, Little Rocks Share America procaught fire around 6 p.m. and gram. The summer session, was still burning four hours lat- called Camp Medical Mania, er. No one was injured, and fire- provides day-long activities in fighters didnt know how the fire science, math and health for the started. children  many of whom live Firefighters said the build- in the Wakefield community ings age and structure made  as well as field trips to local fighting the blaze difficult. Sup- museums and parks. plies left behirid by construction Four weeks remain of the six-workers and doors propped week program. Next weeks ac-open to accommodate this sum- tivities have been canceled, mers renovations on the 43- Heather Gage, assistant to the year-old school probably helped director for the program, said fuel the fire, they said. late Friday night. Although pupils are on sum- School officials said a janitor Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/RUSSELL POWELL met vacation, the school was oc- was in the building Friday A Little Rock firefighter hoses down hot spots at Wakefield Elementary cupied Friday by contractors evening and reported the fire. School on Lancaster Road. The southwest Little Rock school was de- working on the schools heating The blaze consumed new strayed in the fire, which started about 6 p.m. Friday. and air-conditioning system. See SCHOOL, Page 9A School  Continued from Page 1A phones, new lights, a new ceiling, and 50 computers still packed in their boxes. We were going to get a really good start on the yeai\n\" kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said. Miller watched her classroom burn along with her posters, cassette tapes, the charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. The fire had a good start on us when firefighters arrived. Little Rock fire safety officer Bob Franklin said. \"The fire crew never really had the chance to stop it, he said. He said workers inside the building had propped the fire doors open, allowing the flames to spread, and that building sup- Gloria Miller watched her classroom bum along with her posters, cassette tapes, the , charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. plies left in the halls probably acted as fuel. The fire seemed most concentrated in the northwest area of the building, Franklin said. At one point, he said, firefighters were pouring 5,500 gallons of water per minute on the fire, and you could tell that was-nt even putting a dent in it, Franklin said. The roofs metal truss construction puts it at risk of collapsing in extreme heat, Franklin said, so firefighters were unable to enter the building and stood several yards from its walls. This, Franklin said, is going to be an all-nighter. Neighbors and teachers watched the flames hollow out a cornerstone of their community. Wakefield Neighborhood Association President Don Darnell said with pride that he had been a member of the first graduating sixth-grade class at Wakefield. If I stop and think about it long enough, its tough, he said. Wakefield has been a community meeting center for years, he said. Its more than a place for students to go five days a week,\" he said. 17118 has been a real center for community activity. Of the 384 pupils who attend the school, ordy 10 ride the bus. Principal Les Taylor said. Most of the rest live close enough to walk. For the teachers and the kids and the parents, its really a tragedy, he said. To have a school so close, its really, really sad. If theres any fortunate thing about this, its that well have six to eight weeks to plan where were going to be, Taylor said. If it happened during the school year, wed have one or two days. Officials will meet Monday to start planning, Taylor said. Three of Eduardo Ramos children were to start at Wakefield this fall. Yolanda, who will be in fifth grade, asked to transfer from Cloverdale Elementary because Wakefield is less than a block away from her home at I Daven Court On Friday she covered her mouth with her hands to block the thick smoke and told her father she could see the flames better from the other side of the house. He said the fire might bring the neighborhood even closer to the school. Now its going to make people take care of the school and improve the school, Eduardo Ramos said. Were going to have a new school now. Superintendent Ken James, who will mark his first anniversary as Little Rock superintendent on Monday, was in California on Friday to attend a Milken Family Foundation National Educator Awards ceremony. James staff said Friday night that he had been notified of the fire. Efforts to reach officials from Voegele Mechanical Contractors in North Little Rock were unsuccessful late Friday. Wakefield is believed to be the districts first school in active use to be destroyed by fire. It is a relatively small school compared with the other 33 ele-mentaries in the states largest school district, which has more than 25,000 students. The school was built in 1959 by the Pulaski County Special School District. The Little Rock School District acquired it in 1986. It was one of 14 county schools transferred to the Little Rock district in a federal court order Intended to remedy racial segregation problems in the two districts. The 14 schools were within the city limits but outside the Little Rock School Districts boundaries. Wakefields eastern wing of about eight classrooms was added in 1970. That wing was found earlier this year to be structurally damaged and was slated to be replaced over the next several months with proceeds from a school district tax increase passed by voters in May 2000. That tax, which is being used to renovate schools throughout the district, was also being used to finance $551,000 in work under way on the schools ventilation and fire alarm systems. Security cameras and energy efficient lighting were installed at the school only last year. Initially, it appeared the eastern wing was not as damaged by the fire as the older part of the building, school district spokesman Suellen Vann said. But she said sections of the roof appear to have fallen even in that area of the school. This is the second major fire in the Little Rock School District in 10 years. In October 1994, about 60 percent of Chicot Elementary School was heavily damaged by a fire started in the schools media center. Investigators determined that the blaze was set by two girls, 11 and 8, pupils who set the fire after hours with matches. The school was rebuilt but half the student body was sent to the districts Oakhurst School and the other half to Ish School for several months. More recently, the stage area at the historic Central High School was damaged by a fire that was extinguished before it spread. Repairs were made without closing the school. Vann said Wakefield is insured. The value of the school was unavailable Friday night. Its not just a building. Its a place where teachers and chil-dren come together and some- j thing special happens inside the classroom, Vann said. I 5-1 /  SUNDAY, JUNE 30, 2002  3B J\" I t ' A [ij 1 U \u0026gt; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIN KRAIN Little Rock firefighters on Saturday morning spray the smoldering remains of Wakefield Elementary School in southwest Little Rock. The school caught fire about 6 p.m. Friday and burned throughout the night. Wakefield fire deemed accidental LR district rnust decide where pupils will go before Aug. 19 opening BY AMY SCHLESING AND DIANA RASCHKE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The fire that destroyed Wake-field Elementary School in southwest Little Rock was ignited by an errant welding spark during renovations at the school Friday afternoon. We have no reason to believe it was arson. This was a very expensive accidental fire, Little Rock Assistant Fire Marshal Randy Davenport said. There is no question of negligence. Welding produces tremendous heat and sparks. It happens. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been working on air-conditioning brackets in rooms U and 12 of the school Friday afternoon. Voegele was un-uJ W. MARKHAM'g^ uj CD 1 fire engines didnt leave the The school district closed Bad-school until 4 p.m. Saturday, gett this spring to save money. when the building was little more than a field of rubble. Were looWng at the capacity of the elementary schools in Wakefield Elementary 1 N Arkansas Oemocrat-Gazefle The building had begun to southwest Little Rock, Vann collapse Friday night. As Wake- said, but most of our schools field Principal Les Taylor looked near Wakefield are pretty full. on Saturday morning, a bull- About 10 Wakefield Elemen-dozer leveled the unstable build- tary students rode buses. Most ing and churned the smoldering students walked to school, Vann remains as firefighters doused said. them with water. Well just have to take a look Davenport said Engine 17 at all those other schools, she would continue to make hourly said. If we move them, well inchecks at the site for the next cur additional transportation few days and cool the ashes with costs. water. Superintendent Ken James Little Rock School District of- was in Los Angeles on Friday at-ficials will meet Monday to look tending a national education at options for Wakefields 400 seminar at which a Mabelvale students  whether to use Magnet Middle School teacher portable buildings and rebuild, received a Milken Family Foun- Fire engines were called at to distribute the students across dation National Educator Award. der contract to complete a 6:04 p.m., but within minutes, other schools or use a recently He plans to fly back to Little $551,000 renovation of the the schools airy hallways and closed school. Rock today. school. combustible books, desks and Suellen Vann, spokesman for Its truly one of our neigh- The workers put away their chairs had spread the fire the Little Rock School District, borhood schools, James said, equipment and left the school throughout the structure. said a decision will have to be Its always tough to lose a about 3:30 p.m., and when a jan- It was rolling good, Daven- made very quickly. School starts school in any kind of situation, itor arrived shortly before 6 p.m., port said. Our guys didnt stand Aug. 19. Its one of those tragedies that he found heavy smoke and a chance. One option is reopening Bad- well have to regroup and look flames in the two rooms, Dav- Firefighters got the blaze un- gett Elementary School at 6900 at our options and see whats enport said. der control about midnight. But Pecan Ave. on the citys east side. See SCHOOL FIRE, Page 8B July 2. 2002 Wakefield school likely to rise again ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rocks Wakefield Elementary School  which was ravaged by fire last week  will likely be rebuilt, district Superintendent Ken James said Monday. In the meantime, he said, hes searching for a stand-in school site for the nearly 400 children displaced by the blaze. James will meet with School Board members at a special meeting at 5 p.m. Wednesday to review options for the children who are to start the new school year Aug. 19. James said it is his intent to find a site that will be the least disruptive to the pupils, many of whom walked to Wakefield from nearby homes. Possibilities include reopening and assigning the Wakefield children to Badgett Elementary, which was closed at the end of this past school year as a way to save the district money. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road, is 9/i miles down Interstates 30 and 440 from Wakefield, which is at 700 Westminister in southwest Little Rock. The use of Badgett, however, would likely preclude the prekindergarten and Head Start classes for 40 4-year-olds at Wakefield. The district doesnt bus 4-year-olds. Other options include dividing the Wakefield student body among other southwest Little Rock schools or housing Wakefield children in portable classrooms on the Wakefield site. However, James said he doubted that the site could accommodate the number of portable buildings that would be necessary. Wakefield was insured with a $100,000 deductible, James said. The fire was reported Friday evening by a school janitor. Investigators are focusing on the possibility that errant sparks from welding work done in the building earlier in the day on a new ventilation system went undetected and led to the fire.I  WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2002  School fire to send voters to church ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Election a light turnout is expected. Early voting is running Only 170 Little Rock residents smoothly at the Pulaski County Commission met Tuesday to ap- had voted early by Tuesday af- Courthouse, the only early vot- point a substitute polling site for ternoon. ing site for next weeks election, Wakefield Elementary School. The Peabody Hotel Group Election Coordinator Luke Dren- The school, which is the regular is asking voters for permission nan said. polling site for Precinct 756G, to use\"$19 million in revenue humed down Friday. Voters who went to the school to vote will now cast bal- bonds to renovate the hotel. A vote for the bonds wont in No problems. Were ready and roaring, he said. Early voters are using the crease taxes or leave Little Rock iVotronics electronic ballots, lots at Geyer Springs United liable to repay the bonds, but while people who wait until Methodist Church instead. Amendment 65 to the Arkansas next Tuesday to vote will use All other regular voting sites Constitution requires public paper ballots. in the city will be open for vot- votes on revenue bonds to fi- County-Circuit Clerk Carolyn ers next Tuesday in a special nance hotels, office buildings and Staleys office mailed out 574 bal- el^on on the bond issue for the recreational facilities. lots to absentee voters and had Hilton Inn on University Avenue. ~  . . The Peabody Hotel Group gotten 352 back Tuesday. Little Rocks 130,000 regis- will pay for the special election. t Absentee voters have until tered voters are eligible to par- which is expected to cost 7:30 p.m. next Tuesday to return ticipate in the July 9 election, but $42,000. their ballots. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2002  Get Wakefield school rebuilt, board orders Meantime, most pupils to go to Badgett BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE When Little Rocks fire-ravaged Wakefield Elementary School is rebuilt, a new marquee sign purchased by the school and its Parent-Teacher Association will be there to herald the opening. The districts School Board on Wednesday removed any doubt about Wakefields future when it directed Superintendent Ken James to start the process of rebuilding the school at the existing site as soon as possible. In the meantime, the $5,000 sign purchased shortly before last Fridays fire will go into storage, and nearly all Wakefield pupils and staff members will be temporarily assigned to Badgett Elementary School, which was closed earlier this year to cut district expenses. The only exception to the Badgett assignment will be for pre-kindergartners and children in the federal Head Start program. They will go to Meadowcliff Elementary. The board selected Badgett as the alternate site for the more than 300 displaced pupils and the staff with the blessir^ of the Wakefield faculty and its PTA leader. I think its a great decision, Principal Les Taylor said after the board meeting, which was attended by nearly two dozen See WAKEFIELD, Page3B Wakefield  Continued from Page 1B Wakefield employees wearing navy-blue Wakefield T-shirts. I think it is very, very important to the staff in light of the tragedy that we all stay together. Investigators believe the fire, which was reported by the school custodian about 6 p.m. Friday, was started accidentally by errant welding sparks earlier in the day. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been installing air-conditioning brackets in Rooms 11 and 12 of the 43-year- old school that aftemooa Some $550,000 in renovations, includii^ a new heating and air- conditioning system, were under way at the school at 75 Westminister Road. James suggested several options for the displaced pupils but recommended the one that Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in kindergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. would send pupils and teachers to Badgett. Badgett is 9.5 miles away at 6900 Pecan Road, near Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field. Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in londergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. Badgett can accommodate them ail if the four existing portable buildings on that campus are used and two additional ones are acquired. Other options called for assigning kindergartners and first- graders to the eight-classroom wing that is still usable at the Wakefield campus and sending older children to Badgett. That would keep the youngest children close to home, James said, but could provide an obstacle to the quick rebuilding of the school Additionally, the eight-room wing addition that was built in 1970 was structurally deteriorating before the fire and was slated to be replaced. James also offered the possibility of sending Wakefields children and staff to several different district schools but said he didnt believe that was a suitable option. The board also considered using nearby buildings not owned by the Little Rock district, including Pulaski County Special School Districts old Daisy Bates School, which the city of Little Rock now owns. The cost of readying the buildings for students was too expensive, though. District officials hope that insurance settlements will provide enough money to not only reconstruct the school but also compensate the district for student transportation to Badgett and at least partially reimburse teachers for their teaching aids and other belongings that were destroyed. Most of Wakefields pupils walked to the school. Building a new school the size of Wakefield is expected to cost about $3.7 million. However, district officials already are talking about adding classrooms to accommodate enrollment growth. A final insurance settlement is not expected for several weeks. Wednesdays School Board meeting was the first opportunity for a reunion of the Wakefield staff since the fire. After the board meeting, teachers gathered around a hastily compiled school album of before- and after- the-fire photographs. Here is one of the mats the children nap on, kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said as she pointed to a blue speck in the rubble shown in one picture. That looks like a pocket chart, she said of a pink spot in another photo. Erica Hughes said her fourth- grade daughter and fifth-grade son have cried over the loss of the school they have attended since starting school. They also were enrolled in the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America six-week summer program, which was moved to the Southwest Community Assembly of God Church. They made the best decision they could considering what they had to work with, Hughes said about the Badgett choice. But it will be difficult for parents as far as transportation because of lot of people in that community walk their kids to school.School fire  Continued from Page 1B best for the students and the staff at Wakefield. Meanwhile, a summer day camp that was in its second of six weeks at the school has found a new home in the neighborhood. The school was one of six sites for a five-day-a-week summer day camp sponsored by the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America program. Southwest Community Assembly of God at 7400 Lancaster Road has volunteered to house the program, which serves about 90 students, program director Cheryl Chapman said. The program, canceled this week, will resume July 8 and finish its final three weeks at the church just two blocks from Wakefield. The great news is that a community pulls together when theres a disaster like this, she said. Theyre a great church that does a lot of thmgs in the community. The Rev. Will Deerman, pastor of the church, said he had thought about offering the church to the Share America program when he first saw the flames Friday night. He met with Chapman on Saturday and made the offer. Ive known Cheryl for several years, Deerman said. I think its going to work out just fine. I just hope we have all the space they need. The Share America program serves children in kindergarten through fifth grades with the ed- ucational summer program The program lost books, food and i other supphes in the fire. Chap-  man said. The programs theme is Camp j Medical Mania. Chapman said i children who had just learned : about the Red Cross were\namazed to see the medical work-  ers show up at the school Friday and Saturday, where they fed and helped prevent heat exhaustion for the more than 100 firefighters. What a lesson, she said. They started saying, Look at all these people that are here to help out.  The loss of the school has left more than students and campers without a facility, however. The Pulaski Coimty Election Commission will have to find a new polling place for neighborhood residents before the July 9 special election. A bond issue for renovation of the Little Rock Hilton hotel is on the ballot. Charles King, the commissions chairman, suggested the^ Wakefield School site might be combined with another established polling place at the nearby Wakefield Baptist Chinrch. As city leaders worked to fill the void left by the demol-  ished school and community I center, neighbors gathered ' aroimd the rubble. I When officials removed the  yellow tape surrounding the rub- I ble Saturday afternoon, neigh- I bors crept up close with cam- eras. Joyce Kennedy attended sixth feet away, used to work in Wake- grade at Wakefield when it fields cafeteria. opened in 1959 and still lives nearby on Exeter Drive. She took pictures Saturday of heaps of tangled and warped metal, smoke stiU rising in places. Her mother, sitting in the ear a few Kennedy said she almost cried when she.h|ard V^efield kz4 --------------s had burned. Now, she said, the photos are all Ive got left of it. I could say I remembered it when. I 3'2 0, 2 0 0 2\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_555","title":"Loan agreement","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2001"],"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--Finance","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Loan agreement"],"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/555"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nArkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 6^2-4475^ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Divisj^^ arr. i .o January 31, 1994 FEB 1 1994 OUwo oi Cc\nMr. Jerry Malone 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jeriry and Chris: The Arkansas Department of Education would like to schedule a meeting with one or both of you and district representatives to discuss the Little Rock loan provision. Page 26 of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement specifically states, \"If at anytime between the date of this Agreement and December 31, 2000, the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. H The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the standardized test to be used to evaluate the progress of LRSD. Please call or write to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Elizabeth Boyter cc: All Counsel of Record EB/say STATE 50 .Members: CARLE. .EAUi D '- F ELLt FaE R-OE  \\i ios- CFuirmn  ELAISE SCOTT. Little Rock \\ ice Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH, JR..Tillar AILLIAM H. FISHER. Paragould -JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR.. Fen Smith JAMES A McLARTY Hl. Ne^^non : SRY. A'NadelrhiJ CHERRY WALKER. Lime Rock NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock Ar. Laual Opponunii\u0026gt; Emploser 05/11/1999 07: 47 PHILLIPS o  r} 4  pb   5016324336 I r I A * a * a Miebitta a  PESEaFCH 4MD DESIGM PHONE No. : S17 349 7874 I ]  vaiTBxitr W T 4 Sta 4 XOKl xsMoaxaaQM TO) Qayla Pofctac, XK Dapt. of Iduo. FROMt Buaan Phillipa Page Jul.23 1995 02 1:34rn S.x. PHILLIPS, CONSOLTAifT 0 r f J c K 4 2 3 4 X * r i a  r 0 k * * 0  , ( 4 1  1 1 XI base 4 M I 4 F22 SATS I July 21, 1995 XKi Raaponsa to Saeonmandat ion tgon Joaana Lanka I have revlawod tho you forwarded to ao. memo Dr. and aappotftlim dooaoantatlon from LanMa Jtaa sworidad uaofui data Joanne Lonko auremarited the Iseusg Involved In ehooeiing r Little Rock settlement. Sefere coO^entlng raguirament and teat score altoraatiwe, i offer a faw regarding my interpretation ot ihB languaQe at the settlement. altoraatiws, The Little Rook Sattlafwant **Tfffrmnt and Bueeinetly * metric for tho mandato of the opoelfically on the 90% a few general cofpjnenta Thera ara savoral key phrasaa 3a the pdirtiea thlrv^ ehar-rwlth  k7 Z Sattlemant daa\u0026lt;l i.n order to implement Its tarms. The ..ollowlng are some thoughts about thM definitions. ^'.4\"* time\"  indioeteB thatt the event need happen and can be meaaurad at any hisM period during the school year. only once \"atandardixed taat\"  ia a nationally normed, **2 *** payohetnetrie quality. the JaRaMorar Is Rook already adalntetara thija for the aattlanent mandate. - - . If Little lhstru*|}t, it would ba a logical choice 3. \"composita saoraa\"  uae g thia teralnolegy suggesta an M A UMmx acoc* Off one that aaor4iffM^n \u0026lt;cadBio eubjeot.^ *.. ith raspec? to the 3a:::s^:co:e\n brs:\nr J52r..rbr}\nother parte of the be attactea by wording in .kill. i. .Hue.. I*' I\" alluded to, the beelo hatte^ Were 1 SaSm. equalising the totality of eduoefeioos score may be more appropriate. acre may be moat appropriate. I have been made about the broader complete battary iF r 05/11/1999 07:47 5016324336 duo\u0026amp;tion PESEAFCH AUD DESI6N Itttle Hock Sattlamant . . . p. 2 'paoial aduoation atuRtonta\"  this probably studanta in th* Littla aook eohoole whg haw^ toa*:l.n9, plaood Psaaumably, fcMtonca aduaatlon In apealaX dtw\u0026gt;at4*n atudanta astt aa^tlaaant, what about otHM an XSP refers t tha Sof Evaluation but b taatad. to all tino of not yot by Although ipaolal the language ^WcH *9 vocational atudonta, I diieabiiitlaa under floetlon 304? of tha aa absent***, ox atudAata with gualleyl^ ncnguslifylng .tud.nts with dlaabllltiaa (.f. , a nen-a^^alaX adai^tlan atudont with dyolaxla or vloualXy Inpalsod student t th* aro^ti \u0026gt;tn$|liah psoflolMney ba'tit 4 X oXavaxoom) 7 a will atuddnti onl.?2inL  l*iMe an non-black students or only those of auropeen anmtry? ba* about hispanie Americans? inrttoded/ aeilit eil gradss ba tasted? results for different grade* to be oc^bi^d? studanta^ - Which gradat \u0026lt;loi tbl* all anoMtzy? How ora 6. \"90% or greeter\"  the  intent for the mean score at bltu^ : aeeme to indlcata an mean tcora for whitoa. at laast nine tantha of tha .. Thimaay be gn unreal lotic the time irana and ebstadOee to be everoome. approximately five yeart to drereaee learning deficit of poverty which have develed over ^udtote' lifsti^o?.' City, which spent latlllans in th* public doeegregation has bean to aohievement test ohstadtiaE axpactatlen given Little Rock haa a and tha effacte has orders, aklllsna .ta Sven Xanaas achools scores. algnifleantly unde\nIncrease In defining a presumption of I diaeriaiaiatien the federal  .in the employment arena, government has 'uppert\u0026lt;\u0026lt; an 30 rule. percent applicants hired. **- - ^ . . . refer Thus, applicants are hired, at suet also taet ssBraa hi\u0026gt;4 ta the However, the 304 9 avallahla So hired to Moreover, if an eraploysr opportunity to deisonatrete' aecions. 2n oassB such se thiSx rule, if 7C of gualifiad whita leeet f giMlifiad minority applicants *oid ipreeuaption of diserin-.' this ^et\n. the aniployer still a :\u0026gt;rMMBptlon dlaerlr.lnaticn. haa an * acwpdllKj intacsat to Justify its in cases such as Peers ?,i l,ga9 between ainority and aajorilj^ at issue. In such oasea^ adjainiatratoro to insure thd* ____ xiaon earn a high school diploma.\nRewe*eV|l minority scores to be a sertiin raguirsment seams to SuggestSn 9*ti3 rather than an aqual opportunity to e* ghposiaq a Tvoe gf ,fSbrentiaXs in paaaing ratsa W graduation taata have been [ Mir* ixpoead dutlaa On taat hftd X chajica to Nib oeurta have not required of majority acorsa. It to Such a specifled outcome 1 agree Lenka that J non* of 1 asoauo* no lonoitudlnal ___Z tgree with Dr. MJor types of atandaedited tast a B ------longitudinal ooapavisdde impl* interpretation of aara raw eeore di: the Little Hoek aettleraant. Jld the languaqa lands itaalf to :aa. Ona might. !or axampla,05/11/1989 07:47 5016024386 WE Mo. FESEaFCH AMD DESIGN : Si? 343 374 F45E 04 Jjl. 3 35 WttXa Rock Settleaiant . . . p. 3 I I  -4 -I c m  o co co \u0026lt;o oompute the baaio battery raw s^ra aMsae for blacks and whit lovol and check for attainment of the Jfjs arlterlon at each \u0026gt; Of Whether .11 Kowevvr, eempXy s at a* unanewesfd the ideation at yhothas is already a etsiseeat\na6dadard and 9radaa U9O of at d\u0026amp;Qh grada grade lavi. must nor:::kir:::ma::::::*^^ ukeiihooc that .uL nook \u0026lt; fltandBgagopgaft \u0026gt; reaaenabla appro.eh ay M to ak^ sing la comparison each year. 9o\u0026lt;^ he on the iui, ccmpsrsbl . would regale ^has aU etgdent .oo^.^\n\"rZ\" n'r*\"* ^**^^**** aoaled aaores jure typiedtlu daaianed to  acais. Zine'T- Srae*'' \"1^* motrib?^onecould eosled soot* for alttii^le Rock black is grades but exoluding epeoial edeeef .11 white students. ^yple^Jli^y designed 9\u0026gt;ua, uaUlB a. soaled to students (aumming the mean sealed score ahea^ .-w . O'eell 4^nprisoo would meet the tl ttlement Ifaguage. aoeerer, outside of the a^ttament te. -uch calculations -would Uv. llt\u0026lt;. wlevance. ^ett.amant a s 3ieiiltfTr, spirit and vine tha sr poaeibility would be t^..t a efcitaeion for success (e.g., -ator ierformonce level) and detarmina Thia rina! L ^*4 sWdents i, at least 90% of that inia Goea not soMCera axar^* onforme to the apirlt of 9rad0 level\" os a t* \u0026gt;at suecass es the percent ei hitea. W\u0026lt;anta i at least . ----------- providing nts. As stated, the 9qni stand, t drd than to an adequate or \u0026gt;pprwn.\u0026lt;.t pretation that provides ed may result in tion of Stated, a * zeeeoai an standard which aay be y U the wording of the settlement I ideguata education ia oleaer to for minority s maximal performance education atandard. .e opportunity Thus, an ------ w I wuiii-'\u0026amp;y for Little Rook to eAxcstqtonal improvement for i,flpn to National PiggagaBfe^a enka'J psopaeal oe cenperid* the hid rreeponding netional data ceaeoM allow Little aook to deaenilkrata prd leal standard. J' blacks than ae nearly irapossibla to aeet. fcZ!l^'fca dlffarantial i' and realistic. in Littla Reck Thia method ra Oonforns t to densonatr oonforme to the iangue^e end inti th9a thoughts art in 4*aj  feel free to contact JM ij! X cna being held to s strict of'the xettlemant. ata that such a l^th ths dilsRsca you axs facing, lay further aasiatanoa. u O 'i .DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 . GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 28, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Gene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 18, concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. ______________ committee include Robert Clowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Kerr, and Gayle Potter from the Arkansas Department of Education. The committee was joined at times by others: Russ Mayo of the Little Rock School District and Gene Jones of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.- 1994, and Members of the The Variables Committee provides within this document a description of the problem around which it was convened, a definition of important intervening variables which affect student achievement, a brief discussion of the assessment or testing instrument, and attachments with expert opinion. Problem Statement: . perception of a student achievement gap that is racially based, as evidenced by results on large-scale assessments. Considerations for Problem: Large scale assessment data analysis has been limited to sender alone. Data should be reviewed in the context of thefollowing four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement: socio-economic status, family structure, parent- education level, and early childhood education.Definitions of Variables\nSocio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SES data from free and reduced lunch information\nalso make use of the family link identifier -  Eamily Structure: Household where student lives most of the time (both parents, father only, mother only, father and stepmother, mother and stepfather, foster parents, legal guardian, other) Collectfamily structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education completed by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, trade school, other) Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Infoimation Form Early Childhood Education: Any of a variety of organized pre-kindergarten experiences, such as.Headstart, HIPPY, 4-year old programs, other pre-school Collect this data from the Pupil Information Form ASSESSMENT OR TESTING INSTRUMENT\nlanguage of the settlement requires the composite scores Lxttle Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the composite scores of Little Rock School District white (excluding special education students) on a c test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock 2^ District. This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-Committee discussions around ''standardized testing\" included tests, performance assessments, portfolios' and norm-referenced tests. w fcj nk\u0026gt;_xx u. .a yk/X u *3 f ..V, '7---: Minimum Performance Test has been ^andoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide ...  f ciiiu. xiu oLctuewiae testing instrument is currently available The Arkansas n-iTPct- M\u0026gt;-Tt--!TnrT ------ ___ . Direct Writing Assessment purposes. English Language Arts and Mathematics Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. xs not comprehensive before The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District IS the state-adopted based on our research and the norm referenced test. However, expert opinions from , , , ------ wjj/a.xxku\\.^xxo X.XV/Ul psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a testing instrument has a different purpose than the settlement purpose and uses metrics which to the requirements of the settlement agraamexiu.. no^-referenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement'of students within the District to the achievement of students within the standardization group. Therefore, it would T compare the achievement of black students in uittle Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of white students in Little Rock to the achievement t e standardization group. But that comparison is not the standard outlined in the settlement. are not well suited agreement A Therefore, it would group. of white students in Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the n black students white students in the Little  oc chool District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) been informed that...... purposes to use. . However, we have , T . . \"outside of the settlement mandate, such would have little relevance.\" (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used, tL- ____ consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing Should be the focus of the application of the 90% the committee rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, y sccacnments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive ice resident and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation an an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. R * *** J tAAX * XX Jk Jk Jk aU O f O J ^Xx^^kllC awyer and faculty member o Michigan State University, aira Qf working papers from the committee for have included a Also I your perusal. Please contact me if you would like to meet with the Variable Committee for discussion. *  a time convenient to both your schedules.  We shall be happy to do so at -3-HARCOURT BRACE Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement 555 Academic Court San Antonio, Texas 78204-2498 Tel 210-299-1061 Fax 210-270-0327 \\\\ A' Os  * \\ u\\ -9 t March 30, 1998 Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director of Accountability Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall, Room 305A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 \\^vv Dear Mr. Anthony: This letter is to summarize a conversation I had last week with Ed Jackson regarding the types of test scores reported for SAT9 that would be appropriate for reporting summary data for Arkansas students. Basically, there are two types of scores that are appropriate for reporting group summary data on SAT9Normal Curve Equivalents and Scaled Scores. Both are equal-interval measures and both may properly be subjected to arithmetic operations which are commonly used to summarize score datameans, standard deviations, coefficients of correlation. Normal Curve Equivalents(NCEs) can range from values of 1 to 99, while SAT9 Scaled Scores may range from 350 to more than 800. The advantage that Scaled Scores would have over NCEs is that they offer finer distinctions among students whose percentile ranks are at the extreme end of the score range, i.e. either 1 or 99. If we were reporting data for a group that included larger than usual numbers of students with very low achievement levels. Scaled Scores could make finer distinctions and allow us to measure gains for students who score in the 1 percentile. Scaled Scores then, are not only appropriate, but may also be a preferred measure for reporting dis-aggregated scores  for African-American and White students! In my opinion, they also are consistent with the language of the  desegregation decree under which you are operating. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please call me at (800) 228-0752, extension 5394. Sincerely, Thomas E. Brooks Manager, Applied Research Cc: Yvette Dillingham Maria Drees Bob Hudson Vicki Gray07/10/85 11:38 SaiO 270 0327 PSYCH CORP. 0002 TO: Department of Education from\nJoanne Lenke, rE\nFollow-up on Our DATE: July 10,1.995 Discussion In Phoenix of scores for Aswe discussed. I Xw a ratio of less than 90%. eimilar In order to achieve an middle CI me score range. ^cu can Black and While will see on the accompanying tables. I've examined raw oflhe\"90%j yield a In order to achieve an MCE ratio of 90% nr better, between the performances of Black and White students are ^^^^^^'\"gXtKlOpe'rcentiterankunns. - most rational approach to the Al,hough I underslec- national peers when their performance 1 hope that the informaUon I've additional information. I've provided Is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you needre. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7074 Jul.23 1995 l:34Fn S-K. PHILLIPS, CONSDLTAiiT ofc 4 \u0026lt; a IrlAkaciB Kall Kiehifiaa state ph O A  ( 17 J ***, KI IviHltT HOKI OTXXCl 4 3 3 6 H a r 1 a  r \u0026lt; a B a 4 . 0 k  B 0 1 , (  J 7 J XI I a a  \u0026lt;\u0026lt;( a47t74 TOt kemoranduk Gayla Potter, AK Dept, of Eduo. PHOHi Suaan Phillipa DATS! July 21, 1995 RS I Paoponaa to Raoommandation ftom Joanna Lnko I have taviowod tho memo and Supporting dooumsafeation from Joanne Lonko that - has provided uaaful data -uuuincujLV settlement u Choosing a metric for the mandate of the raguirament and teat score alternatr^\"^^\"^ specifically on the 90%  7of Se  comments -i of the language of the settlement. you foewardod to no. Dr. . ----- Lonke summarized the issues involved Little Rock uaaful and Bucctnctly taat coiwnsnfcing regarding my interpretation 1 offer The Little-Rock Settlement Aqrraeaant Ihere i th. portion of th. -.1 me which must be defined in order L some thoughts about these definitions. that you shared with Ths following are 1. phrases in Little Rook Settlement to implement its terms. \"If at any time\" and can be measured ~ indicates that the event need happen only at any time period during the school year. once standardized test\" a -------------------instrument, it would be settlement mandate. If Little a logical choice 3. \"composite scores\"  intent that the performance Stanford, use of this terminology suggests cir -re. iS' suggests that cither \" ba used. the measurement be this areas. on Battery Boorea other parts of the the Basic Battery or Coc^lete Tho choice may be affected settlement. by wording in W.Us is alluded to, thrbaSrLt7' ineguity in basic Alternatively, if mom  ^ttery score may be most appropriate, equalizing the totalitv of statements have been made .about  .core h.tt.ry appropriate.f Little Rock Eattleiaant . .  P. 2 4. -pcxai education etudanto\" thio probably refers otudonf in the Tittle PooR sohools who have an ISp\" *t the time o- Praeumably, atudente referred for evaluation but not yet diBabilitlee a *il*blo for nonqualifying students with ( .g., a non-apaoial education student with dyoloxia or a \"npaeial oduoatlon thio probably toeting. plaood who hava QtudentB education would an ISP to all aeo referred for evaluation but be teeted. clearly exempted by about othor groupo ouch as available for vioually impaired otudont in the rogul with limitod Englioh profioionoy ar bo toatod? alaeoroonj 7 Hill studanta 5. \"white Btudanta\" only those of Europe Which grades an does this include all ancestry? non-blaok students or What about hispanio Americans? results for included\nmust all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are InteL for tb^r language seems to Indicate an nine tenths of the the timA -F This may be an unrealistic expectation given the time frame and obstacles to be overcome. Little Rock h\" I years to overcome learning deficits and the  the settlement language approximately five mean score of blacks to be at least nine tenths -----r. This may be overcome. Of poverty which have developed City, which has spent millions dasagregation orders, achlavsmsnt test scores. over students' lifetimes. effects on has been unable the public Even Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination the federal in the employment government has supported an 80% rule. applicants^hlred but to the . percent of available PP hired. under thia rule, if 70% of qualified white at^ least 56% of qualified minority applicants to avoid a presumption of discrimination. does not teat arena, However, the 80% Thus, applicants are hired, j ' ust be hired to avoid a Moreover, if on employer fails this opportunltv tn ziL rnis me emproyer stiii has an dctiona? demonstrate compelling interest  to justify its also a teat, the employer still has In cases euch between minority nt issue. adrainiatrati as Pai^ra P., large differentials in passing rates and majority students on graduation tests have been In such cases, the courts have imposed duties caaea, P earn a high school diploma, minority scores to be minority students had a fair chance to However, these courts have not required requirement rather than a certain percentage of majority scores. Such a eeema to euggest an entitlement to a specified outcome an equal opportunity to aohlavo. Shopping R Type of Score 1 agree with Dr. Lenke that scores are well suited to the Jeoauee no longitudinal -- none of the major types of standardired test requirements of the Little Rock settlement. a B Upl. inJ:S:::at2:n are required, the language lends Itself erpretatlon of raw score differences. One might, for example. to. PHILLIPS PHOME Mo. 5 517 343 7374 Ju 1.23 1595 1:ooPM Little Rock fiattlemant . . p. 3 compute the bnoic battery raw moans tor oiacka and whitea at each orada level and check for attainment of the 90% oritarion at sack grade level However, thia laavea unanawered the question of whether all grades must Z^dei'^ac \" stringent standard and use of a Lnj^Lt^e norfulflirt?** increases the likelihood that Little Will noc zuXfxH xtiB XQ\u0026amp;ndditio* eaora maanB for blacks whites thio The 90% across unanswered la already grades X more roasonablo approach do BO 90% criterion at whcthor all grades use of Rook - .w, ou,l d. roqu,l ro that a\"ll y otudontmaka a clnglo eomparleon each' year. To Standardlred tost scaled scores be on the same, comparable scale. BcorsB are typically d.lgnad to deteraine^if tha'^mean ^^uB, using a scaled score metric, one could # uBvomxns xf Kha niBeui scaled - . \u0026gt; allow comparison of Thus, l____ mean scaled score for all Little Rock black across grades but excluding spacial education) for all white studants. the letter of the Such an Overall students (summing is 90% of the mean scaled score mandate. settlement language. comparison would meet the spirit and _,,_v 1 . , ---- outside oHf otwheev ers,ettlement such calculations would have little relevance. jjodlfvlRq the Standard Another possibility above grade lavsl\" would be to set a criterion for success (e.g., \"at or or a minimally acceptable performance level) and determine hether the percent of xor whites. but conforms to the spirit Bucceasful minority students is This does not at least 90% of that students. AAhs stated, standard than to an adequate or interpretation that conform exactly to the wording of the settlement of providing an adequate education the 90% for minority mandata is closer to a maximal performance appropriate education standard. Thus, an Buccaad mav i \"p rov-i-d--e--s  rreeaassoonnaabbllee opportunity for Little Rook to greater educational improvement for blacks than retention of an standard which may be perceived in as nearly impossible to meet. Coaparieon to Rational Differentialn tDor , cLorerneskoeo'sn fpHr onZpr os al -fo--r the bl ack/white differential in Little would allow Littl2^R^C^i reasonable and realistic: This method ittle Rock to demonstrate progress without being held to a strict However, it may be difficult to demonstrate that such a demonstrate reasonable and realistic^ Rook mBaBurrLnfn\"'^'f be difficult to demonstrate asure conforms to the language and intent of the settlement. JlS with th. dU.a you f.cing, l.l fro. to contact me if 1 can ba of any futth.t aaal.tance. 1 sL LrmjE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED DIRECTOR'S OFFICE July 31, 1998 AUG 3 1998 department of EDUCATION ^GENERAL DIVISION Raymond Simon Director Arkansas Department of Education d Q\u0026lt; '1 .yj. P Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Desegregation Settlement Loan Dear Mr. Simon: I am writing in response to your June 26,1998 letter requesting that LRSD deposit an additional $270,000.00 in an account established for the possible repayment of the loan authorized by the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The issue you have raised is one of several outstanding issues concerning the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. I would like to work with you and your staff to resolve ail of the outstanding issues as quickly as possible. From my perspective, the most important unresolved issue is whether LRSD has met the conditions for loan forgiveness set forth in Section VI-B (6) of the Settlement Agreement. We are supposed to use a standardized test to grade upon by the State and LRSDl to determine whether the scores of LRSD black students are within ninety percent (90%) of the scores of LRSD white students. A team composed of ADE and LRSD representatives was formed several years ago for the purpose of deciding which standardized test would be used to determine loan forgiveness under the Settlement Agreement, ihat team agreed to use the Stanford 8 Test with scaled scores as the metric. That agreement is reflected in ADEs August, 1997 Project Management Tool which was filed with the district court: In March 1997, recommendations were drafted proposing the use of he SAT-8 as the ADEs Monitoring Instrument and the use of an aggregate average for racial groups to measure achievement disparity using scaled scores as the metric' I recently read in the newspaper that another group within ADE will recommend the use of Stanford 8 scaled scores to determine loan forgiveness. It seems that the question of whether or not LRSD is entitled to loan forgiveness is a threshold issue which should be resolved at the same time as, if not before, the issue raised in your letter. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Desegregation Settlement Loan Page 2 Please let me know ADEs current position about how and when we will determine whether the settlement loan should be forgiven in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. I will be happy to meet with you so we can work together to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible. Yours very truly, 'Leslie V. Gamine Superintendent of SchoolsO. ^2 \u0026gt; '*^1 **i Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director April 21, 1999 Tim Gauger Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Request from Legislative Audit on Little Rock Loan Agreement Dear Tim: Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Little Rock School District is in default with regard to the payment schedule, as well as in default in the amount of the one payment made to date. The district has been contacted about this lack of compliance with the terms of the loan agreement and has yet to provide any meaningful response. This apparent disregard by the district for the terms of the loan agreement has prompted Legislative Audit to ask our agency to seek implementation of the default provision of the agreement: Any installment of principal or interest not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law until paid in full. LRSD, if it defaults by not timely paying any of the installments due hereunder, shall pay to the State its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in connection with the enforcement of the n obligation. As the Department of Educations legal representative in this matter, please assist the agency with addressing this issue. Mr. Simon, as well as the State Board of Education, seek a timely resolution of this matter. Sincerely. Theresa Wallent Staff Attorney co: Mr. Raymond Simon, Director Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director, Internal Administration Mr. John Kunkel, Finance STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chainnan - BETTY PICKETT, Conway  Vice Chairman - JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant Members\nEDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould  LUKE GORDY, Van Buren  ROBERT HACKLER, Mountain Home  JAMES McLARTY III, Newport  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Texarkana  ANITA YATES. Bentonville An Equal Opportunity EmployerARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM April 16,1999 TO: Theresa Wallent FROM: Bobbie Davis REGARD: Request from Legislative Audit On Little Rock Loan Agreement Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Department to date has been provided verification of one deposit of $30,081.44 from Little Rock toward this repayment. As you will note from the attachments, the first payment of $300,000 was due September 24,1997. Therefore, Little Rock is in default with regard to the payment schedule as well as in default in the amount of the one payment that was made. I have attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Simon dated June 26,1998, in which he requested correction on the name of the escrow account as well as default payments. To date the Department has received no response to Mr. Simons request. Legislative Audit is exploring why the Department has not implemented the default provision in Section 11, page 5, of the Loan Agreement. A copy of the Loan Agreement is included in the attachments. Could you please assist me by drafting a correspondence to Mr. Tim Gaugher at the Attorney Generals office informing him of this concern and requesting his guidance and leadership in addressing this issue. Legislative Audit will need documentation of ail actions for their files. Please send copies of all correspondence and documents to my office. I will forward to Legislative Audit. As you will recall the State Board is also concerned with this issue. I would propose that this item be updated at the next State Board meeting. I feel confident that Mr. Simon would like for that report to be that Little Rock is current on all payments. If I need to provide other information, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance in handling this issue. Cc: Raymond Simon, Director John Kunkel, ADE Finance o .o Aikansas .a DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director June 26,1998 Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Camine\nIt has been brought to my attention by the Division of Legislative Audit that the Little Rock School District has not deposited the proper amount into the LRSD/State Loan Repayment Account. According to the Loan Agreement dated September 24,1990, the principal amount of each Note will be repaid in twenty (20) equal installments. Installments shall be due on the 7th through the 26th anniversary of the date of the note. The Note dated September 24,1990, was for $6,000,000. Therefore, the amount due September 24, 1997 was $300,000. In March 1998, John Kunkel of my staff contacted Mr. Mark Milhollen, for verification of the deposit. We were provided a copy of a bank statement for the Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account #00-0073-610715. At that time.the bank records reflected a balance of $30,081.44. The balance consisted of $30,000 plus earned interest. The auditors also noted that the account name should be the same as required in the loan agreement. The Department is now requesting that the Little Rock School District change the name of the account to reflect tire name required in the loan agreement and deposit an additional $270,000 to be in compliance with Copies of the documents verifying these actions will be forwarded to the loan agreement. Legislative Audit, I appreciate your cooperation in correcting this error. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Raymond Simon cc\nTim Gauger, Attorney General's Office Ronnie Ridgell, Division of Legislative Audit STATE BOARD OF EDI CATION' Chairman  BETTY PICKETT. C onxi\n Vice Chairman - JoSELL CALDWELL. Bnanl .Members: EDW IN B. ALDERSON. JR.. El Dorado  CARL E. BaGCETT. Rofrri  MARTHA DIXO.N. Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould LI KE CORDl. \\an Buren  ROBERT HACKLER. Mountain Home  JA.MES McLARTl 111. Newport  RICHARD C. S.MITH. JR.. .McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON. JR.. Teiarkina  ANITA 1 ATES. BentonvilleC  CVi-6tdiXl\u0026gt; STATE O F ARKANSAS general assembly little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 September 18, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mike Huckabee Governor, State of Arkansas RECEIVED FROM\nRE: The Honorable Mark Pryor Attorney General, State of Arkansas Mr. Ray Simon, Director Arkansas Department of Education n Superintendent Little Rock School District Senator Jim Argue Senator Dave Bisbee Senator Jodie Mahony Suggested Resolution of Arkansas to Issues Pending Between the LRSD KOF OMQNJTQflJNG and the State SEP 2 4 20 A number of issues School District, each invX^^om^ofSllJ^ of Arkansas and the Little Rock each threaten to lead to protracted litigation We do tT A brief review of the pendittg issues might be helpM: Bonded Indebtedness Pe Little Rock School District current funding formula, i- s r .- . (FRSD), as the district at the 9S IS ma position to influence the th .0 school distnhts T bow to structure thepayment schedule farTO^l ?\" J ' of detenruthrrg U.C State dupugh dte ftudiug fomrula wrll rag?SXMSl?or \" amount of required state funding ir tkzi _________  dollars. This is money that would be owed to increased base funding. Unitary Statu.s approximately 270 school district that would receive The LRSD i the LRSD m a position to seek unitary status at t eld f tb^nn^^ designed to put achieves umtary status, the State wifibe in a position ^^RSD required it to pay LRSD for various deseerealin^ circumstances, which State should be relieved of its obligation to mat have changed and that the LRSD. The loss of all desegregatiol related st^e payments to the million dollars per year. Arfund $9 mfiU^ of tol  ^RSD about $15 desegregation efforts including magnet .rbnnf represents money for transportation aid. The other $6 milhtn i? ^J^^o-niinority transfers, and compensation and health^LsimLle The prospect of expensive and protracted htigatto7 ^^^h sides, but the effect on Ute LRSDs efforts to end federal coXn^S? and that the -- amount represents money for majority-to-minority transfers, and count supervision. Loan Forgiveness* The LRSD and ADE have discussed LRSD has met the and debated the question of whether the pursuant to the 1989 settlement and ADE to agree upon of ,.L ta by the ADE a test thaTw^usId to ^^^^D ----------- uxat agreed to use a certain ^rmme loan forgiveness. LRSD entitled to loan forgiveness. ADE disa^ees ^RSD is contends that ADE agreed to Monitoring and Compliance including helping the PuS settlement agreement tbATDcr,---------   J ''^ous ways and in monitorine the LRSDs progress. There is .heex.e..,,ehADEhasco^ a SStdarm th! S\" iTbe oeneiicial to the parties involved. met in a way that is most can have significant positive or and delay are acceptable means for seekg resolution Web Protracted litigation optimism that, when considered to^eth^l Z^ T ^gree of issues can be found.  ^'^^^^*y^^oeptable resolution to all of these explore the possibilitv of. l ^^^i^st . . Possibility of a mediation process that would consider all of amumaliy satisfactory resolution. WewouldsuX, - _ services of a neutral arbiter who the issues at once and seek to find that the parties discuss the possibility of employing the serviwould structure the process, allow all parties to make their best case on these issues, gather information, and then propose a resolution that would embrace certain compromises between the parties. Hopefully, the proposal would be acceptable to all parties, and would resolve these ag^avating issues once and for all. Issues and concerns from the intervenors in the federal litigation should also be heard. We understand that the process may not be binding on the participants, but that each would participate in good faith and do their best to resolve these issues. The LRSDs removal from federal court supervision should be cause for celebration. The State has legitimate concerns about its future, extraordinary obligations to the LRSD. Let s try to find a resolution that allows the LRSD to celebrate its progress, allows the state to address pressing needs elsewhere, and most importantly, focuses our limited resources on the needs of our school children rather than on continuing litigation. To rely on the courts to resolve these issues before trying some other method seems to be a abdication of our public duties, and in the end, wastes precious, limited school resources. The LRSD needs to chart a course that leads to success without court supervision, and given the State s track record in court, the State needs to be proactive in finding a reasonable solution that does not obligate and divert additional resources. For either party to succeed, we mus-fiunravel this Gordian knot. We would appreciate your prompt response to this suggestion, and would be pleased to facilitate in any way you might deem helpful.AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huck:ibee LRSD and the State shall the Parties. collectively be referred to as RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\")\nWHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end, WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court momtoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, under the States current funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue. Page 1 of 8 IXQ . tv fAA WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State\nWHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first 9 LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11,8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of the States obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD. the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the States ability to seek modification or termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8ijfj UU4 court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3.2 The State agrees to coojierate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate the Statess obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to any or all of the following: (1) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undermines this Agreement\n(4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. County In recognition of the LRSDs efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8U . ** ^2 r/iA ittl UUO as follows\n4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all frmds in the joint escrow account establi.shed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of 4.2 4.3 the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B. of the the State will forgive and release the LRSD from dollars) in loans 1989 Settlement Agreement, any obligation to repay these Ioans If the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July I, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of pnncipal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD Agreement. pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8UO/XO/Ui inv 0.40 r/iA igl uuo subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4 2 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court 4.5 In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotia te in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest: or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page 5 of 8UB/28/U1 THU 1(5:47 TAX 1^007 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shall negotiate in good 5. 6. faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD any disputes pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said Ioans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its terms of this negotiation or execution, shall be constmed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CrV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8UUZ MX r AA l^UU Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10 This Agreement is entered into as of the /^ay of March. 2001, by the undersigned oflBcers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom IS authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8MU/ ^/ MX ltl uuu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY: Dr. Les Cj tine, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: Rayland Simon, Director H:\\hhgioo\\tg\u0026gt;ugcr\\Ark\u0026gt;nsfl AG - Dccg\\fliisc\\3_13_01 agnnftLwpd Page 8 of 8 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES K. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN 0. DAVIS WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M.TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesQwij.com JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.** TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. BALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN* C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY** M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. MCKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.O. VIA FACSIMILE March 19, 2001 RiCBVED MAR 2 9 2001 * Licensed only in Fionda and Texas ** Licensed to practice before the Linked States Patent and Trademark Office a Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RE: Proposed Agreement between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Dear Chris: Thank you for sending over a draft of the agreement last week. As you know, I was in a two-week jury trial and the jury came back late Friday afternoon. I have reviewed the agreement and have had preliminary conversations with two school officials. We have not fully absorbed the intent and meaning of the proposed agreement and I have not had a chance to discuss it yet with you. Accordingly, the PCSSD must reserve the right, at this point in time, to object to Court approval of the agreement if it ultimately appears that such would be in the best interest of the PCSSD. 242298-vl Celebrating Years 19 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP March 19, 2001 Page 2 In the interim, I certainly look forward to discussing this with you in depth. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao M. Samuel Jones, III cc: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Stephen W. Jones Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Celebrating 1 0 0 Years 19 0 0 2 0 0 0f EDWARD L. WRIGHT (jsoa-ieTTi ROBERT 5, LINuSEV 0*13.1891) ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LtLE GONOON 8. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID U. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS auFORO. JR. PATRICK J. SCSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHH TISDALE KATNLYN CRAVES M SAMUEL JONES Hl JOHNWILL1AU st*ivev in L6E J. MULDROW N.M NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWt.N L. J.R CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPAODEN ROGER 0. ROWE ' JOHN 0. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HSffKY VIA: FACSIMILE rvigntrax WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SO! 3T CAPITOL AVENUc SUITE 2200 UTTLc ROCK. ARKANSAS TSlOUSSda {501)371-0808 FAX (SOI) 376-9*42 www.wlj.com Oi* COVKSIi. ALSTON JENNINGS ROnalO a uay JAMES R. VAN OOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 m)on8s@wq.com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER ray f. COX. JR.- TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAUe\u0026gt; M. moody JR KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARY. OAVtS Claire shows Hancock KEVIN W KENNEDY JERRY J. SALlINGS william STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O 8AAMES STEPHEN R LANCASTER JU5Y ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE Simmons allgooo KRISTI U. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CKKISTIME J. DAUGHERTY, P(tO- MICHELLE M KAEMMERLING ERIK* ROSE MOMTOOM5P.Y SCOTT ANDREW IRBY MOLLY A. AOEE MtCNELlB MAROIS OiLLARD PATRICK D. WILSON  (jEnsetfBfnoicaaaftmneLMea 3MU *hf u-.UH}.ii July 11, 2002 The Honorable Wm, R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District\net al USDC Docket No.\n4\n82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I have the Court's Letter-Order of July 11, 2002 and I write in my capacity as counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District I have tried to follow the recent proceedings and I have a general sense that the issues witnesses and exhibits have been pared down considerably. My sole interest in the hearings next week revolves around Joshuas designation of Ray Simmon. Director of The State Department of Education, as a witness virhom they intend to call. If memory serves, he is listed as witness number 29 on Joshua's witness list and will be called to give testimony concerning the agreement between the State and LRSD. That agreement respects terms and ccnditions of the loan forgiveness to Little Rock and also includes a bilateral agreement between Little Rock and the State concerning a sunset provision by which payments such as those for magnet schools and M to M transfers wiii cease. Let me first say 1 cannot fit this particular testimony and this agreement into the parameters or what understand to be the issues that will in fact be addressed next week. At the\ndo not recall an order which specifically addressed Mr. Simmon and this agreement. same time, I It IS my underetanding that this agreement has never been submitted directly to the Court for approval or disapproval. However, when it first suiTaced, I did have occasion to write Judge 3S04Q9-V1njLBUtfdx * WRIGHT. tINDSEY 4 JENNINGS LLP July 11, 20Q2 Page 2 Wright advising that the PCSSD had not been a party to either the negotiator of or the execution of this agreement and that we opposed it. If this evidentiary item is not going to be addressed during the unitary hearing, I would respectfuiiy request to be excused from those hearings. EverTif Ns going to be ad^ wouio asK trie inauigence of the Court to simply require the par to nSfy ^^^^0 approxirnateiy wnen dunng the proceedings this issue might be addressed so that participation couio be limited to that witness and this issue. my any kind of position to assess and address this matter today with the SDtendW morning would not be required, that would be dpiVllUlU It? KlrOW. Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wrmh .x'^^amuely^Jones, 111 cc: Honorable J, Thomas Ray All Counsel of .Record 1 350409-vli Chris Heije7 , j.,15,01 agrmnt.wpri 0002 Page AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT i This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through School District CTRSD\"), and the the Stare Board of Education, the Arkansas I I .! i i Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shaU colbctively be referred to as the Parties, WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are recitals  parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (1989 .Senior Agreement\"), WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement anposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end\nWHEREAS, LRSD wiU seek to be declared unitary and released from federal monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agr^ment\ncourt may seek to WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced baas to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million doflars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD those loans will be forgiven Settlement Agreement\nas to whether or must be repaid pursuant to Section V1.B.(6) of the 1989 I I fS WHEREAS, under the States cuiient funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fending which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue\nWHEREAS, the State wants LRSD financial impact on the State, to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the 1003 Pagezj ft WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the foflowmg terms and conditions: agreements ! f I 1. LRSD agrees to good pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has of this Agreement, whichever comes first. been obtained or until the terminatton 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual defat payments wiU be 11.8 million dollars beginning wiA the 2002 calendar service Education docs hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted year. The State Board of 3. In order to facilitate and on February 19, 2001. release from court supervision, the State the States obligations to the LRSD i encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement any enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement or court dccisrons I, 2008. This covenant shall Agreement up to and including June remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates p pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete umtary status and release from court supervision. I 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement docs not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as modification or termination of limiting in any way, the States ability to seek any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement I t I Agreement (including court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Linle Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement docs not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it 2 w I I f@004 I I I r 3.2 4. prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assen in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State agrees to cooperate with and the legality- of this Agreement the Statess obligations under the 1989 to the efiect that the State has assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate Settlement Agreement. Such and assistance shall include, but not be limbed to, filing jomt pleadings pleadings responding to cooperation any or all of the following,' (1) supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) fihng a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or mdirectly undeimmes this Agreement\n(4) fihng a jomt bnef opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refhsmg to modify or termmate the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nand (3) filing joint pleadings this Agreement to United States District Court to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of with the Pulaski County School CIV-LR-82-866. In recognition of the LRSDs efforts from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the the LRSD agree as follows: 4.1 Page 3 j B and to consolidate the challenge Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. I to obtain unitary status and complete release success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first 515,000,000.00 (fifteen million doUars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds m the yimt escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B ( the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be practicable. released to the LRSD as SOOS as 3 I ILChfis Heller - 'jTl s H agrrnnt.w^_ oos t 4.2 In addition, with loans advanced to the LRSD respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in I Agreement, the State will forgive and release pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement repay these loans if the LRSD obtains the LRSD from any obligation to 4.3 status and release from federal a final order granting it complete unitary Court supervision on or before July 1, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD a pursuant to Section i I I I i ! i I I i 4.4 I I VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order status and release from federal court graniing it complete unitary ^pealablc order of the United States District Conn for supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but i appealed and subsequently reversed in whole or m part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to rep^ the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(I) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and aU interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court fer Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that any modification of IS necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shafl take such fertile: action as may be necessary to obtain such a 4 J I i i I li I 1Haller agnrint.wpd  006 Page 5 ii' modification, mchidmg but not limiied to appealing any adverse decision of the District Court I I or ruling 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninaled pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effon to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the Ioans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resohition, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. not In die event such relief is g sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed I i or offered as evidence of any admission against interest the part of the State or the LRSD. or waiver of any kind on 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not tenmnated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the through 4.6 of this Agreement .'.hall be null provisions of paragraphr 4 and void but severable from the I remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that aU other promises and obligations of the Parties shall rcmam in frill force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shaU negotiate in good faith in an effort to amve at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes conccminB the loans flrivani-wj to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989.Settlemenl Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, inchiding but not limited to sexkmg appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the S i ng,iia.ia.i,. II I i I I I I I I H^Her  32.1 5 q'i agrmni wf^ Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed evidence of any aHmKoinn State or the LRSD. or offered as against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the 5. 6. The effective date of this Agreement shaU be the date of execution. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to atrolv to th? f sppty to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30,2004 7 The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School c^, u,S.D C, No CIV.LR.82.6, Uoiod So. Dteio, Co lull too jodsdicaon ,0 erforoo te ,o\u0026gt;ol,o dlspuus b=n die Ponios out of this Agreement and to hear ariqtng 8. This Agreement expresses the entire any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. altered except by a writing executed by the authorized It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement agreement of the parties and may not be modified approval of the LRSD and the State, after further intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal 10. or representatives of the LRSD and the State, may be modified or amended, with the consultation and discussion with the Joshua agreements and undertakings contained herein shall mure to the This Agreement is entered into as of the successors in interest and assigns of the parties. oflScers of the Little Rock School District and the whom is authorized to ----- day of March, 2001, by the undersigned Arkansas Department of Education, each of execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. 007 Page 81 I 3^1S_q-I agrrnnt.wpd  008 nrr^ ( I I i ^age?] LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY\nI Dr. Les Canune, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: 1 Rnymond Simon, Director t I H: aG - DW-P\u0026lt;wio.13.15.01 M=-twpd 1 )FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL 1^1001 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Regions Center 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-34S3 telephone (SOD 376-2011 FAX NO. (5011 376-2147 CORPORATIONS THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR\nAnn Marshall 371-0100 FIRM NAME: FROM: Chris Heller DIRECT NUMBER 501-370-1506 MESSAGE\nSee attached. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (including this information sheet): 8 DATE: March 15, 2001 TIME: A.M./P.M. TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LIOIO-90 _____________ CLIENT NUMBERMATTER NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE\nThe information in this facsimile grivileged and confidential information i individual or entity named above. intended recipient. or copy of the tran.LttL^^- tZsnsjnltCsJ. is Isgally ---- intended only for the use of the If the reader of this message is not the transmittal in rs error strictly prohibited. If you receive this distribution original transmittal to Service. Thanh you. , please rmmedrately notify us by telephone, and ~o us at the above address via the United States Postal and return the THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999 LR schools : 1  put^Slmillion in loan account State, district disagree over repayment terms . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL .. ARKANSAS DEMOCRATGAZETTE , \\ Little Rock School District offt\ncials have put nearly $1 million into what they have titled LRSD/State Loan Repayment Ac- ' count in response to state officials who said the district isnt complying with a 1989 agreement for repaying a million state loan. . But Assistant Attorney General Tim Gauger said Wednesday that the district controls the accounL which is not an escrow account jointly established by the state and district as required by the 1989 agreement. After a July 12 directive from   made a decision five years aan thof wo uro pnfitIpH tn ago that we are entitled to loan ____ , , , forgiveness.-, ..i  Cohtlnu^trom Pago ., In anticipation of the state ask- settlementfthe'aistncF'would not  ing a federal judge to enforce the have to'repay the state loan if be- settlement temis for tlie escrow fore December 2000 the composite account, school district attorneys scores' earned by black students have asked tlie Education Departon a standardized test reached at ment for. minutes and other docu- least 90 percent of the scores of ments dealing with test selection.^ white students. The test was to be I suppose it will go to court, agreed upon by the state and the Heller said. \"This may prove to be district fortunate for us because we didnt Chris Heller, an attorney for the seem to be making any progress school district, said Wednesday with the state to get them to make that the fact that the district has a decision on what the test for loan not deposited money into a jointly forgiveness is going to be  even    *' though it seems that it has been decided twice that it should be the held account arises from the states failure to agree on a test to measure student achievement, which would determine whether the Little Rock debt would be for- given.' Two state Department of Edu- Stanford 8 scale scores. Gauger said the state will simply ask in its court filings that the district comply with the settlement in teiTOs of the jointly held escrow cation committees recommended account. *  ' We are not going to allege that that scale scores from the Stanford they have not met the standard [for Achievement Test, eighth edition, tuvj. iw.v mve v.,v i.x be used to measure student loan forgiveness], Gauger said. achievement, Heller said. But he All we are asking is that they get the escrow current. In my mind, if said the proposals were never for- ------------- ----- mally adopted by Education De- you are holding the money, why partment administrators or the not put it into the joint escrow? state Board of Education. The district got its first mil- School district officials contend lion of the $20 million loan in Sep- i that the district meets the require- tember 19tW. It^was obligated by the state Board of Education^ Gauger said he plans to file a mo-\nments for loan forgiveness if the the original 1989 settlement agree- tion early next week for Chief U.S. Stanford scale scores are the mea- ment and by a more detaile^oan nistriet Tndpe Susan Webber ' sure. agreement in September 1990 to Uistnct Judge busan Webber , ..This issue should have and begin repaying that portion of the Wright to enforce the agreement against the district. He contends i could have been decided a long loan within seven years into a spe- time ago, and the decision should cial escrow account. The loan was    ............... - to be repaid in 20 equal install- that the district owes $996,000 . that we are entitled to loan for- plus investment earnings. giveness, Heller said. We In the 1989 financial settle- , shouldnt be sued over the ques-  tion of an escrow payment when niversary of the initial loan.' ments with a 3 percent interest rate going into effect on the Sth ailment, the state pledged a $20 million loan to the district to be paid over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every two years, TTie money was to help the the state could have and should According to a draft of the mo- tion Gauger intends to submit to the judge, the district was re-  X pr  X- - 1 X quired to make a principal pay- distnct offset desegregation-relat- of $300,000 into the escrow ed costs. account in September 1997 and an- According to the terms of that other $300,000 payment on the 1 See LOAN, Page 11A principal in September 1998, plus  ' an interest payment of $171,000 at Simon asked Gamine to change the account name from Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account to reflect the account name required in the 1990 loan agreement and to add $270,000 to the account, the balance the dis- trict owed at the time. Milhollen said Wednesday that he believes the district has com- -------- that time. Little Rock drew another $4.5 -- --------- million from the loan in Januaiy plied with Simon s requests from a 1992 and was to begin repaying year ago. as well as the terms ot that with an initial $225,000 in Jan- the September 1990 loan agree- mcnt We followed their recommen- into the escrow account, plus in- uary this year. According to the terms of the . 1989 agreemenL all money paid dations in the letter they wrote to --------- us. Milhollen said.  We did what they asked us to do, which was to adjust the $30,000 to $300,000, and we titled the account like they vestment earnings, would be returned to the district once the student achievement goals are met. asked us to title it. Thats what they asked us to do. Otherwise, the escrowed money and subsequent payments on the debt would go to the state begin- Superintendent Les Gamine, Larry Berkley, School Board ning in 2001  president, said recently that he Superintendent Les Gamine, thinks the State Education Boards who acknowledged early last vote to force the district to make month that the district was in de- escrow payments was a matter ol fault of its payments, said this politics. . -.r -----------u nA knnn .People in the rest of the state don't want to think about forgiving a ^0 million loan to a school district in Little Rock, Berkley said. week that the money had been put into reserves but he hesitated to say more before the court case.  Earlier, Carnine said the test issue should be resolved so that the dis- \"I can understand that, but it may trict \" could use its financial re- not be the smartest thing. There is sources on students. the potential that the state uld Mark Milhollen, tlie district's get dragged back into the desegre, manager of financial services, con- gallon case, which could end up firmed Wednesday that $968,375 costing the state more money. I was put into the LRSD/State loan don't think that is a wise move. rpnavmentaccountJune30,thelast The state was dismissed as a repayment account June 30, the last to the $30,815.89 already in the ac- repdyiiivnidLLuuiivuujicAaxv,xxAxji, day of the 1998-99 fiscal year. Added party in the now 16-year-old deseg- io iiie $30,315.83 already in the ac- rogation lawsud after the ap-. counL the account totals $999,190.89. proval of the 1989 fmancial settle-, Milhollen cited a June 1998 let- ment. However, Wright retains ju- ter from Ray Simon, director of the risdiction over the state to enforce Education Department, in which compliance with the agreement. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000  Arkansas Democrat azcttc Deadline set for compliance on desegregation case escrow BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Educa- state Departnient of Education oftion on Monday set a March 1 deadline for -the Little Rock about $1.8 million set aside in an School District to establish and account held jointly by the dis- fully fund a joint escrow account trict and the state. Latest docu- to hold the districts repayments ments on file with state Educa- on a $20 million state desegrega- tion Department staff show that a tion loan. The board directed Assistant ance of about $999,000. Attorney General Tim Gauger to, file a complaint with U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who ongoing dispute between the monitors the districts desegrega- state officials and the district _ . , tion efforts, if the escrow account over the terms of a 1989 financial funds in 1998 in the escrow ac- is not in place by the date. settlement between the district According to calculations by , and the state.  The state a^eed at the time to loan the district the money witli ficials, the district should have district-held account has a baiThe state boards vote Monday is the latest development in an the understanding that the loan would be forgiven if the district could narrow the academic dis- . . parity between black and white ' tatives of the state and school dis- students on a standardized achievement test. The district has until Dec. 31 this year to meet the goal. In the meantime, the district was obligated by the settlement agreement to b6gin periodically setting aside count to repay the state in the event the goal is not met. The board directed Gauger last summer to pursue joint access to the Little Rock account as well as full funding. On a related matter, represen- trict have never identified the test that is to be used to measure the disparity in black and white i students achievement. Discussions on that issue are continuing. Charity Smith, an assistant director in the Education Department, said Monday.I Arkansas Demcxrrat ^(ijitazcHc | THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000  LR schools set up plan to repay state . Move taken in time to keep from facing default lawsuit BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS BEHOCRArO.AZi\nTTE Little Rock School District officials put almost SSOO.OOO into a state loan repayment account and took other steps by a deadline Wednesday to avoid being sued for default by the state. Mark Milhollen, district manager of financial sendees, transferred $465,632 into a loan repayment account, bringing the account to $1.48 million, the amount - owed to date.\nAlso Wednesday, district and 'state officials exchanged drafts of la memorandum of understanding\nthat would obligate the Little Rock /district to convert its loan repay\ninent account into a joint escrow 'account that would be accessible two years. Ito both district and state officials,  not just district officials. terms, the drstrict will not have io Last month, the Arkansas j repay the state loan if by Dcc.-31 Board of Education directed As- ! the composite scores earned .by sistant Attorney General Timothy black students on a standardized Gauger to file a complaint in fed- test reach at least 90 percent of tlie eral court against the states scores of white students. .largest school system if district of- ---------------------------------------------- The test is to be selected by tlie ficials failed by Wednesday to es- j state and the district. That test, tablish the joint account and make however, has not been selected. overdue payments on a $20 million The proposed memorandum of un- loan made by the state to offset derstanding notes that a disagree- district desegregation costs be- ment exists between the parties on tween 1990 and 1999. . The proposed memorandum of understanding was not finalized by the end of the day Wednesday. But Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education, said the districts attempts to meet .Estate demands satisfied him. He .said he wanted time to review the :draft of the memo with his staff but did not expect to file a court ..'complaint. Even though the [joint escrow] '.account is not set up. Little Rock . has done what they needed to do,  'Simon said. I'm satisfied they . -ihave complied to this point with \u0026gt;*\nthe boards deadline. They have ,\nmade the good-faith effort to get  .^something to us. Its just that our 'staff needs today [Wednesday] to .z look at it.  In the two-page draft memoran- idum, the district pledges to repay See LOAN, Page 7B Loan  Continued from Page 1B\nprincipal and interest on the loan. The district also seeks to manage die account and have the authority to periodically draw from the account to offset lulls in llie flow of local tax revenues to tlie district'. Any amounts withdrawn from the joint account would-be repaid with interest within six months of tlie witlidrawal, accorfr ing to the proposed language'of the memo. Milhollen said another payment of $353,220 will be made' to the repayment account March To, and $75,000 more will be paid May Other payments of various amounts are scheduled into I at least the next two decades. The $20 million loan from the state was a provision of a 1989. financial settlement between the state and the school system. The state distributed the loan proceeds over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every According to the settlement whether the requirements for loan forgiveness have been met. The draft memo Birther says tlie district and the state wish to continue discussions aimed at resolving jlie dispute. If the district meets the student achievement goal, the money in the joint escrow account will be returned to the district. Otherwise it will be returned to the state.  The district got its first $6 million of the $20 million loan in September 1990. The district was obligated by tlie original 1989 agreement and by a more detailed loan agreement in September 1990 to begin repaying that portion of the loan witliin seven years into a special escrow account. , The loan was to be repaid in'20 equal installments witli a 3 per- :ent interest rate. ii 'i\n'. The districts first payment'of $300,000 was due to the escrow account in September 1997. Over time the district set aside some repayment funds but not into a jointly held account and not (br the full amounts owed.' ' f Members of the state Board of Education began publicly , questioning the lack of a joint account and delinquent payments last summer. er(  FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2000  LR schools,  I  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas attorney generals office have signed a memorandum of understanding whereby the district idedges that its payments on a $20 million state loan will go to a joint- lyjowned bank account. According to the memorandum, the school district has the authority to make investment decisions for the account. The district is obligated to provide the state Department of Education a monthly statement showing account activity. ''The agreement further gives the Little Rock district  with permission from the Education De- state agree on loan repayment plan partment  the ability to draw from the account at those times of the year when the flow of tax revenue to the district ebbs. Any such amounts withdrawn by the district must be repaid with interest within six montts. The memorandum follows a dispute between the state and district over the terms of the loan. The district obtained the low- interest loan as a result of a 1989 desegregation agreement with the state. The original agreement says that the district will not have to repay the loan if, by Dec. 31 of this year, it can narrow the achievement disparity between black and white students as measured by standardized tests. But the terms of the loan also called for the district to begin making payments in 1997 to a joint escrow account The state Board of Education complained that the district was making insufficient payments to an account that only the district controlled. State board members said in February that they would ask a federal judge to enforce the terms of the 1989 agreement if the district did not comply by March 1. The district complied by the specified date, and the two-page memorandum was worked out.October 17. 2 0 0 0 LR district, state work on solutions Desegregation, funding for schools on the agenda BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE At the urging of three Arkansas legislators, attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District are quietly working toward a settlement of school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and prolong the districts federal desegregation lawsuit. i Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, j said Monday that attorneys for the governors office, the state Department of Education and the attorney generals office have met at least twice in recent weeks with representatives of the Little Rock district on the complex issues. Those issues include the Little Rock districts possible payback of a million state loan, state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and the impact of a recent Little Rock tax increase on Jim Argue school funding elsewhere in\" the state. Argue, who has served as an informal facilitator at the meetings, said he was cautiously optimistic that a resolution of the financial issues is forthcoming. I dont want to talk about what the compromises might look like because we are at a very delicate stage, Argue said. But I do think the parties are negotiating in good faith, he added. I do think they are keeping the interest of school kids at heart. Hopefully, we can bring a resolution to some really difficult issues and clear the path so that the Little Rock School Districts removal from federal court can be a moment of celebration. District officials are hoping that See ISSUES, Page 10A FH o o CiSm p sS-o ff- O'S O S 5o S3 5' a3_.ffp^|3 jap?is.gs-|-\u0026amp;s-| o 2\nt\u0026amp;3S go-oE--csS:L \u0026amp;\u0026amp; Og )5-2. oKE-S:-ic8n?B: s _  . 0-0 e!O-ff\nS  2-^325^^ TO ?+ O'rtA!-3'\u0026lt;VP s3 c1 -50.^ o  Di Di O trt ! .o O  00 fp !3 2 cn U u uu uQ I Vt s gas 3 Ss 2^g2 3-^ CT 3 O a  *. '?c p S ' 3a S^-EH- S-p \u0026gt; |\u0026amp;S3g-o ^'S^Q.!^ g P ' \"p-ga p S. Di (O 3 \u0026gt; 3^ Di 5. P3SP-5-B V'\u0026amp; \u0026amp;3 ffffBSgSgC..  fo Q-P\"\" S-~s-.^ O'? R ^oS-pSp-oSKoP-o\u0026amp; E.pff'Sgsg'Po^gso. g-H-ia. S \u0026amp; a g \u0026lt; l-Sf 11P S.0 o 3 g li ff- s-p\"|g'isa' Sgsf PohS'p^p^W^ ? 3-2 3fB,23wS'^ y 3 O XO o a 5 \u0026gt;1 ^0.3 -3  \u0026amp; \u0026gt;3 CA CD  p 3 CA O CA V) o (D Q SB'S =1\" a o CA  3 g O w ^gg.hrJS o X n5 *\u0026lt; p o 2  s * 3-\" a rt\u0026gt; 5 fp a o CA \u0026amp;3 g o\u0026lt;fi g\" o  Sh g-S !.'S 2 g 5 StA O Ca O O- r* e g 5 o O rt tv jr-gS- gs CA c g CP fP S?- P O 5 s rti o-\" S-~g !c 5-cacpcpO^q2.o, 5o.-cp3Qi=:cp- 4 P' S o 2.P 2. P-3 p? 55 'P3 S 3s o cr Di CA - n gg O' p K? rs jS- a Q ti. (D T i off'S .. \u0026amp;\u0026amp;g g CS.2-3  Is Bo CA  alg S-W \u0026amp;!? S-g-P I\" 5'S S-a SS \u0026amp;S  \u0026amp; 5- o s-bL K'o og-w BlS ct^.q 2 rt\u0026gt; ca  M 2 fD o \u0026amp;  f? 5^3 5KC^S.^oQ.- w3 2CD 2Di. S is BS.ffaffS'' B\u0026amp;p q I'P Qh C^1S.^,\u0026lt;P (?p \u0026amp;3'^ 3\"'  QpI| ?s 's^ t?ip \u0026amp;\u0026amp; ia oSog'CS'SS' S? a.3'BSQ? I- CA CA s S 3 !?a s s  a S-S o-\u0026amp;^S 2. rt f-i fP C3 El. . r- 3 \u0026amp;s sr \"O fP O 3 - 3.  rti O fP fcj 1-j o XJ o oa ^O--S2.* *0!- ^9\n3 S3.2 2-3,3 o 2 o o 3 2-J?ao CP w ii^hir o 1 o 3 CA 2 o IS oa-2^^'3o   g as 0-^0 g^giS-'ga^ffgSo g ^iS.O ffi o O 0-0 o o Bo Eco!?^ \"- dap o * gl fP \u0026amp;\u0026lt; p n\u0026gt; (p o \u0026lt;p w .S H 2.H-Q.ctni a S 2. pP3 \u0026amp;Boo 212^3^5:3o c\u0026amp;x ^gP\u0026amp;^e\u0026amp;O'g g 3-^'^ S. 2 -2 2 \"* ............gB c gg E'Q EP^r. EP 0.2'? Eg-?- 11  2 CA 3 C It CT S.g  QC r w rr O3 g ^ '. 2 a\u0026amp;ff 3 3 ogrg.'^ o S.s:g  E'a S a o. g  Sg'gSS.wSso H S.3g.?.S'?5 teK\n3. \u0026lt;P o c w CA CP X p CA 2 03 S 3 3 \u0026amp;g5 J? fp s CA o P r (P aP ggc- 3i p t*- S*- T\" 3* cB g S'  ? o 2  g  o' g S' '!\u0026gt; 3,pGQ2SH ^pa3r3'B . ff 9 E- H- Ct 3 P C O 3- - \" 3 \u0026amp;. B |e 8 g\u0026lt;|'g ff-g 3 hS g aSg'Jp .3 CP I2 o w 3 S2. lIl'? Ill CP S K- -3 g fP U3  S S S  1 CA 0-3 g Jj' - ?r 3 o o ' w !ZR 2i K ^S 3-'fl Cr.T3 ttO-O O O S O o  fft o o 3 O CA n 2 BJ 2. CA iOf. M CiAs .-1 3M ^- 2\u0026gt; tJ r* s\u0026amp;'R g5 T.0.0 0??- S 0.1 o.Sa a'\u0026amp;SS5gS|\u0026amp; \"S-SpS-a\" gaS: Ssgs.gal ca  3\" O 3   . P 3 s. 2 fp B.g-'g B rf 2- O'. 2 'OR.B tt'O'o'S^\" P ' \u0026amp;.P35A\u0026amp; (S3Po\"=c' Eg?g(g P 9 SSo P (S o *0 fp tn 3-a (TO (P B c/i O 3 o \u0026lt;P 3-\nS S- B-ff o ff\u0026amp;d'^2 5'03 i^ffS'o 3. |ScSXS?^|'gS|ffBgt5. ss a 3-3-2 ^pw,. SfToW-oS \"S .S C3_ O SpgS, CA Q 3 5.^g'?- ^3 2 2: fP T .Q o  kTct M \" CA P I (P -3 w'2 A.sirjslIjHi 'A P CA  3. ^^OCA S El' CA O  S-2 3  O fti o pr a?-I CP CP  O ! e-f' rt\u0026gt; |sB s\n t 9Cr\u0026lt;'fDT3Oa3s: 32o332oo\u0026lt; 3 a .o CA CA p (p CA p I. CA S' \u0026amp; 2OmB*l2OO2 ^P ,,, CP 3  3 3'W =-5:^K o Q.-r*^2 \u0026amp; ft.fDT3M3'OOvO . 3 r TO . M n s o a(P aK-sB t  unuAT, 2UU1^ r LR schools, state near deal on BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Ijttle Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating:  The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district  nie impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no ' proof that the district Is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is going to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. desegregation funds Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and Timothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement. Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about tlie negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was . See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B frustrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming. A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dee. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether die loan should be forgiven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,: transportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody.8A  FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2001  Deal can ease LR schools loan burden Lawyers for state, district work out possible solution BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District have reached a tentative agreement that would relieve the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million loan and preserve millions in state funds for magnet schools and other desegregation costs until at least 2008. In return, the Little Rock district will structure its finances, particularly money from a recent tax increase, so that the state will not be required to pump $125 million to other Arkan^ school districts. The proposed a^eement allows the school district to continue efforts to win release from federal court supervision without jeopardizing state funding for de- se^egation programs. Both the Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board have scheduled meetings for Monday to decide whether to ratify the agreement that has been the topic of negotiations since last September. Im just pleased we were able to reach agreement, said Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education. It brings closure to these issues and it allows us to focus on student achievement for all students. Simon said he will recommend that the state board approve the agreement when it meets at 2 pun. Monday via telephone conference call. We are wearing big smiles See LRSD, Page 8A STTTil E -ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dese i  I _ BE ii I I ^^iS^ockSciiool^^iS^ M . - citing statistics ds evidence ........ .nl^iiareffnrt\u0026lt;i to comply with a 1998 ^fTlWWCTTHGHEHS z-OlsMensabllqated to maintain a E^affthat is approximately PEBCENI BUCK 3n ~sr MCX ~1S1 WMiE/onn 1205 UW HGOROUS COURSES^ ranomiiffliT MCIEKE AJflebra I Geometry Algebra II Biology ChorrifettY Physics 5 w Tzr I 1M TOTO. % MCKASt 3t% -----73% -----HIT rar 'LO^' BUCK % MCHJtSE W% 8% ------0% 51% ~~TW% ADVHKD PUCEMENT COURSE ENROIIMENT n SUSPENSIONS BUCK 5341 WMIE 900 052 ran. _yB 1997-98 2000-'01 % change TOIM L5 OK BUCK fll ~7S7 09% KT COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM TESFIAKERS ^gZ5g3BBaBWHMARKEXAM:lJIElU^ or above proficiency Hl _JiBL = +31% HJKX _291 +50% WMIE __as +1% h GRA0E5SnNF0RDKHIEVEMENTTEST:MAni Scores in percentiles 50 percent= national average Ml JL 31 iUCK 23 WMIE _S S5 'SOURCE: Little Rock School District 1997-'98 t9900 % change ran nt 31% BUCK MB =1 EXnUCURnCULAR ACTMIY PARrailMIION 1997-'98 1999-'00 BUCK 2g WMIE/Oim 393 --------902 DROPOUT RATE AT HIGH SCHOOLS 1997-96 1999-00 ran. 5Mm%i BUCK Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/KIRK MONTGOMERYI P for desegregation programs that in- kllwv elude magnet schools, student transfers, and special transporta-  Continued from Page 1A tion as well as money for extraor- afound here, Little Rock Super- dinary employee health insurance intendent Les Gamine said. We and retirement costs. The district, think the right things have been which has a $200 million budget, done and Im really excited for the gets approximately million a school district and for the kids year for those costs. here. This sets the tone for us to begin a whole new era. The negotiated agreement specifically says the state will not Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, try to modify or terminate any of its was equally pleased and said he obligation to Little Rock as enu- would encourage his fellow lawmakers to support the agreement. merated in a 1989 agreement until June 1, 2008. The newest agree- Its cause for celebration, he mentwhich would be an amendsaid. This agreement represents ment to the 1989 settlementdoes the resolution of some extremely not specify what happens at that important and chronically trouble- time. The state farther agreed to forgive and release the Little Rock some issues that we have focused oh for years. Argue was one of three lawmak- district from any obligation to re- ers who last fall encouraged state pay the first $15 million of a $20 and Little Rock district officials to million state desegregation loan pool together several outstanding given to the district over the course desegregation and financial issues of the 1990s. The state will forgive the re- and resolve them as a package. maining $5 million in loans if the Sen. Jodie Mahony, D-El Dorado, and Sen. Dave Bisbee, R-Rogers, district obtains a final order from were the other two. the federal courts granting it com- A lot of hard work has gone plete unitary status and release into this, Aiiue said. And I re- from federal court supervision by member that a lot of people July 1,2004. thought it was a pipe dream. It was $20 million loan was a con- an instance where we were looking tentious provision of the 1989 flnan- at four issues and we couldnt re- cial settlement between the state wed go right back to where we solve any of them as we dealt with mid the Pulaski County school dis- them individually. tricts. AccoMing to the 1989 agree- As for his legislative colleagues, ment, the district would not have to Im going to encourage them to repay the loan if the scores earned understand that all parties were at black students on standardized the table, that everybody is giving fest scores were raised to at least 90 and everybody is gaining, he said, percent of the scores earned by If they choose to spoil the deal, white students by Dec. 31,2000. ..^'d o- Ls, ..e However, the state and the Lit- were with four big problems and tie Rock district never agreed on no resolution. the standardized test or the type of Gov. Mike Huckabee was out of score that should be used to detertown Thursday but said through a mine whether the district met its spokesman that he wanted to re- obligation. .................. The Little Rock district is oblig- serve comment until after the boards acted on the agreement. The tentative agreement was ated by the new agreement to accelerate its efforts to sell construction bonds and raise its level of circulating among various state and local officials on the same day debt from about $6 million to about the Little Rock School District sub- $11.8 million by early 2002, saving District voters approved a 5-mill mitted to U.S. Chief District Judge the state up to $125 million. Susan Webber Wright, a 167-page report of statistics showing the dis- tax increase last year for renovat- tricts efforts to comply with its ing buildings and expanding tech- 1998 desegregation plan. nology systems. As soon as that dis- A motion accompanied the re- trict uses that money to finance port asking Wright to give all other construction debt, the money wont parties in the 18-year-old desegre- be counted as revenue available to gation lawsuit 20 days to make any educate students in the district. objections to the districts asser- Thats important to state offi- tions of compliance. The district cials because the amount of rev- also asked the judge to declare the enue per child in the Little Rock district unitary, or desegregated to district is the standard by which ..................................  state funding for all other school the extent practicable, on June 30. A declaration of unitaiy status districts is calculated. Every dis- would mean that the district would trict is guaranteed 80 percent of be released from continued feder- the funding available in Little court monitoring and involve- Rock. Unless the district uses its ment in its operations. The district new revenue to finance construe-  has been involved in federal tion, the state will have to pump in school desegregation lawsuits for more money for other school sys- more than 40 years. terns in 2001-02. The $125 million The current lawsuit began in cost could wipe out money that 1982, when the Little Rock district Huckabee and other lawmakers sued the state and the other two want to increase teacher salaries. Tulaoki CuuiiLy ouliuul uiauiuU, Those raises, if made law, are exseeking consolidation as an end to pected to cost $122 million annual- Pulaski County school districts, racial segregation in the Pulaski ly when fully implemented. County piAlic schools. The federal In the proposed agreement, the courts found that the defendants district and state pledge to work to- were at fault but stopped short of gether for unitary status for the Lit- consolidation. The districts and tie Rock district. The agreement the state ultimately agreed to a fi- states that it can be modified by nancial settlement of more than the district and state based on fur- $129 million to be paid out over the ther consultation and discussion course of the 1990s. However, the with attorneys for the Joshua interdistricts continue to receive money venors, who represent the black from the state for ongoing desegre- students in the district in the ongo- ing desegregation lawsuit John Walker, the attorney for gation expenses. The proposed agreement between the state and district was the intervenors, could not be not submitted to the judge with the reached for comment Thursday. compliance report, but the two are tied together. Some of the attorneys involved in crafting the agreement included Little Rock district attorneys Chris Heller for the Little Rock and School Board members have School District\nTimothy Gauger said they want to pursue unitary and Scott Smith for the Departstatus without a fear that the state ment of Education, and Olan would try to withdraw its funding Reeves for the governors office.o CM CM LR, state boards sign school funding pact Agreement maintaining desegregation programs called a marvelous step forward o JI V. I ! Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/JASON ANTHES LiWe Rock School District Superintendent Les Carnine signs an agreement that will continue state funding for the school system's desegregation programs. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board endorsed a landmark agreement Monday that will continue state funding for the citys desegregation programs and save millions in state funding to other districts. The state Education Board adopted the agreement with an 8-1 vote and little discussion in a telephone conference call. The Little Rock School Board followed suit three hours later with a 7-O vote. We're cautiously optimistic the settlement with the Little Rock School District will lead to a permanent conclusion of what has been a long, tedious court battle, Gov. Mike Huckabee said Monday through a spokesman. Little Rock School Board President Katherine Mitchell called the agreement historic and thanked all who were involved in its production. Baker Kumis, another Little Rock board member, said\nThis is bigger news than a presidential library, a new arena or anything like that. This is a marvelous step forward. The agreement paves the way for the Little Rock district to pursue release from federal court monitoring of its long-standing desegregation efforts without jeopardizing about $20 million a year in state support for the districts magnet schools and other desegregation-related expenses. The eight-page agreement crafted by attorneys for the district and the state at the urging of a handful of legislators, says the state will not attempt to cut desegregation funding to the Little Rock School Dis- trict at least until after June 1,2008. The agreement further relieves the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million state desegregation loan. In return, the agreement obligates the Little Rock district to vigorously pursue release from federal court monitoring of its desegregation efforts. The district also has pledged to structure its finances  specifically money raised by a recent 5-mill tax increase  so the districts revenue per student wont increase dramatically. That would force the state to infuse as much $125 million into other school districts to help them keep up with funding levels in Little Rock The amount of funding Little Rock has per student is the standard by which state funding for all See AGREEMENT, Page 8A Agreement  Continued from Page 1A other Arkansas school districts is calculated. Eveiy district is guaranteed at least 80 percent of the funding available to the Little Rock district. Hie district will accelerate the sale of construction bonds, increasing its debt from about $6 million to more than $11.8 million by early 2002. Money eamiarked for debt payments wont be counted as revenue for educating Little Rock students. After Mondays vote, attorneys for both agencies will submit a joint request to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to modify an earlier. court-approved agreement between the state and the school district that included the $20 million loan. According to that 1989 agreement the Little Rock district was to repay the loan if standardized test scores of black students were not raised to at least 90 percent of the scores of white students by Dec. 31,2000. The loan proved to be a point of contention because the two agencies could never agree on the test The newest agreement calls for the state to forgive the first $15 million of the low-interest loan right away. The district will be relieved of the remaining $5 million payment if it is released from court supervision by July 1,2004. The district asked Wright for unitary status  or a declaration that it is desegregated to the extent practicable just last week. Timothy Gauger, an attorney who represented the state in the agreement negotiations, said Monday that should the federal courts reject the modified language on the $20 million loan, the loan provision of the new agreement can be severed from the rest of the agreement, which would still stand. Ray Simon, director of the Department of Education, acknowledged that some of the states districts would like to share in a $125 million infusion of state aid based on Little Rocks increased wealth. Producing that money would likely jeopardize efforts going on now in the state Legislature by Huckabee and Education Department leaders to pass a $3,000 teacher raise over the next two years. The real detriment would have been to the state, trying to provide that money [to match the Little Rock funding], said Simon. State Education Board member Betty Pickett of Conway cast the sole no vote on e agreement She said later that she felt the state was pushed into the agreement by a provision of the state funding system that guarantees districts will get at least 80 percent of what Little Rock gets. That guarantee is commonly referred to as the federal range ratio. If that is too high a standard for us to keep and we have to manipulate it, maybe we should look at it Maybe we should do something about that rather than halving to enter into an agreement that has so many ramifications. During the meeting Pickett questioned whether the agreement would have to be renegotiated if the Little Rock district should win another tax increase within the next seven years. Gauger said that probably would be necessary. Reaction to the agreement from an organization that represents all school districts was tempered Monday. Charles Knox, associate director of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, said those educators who have followed the case never really expected Little Rock would have to repay the loam As for the potential increase of as much as $125 million into the state funding system based on increased Little Rock wealth, educators generally recognized that the state couldnt afford it, Knox said. The Little Rock board approved the agreement as former superintendent Don Roberts and incoming Superintendent T. Kenneth James watched. The agreement signed Monday, by Simon and Little Rock schools Superintendent Les Gamine is the latest development tn a lawsuit filed by the Little Rock district in 1982 against the state and the other two' Pulaski County school districts.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"mus_sovcom_1-79-0","title":"Lois Chaffee","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Lois Chaffee, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Lois Chaffee"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=126%7C1%7C79%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_6-55-0","title":"Loron L. Acker","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Loron L. Acker, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Loron L. Acker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=610%7C6%7C55%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["Text"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_1-37-0","title":"Louise Beason, Laurel Miss.","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louise Beason, Laurel Miss., Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louise Beason, Laurel Miss."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=54%7C1%7C37%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_3-22-1","title":"Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=305%7C3%7C22%7C%7C1"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_3-81-0","title":"Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson)","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson), Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=498%7C3%7C81%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_2-94-0","title":"Lowndes County","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Lowndes County, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Lowndes County"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=394%7C2%7C94%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_6-78-0","title":"MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=656%7C6%7C78%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["Text"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_97-83-0","title":"Mac Mohead","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Mac Mohead, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Mac Mohead"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1349%7C97%7C83%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1120","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1120"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n7- 9-92 THU 10 14 Magnet Revieiv Committee 1900\n\\\north 1\\fain Street Suite 101 North Littk Rock, Arbnsn:\n72114 Donna Grady Crear E~8Clltivq oir~f::'jr Dec~mber 18, 1990 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, United States Distric~ Court F.astern District of Arkansas C. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. o. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: In September of 1990, the Little Rock School District presented the Magnet Review Committee with the proposed budget for the interdistrict magnet schools for the 1990-91 school year. This budgeted amount of $12,735,230 represents a $270.00 per student increase which results in bringing the per pupil expenditure from $3,100 to $3,370. During its December 4, 1990 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee adopted the 1990-91 budget proposed for the interdistrict magnet school program and changed the per pupil operational charge to $3,370 by a vote of 3 to 2, with one representative being absent. (This vote reflects a reversal of an earlier vote in which four votes were cast against the budget increase and two votes were cast for it.) In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Magnet Review Committee is now submitting this proposed budget to the Court for its review. The programs are operating currently under the budget . adopted by the MRC, Your review and response regarding this action will be appreciated. We will await notification of your response regarding this action. Please contact our office should you need additional information. Sincerely,\n:t7:att\n=. ' Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Pulaski County Special School District [) . . /} \u0026lt;.l('~ ~., r(_ Dana Chadwick North Little Rock School District ~ J/4/24~rr- Marcia Harding L-Arkansas Department of Education P.02 7- 9-92 THU 10 15 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Page 2 4.-. -d._-\n,J Q. '~ I') Evelyn Ja son Joshua Intervenors !~/iL~ 1 Estelle Matthis Little Rock School District MRC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Magnet Review Committee C,\u0026amp;-4,,'to-t,\u0026lt;\u0026amp;!, c(~ Clearence Lovell Arkansas Department of Education ~yf~M~ ---------- 2,281,009 2,755,142 1,687,077 3,333 2,450 4,275 !:- ,,,. lSu 56,000 29,000 27,000 r.,,~ ~\nrpur 186,028 233,039 88,821 ~ ..... ,..,. tt~ate 81,972 106,455 60,889 ~  ,t.---f--\nCapita 29,195 31,436 24,071 t ~\n,),, ... ~\n.s.- 1,100 5,500 1.0112~(' trndire' ~~,i.~.\n:~~. lV !\n.:-n~M .. ,f,~. .t ,.h.,,l,,_\nGifte ( '\u0026lt;!\u0026lt;. ,Plan }~\u0026gt;,A\n~~ iRea 1~-X'Yo'.,)\u0026lt;,, tSde i'f~g-1 .. .~ .-- --------- 357,628 407,880 :ws,oss ----------- ----------- 2,638,637 3,163,022 1,892,133  :  . ' ~ 1,~ . ' ~l~:r\nr,1,,--fu'J! : :}t\ni\nf ----------- 1,427,244 12,509 15,000 85,873 75,042 12,675 700 201,799 ----------- 1,629,044 1,060,744 5,170 30:soo 42,025 34,718 21,306 ----------- 133,719 _______ \\ __ 1,194,463 1,075,181 172,389 137,433 ------- 1,385,003 2,000 27,500 61,210 48,500 19,753 --------- 158,963 --------- 1,543,966 8,441,022 1,160,699 994,497 --------- 10,596,219 29,737 185,000 696,998 407,576 138,436 7,300 369,322 47,300 38,487 2,000 40,000 6,880 972 2,558 26,957 --------- 1,999,522 ----------- 12,595,741 --=======:. ==========-= --------- 235,789 107,518 11,218 -J -j I C f--' rn 1) MAY-29-91 WED 17:46 U, S, DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 7406096 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR C 82 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., MRS. KATHERINE KNIGH'l', ET AL,, ORDER P. 04 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT ARKANSAS MAY 2 9 1991 ~~R~.,~ y DEP, CLERK PLAINTIFF, DEFD-.\"DANTS I INTERVENORS, INTERVENOR$, Without opposition, the proposed budget submitted by the Magnet Review Committee increasing -che per pupil operational charge to $3,370.00 is approved. DATED this 29th day of May, 1991, (JS/US\nAN~ WEBhBER ~IHT4 ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE '-.. .... Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 2, 1991 Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter is in response to your correspondence regarding the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet school budgets for the six stipulation magnets. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, in its annual Report to the Court (Section IX, Interdistrict Magnet School Budgets, page 99, attached, dated May 27, 1991), called attention to the Magnet Review Committee's difficulty of cost containment due to the lack of input on hiring and personnel contract negotiations. The $312.00 per pupil increase requested on September 24, 1991, for this school year's proposed budget is largely due to increases in teacher salaries and Act 10 requirements. In some instances, expenditures other than teacher salaries were actually lower than the 1990-91 school year. The legend on the lower portion of the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget presented to the Court via your office on September 24, 1991 clearly delineates the areas of increase. The cover letter accompanying the budget also notes the reasons for the proposed increases. An item by. item review is best comprehended in a dialogue/reporting session. Such a session will be arranged upon request if needed. As usual, the Magnet Review Committee worked closely with the host district and the principals to assure the accurate and efficient expenditure of tax dollars. We are confident that every effort was, and is, being made to keep costs within reason. Ms. Ann Brown -2- December 2, 1991 The programs are operating and dollars are being expended. Therefore, a careful review and timely response to this request is appreciated. Sincerely yours, Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl I ' I : I I I i SECTION IX INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETS The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) adopted budget for operation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for the 1989-90 school year was $12,781,300.00. This figure was computed on a per pupil cost of $3,100 times a total seating capacity figure of 4,123 for the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for that school year. The fiscal year for expenditure of this budget was July 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990. Initially, each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools was allotted a proportional share of funds to budget based upon its seating capacity. However, following close budgetary review, monies were shifted among the programs where necessary to accommodate program and services needs. The adopted budget was submitted by the MRC to the Court for approval. The Interdistrict Magnet School Program operated in accordance with the adopted budget during the 1989-90 school year. Final expenditures for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools during the 1989-90 school year were as follows: Mann Parkview Booker Carver Gibbs Williams TOTAL * Average Interdistrict Magnet Schools Cost Per Pupil 1989-90 (provided by Little Rock School District) 89-90 EXP ADM* PER PUPIL $2,598,149.00 880 2,952.44 $3,044,434.00 798 3,815.08 $1,849,132.00 633 2,921.22 $1,599,842.00 600 2,666.40 $1,130,522.00 337 3,354.66 $1,423,412.00 509 2,796.49 $11,645,491.00 3,757 3,099.68 Daily Membership The operating expenditures and per pupil cost rates varied across the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools. This variance is the same experienced within any school district, reflecting the general differences found in operating elementary versus secondary schools (junior and senior high schools) and special programs. In the magnet schools, the variance was also attributable to ongoing start-up costs of programs involving unique program design and the associated personnel, equipment and staff development needs. In summary, the total expenditure for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools for the 1989-90 school year was $11,645,491.00 at an average per pupil expenditure of $3,100. The allocated budget ($12,781,300.00) was based on magnet school seating capacity (4,123) while the expended budget was based on the ADM of 3,757.00 (actual adjusted enrollment). The total expenditure is in keeping with the guidelines set forth by the Court for operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. While the Magnet Review Committee does not hire or evaluate interdistrict magnet school personnel, the effect of personnel contract negotiations on salary directly impacts the budget. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work with the host district in configuring the budget for the next year. However, it should be noted that cost  containment is difficult when teacher contract negotiations cause budget fluctuations beyond the Magnet Review Committee's control. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 R D E R FILED US. DISTRICT COUA'T EASTERN OISTRl9f ARKANSAS MAR 161992 cARL / el:s, ~ By: Ir (l II 1 OEP. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) for approval of the 1991-92 magnet school budget proposal. The proposal was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 24, 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on October 9, 1991. submitted. The court has reviewed the budget and approves it as The Court notes that the 1991-92 budget for the six original magnet schools is $13,775,416.00, bringing the magnet school per pupil expenditure for the current school year to $3,682.00, This amount represents an increase of approximately $312.00 per pupil above the amount spent for each magnet school student in 1990-91. An increase in the magnet school budget has been requested by the MRC and granted by the Court for at least the past three budget cycles. The Court expects the MRC to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet school budget that will ensure efficient management of resources and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The MRC has also asked the Court to approve a modification in the M-to-M transfer policy adopted by the school districts' Student Assignment Officers Committee in February, 1991. The M-to-M transfer policy had been included in a lengthy status report on interdistrict magnet school development and progress which was published in May 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on June 19, 1991. There was no indication that the transfer policy contained in the report was a departure from previous policy or that the MRC was seeking Court approval of a policy modification. The change in M-to-M transfer policy is approved. In the future, the Court will consider Magnet Review Committee requests for approval of budget adjustments or changes regarding any other matter only if such requests {1) are made in a timely fashion, well in advance of the anticipated need for the change\n( 2) are presented in a communication written for the express purpose of presenting such proposal to the Court\n{3) are set in context, including a clear rationale for the request that contains an explanation of the circumstances or events which have prompted the request, the expected impact of the requested change, identification of those individuals, groups, programs or operations which will be affected by the change, and the anticipated date by which the change is needed. Any change requested by the MRC should not be implemented by that Committee nor the parties represented on that Committee prior to the court's approval. DATED this /~-1:--day of March, 1992. Tl-llS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN )MPLIANCE Wfn~LE 58 ANDtm~!?:a) FRCP J JN ,3- t1-'+). BY ___ J/5\n----~ ~2r~2r~ TED STATES DISTRICT UDGE I I I j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR June 1, 1992 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Littl~ Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: 72201 ECEIVED JUN 1 1992 omce ot Desegregation Monitoring Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, ~~~r( -.Manager of SuppoJt Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.wpd LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Al though the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. 3. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. Consequently, they have asked us to use a 3% annual increase in these costs. We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. 4. The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Al though this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. These reductions are shown as a line item entitled 11 1992-93 Budget Reductions\". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. 5. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will occur if further reductions or increased revenues are not found. We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can be found. Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1. 5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget. LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires discussion. In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the cost of programs in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. 7. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. We can provide information on federal funds if the Court desires. 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. Any additional will be covered with second-lien issues. 10. The 1993-94 reduction in program #10, Academic Support Programs, reflects the completion of payments for PAL equipment. Some funding is added for replacement of this equipment. 11. The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of tracking them exceeds the value of the information. The costs are not omitted\nthey are just not broken out. 12. The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, we can submit revised budgets if the Court desires. Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. 13. The fifth and sixth positions ( from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above. Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. D. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,196,979 39,088,120 40,093,227 45,616,117 47,086,512 48,506,276 40% PULLBACK 21,081,833 21,736,595 25,253,744 25,996,645 26,766,307 27,518,335 DELINQUENT TAXES 3,900,000 3,500,000 3,805,000 3,819,150 3,933,725 4,051,736 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 400,000 365,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 225,000 227,250 229,523 231,818 234,136 MISC. AND RENTS 420,850 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 85,000 85,000 86,700 88,434 90,203 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 28,118,907 28,118,907 28,759,387 29,419,081 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 4,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,474,485 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,350 1,639,091 1,688,263 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 629,752 675,000 742,500 816,750 898,425 988,268 EARLY CHILDHOOD 147,050 147,050 154,403 162,123 170,229 178,740 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 TRANSPORTATION 2,983,190 3,100,000 3,348,000 3,615,840 3,905,107 4,217,516 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 874,311 875,000 918,750 964,688 1,012,922 1,063,568 M TO M TRANSFERS 1,798,665 2,490,900 3,248,910 3,760,540 4,140,580 4,491,150 ADULT EDUCATION 624,119 653,094 672,687 692,867 713,653 735,063 TOTAL 49,864,380 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 44,625 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANT 111,453 112,000 116,480 121,139 125,985 131,024 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 800,000 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 3,370,820 4,474,288 4,563,774 4,655,049 4,748,150 4,843,113 CHAPTER II 224,423 215,020 219,320 223,707 228,181 232,745 TITLE VI B 558,810 569,986 581,386 593,014 604,874 616,971 OTHER 1,735,885 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 1,878,978 1,916,557 TOTAL 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 7,609,386 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL REVENUE 135,431,985 134,494,661 140,583,529 146,820,159 148,906,410 150,087,663 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 67,748,508 71,437,088 73,765,037 75,316,854 76,822,807 7,808,935 9,022,067 9,202,509 9,386,558 9,574,290 16,910,424 19,141,451 18,887,119 22,144,629 24,940,080 6,791,207 6,992,544 7,202,320 7,418,390 7,640,942 3,817,539 3,927,703 4,045,534 4,166,900 4,291,907 887,696 755,079 777,731 801,063 825,095 1,606,543 1,621,715 1,670,366 1,720,477 1,772,092 8,718,196 9,597,115 9,090,123 8,845,248 8,258,921 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 (7,700,000) (7,931,000) (8,168,930) (8,413,998) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,189 126,512,136 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANT 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 TOTAL EXPENSES 134,066,827 136,489,313 138,928,181 144,382,000 149,003,963 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,159 (97,553) FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 1996-97 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) 130,245,103 7,609,386 15,332,277 153,186,767 (3,099,103) 4,001,302 902,199 Exhibit A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRiCT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER OPERATING DESEG FEDERAL MAGNET TOTAL SALARY FUND GRANTS SCHOOLS 1105 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA 52,349.84 44,337.94 204,356.00 301,043.78 1110 KINDERGARTEN 2,795,060.64 325,000.00 425,733.12 3,545,793.76 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 28,811,085.64 7,562,955.21 6,686,389.30 9,069,517.95 52,129,948.10 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 4,037,827.87 1,224,081.75 11,626.28 362,373.04 273,945.79 5,909,854.73 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 4,071,829.27 1,238,599.52 118,050.36 351,162.00 601,212.16 6,380,853.31 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 698,543.12 35,608.75 130,509.54 864,661.41 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 756,490.90 537,715.75 1,649,581.34 3,522,602.96 6,880.00 6,473,27u.95 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 1,156,944.86 214,094.16 67,162.00 187,848.98 1,626,050.00 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2,598,700.99 1,102,812.86 317,475.66 428,580.73 651,786.63 5,099,356.87 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2,684,664.92 2.on,880.91 1,653,162.72 444,781.18 423,530.00 7,284,019.73 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 183,975.48 734,945.29 4,265,335.80 115,554.79 5,299,811.36 2410 PRINCIPAL'$ OFFICE 3,939,101.54 1,861,405.13 107,044.21 1,195,556.85 7,103,107.73 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 16,625,075.77 710,699.21 3,000.00 1,051,829.76 18,390,604.74 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 290,883.38 2,194,315.26 510,528.09 2,995,726.73 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 839,750.00 640,566.28 464,212.24 1,944,528.52 5100 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 8,718,196.00 8,718,196.00 TOTAL 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72 July 8, 1992 OFRCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee do Pulaski County Special School District P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Bobby: The court needs additional information so that it may consider the Magnet Review Committee's proposed 1992-93 budget for the six original magnet schools. This information is necessary to comply with the court's March 16, 1992 order requiring that MRC requests be set in context and include a clear rationale. Furthermore, because of the acute financial difficulties currently experienced by all three school districts, it will be necessary to justify the requested budget in some detail. As you know, the court is mandated to scrutinize the parties' fiscal responsibility and accountability in relationship to the desegregation plans which, of course, include the magnet schools. To assist the court, please provide the following information: 1. Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget.  The requested 1992-93 budget of $14,164,654 is an increase of $389,238 over the 1991-92 budget of $13,775,416. The MRC proposal states that per-pupil expenditures will remain at the 1991-92 level of $3,682, yet it is not clear how the per-pupil amount can remain constant while the total budget rises, especially since the amount of the increase is not equal to the perpupil expenditure multiplied by the projected increase in student enrollment. 2. Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. 3. The committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12 meeting? July 8, 1992 Page Two 4. What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? 5. How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? 6. Section IX of the May 27, 1991 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992~93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. 7. Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. 8. What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchases services and indirect costs? 9. When may the court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the committee may suggest? My associates and I will be glad to discuss any aspect of the magnet schools' budget if you'd like for us to get together. However, a formal response to this letter will be necessary so the court has the benefit of a written record. Thank you very much for your help. Very truly yours, Ck-- Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Donna Grady Greer OCT 6 19~2 Office of oesegr.zgation t\\ionitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRI CT NO:\"~1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~ASTEflN DISTPIW ARKANSAS OCT O 2 1992 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has received and filed of record a letter from the Magnet Review Committee concerning recent budget cuts by the Little Rock School District and the impact of those cuts on the six original magnet schools. The Committee sent a copy of the letter to the attorneys of record in this case. The parties are directed to file any response they might have to the Magnet Review Committee letter of September 28, 1992, within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Order. ~ DATED this / day of October, 1992. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wl}H RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N I[  2 -C!ce BY ____r_. _ ___ (  Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 DEC 2 8 19j2 (50 1) 758-01 56 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Offtee of Desegregation l,fonrto1 9 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the , 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Revi ew Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet school principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted t9 reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ~Jlralk- Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) Cc  1991.:+9.:i -.ic\\ /' ,,:,._.,,,.,,. c/ci:CC:,c 1992':\"9:3 /- b  F.T:E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481 ,040 Specialists 37.4 $1 ,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) X)Q(XX* $1 ,068,359 xx:xxxxx $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 Secretaries 18.0 $301 ,141 17.0 $310,176 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.S $316,035 39.S $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $185,965 xxxxxx:l( - $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1,406,433 97.4 $1,484,391 Utilities xxxxxxxi $601,780 mxx,\u0026amp; $627,700 Travel xxxxxx:ic Maintenance Agreements xxxxx?6( xx:xxxxx $166,508 xxxxxxx. $195,093 TOT AL (30) ~#XX $768,288 xAA~#. $822,793 Principal's Office xi1006qc Regular Classroom xx:xxxl{XI $379,717 $59,072 Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) $399,942 5dix.~~ $438,789 Equipment $120,394 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $120,394 Dues and Fees $5,895 Other TOTAL (60) $8,358 $5,895 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,387,871 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $769,664 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education Contingency xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx $503,365 $521,176 $30,837 $35,000 $31,231 $35,000 $0 $2,000 $18,271 $25,000 $5,334 $6,880 $0 $972 $2,368 $2,558 $3,927 $8,000 $0 $86,469 * 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated.  ~2-93 Budget Proposal' ::nrn\u0026gt;tc :  . '  \". 1991-92   '   1992-93 BookecMagnet School  ..... : I] !\n:..\nf\ni::i:) ...... t F.T.E, ? Salaries yi  F,T.E, Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------t---:1~.o::-+-~$5~4~.~52~6=-+--1-.0::-+-----'-$-5~2,~5~93=---l Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45 ,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxx'.*- $172,697 ~~~: $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 STAFF rN-u-rs_e_s----------t---:-1-.0t ----:-$-2'4-,9-7-6+ ---+----,--,-- 1.0 $25,725 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) xpc~iac $28,550 xx:xxxxx $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 Utilities $81,637 xflb\u0026amp;x:xt $83,ooo Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $27,963 xltj(*-x5( $27,552 TOTAL (30) $109,600 xx:#xxx $110,552 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $54,789 Media $5,672 Other TOTAL (40) $60,461 Equipment $14 ,00Q Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $14,000 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 $2,097,313 TOTAL LINE m MS- (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL *fxf6Hof $2,152,746 x#6obat $2,19a,8o5 !ii@~~~~1~:\n~\n~iji1~ : ~~\n~:\n1ii::\n  Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx e.~J106iiP.6$tJ%!:t\nt:Jltd% 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 ?ef'Ptlpil'Cost'tIIttr: h , t%@$~}4ZZ\\\" {lt\nt$~M~S{ Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1~92-~3 Budget proB9~aC: ... . t 1991-9~  1992-9 Ci!rv~(M~~~e(crh=oo-t\"\u0026lt;: --:----:-~~-~~~\"-t+ F. ......1.. ~\\E-:- \", -St-a~la--r'i-e-s'- A-+- -i-f- -F-.'T--.E+.- \"-=S-a=l-acri.e.=s,- =----j CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.---------t---:1~.o::-+---'-$~3~1.~3~28.c..+--1~.0.::...+----=$~3~2~.2~6~8 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $137,204 xxxxxxx $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11 .0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxX $30,621 ~xxx $41 , 156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL {10-60) ~~6{ $68,924 i9\u0026lt;,gxxx $79, 1 oo $22,843 ~  $91,767 ~  $22,128 ~~ $22,128 ~lq{ $2,857 ~  63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $78,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $1,791,242 TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) $100,269 GRAND TOTAL $1,891,510 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 PerRut:\u0026gt;JJ ... cosf f,J@: mwt :trnrt~a\no35@tt tm~s:ns~r Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1@2-93 Budget ProposaF : :\n:{ \n:t: '., ,,,, 't '\n, ,, ...  1991 ... 92/\u0026lt; !Pfa~.Migm~!:#r0:0:1: \"\"\":\"\"\"\"'-:\"\"--'-:~=~r= F'-.T'-.E\".= =S=al'a\"r\"ieis- ---+-----+---+--- C ER TI FIE D Principal 1.0 F.T.E. Salaries $55,462 STAFF ~A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------+-----=-1~.o:-+---:-=-::-'--:-':-::-+----:--::-+----'-~ 1.0 $57,126 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten ' 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx: $109,125 xxxxxxx $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31 .3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 f-------------+---+------'--+- S TAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) t--------------+---+-----+- C us to di ans 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXJQl:XX $20,314 XXX)()(X.X $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 Utilities x~~xx $35,102 x\u0026gt;QClodat $38,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $13,000 TOTAL (30) $51,300 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $29,668 Media $6,400 Other TOTAL (40) $36,068 Equipment $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $12,920 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) $59,203 GRAND TOTAL $1,426,759 Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - g~~~~:.~~~~~e\n.\n~~~1~:::.:\nJ\n::1\n~:Ji'.::::\nI::\n lji:\n111~: i[j :.: ! ~~~9~ ::\naries  . ~~!~gs Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 .$144,375 3.0 $148,706 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) xx\nx)O(xx $245,140 xx:xxxx:x  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) XX:X~?CX $30,713 *~\u0026gt;tx( $37,395 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 Utilities #xxxxx' $164,666 x5.cxxx5t $168,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $60,941 TOTAL (30) $213,554 x~~xx $229,241 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $85,000 Media $11,000 Other TOTAL (40) $96,000 Equipment $28,Q00 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $28,000 Dues and Fees $1,375 Other TOTAL (60) $1,470 $1,375 TOT AL (30-60) $328,253 $354,616 TOT AL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,964,948 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $143,218 $162,358 GRAND TOTAL $3,169,124 $3,127,306 Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,877 Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 ae:r@mraost:t:::1,r::1: ::::Jr trnrrn::$$.ip~J :rn:m%J$.ii'$1\\ft Date Submitted - Principal 's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - J99:i\n~j Budget Proposal '' .,, . ..- , .. .,,. ''   1991-92 ...... 1992.:.93  =,=, E~f\u0026amp;'.!iW,=:Mi9D~JSchoot)@  ,,. },'.'',/{ d= ,.....F-T. -_-E-. -s-a~la-ri-es_ ..........- +-F-.T -.-E. --+-S-a-la-ri_e_s ---1 ~:---:-':--\"-=~.c...:.:\n..==\"-'~\"'----'=t---=t-::...:.:...:__:_..:..__-+...:...:...:..::..:...-+=-===-----1 CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 t----'--------------+----+------'---'...:....:....-+-----'-:..+----=-.::..=.c..::....:..:::...j STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $1.50,132 3.0 $154,636 t-=--:---:---,,-----------+----+------'--+----+-...:____:...:....:....~ Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxxx $271,685 XX:XXXXX . $302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 SUPPORT Secretaries t--------------+-----+------'---+-----+---- 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 S TAFF Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx' $49,690 xx:xxxxx $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512 +% , : 'ff 0tAC.ti\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t2on1 tr mt. xxxxxxx tl$s\n1s1\nau: x~~xi( @t-$s:214.\nao1 PURCHASED Utilities xxxxx~: $208,483 xxxx:ib\u0026amp;: $210,000 SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance Agreements Other $48,700 TOTAL (30) $247,575 xx'.x\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;ldf $258,700 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $100,850 (40) Media $17,000 Other TOTAL (40) $117,850 CAPITAL Equipment $37,000 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $37,000 OTHER Dues and Fees $3,496 m~ $3,500 (60) Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) $393,671 $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) $158,509 $172,976 GRAND TOTAL $3,713,516 $3,804,327 UiieltetnCosts~ r  ..... ::::\n: ..  : t  !ttiSli:Filpiii~atii\nHJ 1 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - I 1991-92 1992-93 $3,000 $112,135 $116,341 $17,696 $19,400 $22,029 $24,560 $4,071 $5,566 $1,182 $1,530 $221 $520 $577 $876 $1,781 1991-92 1992-93 837.6 870.0 $3,713,516 $3,804,327 LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF r.A-s-st~. ~P~ri-n.--------+-~1~.0-+---'-$~35~,~8~40-+--1-.0-+--=$~3~6~,9~15=--l Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21 .0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58 ,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXXXX. $132,508 xx.xxxxx $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries f-------------+---+----'--+----+---- S TAFF Nurses f---------- ---+---+-----+-----+---- C us to di ans 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxx:x $26,076 xx.xxxx:x $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities xxlbo6\u0026amp; $42,968 xxxxxxx $49,ooo SERVICES Travel xxxxx* xxxxxxx (30) Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x Other $18,000 TOTAL (30) $59,227 xx:xxxxx: $67,000 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $44 ,4 n mxxx.t $45,310 (40) Media $7,000 Other TOTAL (40) $51,454 xxx~ $52,310 CAPITAL Equipment $12,184 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $12,184 OTHER Dues and Fees (60) Other TOTAL (60) $535 $0 TOT AL (30-60) $126,200 $131,494 TOT AL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51 .4 $1,656,723 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $71,665 xxxxxx:i( $86,895 GRAND TOTAL $1,694,335 $1,743,618 t..ihti\"ifuitfcosts'#i:\\ViC  ---.,  .::::: ::\n: :',~0\"::: r \u0026gt;  ..   Arti'p6'~11'hatib(l I I ~~\n:\n~r ' 1992-93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx RE!tiBilbifcbst%i@@:@%ViMI: 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 P~rtf{iJptlC6~f% ,,,/%/ :FL, :$$'\n3~fS{ n:]}$3)Sta Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suit~ 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 JUL 1 7 iS92 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director Oifice of Desegrcga::cn 1.,vnit0ring (501 ) 758-0156 TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Altom${t't1ir, Magnet Review Committee Response to Letter from Ann Brown July 17, 1992 Attached herewith is a copy of the MRC response to the subject letter. Per our discussion, this is for your perusal prior to our meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 1992. At this meeting, we can respond to any questions that might arise. If you need additional information prior to our meeting, you may contact me or contact the Magnet Review Committee Office at 758-0156. I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday. BA/DGC:sl Attachment RESPONSE TO ODM REGARDING INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS  BUDGET INFORMATION 1) Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget. The interdistrict magnet school per pupil expense of $3,682.00 is the amount for both the 1991-92 and the 1992-93 fiscal years. The ADM used to compute the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget is 3,741.29. The 1992-93 ADM figure of 3,847 results in a difference of 105.71. 105.71 times 3,682 is exactly $389,238. 2) Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. The MRC made every effort to comply with the Court's Order dated March 16, 1992. In this Court Order, we were told to present requests well in advance of the need for approval. A discussion of the interdistrict magnet schools' 1992-93 budget was on the April 21, 1992 MRC agenda. Minutes from that meeting indicate that the MRC directed Estelle Matthis to work with LRSD to bring a draft budget to the MRC on or before May 1, 1992. In our opinion, independent fact finding would mean that an outside individual would be employed or contracted to investigate the interdistrict magnet schools budget-making process. We have not found it necessary to go this route. Jim Ivey, Support Services Manager at LRSD, and Mark Milhollen, Controller for LRSD, presented the rationale for budget changes to the MRC. In the past, the MRC has invited the principals of each interdistrict magnet school to an MRC meeting to explain costs, especially where a significant increase was requested or a substantial decrease was recommended. No substantial changes of any type were predicted at this time. Changes in administrative costs were due to extraneous Central Office/State/ Court-ordered mandates, and not due to changes made by principals. 3) The Committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12th meeting? Members attending the May 12, 1992 MRC meeting were as follows: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD Marcia Harding, ADE Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Estelle Matthis, LRSD Members absent were: Clearence Lovell, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors A proxy vote for Clearence Lovell was cast by Marcia Harding. 4) What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? The MRC talked with the LRSD representative prior to placing a review of a draft budget on the agenda. The district was asked to be conservative since the MRC did not want to raise the per pupil expenditure. Several conversations were held with the host district for the purpose of cost containment. Cost-cutting carries a connotation of cutting services. Our objective was (and is) to retain quality, integrity and attractiveness of programs. The Court has repeatedly stated that the desegregation plan is to be implemented without regard to economic factors. The MRC has always viewed its role as one of maintaining the quality of the interdistrict magnet school program while exercising fiscal restraint. Each MRC party agreed to maintain the current level of per pupil expenditure. The MRC has always been fiscally responsible and empathetic to the financial status of all its parties. 5) How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially  that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? By design, the MRC is a body that is to \"oversee the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program.\" The funding of the interdistrict magnet schools, by design, comes from the three districts and.the State. 1/2 of the operating costs for the interdistrict magnet schools is borne by the State, with the remaining 1/2 of the costs shared by the three school districts. The MRC also recognizes that personnel costs typically account for about 80% of a school's budget. The MRC will be receptive to any fiscal options that do not hinder program effectiveness. The districts are least likely to make significant reductions in interdistrict magnet schools - key components of the desegregation plan. Even though the districts may be reducing in areas of the overall budget, the districts have to be cautious not to take cuts in any area that will adversely affect desegregation. 6) Section IX of the May 27, 1992 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992-93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. Not all components of the magnet school theme areas were initiated at the opening of the programs, but were phased in over a period of years. The curriculum guides for each school determine when and if additions or updates of programs initially implemented at that school are needed. At this time, the preliminary budget most likely has few, if any, new start-up costs. The MRC will continue to closely examine each school's needs to determine if, in fact, the variance from school to school is due to ongoing start-up costs or ongoing specialty/magnet program costs. 7) Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also, explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. One of the early Court Orders establishing the interdistrict magnet schools allows indirect costs. A district accounting practice holds each interdistrict magnet school accountable for funds expended from that department. For example, if Parkview spends funds for athletics, it is taken from the athletics line item in the interdistrict magnet school budget. At times, departments buy items in bulk for several schools and give each school its share of that item. The proportional cost of that item is taken from the budget accordingly. 8) What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchased services and indirect costs? The purchased services increase is due to a projected increase in the costs of utilities. The indirect cost item is an item allowed from the original Court Order which reimburses LRSD for the costs of running the interdistrict magnet school program. This cost is always tied to the indirect cost rate calculated annually by the State. LRSD's rate is 3.65% of the per pupil expenditure. 9) When may the Court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the Court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the Committee may suggest? The MRC is to report to the Court on a yearly basis. The budget is usually forwarded to the Court when the final revisions are made. It has been our practice to deliver the report when the budget for the reporting year can be included. The evaluation report is forwarded upon completion by our independent evaluation team. If it is the Court's desire for these three reports to be presented simultaneously, we can adjust our schedule accordingly. However, the budget cannot be finalized until the LRSD has completed the teacher contract negotiation process.  Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 July 29, 1992 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: 'JUL 3 0 1992 The Magnet Review Committee met yesterday with Dr. Mac Bernd of the Little Rock School District to hear his request for reductions in the original magnet schools' budgets. No formal action was taken, but the following consensual decisions were made: The Little Rock School District has agreed to complete the new budgetary format developed as a resul~ of inquiry into the budgetary process from the Office of besegregation Monitoring as a representative of Judge Wright. Copies of a school budget and the summary budget forms are included with this letter. The Magnet Review Committee will review a preliminary draft of the 1991-92 School Year Evaluation Report during a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 26, 1992, at 4:30 p.m. Reviewing the report prior to looking at the budget requests will provide insight for the budgeting process. After the evaluation report review has been conducted, the Little Rock School District will present its budgetary requests. The district will submit, in writing, the impact of the requested budget cuts on its desegregation plan and the interdistrict plan. The principals of the magnet schools will be present to answer questions about their individual budgets. The proposed date of approval for both the magnet school budgets and the evaluation report is September 15, 1992. Ms. Ann Brown -2- July 29, 1992 The Committee accepted the proposed timelines for the budgeting process with one modification. The April and May activities were combined. A copy is included. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ,,,-, ~ cI. 4t'ft.  1/1~ Altom~ hairperson Magnet Review Committee BA:sl Enclosures TIMELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY MAY JUNE The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MAC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict ~agnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Cammi ttee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Pagel ialists Counselors Media S c. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other 0.0 $0 Nurses Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 :mtmmn~~tilit: .. : 1m1v.=  \n:'/t.f.'.I~:s:.. PURCHASED Utilities SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance A ments Other MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) TOTAL (30) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) $0 $0 $0 0.0 o.o TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL $0    : . .  . filename-booker.wql $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 er Objects irectCosts ocational x:xxxxx x:xxxxx x:xxxxx xxxxxx filename-booker. wql Date 29-Jul-92 Date Submitted. - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature-filename- booker.wql Page3 Date 29-Jul-92 . Page 4  ,~ ~-'sV::: ::::\n:\n:::::~-:t:::'::: :\n:\n::\n:.}:'.-\n-i~~\n:'.:r-:-::\n:\n:::::::::::: .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .......................... . STAFF Asst. Prin. t------------t-----+-----+---+--------11 Specialists Counselors MediaS ec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other Frin e Benefits(20) :::::.::::::::.%:. TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 STAFF Nurses 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) Travel Maintenance A ments Other TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Princi al's Office SUPPLIES Re ar Classroom $0 (40) ~M~ed:_!1~a ______ _umlffl __ _J!mL----ll CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) +tWMPMl'QlWB.\\(Qf~~l)WfaWH:tt TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-booker.wql $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Pagel NA NA NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA Media S c. NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA Music NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA s ial Education NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA Cha ter 1 NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA Other NA NA NA Frin e Benefits(20) _. ...... .::::,,:../ NA :-:-:-::::::::'.y'.\n.  ... TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Other NA NA NA Other NA NA NA,, Frin e Benefits(20) .. .... ......... .-. .-:-:---. NA --,--------:-,-- PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (50) (60) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY c:\u0026gt; \u0026gt;:::L .'.WM{t\u0026amp;,,Rl@H1%M\n: Utilities Travel Maintenance A reements Other TOTAL(30) Re lar Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) ui ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) OTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-summary.WQl NA NA : SXlU?'/tNAb   NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA AM:3\\:.:mt,:,:NA, ... : NA $0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA . NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 NA er Objects NA NA t Costs NA NA ocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs NA NA Plant Services NA NA Reading NA NA Science NA NA English NA NA S ial Education NA NA xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 NA LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 NA Magnet Revieiv Comntittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Di,ector February 4, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansa5 72114 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: (501) 758-0156 When the Magnet Review Committee became aware of the potential of $5.5 million in cuts being made in Little Rock School District's 1993-94 budget, we were concerned as to the impact these proposed cuts might have on interdistrict magnet schools curriculum and personnel. In mid-to-late November, we polled districts across the United States as to their policy(ies) regarding magnet staff during a Reduction in Force (RIF). As a result of the responses we received, we began to act to request a hearing with regard to the development of a policy that, when enforced, would protect magnet staff positions which impact heavily on theme implementation. We have enclosed the guidelines that we plan to follow for your perusal and will keep you apprised of our work. Sincerely, ~~' Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosure , I. THU lE,:10 Rationale The Magnet Review Committee is taking the following steps to support its rationale for the proposal of a staffing policy that protects certain interdistrict magnet positions from the Little Rock School District's Reduction in Force (RIF) policy: A. Solicit letters from those persons already contacted regarding their RIF policy and how it impacts magnet schools staff. B. Review the literature and research on magnet themes and how critical the staffing is to the implementation of themes. c. Review/share/recount related experiences encountered when visiting other school districts as to their comments on how critical staffing is in establishing curriculum, as well as attracting and maintaining students. D. Include local experiences in cause/effect relationships that would encompass course development and staff development. E. Plan for input from other groups. II. Procedures A. Donna Creer will again contact the school districts mentioned in I.A. She will provide background information to the districts as to why we are asking for this information. Questions to be answered are: 1) Do they have a policy? If so, please include a copy. 2) Has the policy/lack of policy in this particular area encountered any difficulties? If so, what are they? 3) Please provide the pros and cons of the current practice. THU 16 :~11 B. The regular meeting of the MRC scheduled for February 16, 1993, will be devoted to developing a document for the Court regarding Little Rock School District's RIF policy. Invitees to this meeting are as follows: 3 Leadership members of the LRCTA 7 Magnet Review Committee representatives 4 LRSD Central Office members (minimum number - possibly more will be in attendance) 6 Magnet school principals ? Special invitees - ODM, other C. A survey will be provided to parents of magnet school children. Parents will be asked to give their perception of which people should be retained in their positions if the district is forced to use its RIF policy. The positions would be those that are deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of the magnet therne(s). The results of the survey will help to determine which positions the MRC may request to be protected from the Little Rock School District RIF policy. P.03 / THU 15:59 P  0 1 .371- 0/00 DATE: TO: FIRH: RE: FROM: PAGES: FAX COVER SHEET FAX MACHINE# (501) 771-2420 d1F~,__~-~ Lv. ~ ~--- .!/ (INCLUDING 'l'HXS COVER SR!::ET) PL:SASE CALL BACK IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN TRA'.'lS:-~rss:::m,s OR IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED. NOTES: FEB 1 8 \\993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Ofnigng'ition Mon,iori\nig LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER F~LED . ' .C. DISTRICT COURT .::.:Ei\u0026lt;:, DISTRICT ARKANSAS ~B 1 2 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal. The proposed budget was forwarded to the Court on December 28, 1992. (See attached letter and document.) The Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring have carefully reviewed the budget and the Court finds that it should be approved as submitted. -r.l, SO ORDERED this /J-__ day of February, 1993. Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. s. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review (501) 758-0156 Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Review Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet schooi principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted to reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Connnittee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, \u0026amp;~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District lifillllrdlll~~jjJJJliiiii~j:Jlii:ljiJ:l!llil ~~~:-9 Salaries :~~:fl !anes '  CERTIFIED Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 STAFF Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481,040 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $1,068,359 ~  $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 SUPPORT Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 17.0 $310,176 STAFF Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $185,965 ~  $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1 .406,433 97.4 $1.484,391 nm@t}tlJY:OTAb.\\((1042.0, ....................... ,\n............. xx:xxxxi ($1.2\n00'4J~ t ~  #$Ji2~1'21{261@ PURCHASED Utilities ~  $601,780 ~  $627,700 SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL LINE IT Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal' s Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) MS-(SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL XXXlOOCX ~ ~ \n:::~::::-:~-::--\n-:-:-:-: )0.l:lQ()OIX XXXXXXJC $166,508 ~ . $195,093 ~ $768,288 ~ . $822,793 XXX\u0026gt;OOOC imxx'x:, XXXJOOO(. $343.433 ~  $379,717 xxxxxx:x $56,509 mxxxx' $59,072 \u0026gt;000000( xmcxxx xx:xxxxx. $399,942 xxxxxxx $438,789 \u0026gt;000000(' $111,824 ~ - $120,394 xxxxxxx ~  XXXX\u0026gt;OOC xxxxxxx. XX:XXXX:X $111 ,824 xx:xxxxx $120,394 xxxxxx:x $8,358 XXX)OO(X. $5,895 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $8,358 XXlOOOO( $5,895 xxxxxxx $1,288,412 xxxxxxx $1 ,387,871 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 xxxxxxx  $595,333 xxxxxx:x $769,664 xxxxxxx $13,887,841 xxxxxx:x $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $503,365 $521,176 Vocational $30,837 $35,000 Athletics $31,231 $35,000 Gifted Programs $0 $2,000 Plant Services $18,271 $25,000 Reading $5,334 $6,880 Science $0 $972 English $2,368 $2,558 Special Education $3,927 $8,000 Contingency $0 $86,469 * xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $52,593 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Pert ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ r $172,697 ~ : $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 1------------+----+--------1-----t--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 1.0 1------------+----+----..\n...._---1------ $24,976 $25,725 C us to di ans 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) ~~r $28,550 ~  $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 ItMIJ@lt@tarAU:J1042.0'1:  , ,   ~  i?f$1t890!43Qi! ~  #$.tU~1aJPt PURCHASED Utilities ~  $81,637 ~ : $83,000 SERVICES Travel ~  ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ i. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Other \u0026gt;a:XlOCXX. $27,963 xuioax. TOTAL(30) ~ . $109,600 ~  Principal's Office \u0026gt;OOOCXXX xxii\u0026amp;xx: Regular Classroom XXJOCXXX $53,613 ~  Media \u0026gt;dxxxxx $4,698 xxiiixx Other xmcxxx ,oo\u0026amp;xxx TOTAL (40) xx:xxxxx: $58,311 XJXli()QIX Equipment m,oocx\n$6,3TT ~  Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $6,3TT xxxxxxx. OTHER Dues and Fees XXXX:XXX. XXJOOCXX (60) Other xxxxxxx )000000(. TOT AL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 XX:lOOOOf TOTAL {30-60) \"  xxxxxx:x . $174,288 xxxxxxx: TOTAL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 TOTAL LINE IT MS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x: $27,552 $110,552 $54,789 $5,672 $60,461 $14,000 $14,000 $0 .. $185,0ts.: $2,097,313 $101,493 $2,198,805 1992-93 Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1 ,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,268 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) XXlCXlOQf $137,204 ~  $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 1--------------t---1-------1------1-- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 1------------+----+-----'---l------+-- C us to di ans 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) x\u0026gt;\u0026amp;ib( $30,621 ~\u0026gt;ob $41,156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Mi@W:J{)fJ'OT.At.rtto\"c\"20}\\.. ., ti l()OOOO(X @i$1\\$$9\n69:3t jppooo\u0026amp; .. ::t$.l\n$9\nt\nssa\nPURCHASED Utilities ~ : $68,924 ~\n$79,100 SERVICES Travel ~ : ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements lOOl'XX)(X ~\nMATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other lOCXXXXX $22,843 ~ - TOTAL (30) :iobooO\u0026lt;X: $91,767 X\u0026gt;OOOOOl. Principal'sOffice ~  X)(XXX)O( Regular Classroom xxxx:100, $55,638 xxxx:xxx Media xxxx:xxx $11,410 XX)OO()(X Other lOOOOCXX lOOCXXl(X TOTAL (40) XXXXJOOr $67,048 xxxxxxx Equipment $22,128 ~ Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOCX p0000(X Other XXXXJO(X. xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $22, 128 xxxxxxx Dues and Fees lOOOOOO{ $2,857 lOOOOOO( Other XXXXlOOr xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxx:xxx: $2,857 lOOOOCXX XXXXJCXX .:. ..  $1sa,aoo xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 TOTAL LINE ITI MS - (SECOND PAGE) lCXXXXXX $84,978 lOOOOCXX GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,822,471 XXXXXXX $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $76,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $199,410 $1,791,242 $100,269 $1,891,510 ~~~~liilili\\~l~~~:~::~:::\n::~~,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt;= ,\n~92-93 ::::: Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.r e.upij c.\u0026amp;stI@t@rnrnnwcn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 m.m:e.uoo,tst:rn,:wrmmmmm rnmmmis~o.aeJ tmwnis\noser Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $57,126 STAFF Asst.Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten \\ 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $109,125 ~ r $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31.3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 STAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $20,314 ~ : $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 MMMWt@[QT.Allti0420lHMmrnwm ~  I@$1t20#\n$.1$] ~ : l@$1~2$.'tl26'ai PURCHASED Utilities ~ $35,102 ~ $38,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements xiioocii\n. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~  $11,464 ~ . $13,000 TOTAL(30) ~  $46,566 ~  $51,300 Principal's Office ~ . ~  Regular Classroom xxixm: $25,426 ~  $29,668 Media ~  $6,241 )000000( $6,400 Other x:xxxxxx xiii\u0026amp;xx: TOTAL (40) xxixxxx $31,667 ~  $36,068 Equipment ~  $3,968 )000000( $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx\n$3,968 ~ . $12,920 Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx TOT AL (60) XlOOOCXX $0 XXlOCXXX $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS -(SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $48,935 xxxxxxx. $59,203 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 XXlOO\u0026lt;XX $1,426,759 l1~~~~,[j1i!~lll[lllt\ntt\n~':!\n\\(@% '~~\n~~\n:' .c.= Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ' xxxxxx Rif POtm\nsdstwmmrmwnrn@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 ~ fofffimftl.bitdjfak:ihi+1 ffhiii$3i933.i 6@faiM1H-2.i Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - ~lill!r\u0026amp;:l!:,::r::\n~::~\n.:::::~:::::::i:1~!:::\n.:::!\n::\n:::::::\n:i:::::::i::::::~:::~~: ~~~~~ Salarie:  ~~~:-il\n:\n:\n:~=!MW@f CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $148,706 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) ~OOb.j\\t $245,140 ~  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 1-----------+---+-----'----+--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 -----------+---+---------- Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxiaxx $30,713 ~  $37,395 TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 nm:rn@iMfa1t.OTA.ii tt@1m:m::\ntm\nrnw ~ \n@:$za.az~2\ni ~ t 1m:12.~ec1:t11.a.!1 PURCHASED Utilities ~ i $164,666 ~  $168,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements ~  ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~ : $48,887 ~  TOTAL(30) ~\n$213,554 ~ : Principal's Office Regular Classroom $76,512 xixxxx'x. Media $10,301 mxxxx Other TOTAL (40) $86,813 xxxxxxx Equipment $26,417 xxxxxxx Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx Other )OO(XX)(X mxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xx:xxxxx Dues and Fees $1,470 xxixxxx Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $1,470 mxxxx TOTAL (30-60) $328,253 xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx. $143,218 mxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx. $3,169,124 xxxxxxx $60,941 $229,241 $85,000 $11,000 $96,000 $28,000 $28,000 $1,375 $1,375 $354,616 $2,964,948 $162,358 $3,127,306 - ::!:~~t~:\n~i\\~llil~1i:iii\n:\n~\n:::~~::~:  ~99\n~9\n Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,8n Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.teu.riBtb.sttm1tninw1rnrn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 a::eu.mt@b.it:tlMi@%NtdJ{ liMi@ff$1lWi mntrn@$$\n$1Ji1 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - _ ll!i-{t~ll~ll\nli:\n:\n!::li\n!i\n1!~::\nil~!~1:!:!l!ii!l~[\n:i!i!\n!!~:~!!:!!Jill~~ ~~~  Jtift#t~- .. ,.,.,, ... ., ..., .. , .. , .,,. .. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $154,636 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,5TT 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) ul\u0026amp;xr $271,685 .fix\n$302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $TT,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ , $49,690 ~  $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512  1\nmnw:rnr\nr.o.1tAt41p\n:201wrnrrn1mw ~ - m1a~~1e1::aasrn ~ : wm:s.s~214~an1@ Utilities ~ : $208,483 ~ : $210,000 Travel ~  ~  Maintenance Agreements ~ t ~\nOther ~ : $39,092 ~  $48,700 TOTAL(30) ~ $247,575 ~ ' $258,700 Principal's Office xixxixx: ~  Regular Classroom mxxxx $87,767 ~  $100,850 Media ~ $16,883 xxii6a:x $17,000 Other ~  mooooc: TOTAL (40) xuxxxx' $104,650 XXlOOdx\n$117,850 Equipment A ' $37,950 \u0026gt;OOQOOIX' $37,000 Building Repair, etc. XlOOOiCXi ~  Other XXX\u0026gt;CXXX )OOO()i(XX TOTAL (50) $37,950 lOOClOOOC $37,000 Dues and Fees XXXJCXXX $3,496 XXJQCXXX'\n$3,500 Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 XX\u0026gt;OOOOC $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxx:ir $393,671 lOOOCXXX $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx: $158,509 XX:XXXX:JC\" $172,976 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx:x $3,713,516 xx:xxxx:x $3,804,327 -~\u0026amp;~2rtr 1991-92 1992-93 Stipends $3,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $116,341 Vocational $17,696 $19,400 Athletics $22,029 $24,560 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $5,566 Reading $1,182 $1,530 Science $221 English $520 $577 Special Education $876 $1,781 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx ffli\\\\Pii\u0026amp;tea1ttrnmirn:@tt@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 870.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,804,327 R iPOb.itCostMNfaiJf@@m+@ MWE%$4i4i.iU tMM@Ulat.at Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - lBi+ ,,:::::::::::::::@::::::::::::: Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1. 0 $35,840 1.0 $36,915 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $132,508 ~ : $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries ------------t-----1'------t- ST AF F Nurses ------------t----\"1'------1- Custodians 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) mxxxx= $26,076 xxixxxxf $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities ~ : $42,968 ~ - $49,000 SERVICES Travel XXXXXXX' iil\u0026amp;xixI (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ : Other ~X\u0026gt;bix $16,259 xxxxxxx= MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOT AL (10-60) TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL ~ xxxxxxx XXlQOOOO XX:lOOOOC\" $59,227 )OOQC)OO(. umxx\n$44,477 ~ : $6,976 xxxxxxx: $51 ,454 ~ $14,984 xxxxxxx.. $14,984 XXXXXXX' $535 xxxxxx:ic: xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x: $535 xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x $126,200 xxxxxxx 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 XX:XXXXX $71 t 665 XXXlOOO( XXXXXXX $1,694,335 XXXXXXlC $18,000 $67,000 $45,310 $7,000 $52,310 $12,184 $12,184 $0 $131,494 $1,656,723 $86,895 $1,743,618 =~~~~\n,\n~1:i:t:i::\n::::i:i\ni::\n~\n=~~:::::::::\n: :~9\n~93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Pif!tffiffiB)ist:@:fl@JIJllM 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 Peifffibiftfost#Wi@ltt :::\n:::~ ltMJ:\n:::U\n313i f:tJI$ala1ai Date Submitted - Prlncipal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director August 19, 1993 Ms. Estelle Matthis Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Matthis: RECEIVED AUG 2 3 W93 Q!tice al oesegreg ation Monitoring (501) 758-0156 In an effort to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the Stipulation magnets, the Magnet Review Committee has within its role and responsibility the approval of funds budgeted for Stipulation magnet programs for each fiscal year. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, at the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, worked with the Little Rock School District to establish a timeline for the Magnet Review Committee to review, approve and submit a budget for the interdistrict magnet schools to the Court for final approval. (See enclosure.) While we realize that the unusual events of the year have wreaked havoc with the timelines we mutually agreed upon, we are still in need of information as to: 1) when we can expect information on the previous fiscal year's end-of-year budget information\n2) when the preliminary Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget will be submitted to the Magnet Review Committee\n3) when the principals will be available for review and justification of the budget for their individual building. For your convenience, we have also submitted a sample copy of the form to be used for the submission of budget information. Ms. Estelle Matthis -2- August 19, 1993 Immediate attention to this issue is of vital importance and will be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, !l!t~rn, Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent - LRSD / Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring MRC Members TI MELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MRC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school, year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict magnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Committee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 Page 1 STAFF Asst. Prin. Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe llenefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries t-:-:------------+----+-----+--~1------11 STAFF Nurses r:C::::-u-s-:-to-d=-=-ia_n_s--------+----+-----+--~-----II Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 PURCHASED ~~\n~!\ntcl.P.!.'l~Ji1($l~QXThlC3t:'\nl~f }2:KN~HU ~Xffl: SERVICES 1-Tra--ve-I----------\ni\n~,,\n~.,,\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n:\n. t ------f.im\"\"C:\"\"J~\"\"\"'\"\"?'''.ffi,\n-------ll (30) Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom (40) Media CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40)  uipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) ~ ~ i~ ~\n~ ~ :~ ~ ~ $0 $0 $0 ~:li'i.i ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 =?f+1if/WtifflW$1l~i(~,m~o}.JiWW:PJW xffim .~M%%#W$m\n:,::: ::: wrnrn'\n'':\n''F'.'.l.*-f TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) d.,,~~ .... ~,u. , $0 $0 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ $0 ' $0 filename-booker. wq 1 Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx:xxx filename-booker.wql Date 29-Jul-?2 ~ifntillt@1:k\u0026amp;1MttWi\u0026gt;0Jl 1991-92 Qtr. ADM or Proi. tal Costs $0 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-booker.wql Page3 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 1111111::4~~~:m\n,,\n. Page 4 '\" iiiti  .. ,iW'.iV ' CERTIFIED Principal STAFF \"A~s:s~t.~P~r~in~.--------f---t-----l---t----____jl Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe Ilenefits(20)  :..,,,\\ ,,, TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries STAFF r-N7u_r_s-es----------t----t-----+---+-----~I PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTHER (60) Custodians Paraprofessionals-Cbptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other Frin2e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Re2ular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (SO) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) ~ ~ ~ -~ -~ ~ -~ $0 0.0 ~ {ffi $0 ,. $0 $0 ~l~Jf4@~tf\\TmWm(3~Wi9)\\1fui%J~!t :~ :~'l~~\\\\\\Wri$0.t TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $0 11 GRAND TOTAL '.fixxm $0  filename-booker. wq 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 . Puge 1 liiM~~t1fi~~c: ey  : :,,,,,,,::::::..  .,.m,,~~,,::,~J\n.fi~=~ii~iii~l~\n.~\n: ~~::::~:,\n:.~:.: ~~~ m ~  m m STAFF Asst Prin. NA NA NA NA Specialists NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA NA Media Spec. NA NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA NA Music NA NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA NA Special Education NA NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA NA Chapter 1 NA NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) .~ NA NA TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Other NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) !~ NA ,}. . _.. .... ~=:::::. NA TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY NA NA NA NA PURCHASED Utilities ~ NA NA SERVICES Travel .~ NA ' ww'' NA (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ NA  .. w\"\"\" NA Other NA :  :.w:,::,....-. NA TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom NA NA NA NA NA NA NA (40) Media NA CAPITAL OUTIAY (50) OTHER (60) Other TOTAL(40) Eouipment Building Repair, etc. Other ~ ~ NA NA\u0026amp;\\~ NA NA : ... c::.:::: ::: NA NA NA NA i~ NA~ NA TOTAL (50) m NA m\u0026amp;~~ NA Dues and Fees :~ NA NA Other ~ NA ~:.:\n,:' ' ... \" NA rnmki:n=:wdt~~=~~(}1f%ikt,\n:y ---~::. :::::::~::::::::::~: .\n:\n.\n:\n:\n:\n~\n:\n2~~I TOTAL (10-60) NA NA NA NA TOTALLINEITEMS-(SECONDPAGE) ~ $0\n...... :  NA 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ NA  ..    NA !Jlename-summary. WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 1991-92 1992-93 ... NA NA Other Objects Indirect Costs NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs Plant Services NA NA NA NA Readin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA x:xxxxx x:xxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro.i. Total Costs NA NA Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director September 22, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-01 5G RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: SEP 2 4 1993 At its September 14, 1993 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1993-94 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,554,670, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,823.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,807 students. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: On November 17, 1992, the Little Rock School District, via its representative Estelle Matthis, reported to the Magnet Review Committee that, in accordance with the budgeting process outlined by Little Rock School District Superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd, the Little Rock School District 1993-94 budget meeting with the Board would not be until the end of April, 1993. (The actual budgeting process was not complete until July, 1993.) The Little Rock School District, represented by Dr. Henry Williams, new Superintendent\nEstelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent\nLeon Adams, Alternate Magnet Review Committee Representative\nand Mark Milhollan, Controller, presented Draft 1 of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget to the Magnet Review Committee on September 9, 1993. Each of the six interdistrict magnet school principals made a presentation on their school's budget. The Magnet Review Committee members presented budget information to their parties. The Magnet Review Committee met on September 14, 1993, and approved the budget. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 22, 1993 Page 2 The approved budget represents an increase of 3.82%, or $141.00 per student. The increase is largely due to Little Rock School District's negotiated salary agreements and indirect cost factors. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, !J4aJ:t= Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment: 1993-94 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 3) cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET (DRAFT 3) ORIGINAL SIX MAGNET SCHOOLS RECE~VEO SEP 2 4 1993 Ot:ica Qf Desegraqaticn ~,1onitorin3 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 14, 1993 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle~ THROUGH: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed 1993-94 Budget (Draft 3) Attached for your files is Draft 3 of the proposed 1993-94 magnet budgets which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on September 14, 1993. I appreciate the cooperation of the Magnet Review Committee and look forward to working with them in the future. cc: Jerry Malone 1 g~3.,..94 Budget Proposal (CJ raft 3) .. --:... .,--:-:-:-\n.:.:..\n::\n:-:\n.,., ' 1991-92 1992-93 .., ../ 1993-94 l,,::C, ...... / . SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS .? \u0026gt;. F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.5 $431,093 05 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $222,455 7.0 $233,751 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 10 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $245,166 9.7 $276,790 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.0 $174,623 12 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.2 $5,689,340 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $9,529,304 288.6 $9,276,435 291.2 $9,955,822 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 18.0 $355,081 18.0 $353,310 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 17 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $335,694 29.0 $372,625 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 38.0 $311,683 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xxxx::x $1,254,324 xx::xxxx::x $1,366,607 xx::xxxx::x $1,342,873 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 96.4 $2,692,554 ) . . TOTAL (10\n:.:20)\u0026lt; f/}\n{t) xx::xxxx::x $12,004\n096 xx::xxxx::x  $11\\883,532 xx::xx:xx::x $12,648\n376 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xxxx::x $601,780 xx::xxxx::x $507,373 xx::xxxx::x $598,926 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x $29,326 xx::xxxx::x. $31,215 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x 25 Other xx::xxxx::x $166,508 xx::xx:xx::x $97,426 xx::x xxx::x $99,428 TOTAL (30) xx::xx:xx::x $768,288 xx::xxxx::x $634,125 xx::xxxx::x $729,569 MATERIALS, 26 Principal' s Office xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx::xxxx::x $343,433 xx::xxxx::x. $309,128 xx::xxxx::x. $315 .284 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxx::x $56,509 xx::xxxx::x $53,842 xx::xxxx::x $54,884 29 Other xx::xxxx::x. xx::xxxx::x $11,647 xx::xxxx::x $11,856 TOTAL (40) xx::xxxx::x $399,942 xx::xxxx::x: $374,617 xx::xxxx::x $382,024 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx::xxxx::x $104,215 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x TOTAL (50) xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx:xxxx::x $104,215 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx:xxxx::x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx::xxxx::x $12,665 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxx::x xx:xxxx::x xx:xxxx:x TOTAL (60) xx::xxxx:x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx:xxxx:x $12,665 TOTAL (30-60) xx::xxxx::x $1,288,412 xx::xx:xx::x $1,127,441 xx::xxxx:x $1,228 473 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 387.0 $13,010,969 387.6 $13,876,849 TOTAL LINE ITE MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $595,333 xx:xxxx:x $537,465 xx::xxxx::x $677,821 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $13,887,841 xx::xxxx::x $13,548,434 xx::xx:xx::x $14 ,554,670 Line item Costs - . Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total'Line Items    $595,333 1 $537,465, . I// $677 ,821.:\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 Per Pupil Cost $3\n823\\ 1 ~~~~ Budget Prop?sal (Draft 3) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 36oker Magnet School   y F.T.E Salaries ... F.T.E:. Salaries F.T.E:? Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 03 Specialists 6.0 $350.341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 10 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 17 Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $42,176 5.0 $47,081 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 ,$64,657 8.0 $75,718 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xx:x $201,247 xx:xx:xxx $225,867 xxxx:xX::i. $215,438 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $373,998 16.0 $388,766 16.0 $396,712 / \\t ... TOTAL(10-20)i \u0026amp;+ xx:xx:xx:x I $1\n890 ,.430 xx:xx:xx:x.:  $1\n942,422 xx:xx:xx:x $2,006,780 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xx:xx:x $81,637 xx:xx:xx:x $71,492 xx:xx:xx:x $87,854 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xx:xx:x. 25 Other xx:xx:xx:x $27,963 xx:xx:xx:x $9,549 xx:xxxx:x $9,800 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $109,600 xx:xxxx:x $81,041 xx:xxxxx $97,654 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xx:xxx $53,613 xx:xxxxx $37,774 xxxxxx:x  $38,500 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $4,698 xx:xxxxx $4,743 xxxxxxx $4 ,800 29 Other xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x $1,255 xx:xxxx:x $1,255 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $58,311 xx:xxxx:x $43,772 xx:xxxx:x $44,555 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xxxx:x $10,090 xx:xxxx:x $6,100 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxx:x XX:XXXX:X- xx:xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx xx:xx:xx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xx:xxx $10,090 xx:xx:xx:x $6,100  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxx:xx:x xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx (60) 34 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxx:x $0 xx:xxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) .,::-:. xxxxxx:x  $174,288 xxxxxx:x $134,903 xxxxxx:x $148,309 TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,717 63.9 $2,077,325 64.5 $2,155,089 TOTAL LINE ITE MS- (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxx:x $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,618 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x $2,152,771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 ' 1993-94 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx   Total. Line ltems.tft ) )Cf $88,028:- $75,446 \u0026lt;)$99,618. Per Pupi'I Cost) .\n\\\n, 1991-92 1992-93: . 1993-'-94 . (f 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 199~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3)    \u0026gt; : \u0026gt; 1991-921 Actual 1992-93 t Actual C.if.Y~fMagn~tSchool \u0026lt; ) :\n: t F.T\nE. / lt Salaries F.T.E3 .  Salaries  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 05 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,532 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 1 0 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $30,734 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,183,059 42.6 $1,164,768 1 5 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 F1,921 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xxx $167,825 xx:xxxx:x $190,533 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 1993-94 F.T.E. 1.0 1.0 8.0 2.1 2.0 23.6 2.0 1.0 4.0 44.7 3.0 1.0 3.5 11.0 xxxx:xxx 18.5 Budgeted ..:. Salaries : $59,423 $42,422 $236,265 $60,101 $46,074 $690,189 $32,460 $34,246 $17,150 $117,132 $1,335,462 $67,824 $31,250 $42,645 $76,016 $192,561 $410,297 TOTAL(10-20} xx:xxxx:x . $1,553\n693 xxxxxxx : $1\n557\n097 xxxx:xxx I $1,745.758 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxx:xxx $68,924 xxxxxxx $53,586 xxxxxxx $69,730 ~+-------------!----i~----'----+----+------,----,---.,----,,-+---+------,-----,-'------j SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx $12,253 xx:xxxxx $12,500 ~+-------------1----1~----+----+------+----+----'------j (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx. xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xx:xx:xxx $22,843 xxxxxx:x $9,911 xxxxxx:x $10,100 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $91,767 xxxx:xxx $75,750 xxxx:xxx $92,330 MATERIALS, 1-2--6+-P_r_in--c-'-ip_a_ls' _O_ff_ic_e ___~ x_ xx_xx_xx-1------+x_xx_xx_xx--+-----+-x_x:x_xx_x:x-+--------j SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxx:xxx $55,638 xxxxxxx $52,759 xxxx:xxx (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $11,41 O xxxxxxx $13,271 xxxxxxx 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x $2,593 xxxxxx:x CAPITAL I OUTLAY (50) I OTHER I (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60} TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $67,048 xxxxxx:x $68,623 xx:xxxxx . xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xx:xxxx:x xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $183,800 xxxxxxx $176,174 xxxxxxx 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $1,733,271 63.2 xxxxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx $86,058 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $1,822,471 xxxxxxx $1,819,329 xxxxxxx $53,814 $13,536 $2,645 $69,995 $28,450 $28,450 $3,985 $3,985 $194,760 $1,940,518 $107,945 $2,048,463 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Llne Items.:, ..  { $84,978 I: ..... $86\nosa .  $107\n945 Per Pupil Cost -:,:  1991~92 ./ 1992-93? 1993-94 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.00 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 PerPupil. Cost ..... .-.. .-. : ..., .. .... , .. $3,036? /\\ .:: $3,092: $3,386 1~~~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3) , .. 1991-92 Actual 1992-92 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted G.ibbs Magnet school       F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160 ,752 5.8 $158,107 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985 ,841 29.3 $1,007,242 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 17 Custodians 3.0 $41 ,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39 ,012 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x,: $129,439 XX:XXXX:X' $141 ,032 xx:xxxx:x $136,618 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11 .8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 TOTAL (10-20}:\\ : t xx:xxxx:x:: \u0026lt; $h204i513 , XXXXXXJCc. 1-\u0026lt; $1\\ 226\n435 xxxxxx:x \\ $1,254,041 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxx:x: $35,102 xxxxxx:x $26,879 xx:xxxx:x $38,531 SERVICES 23 Travel XX'X)O(X:X xxxx:xx:x, $2,066 XXJOO(X:X- $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:xce XX:XXXX:X' xxxx:xxx.. 25 Other xri:xxx:x: $11,464 xx:xxxx:x $7,309 xx:xxxx'x $7,455 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x,. $46,566 XX:XXXX:X, $36,254 xx:xxxx:x $49 ,393 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx:: $25,426 xxxxxx:x: $23,541 xx:xxxx:x $24,012 (40) 28 Media xxxxxx:x. $6,241 xx:xxxx:x $6,489 xx:xxxx:x $6,620 29 Other xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $1,016 xx:xxxx:x $1 ,036 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $31 ,667 xxxxxx:x $31 ,046 xx:xxxx:x $31 ,668 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $3,968 xx:xxxx:x $2,594 xxxxxx:x $2,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx  $3,968 xx:xxxxx $2,594 xxxxxxx $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $1,132 xxxxxxx $1,155 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $1 ,132 xxxxxxx $1 ,155 TOT AL (30-60} XX:X)O(X:X $82,202 xx:xx.xxx $71 ,025 xxxxxxx . $84,862 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1 ,297,460 40.1 $1 ,338,903 TOTAL LINE m MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxx.xxx $41,553 xxxxxxx $51,892 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 xx:xxxxx $1,339 ,013 xxxxxxx $1,390,795 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx :\\::::,. . TotaLLine Items : ..... \u0026lt;} $48,935  ft:. $41,553 .-.-\n-\n,:_ $51,892 Per Pupil Cost '\u0026gt; . ,:: ::,\u0026gt; 1991,-92\\ / 1992-93}/\n\\ ... 199S-::94 /.' 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 PerPupil Gosr,,:.-\\,:,,,:\n:::t/ :\\ft } $3,933. tt : $4,070  )) $4\n214? ~~\n~1~~~~:~ :~~~~~:: . \u0026lt;~(\nft 3 ) ... ::::: ii :: 1991,-92 Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted   F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 10 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 _$32,748 9.0 $54,985 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xx:xx::x $158,584 xx::xx:xx::x $171,101 xx::xx:xx::x $166,399 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 TOTAL (10-20)/   XX::XX:XX::X $1,496,470 xx::xx:xx::x  $1,465,402 xx::xx:xx::x $1,580,155 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xx:xx::x. $42,968 xx::xx:xx:x $38,623 xx:xx:xx::x $48,682 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xx:xx:x  xx::xx:xx::x $3,793 xx::xx:xx::x $3,870 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xx:xx:x xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x 25 Other xx:xxxx:x $16,259 xx:xx:xx::x $16,400 xx::xx:xx::x $16,728 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $59,227 xx:xxxx:x $58,816 xx::xx:xx:x $69,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx::xx:xx:x xx::xxxxx xx::xx:xx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx.: $44,477 xxxxxxx: $38,631 xxxxxxx $39,405 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxxx $6,976 xx:xxxx:x $6,234 xxxxxx:x $6,360 ' 29 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x. $1,475 xxxx:xx:x $1,505 ! TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $51,454 xx:xxxx:x $46,341 xx:xxxxx $47,270 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xxxxxx:x $25,535 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xx:xxxxx xx::xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xx:xxx xx::xxxx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxxx $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xx::xxxx::x $25,535 I  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx::xxxxx $535 xx:xx:xx::x $190 xx:xxxx:x S195 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xxxx::x xx:xx:xxx TOTAL (60) xx::xxxxx $535 xx::xx:xx:x $190 xx::xxxx::x $195 .. ,, TOTAL (30-60) xx::xx:xx::x $126,200 xx::xx:xx::x $130,381 xx::xx:xx::x $142,280 TOT AL (1 0-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 I TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx::xxxx:x $71,665 xxxx:xxx $60,881 xx:xxxx:x $78,563 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $1,694,335 xxxx:xx::x $1,656,664 xx::xx:xxx $1,800,998 Line Item Costs - ... Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 199\n3-94 Stipends $1,537 $1,614 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx / Total Line ltems/\u0026gt;c \u0026lt; {$71,665\\ t ~60,aa1  ................. .$78\n563 Per Pupil Cost\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 11 ~g3'\"\"91: Budget Proposal (Draft 3) )!j:Jill 1 tI\u0026lt; . . 1991-92 1. Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 . Budgeted iA,NN Magnet School  F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $65,214 3.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 , $46,693 2.4 $37,142 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x: $275,853 xx:xxxx:x $292,062 xx:xxxx:x: $296,293 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 14.5 $525,462 13.4 $526,829 .:\u0026gt; .. -:- TOTAL(l0-20)) :\n:- xx:xxxx:x: i $2,697,653 xx:xxxx:x ' $2,584\n578 xx:xxxx:x $2,805,067 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xxxx:x: $164,666 xx:xxxx:x: $137,280 xx:xxxx:x S168,667 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $11,214 xx:xxxx:x $11,438 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 xxxxxxx $35,464 xx:xxxxx. $36,175 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxxx .. $213,554 xx:xxxx:x $183,959 xxxxxxx $216,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxxx xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xxxxx $76,512 xx:xxxx:x $63,984 xxxxxx:x $65,265 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxxx. $10,301 xx:xxxx:x $9,352 xxxxxx:x: $9,540 29 Other xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx $2,172 xxxxxxx $2,215 TOTAL (40) xxxxxx:x $86,813 xx:xxxxx $75,508 xxxxxx:x $77,020 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx. $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 TOTAL (30-60) . xx:xxxxx $328,253 xxxxxxx $278,422 xxxxxxx $312,635 TOT AL (1 0-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,863,000 78.7 $3,117,702 TOTAL LINE IT$MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $143,218 xxxxxxx $137,573 xxxxxxx $172,083 GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $3,169,124 xx:xxxx:x $3,000,573 xxxxxx:x $3,289,785 Une Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 \" 1993-94 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 Reading $1 ,209 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items,:\\ . .: \\1 $143,218? t $137,573 \\/ $172\n083.- . 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 1 ~394\n!udget.proposal. (Draft 3) ) .  ::..-, ::::::\n::::::'.::::::\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":581,"next_page":582,"prev_page":580,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":6960,"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}}]}}