{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_362","title":"Correspondence","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":["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","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"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/362"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":["161 pages"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: May 2, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor I I From: Re: ODM Correspondence In response to your memorandum of April 24, I would like to provide the following comment. No one is asking you to do any \"funnelling.\" Ail I asked was for a courtesy copy of correspondence (such as you have forwarded to select board members) that is forwarded to my staff. What is wrong with that? My communications problem is not with my staff, but rather with those who seek to manage and not monitor. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent1 IS I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT J \n-^v i, May 4, 1995 ^JAY3 1995 On'iSS Gf D: 1 'V!Ci':iiiv Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 501 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The following letter has been sent to members of the boards of directors of the three Pulaski County school districts. This invitation, of course, is also extended to you. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District I would like to invite you to attend a joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School Districts. This meeting has been scheduled for Monday, May 22, 1995, 5:00 p.m., in the Governors Conference Room of the Arkansas State Capitol. We do not expect this meeting to last more than an hour or so, but we are hopeful that the initial meeting will lead to progressively productive dialogue in the future. Of course, school consolidation is a topic which not only our school districts, but all districts in Arkansas have an interest. If your board has items that you would like to include on the agenda for this meeting, please feel free to contact Mrs. Griffin at 324-2012. I look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 / Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 May 9, 1995 Mrs. Rene Carson LRSD Instructional Resource Center 600 South Ringo Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Rene: 1 was so pleased to read about the 1995 Catalyst Award you've received from the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Congratulations! You richly deserve the recognition. I've always known you were catalytic, and so does everyone else who is fortunate enough to work with you. You never fail to be inspiring and energizing, not only to young students, but to us older folks too. As a monitor and a Mom, many thanks for all you continue to do for children and their teachers. You're such a treasure, and we're all very proud to claim you as a colleague. Sincerely yours. inn S. Brown I Sl'j iVtsi Mftrkhatn Streel Lntle Rock. .Vkansas 74801 (.501 )rta4 4000May 11, 1995 Little Rock School District MAY 1 2 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Public School Supporter, We've been asked by members of the business community to set up an exploratory meeting with a national nonprofit, \"Parents for Public S\" ch ools.\" A national representative will be in Little Rock on Thursday, May 18. You are invited to attend an informational meeting. We're asking you to come because we value your opinion. We'd like to have your input and feedback on this group and what, if anything, they can offer public education in our county. We are hosting three meetings: 9:00 a.n., 12:00 noon and 5:30 p.m. Meetings are expected to last about one hour. Choose the time that is most convenient for you. All meetings will be held in the Little Rock School District board room at 810 West Markham Street. Please RSVP to 324-2290 by May 16 so that we'll have a count for refreshments. others to attend. These are open meetings\nyou are welcome to invite We have enclosed a copy of the group's brochure for your perusal. We hope to see you on the 18th. Sincerely, Debbie Milam VIPS Coordinator Becky Parent Recruiter Coordinator 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 PARENTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS What exactly is Parents for Public Schools ? Parents for Public Schools is a non-profit, grass-roots volunteer organization comprised primarily of parents who telieve their children receive the best available education in public schools, and who actively\" recruit other parents to enroll their children into public schools. Parents for Public Schools seeks through its media campaigns to inform prospective school parents about the benefits of the diverse, high quality education available in e public schools. Parents for Public Schools has no official connection with any public school system. Do you have to be a parent to be a member of Parents for Public Schools ? Absolutely not. Membersliip is open to any person who supports our goals. While it is our experience that contact and testimony from a public school parent is the most powerful lobbying tool in convincing other parents to place their children in the public schools, all of our members mission is to encourage broad-based enrollment and support. How is Parents for Public Schools different from the PTA. or PTSA? Parents for Public Schools serves a very different purpose from the PTA. L'Itimately. the two oiganizations complement each other in significant ways. The primaiy function of Parents for Public .Schools is to recruit public .school students. Once those parents and students are in the public schixils. Parents for Public ScIkxiIs encour.iges atlivc participation in the PT/\\ or IWSA. .A great . number of Parents for Public Schools parents are leaders in their children's school's PTA chapters. PTA is a child adx'ocac)' association in the local school dial is also affiliated on the state and national level. PTA seeks to influence legislation, school policies and parental involvement. If your school does not have a PTA or PTSA, we want to encourage you to start one. Why form a chapter of Parents for Public Schools Chapters have been founded in different communities for different reasons. In our founding city of Jackson, Mississippi, Parents for Public Schools was formed to help reverse 20 years of white flight from the public schools and to demonstrate and publicize the economic, social and business development benefits that came to cities with strong public schools. In other cities. Parents for Public Schools was organized to counter social or economic .stigmas placed upon families whose children attend public schools. While there are important advantages to public school education which are common to all public schools, every community has its own reasons to support its public school system. No matter what those reasons may be in your community, our staff can help get your chapter started and organized to reach your specific goals.What are the benefits to my community of forming a Parents for Public Schools chapter? It is hard indeed to summarize all the benefiLs that flow from increa.sed community commitment to public education. Quality public schools ensure economic growth by attracting industry and businesses to our cities. Another benefit which results from broad-based enrollment is an ethnic, social and economic cohesivenes,s in our communities, and a better place for all of us to live and work. Increased broad-based public school enrollment results in greater public involvement in school programs, increased corporate funding for schools, and increased voter support for school bond issues. What benefits does a Parents for Public Schools Chapter receive from the National office? First, affiliation with the national organization saves your chapter the considerable time, expense, and worry of applying for tax-exempt status. This makes raising money for your Parents for Public Schools programs much easier. We will provide you with the Parents for Public Schools Chapter Manual which contains all the information and documents you will need to create and sustain your own chapter. We will provide continuing support with ideas for fundraising, successful organizational events, advertising, and a world of other ways to get your group going and growing. What does it take to organize a Parents for Public Schools chapter? It takes a group of people with a commitment ' and a desire to work toward a common goal. It takes a willingness to talk to your friends and neighlxirs, and the ability- to get them to talk to their friends and neightors. It takes a willingness to go to business and community leaders to get their support and funding for Parents for Public Schools public awareness and media programs. In 1989 in Jackson, Mississippi, Parents for Public Schools was started with 26 parents. Two years later, we passed 700. It takes personal time and patience to build your chapter in your community, but the return to public schools is an idea whose time lias come. How is a Parents for Public Schools chapter structured? A chapter is formed by the incorporation of a non-profit corporation, election of directors and officers, adoption of bylaws and affiliation with Parents for Public Schools National. The national office will provide you with the necessary forms for your use, as well as bylaws for your adoption. Once a chapter is officially formed, there are plenty of tasks and committee assignments for eveiyone who wants to lend a hand. Among these are:  School Networks  Business Network  Meetings/Progranis  Data Bank  Realtor Relations  Fundraising/Grant.s  Research  Special Events  .Media  Publicity  Newsletter  .Membership l.'kimatcly, a succe.ssful Parents for Public .Sch(X)l.s chapter is organized to maximize the talents of each of its volunteer memlx'rs. Once you decide to organize a chapter, we'll provide all the infoniiation, documents, and technical advice you will need. Our chapters do everything ey possibly can to spread the good word about the excellent education.s their children are receiving in public schools. How do we get started? Simple. Talk to parents and other interested people in your community who share your commitment to public education, and ask them to join you in forming a Parents for Public Schools chapter. Then just fill out the attached form and drop it in the mail. We'll be back in touch with you soon with precise information on how to get your group organized into a Parents for Public Schools chapter. Thank you for learning more about Parents for Public Schools, and for your interest in public education. NATIONAL OFFICE P.O. Box 1280' lackson. MS W236-2807 (6011 982-1222 F.AX (601) 982-0002 Thomas S. Howorth President Jo.shua J. Wiener Vice President Renee S. Jone- Secrelaiy Macy B. Han Treasurer SanJrj K. .Murley Execniire Director Ashley Watters Assisltiiil III Ihe DirectorOffice 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 May 17, 1995 Mr. Duane Barbour Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 North Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Mr. Barbour: Congratulations to you and the members of the Pulaski Heights Junior High Beginning Band, Advanced Band, and Saxophone Quartet for the splendid concert last Monday night! 1 dont think Ive ever heard a finer performance by such young musicians. The entire program was presented with poise and professionalism, and with careful attention to intonation, phrasing, ensemble, and over all musicality that resulted in a beautiful performance. 1 am so impressed with the tremendous progress these groups have in the short time youve been their director. Their growth attests to your superior skill both in instruction and in motivating your students to work hard and reach for their best. Im also impressed with the well-rounded and sophisticated musical education youre offering your students, as demonstrated by the carefully selected concert program, which featured a well-chosen balance of classical, traditional, and contemporary pieces. My opinion is also the result of being a parent of one of your students. From listening to my sons comments and practice at home. Im very much aware that youre providing a high quality musical education for your classes. Tlie only negative note last Monday evening for both the performers and the audience was the lack of air conditioning. As a fellow musician, 1 know how profoundly temperature and humidity affect both instruments and players. Nonetheless, you kept your professional cool, and sweated through tlie program with no less grace, composure, and good humor. My sincere thanks and commendations to both you and your students for your remarkable achievements and a most enjoyable musical evening. 1 hope you will convey my congratulations and appreciation to your classes. Sincerely yours, .. Ann S. Brown CC: Mona Briggs1^* 0 6 / 2 0 / 1 5 15:29 FROM JOHN Id.WALKER P.A.  3U-^ -urr iwC TO 3710100 P. 02. KOBng Lettle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 18, 1995 Mr. Jerry Malone, Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. P,A. First Commercial Bank Building. 20th Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jerry: pe date(s) you have asked me to block off on mv calendar fnr hearing have been blocked for a previously schedui\u0026lt;.d   , . . ' a court a previously scheduled comminnent. I have ^=rl, aLd conference for Urban Superintendents. This event has been planned * fit an event over The dates scheduled for the hearing fall at the start of r^uir. that I toto da of a flX an organized forum to discuss issues and problems that compound the role of superintendents and make schools unbearable to serve. the urban many of the children we I would not want to miss out on this opportunity. Therefore, I ask that sk to schedule dto hearing  h. the hearing be held to in your letter of May 16, at a later date. Sincerely, Henry P. Iliams Superintendent of Schools06x20/1995 15:29 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P . fl. TO 0 1 0 0 P. 01 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 1 JOHN W. walker RALRH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE,^ AUSTIN PORTER, JR. TO\nFROM: DATE: RE: MESSAGE\nTHIS FAX CONSISTS OF PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER P-A-G-E-. OUR FAX NUMBER IS: (501) 374-4187. OPERATOR\ny - '1.. DujP MX J * LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 31, 1995 b 7^  d Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201   iVtCi\" Dear Ms. Brown: In response to a letter we received from Charity Smith please find enclosed for your review the Spring 1994 School Climate/Human Relations Survey results for schools which are using the perceptual data to develop school improvement plans (from all cycle five schools), along with blank photo copies of the parent, student and teacher survey forms. The cycle five schools are listed below\nHall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Enclosure cc: Charity Smith, Education Lead Planner Desegregation Monitoring Frank Anthony, Administrative/Resource Team ^7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I'\nLi MEMORANDUM !i 5 ?995 TO: Charity Smith, Lead Education Planner, Desegregation Monitoring OihCS vf Ds\n:3' r/sCjiuCl Jiiy FROM: RE: T. Robert Glowers, Director Request for School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results DATE: June 2, 1995 The School Climate/Human Relations survey results that you requested to be sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in your letter of May 16, 1995 to Dr. Henry Williams were forwarded by my office to Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. It was brought to my attention this morning that those survey results were intended to go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring unit at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). I apologize for the misinterpretation on my part and for any inconvenience this may have caused. The requested information is being redirected to ADE per this memorandum. Please find enclosed the School Climate/Human Relations survey results from spring 1994 for the following cycle five schools listed below: HaUHigh Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Also enclosed are photocopies of the teacher, student, and parent survey instruments Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Frank Anthony, ADE, Administrative/Resource Team ade odnidocOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 June 2, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank\nToday I received a package which contained a number of 1994 LRSD School Climate/Human Relations Surveys. Your cover letter, which was copied to Charity Smith and Frank Anthony, indicated that these forms had been requested by Ms. Smith. However, Ms. Smith is not an employee of ODM. Rather, she works for the Arkansas Department of Education, where she monitors desegregation for the State. Therefore, 1 am returning tliese forms so you may forward them to Ms. Smith. Sincerely yours. in S. Brown Enc. cc: Charity Smith Frank AnthonyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 June 2, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Today 1 received a package which contained a number of 1994 LRSD School Climate/Human Relations Surveys. Your cover letter, which was copied to Charity Smith and Frank Anthony, indicated that these forms had been requested by Ms. Smith. However, Ms. Smith is not an employee of ODM. Rather, she works for the Arkansas Department of Education, where she monitors desegregation for the State. Therefore, 1 am returning these forms so you may forward them to Ms. Smith. Sincerely yours. n S. Brown Enc. cc: Charity Smith Frank Anthony'S3 '* I b 1 it LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 31, 1995 G ' 3 Ms. Ann Brown OflBce of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3/ 'G-j,CEv\n''cniiofjng Dear Ms. Brown: In response to a letter we received from Chanty Smith please find enclosed for your review the Spring 1994 School Climate/Human Relations Survey results for schools which are using the perceptual data to develop school improvement plans (from all cycle five schools), along with blank photo copies of the parent, student and teacher survey forms. The cycle five schools are listed below\nHall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementary Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Enclosure cc\nCharity Smith, Education Lead Planner Desegregation Monitoring Frank Anthony, Administrative/Resource Team 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)334-2000 fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 D' MEMORANDUM Ju'j 2 !995 TO: Charity Smith, Lead Education Planner, Desegregation Monitoring OfiiCS Qf DsSv0i wiCiiikviiiiy FROM: RE: 'r. Robert Glowers, Director Request for School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results DATE: June 2, 1995 The School Climate/Human Relations survey results that you requested to be sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in your letter of May 16, 1995 to Dr. Henry Williams were forwarded by my office to Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. It was brought to my attention this morning that those survey results were intended to go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring unit at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). I apologize for the misinterpretation on my part and for any inconvenience this may have caused. The requested information is being redirected to ADE per this memorandum. Please find enclosed the School Climate/Human Relations survey results from spring 1994 for the following cycle five schools listed below: Hall High Dunbar Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Carver Elementory Badgett Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary M.L. King Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Also enclosed are photocopies of the teacher, student, and parent survey instruments Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Frank Anthony, ADE, Administrative/Resource Team ade odmdocex,: RECEIVED June 29, 1995 JUL 5 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring REFERENCE: SELECTION OF PRINCIPAL CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Dear Dr. Williams: As PTA Co-Presidents of Carver Magnet Elementary School for the 1995-1996 School Year, Dewey Fitzhugh and myself, on behalf of the Carver Magnet Elementary PTA, would like to thank you for your support and selection of Mrs. Diane Barksdale as the permanent principal at Carver Magnet Elementary School. We believe that, with Mrs. Barksdale's proven record of success and the energized momentum, the upcoming school year at Carver will be great! We are looking ahead to another exciting and fun filled year of working together with the teachers and students, as well as with the Little Rock School District to achieve the objectives and goals that we have set for the 1995-1996 year. Again, thank you for believing in Mrs. Barksdale, the Carver Magnet Teachers and Staff, PTA, Students and Supporters. Sincerely, W^i Caradine, Co-President r^pwpv PitTbiiffb r'r_PrAC'ir1\u0026lt;\u0026gt;nt Dewey Fitzhugh, Co-President cc: Magnet Review Committee Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGA'TION MONITORING Margaret Gremillion ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT - ELEMENTARY Sadie Mitchell ASSISTANT SUPERIN'TENDENT - ELEMENTARY Dick Hurley LRSD HUMAN RESOURCES LRSD Board MembersLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVKO July 5, 1995 TO: All Principals and Supervisors FROM: Ntorgaret Grenuliii THROUGH: SUBJECT: JUL 1 0 1995 Offiw of Dssegrsgaiiof) isistant Superintendent - ^T^Sadie Mitchell, Assistmt Superintendent e: fWiUi T^perintendent Principals Institute: \"Pathway to ExceUence - 1995-96\" All Principals^' Pl^: Date: Little Rock Hilton, 925 University Avenue Monday, July 17 ~ 8:30-4:30 Tuesday, July 18 -- 8:30-4:30 -Lunch win be provided- Eleineniary Principals Only Place: Date: IRC Friday, July 21 - 9:00-2:00  Lunch win be provided All Principals Place: Date: Parkview High School Monday, July 31 (1:00-4:30) Thursday, August 3 (8:00-3:30) - Lunch on your own. Friday, August 4 (8:00-12:00) Monitoring We want to welcome you back and express our sincere pleasure in having the opportunity to work together in getting a new school year started. A listing of the dates and places for the Principals Institute has been provided for you in order to have your calendar cleared for the Institute. The programs will be ready for you at registration on July 17. Dr. Williams has requested that principals contact their assistant principal(s) and invite them to attend the Institute and luncheon on both days. AU supervisors and department heads are also requested to attend both sessions and the luncheons. AU of the instructional and support personnel along with some of our principals have worked hard to make this Institute both motivational and informative to everyone. We are looking forward to seeing all of you at the EUlton.(J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)324-2012 Date\nJuly II, 1995 To: Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Jerry Malone Mrs. Ann Brown A**\" ' i \\  From: LiniwTondexter Re: Initial Meeting As agreed in our meetings last week, I am attempting to schedule a mutuafly convenient date ^d fime for the first joint meeting of the parties to the desegregation lawsuit At the initial meeting we will select a time for all future regularly scheduled meetings. Please check your calendar to fovorable Call Beverly Griffin a X*^ch of the following dates would be most 24-2012 to advise ofyounpreference. Wednesday, July 12 Thursday, July 13 Friday, July 14 / 9:00 ajn. 2:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. 1 feel strongly that we should meet thia week. \\ suggest an alternative date foi attention to this request. that is not possible for you, please week. Thank you for your prompt leetingr I I I f I I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECBVEd Jill I 7 W5 July 12, 1995 Office of Desegregaiion Monitoring Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Mon. 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend an exciting community briefing on Wednesday, July 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District at 810 West Markham. The focus of this briefing is to provide a special report to community leaders regarding the progress of the strategic planning process and the current status of the desegregation plan. Following the special report to the community, a question and answer session will be held. This briefing session will be broadcast five on Channel 4 Cable TV. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Looking forward to seeing you on July 19th. Sincerely, (? Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 RECE^iD Jill I 7 1995 LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT J 1 J ORice of Desegregation Moniioring July 12, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin, Assoc. Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guildin: I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend an exciting community briefing on Wednesday, July 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District at 810 West Markham. The focus of this briefing is to provide a special report to community leaders regarding the progress of the strategic planning process and the current status of the desegregation plan. Following the special report to the community, a question and answer session will be held. This briefing session will be broadcast live on Channel 4 Cable TV. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Looking forward to seeing you on July 19th. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 73201  (501) 324-2000 F. Y. I. Date: Ann I'-JI [J* Bill Bob 3 ^^^Gene 8 Horace I Margie Melissa Polly Return to: Linda t I I e ..W K7 i\u0026lt;c'^ '^e\u0026gt;/y) /L of' A ''zi J jt. Jk I \\ A r^Sr\u0026lt;. r ^,4-4^.2x 'h c 7l O'July 24, 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown, Chairman 201 East Markham Street, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 2 6 1995 Dear Ms. Brown: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Please accept my apology for not signing this letter. I am a teacher in the Little Rock School District who happens to be an African American, and I have two children in district schools. one of them at Hall High and another one bound for Hall. Neither my children nor I are trusting enough at this point for our names to be given and possibly passed around. We will come forth if we need to, however, as will others I have recently spoken with. My concern is this. Last year the only African American counselor at Hall resigned in the middle of the year and was replaced with a white counselor. We understood the need for filling the position for the rest of the year, so we did not voice our concern that this made Hall the only secondary school in Little Rock with no African American counselor. We assumed it was temporary. Now we learn that no change was made over the summer and that as it stands now. Hall will open the year STILL being the only secondary school with an all-white counseling staff. Ms. Brown, this is not acceptable, is totally unfair to the African American students at Hall, and shows an insensitivity on Dr. Anderson's part. Now that he has left Hall, rumors are that he will be replaced with another white person since replacing him with an African American would make all Little Rock District principals black. Frankly we would be much better served by having both an African American principal (Hall has never had one, you know) and at least one African American counselor, but the latter is a must. As I said before, it is hard to understand why it was even considered as an option beyond the temporary until the end of the year situation. Can you imagine this being allowed to occur at ANY other Little Rock School District high school? any everybody knows it. It wouldn't have, not for one minute. Please intervene while there is still time to make a change. We are not asking for much and are not asking for ANYTHING all other secondary schools already have, which is to give us at least one African American counselor. If we have to petition Judge Wright, we will. though, we dread doing this. Thank you for your time. As I said. We would rather it be handled professionally. cc: Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, counseling supervisor Mr. John Walker3^ \u0026lt;k) --A  Arkansas 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\nGene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry williams. Superintendent Little Rock School District FROM: Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 13, 1994, and concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. Members of the committee include Robert Glowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Gray, Bob 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. 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: There is a 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 Data should be reviewed in the context of race and gender alone. the following four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement .- socio-economic status, family structure, parent education level, and early childhood education.12:19 07/28/95' SU INTEC' SF-121(J PfiGE-ac Definitions of Variables: Socio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SSS data from free and reduced lunch information\nalso make use of the family link identifier Family 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) Collect family structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education comoleted by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate. college, college graduate, school, other) some trade Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Information 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: The language of the settlement requires the composite scores of Little Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the\"\" composite scores of Little Rock School District white students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock School District, This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-i\n2007. Sz  05 SU INTEC SF-1210 PhGE 03 Committee discussions around \"standardized testing\" included criterion-referenced tests, performance assessments, portfolios, and norm-referenced tests. The Minimum Performance Test has been abandoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide criterion-referenced testing instrument is currently available. The Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment is not comprehensive enough for the settlement purposes. Mathematic English Language Arts and Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers before reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District is the state-adopted norm referenced test. However, based on our research and the expert opinions from psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a norm-referenced testing instrument has a different purpose than the ettlement purpose and uses metrics which are not well suited to the requirements of the settlement agreement. A norm-refarenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement of students within the District to the achievement : student within the standardization group. Therefore, it would be appropriate to compare the achievement of black students Little Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of whit in students in Little Rock to the achievement of white students in the standardization group. standard outlined in the settlement. But that comparison is not the Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the achievement levels of black students white students in the Little Rock School District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics to use. according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) However, we have been informed that \"outside of the settlement mandate, such calculations would have little relevance.\" (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used. the committee consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing should be the focus of the application of the 90% rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive vice President and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation and an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. lawyer and faculty member of Michigan State University. Also I have included a folder of working papers from the committee for 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 -3-12:21- 0' 8/  95' SU INTEC SF-1210 PAGE 04 Pr5m r' 5.E. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7874 Jul.23 1395 1:34Ri PHILLIPS, OONSOLTANT 9991 I r I A k \u0026lt; A  R * 1 t 0OVI OfHQJ OX M I r 1 ft  r Ntohlft I t    9\u0026gt;iT*rBltT pHeaft ( O  I .  I  . \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;-\u0026gt;(\u0026gt;\u0026lt; N r 4 ft  1 4 0 k ft  0  , \u0026lt;  1 T I \u0026gt; X r I  t. \u0026lt; 11 ( \u0026lt; TOf MSNORANDaX Onyic* Pottor^ XK Dapt  of Bdufl. moMt Ruonn Phill \u0026lt;-p DATS I July 21, 1995 RXl Raaponoa to Raoommandat ton trom JOAfin* I hftva ravlawod tho you forwardod to wo. momo and auppoirbtng daauiflantatlon from Joanna Lanka that Dr. Lanka Ruwfflarlzed the losuea involved in choosing hae provided uaaful data and nuoetnctly\na metric for the mandats of ths Little asttlement. Before commenting specifically on the 90% reguirament and teat acoro alternatives, I offer a few general comments regarding my interpretation of the language of the settlement. Rook test acorn I specifIcRlly Offer on The Litt la Rock Sett lament Aggewimant y phraeee in the portion of the Little Rook settlement shared with me which must bo defined in order to Implamont its tarmfl. the portion The following are aoma thoughta about theae definitiona. tiino\" indicotea that the event need happen -- ---------any time period during the echool and can be measured at only ones year. ~ the scanrord is a nationally normed, standardized achievement toot of high payohometric quality, If Liluin instrument, it would bo a logical choice \"atandardlted teat\" the scajiford ia a If Little for the settlement mandate. 3. H oompoaite acorea\"  intent that the uas of mm termuioiogy auggsata an the maaauremant be a total Bcote or one that aggregatea academic subject areas. With reapect to the uas be a thin terminology auggeata performance across acaaemio aubject areas. With respect atnnfard, this suggests that either the Basic Battery or Coojplato be used. The choice may bo affected by wording in of sattloment.  ' Battery sooren other parts that the For example, if inequity in baoic ^ho basic battery score may bo most appropriate. Alternatively, if sweeping statemonte have been made about equalizing the totality of education, score may be more appropriate. nkilla ie alluded to, if Btatemonta the broader complete battery-----------1: 1' 07. 2S/?' ' SWINTEC SF-i210 PAGE 05 Little Rock Settlement . . , p. 2 4 . aduoafcion otudnntn\" thin probably ofcudonta in tho I-Ittlo Rook eohooln who have *n ISP refers at the to all time of hnnh1 ng, plaead Praaumablyr studenta in aduoation opoolsl ahudanta aduoation would referrod for evaluation but not yat ba taatad. SCO olaarly Although apaoial exempted by the language ot the eattlomant, what about othor groups such as vocational students, abaantaas, or atudenta with qualifying dtsabilitloo under flootion 6047 oe aa What aooomfflodatiouB will ba available for nonqualifying atudenta with dioabilitioe (e.g,, a non-npacial education atudant with dyoloxia viaually impairod atudont in tho regular ith limited Kngliah profioionoy be teated? olaaaroora^ 7 or a Will atudantn 5. \"White students\" only those of Buropeen ancestry? does this include all Which gradaa are to What non-blftck students or about hiapanic Americans? ba Included, must all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are 6. \"90% or greater\"  the asttlament language aeams to indicate an intent for the mean score of blacks to he at Imm- p'- mean score for whites. be least nine tenths of ths tims frame and This may be obstacles to an unrealistic expectation given be overcome. Little Rock has approximately five years to overcome learning deficits and the affects of povorty which have developed over students' ItfetimsB. City, which has desegregation spent orders. has millionB I bean Achievement test scores. on unable the public Sven Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination tho foderal does not refer government has supported an in the employment arena, applicants hired. to heat Thus, scores but to 80% rule. under thia the Howovor, the 80% percent of available applicants are hired, at least 58% must also be hired to avoid Moreover, if an employer fails this a rule, if 70* of qualified white of qualified minority applicants presumption of discrimination. opportunity to demonstrate actions. a test, the employer still has an compelling interest to Justify its In cases such as between minority Dobra P-, at issue. and majority large differentials tn passing rates adminlBtrators to In such cases, the insure that earn a high school diploma. atudenta on graduation tests have been courts have imposed duties on tost minority students had a fair chance to minority scores to ba a certain However, these courts have not required req\\irement seems to suggest an percentage of majority scores. entitlement to Such n rather than an equal opportunity to achieve. a specified outcome ChPQBinq a Type of Score I agreo with Dr, Lanka that none of the major types of standardised teat  ooteo are well ouited to the requlremonta the Little Rock settlomont. Beoauoo no longitudinal oomparlsons none of a simple interpratstion of raw score are required, tho language lends itself to diffarencas. One might, for example,Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: August 9, 1995 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: School Principals, Assistant Principals, and Selection Process The new school year is just around the corner. 1 understand that the district conducted pre-school registration this week on August 7 and 8, school staff will be reporting for duty next Monday, August 14, and the children will begin classes a week later on August 21. 1 need a current listing of principals and assistant principals. 1 also want some information pursuant to ODMs 1994 monitoring report on involvement in the principal selection process. Please send me the following information: 1. A current listing by school of each principal and assistant principal. Include each individuals name, race, gender, and number of years in the position at the school to which he or she is currently assigned. If the individual has been assigned to the position this year for the first time, indicate the number of years as \"new.\" 1 need this list no later than 4:00 p.m. by the end of the day tomorrow. August 10. 2. Describe the process the district followed in interviewing and selecting each principal. By school, indicate when interview teams were used, and list the composition of the committee by name, race, gender, and affiliation (e.g. parent, Joshua representative,, teacher, etc.). Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later than August 15, 1995. 3. Describe the participation of the Incentive School Staffing Committees and representatives from the Magnet Review Committee, naming the individuals who took part in the interviews by name, race, gender, and affiliation. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. 4. Indicate the date(s) each interview committee met, and whether or not the candidates recommended by the committee were actually selected for the principalship for which the candidate interviewed. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. Thank you very much. CC: Chris Heller jerry MaloneOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: August 9, 1995 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: School Principals, Assistant Principals, and Selection Process The new school year is just around the comer. 1 understand that the district conducted pre-school registration this week on August 7 and 8, school staff will be reporting for duty next Monday, August 14, and the children will begin classes a week later on August 21. I need a current listing of principals and assistant principals. I also want some information pursuant to ODMs 1994 monitoring report on involvement in the principal selection process. Please send me the following information: 1. A current listing by school of each principal and assistant principal. Include each individuals name, race, gender, and number of years in the position at the school to which he or she is currently assigned. If the individual has been assigned to the position this year for the first time, indicate the number of years as \"new.\" 1 need this list no later than 4:00 p.m. by the end of the day tomorrow, August 10. 2. Describe the process the district followed in interviewing and selecting each principal. By school, indicate when interview teams were used, and list the composition of the committee by name, race, gender, and affiliation (e.g. parent, Joshua representative,, teacher, etc.). Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later than August 15, 1995. 3. Describe the participation of the Incentive School Staffing Committees and representatives from the Magnet Review Committee, naming the individuals who took part in the interviews by name, race, gender, and affiliation. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. 4. Indicate the date(s) each interview committee met, and whether or not the candidates recommended by the committee were actually selected for the principalship for which the candidate interviewed. Please provide this information as soon as possible, no later that August 15, 1995. Thank you very much. CC: Chris Heller jerry Malone \u0026gt;\u0026lt; 4 ^7 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (SOI) 371 \u0026lt;1100 Date: August 9, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Brown Subject: McClellan Community School As Im sure you know, the McClellan Community School program was incorporated into the current LRSD desegregation plan at the behest of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, with the concurrence of the parties and the approval of the Court. As such, it is an important aspect of desegregation in the district. 111 appreciate the following current information about McClellan: 1. Please explain the statement, which appears in your July 13, 1994 memorandum to Dr. Williams, that \"McClellan was a reduction which does not require a plan change.\" 1 am puzzled by this assertion, because the desegregation plan clearly establishes McClellan as a community school, and court orders (for example, those of August 4, 1992 and December 30, 1992) have reemphasized the importance of the community school, the Advisoiy Council, and an adequate budget for the program. 2. Page 94 of the LRSD desegregation plan promises that ODM and other groups will regularly receive reports on the progress of the community school and any recommendations for changes. Please forward to me the school districts report on the status and progress of the McClellan Community School for the 1994-95 school year. 3. 1 note that the McClellan Community School is among those desegregation obligations that does not appear in your listing of \"Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case\" dated August 1995. Because the community school has been prominently featured in both the desegregation plan and court orders, please explain why it was omitted from your listing. Tlianks for your assistance. S-U.' ? J J WSSSJSJS^ Little Rock School District - OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RPp^^ August 10, 1995 4UG / ] Office Of Oesesregafo iVfcniioMnj Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markliam, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: We received your fax yesterday in the District office after District hours. The information you have requested is not available at this time and will not be available until sometime Monday. Given the fact that we are currently involved with preparing for the Board meeting tonight, a court appearance tomorow, and opening of school in one week, your request seems to me unreasonable and comes at a time when district staff are extremely pressed for time. For me to pull someone off their assigned task to fill your request would delay the District in our preparations for the opening of school. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM AUG 1 5^ 1995 To: From: Date: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent jijtL August 15, 1995 Office of Dose:  if'-. Subject: Response to memorandum of August 9, 1995 The following is a response to your memorandum of August 9, 1995. My response to each of the three items is as follows: 1. We did not feel it necessary to do a plan modification for the McClellan Community School because all components of the program are being offered. We could find no reference to a minimum amount of money that must be budgeted for the program. Some money will come from other sources for this next school year. That which appears in our plan is more an historical account than specific action to be taken. The only exception is on page 94 as you have noted\n2. We have reviewed page 94 of the desegregation plan relating to the McClellan Community School. The appropriate items from that page have been added to our list of obligations. I have requested a report of the status and progress of the McClellan Community School. When I receive it, I will forward it to you\nand, 3. As noted in item 1 above, obligations relating to McClellan Community School have been added to the list. It now appears as a listing. If you have other questions, please let me know. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney M.UCCU1.00C3 c 'r. Little Rock School District Q August 16, 1995 AUG 2 j J995 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent OffiCQ of DeSS'^fg\nJaiion /'vicniicrspy FROM: Dr. Rid iirector-Human Resources SUBJECT: Ms. Ann Browns Request for Information (dated 8-9-95) I have, at your request, put together the information as requested, by item number. Item #1: Current Listing of Principals/Assist Principals by name, race, gender, and length of time in current position. Response - Provided as Attachment I Item #2: Interview and Selection Process Response - Provided as Attachment II Item #3: Involvement of Staffing Committees and Magnet Review Committee. Response - The Incentive School Staffing Committees were not utilized, per se. There may/may not have been members of the Committee on the team as appointed per Item #2. The Magnet Review Committee was involved to the extend that the Executive Director was apprised of each interview schedule and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, who participated on several of the teams, is a member of the Committee. Item #4: Days committee met, recommendations, and person selected. Response - Provided as Attachment III If you require additional information, please dont hesitate to let me know. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 ADMIN3.EXC SCHOOL CENTRAL HALL HIGH METROPOLITAN JAFAIR PARKVIEW McClellan ALT. LEARN CTR HENDERSON CLOVERDALE JR mabelvale JR. DUNBAR MAGNET MANN MAGNET FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS TITLE PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST, PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC DIRECTOR VOV. TECH VOC. ADMIN. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. NAME R. HOWARD B. JAMES VACANT N. ROUSSEAU W. MORRIS G. BRADFORD M. BREWSTER J. POWELL L. WATSON C. GREEN C. SPRINGER M. PETERSON W. BROADNAX A. FINCH B. BURR V. SMITH, JR. J. BABBS D. BOOTH A. HANSEN M. WOODS J. CARTER B. GRAHAM E. HAWKS C. WALKER W.MARSHALAK J. WASHINGTON J. MOSBY V. LINDBERG G. PITTS C. MASON D. DUERR D. PATTERSON J. FULLERTON M. GREEN R. WILLIAMS L.BROWN E. HUDSON D. JAMES M. LACEY VACANT J. MATTHIS W. WOODS D. BENAGE P. MCMURRAY D. WHITEHORN M. BRIGGS R. KNIGHTEN D. BERRY RACE BL BL CAU BL CAU CAU BL BL BL BL BL BL CAU CAU BL BL BL CAU BL BL BL CA CA CA CA BL CA CA BL CA BL CA BL CA CA BL BL BL BL BL CA BL CA CA BL CA GENDER M F F M F F M F F M M M F F M M M F F M F M F M M M F F F F M M F M F F M F M M M F M F M F Page 1 YRS IN POSITION TWO TWO FOUR NEW NEW SEVEN FIVE NEW TWO TWO NEW ONE ONE NEW THREE TEN THREE SIX THIRTEEN FIVE ONE THREE FIVE ONE NEW NEW ONE SIX ONE FOUR EIGHT ACTING EIGHT EIGHT NEW FOUR THREE SEVEN FIFTEEN EIGHT ONE THREE SEVEN ONE NEW NEWSOUTHWEST BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE EL. DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET JEFFERSON M.L. KING MABELVALE ELEM MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK P. HEIGHTS EL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL J. NEELEY A. MUNNS D. SMITH M. GOLSTON B. ANDERSON E.COX C. SIMMONS D. HALL A. KEOWN M.BARKSDALE Y. SCOTT O. PRESLAR E. CLEVELAND F. FIELDS F. DONOVAN S. BRANCH V. ASHLEY E. DUNBAR VACANT M. HUFFMAN B. JONES L. WARD J. DAVENPORT B. RAPER F. HOBBS F. CAWTHON H. HARRIS J. HARKEY VACANT N. WILLIAMS M. OLIVER f\u0026lt;. SMITH J. WORM M.BASSA C. TEETER L. CARTER S. BROOKS A. MANGAN B. BANKS S. DAVIS K. GREENLEE G. ZEIGLER T. PHILLIPS L. WILSON K. BUCHANAN S. BEARD T. COURTNEY ASST. PRINC. V. ROBINSON ADM1N3.EXC CA BL BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL BL BL CA BL BL CA CA BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL CA BL CA BL BL CA BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA CA BL M F M F F F F F F F F M F M F M F F M F M F F F F F M F F M F M F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Page 2 ONE ONE NEW EIGHT ONE NEW FOUR NEW NEW NEW ONE EIGHT TWO TWO NEW TWO EIGHT NEW THIRTEEN SEVEN NEW NEW NEW NEW SIX ONE NEW ONE NEW SEVEN ONE EIGHT NEW FIVE TWO ONE EIGHT ONE ONE ONE NEW NEW NEW NEW ONE TWO ONEADMIN3.EXC WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL S. MORGAN M. MENKING D. MITCHELL F. DAVIS_________ P. HIGGINBOTHAM CA CA BL BL CA M F F M F FIVE ONE EIGHT ONE SEVEN Page 3ec. iNbtKrtu XN AGENDA FOR AUGUST 25, 1994 Atac/miekjt Ti LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nGCDA - Regulation SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. employed with Uttl Rock ^cJmI DisSfSt , District.) 2. ?o?'\"Sc:StSu!t??^ SU *.? \"PPllcents and references. 3. Superintendent and/or the A^\u0026lt;s^e^-a+. Superintendent (s) will nreoare a Hc-h  Assistant 4. The Human Resources Director will TZZd issues (ie\nE.E.O., Affirmative Action, ^ericans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be follows: selected/appointed, as Three Two Three (3) Parents/patrons (2) - Teachers (3) Adainistratioa Representatives Mote:i Hote:2 Mote:3 1. 2. 3. representatives will be selected by of^SS president of the or tne affected school. ^e toacher(s) representatives shall be from the ThZschool and appointed by the Administration. The Deputy Superintendent f --------- appropriate staff - Assistant Supervisors, and Principals) t, Administration representatives. NOTE: (in consultation with Superintendents, may designate the The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender. ppppr-./rn SEP IS 1334 4...( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nGCDA Regulation 6. The interview committee shall recommend candidates, be provided folders 1) 2) 3) 4) meet to interview and The interview committee will containing the following\nAn interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview complete the ratings sheet, r  recommendation of the top three 3) candidates to the Superintendent. ^ated, the ratings are basis^ffr fiJ,IV 7 consensus and need not be thl sole nasis for selecting the recommended candidates.) the applicants and The committee, through consensus. 8. Interview Committee and select the for Board approval.  racomendatlons oi r. .J , applicant to be submitted JSeS 2ch oVSi* his/her option, three (3) applicants and committee reconvene to determine require that the new reconunendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected he/she will submit that individual^ Directors for approval. an acceptable applicant, s name to the Board of If the applicant is currently serving superintendent niay reassi^ Sxe ^riSSal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. ^^incipal 10. candidate shall receive a contract which ?=ation? pertinent his salary, grade, and othern A'nACHMPWT U? P LE. LeTTf^?. May 18, 1995 Little Rock School District To\nCarver Magnet Interview team members (listed below) From: Dr. Director - Human Resources Subject: Interview process First, I wish to express my sincere personal thanks to you for agreeing to participate as a member of the interview team for Principalship of Carver Magnet elementary school. As you might imagine, this team is charged with the extremely important responsibility of interviewing the applicants and, as a team, to recommend three top candidates to the Superintendent, who will then make a recommendation to the School Board. To assist you in the interview process, you will be provided the following items: 1. An interview schedule 2. A list of interview questions 3. A candidate rating form 4. The applicant's application materials (ie: application, letter, etc.) These items will be provided to you on the day of the interviews. I will attempt to schedule the interviews on a one-hour-per-applicant schedule. This will allow for the interview time as well as follow-up discussion among the team to reach consensus about the candidate. If you have any questions about this very important process, please don't hesitate to contact me at 324-2088. I will advise you as quickly as possible the date and times of the interviews. cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Donna Creer, Executive Director - Magnet Review Committee Team Members: Vai Henry, Parent/Patron representative Dewey Fitzhugh, Parent/Patron representative Roz Newton, Parent/Patron representative Joy Thomas, Teacher representative Kim Washington, Teacher representative Patty Kohler, Administration representative Leon Modeste, Administration representative Dick Hurley, Administration representative 810 West .Markham Street  Little Roek, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Sheetl At/K^Haj\u0026amp;kzt TTT DATE OF INTERVIEW MAY/22/1995 MAY/25/1995 MAY/26/1995 JUNE/29/1995 JUNE/30/1995 JULY/19/1995 JULY/25/1995 AUGUST/3/1995 AUGUST/4/1995 AUGUST/7/1995 SCHOOL CARVER HENDERSON JR. M. L. KING GIBBS MAGNET TERRY ELEMENTARY GEYER SPRINGS BRADY ELEMENTARY HALL HIGH SCHOOL FRANKLIN INCENTIVE DUNBAR JR. MAGNET RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES DIANE BARKSDALE JERRY WORM GWEN ZEIGLER JAMES WASHINGTON JAMES FULLERTON RON AUSTIN________ TYRONE HARRIS GWEN ZEIGLER ETHEL DUNBAR KAREN GREENLEE ADA KEOWN BETTY RAPER______ ETHEL DUNBAR DEBORAH MITCHELL GWEN ZEIGLER JULIE DAVENPORT ADA KEOWN ETHEL DUNBAR DEBORAH MITCHELL J.J.LACEY KAREN GREENLEE BEVERLY JONES ADA KEOWN GAYLE BRADFORD LINDA BROWN JIM MOSBY KAREN GREENLEE ETHEL DUNBAR JEFF CARR_________ LINDA BROWN DANIEL WHITEHORN PATRICIA McMurray Page 1 CANDIDATE SELECTED DIANE BARKSDALE JAMES WASHINGTON TYRONE HARRIS BETTY RAPER GWEN ZEIGLER JULIE DAVENPORT ADA KEOWN GAYLE BRADFORD ETHEL DUNBAR LINDA BROWNOffice 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 To: From: Subject: Date: Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources, Little Rock School District Horace R. Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Request for Staffing Data August 17, 1995 As you are aware, ODM is in the process of publishing a series of reports focusing on staffing in all three of the Pulaski County school districts. We really appreciate the cooperation we received from your office during the process of gathering data for our initial report on the elementary school teaching force. In order to complete subsequent reports, we need the data listed below by Friday, September 1, 1995. If you have questions or concerns regarding this request, please call us at 376-6200. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Data Requested:  All secondary school teachers by school, race, sex, and primary subject area for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  All central office administrators by race, sex, department, and position for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  Building administrators (principals and assistant principals) by school, race, and sex for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95  Non-certified personnel by location (school building, central office, etc.), position, race, and sex for each school year from 1990-91 through 1994-95Cf CF- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date\nSeptember 8, 1995 To: Principals SEP 1 I 1995 From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director JbMi' Planning, Research and Evaluation Office of Desegregatiwi Momionna RE: Local School Biracial Committee According to the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation plan (pages 224, 225), biracial committees of parents will be formed at each school to assist in monitoring educational equity. Site visits will be conducted by the Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) staff with the assistance of local biracial committees consisting of parents/patrons. Attached is a list by school with the PRE Specialists name who drew the school for monitoring. If you have not already been contacted by the PRE Specialist for a monitoring date, you will soon be receiving a phone call for a discussion about a convenient date for program monitoring. All parent/patron committee members will be expected: 1. To complete inservice education related to program monitoring techniques and the desegregation plan. This inservice will be conducted by the PRE Staff prior to the first school monitoring visit. We expect to complete the inservice for the parents by October 5. The monitoring process will essentially be the same as that of the last two school years. Parents/patrons who have previously received training regarding the monitoring process will not be required to attend another inservice. However, they are welcome to attend, if they wish. Principals may wish to select some of the same parents/patrons who have previously served as monitors, since they would already be familiar with the process. 2. To complete one monitoring visit each semester. Parents/patrons should be advised that monitoring is a major function for the current school year and that the monitoring process could take a full school day to complete. During the monitoring visits, checklists will be used to record and gather data regarding the conditions and events at the school. Monitors will record and report findings only. Mediation of conditions and events are inappropriate during the site visit. The committee should be composed of six persons, comprised of two teachers and four parents/patrons, balanced by race (two black and two white parents). Like last school year the teachers on your committee will not monitor the programs for equity. However, if you add others to the committee, you may do so without a ratio being required. When you call the committee together to review the monitoring summary report2 and to give suggestions for program improvement, this is the time to involve the teachers and others on the committee. Efforts should be made to extend the selection process beyond a traditional parent structure to ensure broad representation. Please refrain from using parents/patrons who are Little Rock School District employees as program monitors. Please forward the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the four parents/patrons who will serve on your local school biracial committee to the PRE Department NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. Inservice for biracial committee monitoring will be held at the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. Principals are requested to notify biracial committee parents of the inservice as soon as possible. Inservices are scheduled as follows: Elementary Area and Magnet Schools: October 3, 1995 Meet in the LRSD Board Room, 810 W. Markham, 6:30 pm Secondary and Incentive Schools: October 5, 1995 Meet in the LRSD Board Room, 810 W. Markham, 6:30 pm Site visits for the first semester are tentatively scheduled to be conducted between October 23 and December 15, 1995. Principals will be contacted to establish monitoring dates. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith in the PRE office at 324-2120. Your prompt attention and cooperation in this effort is greatly appreciated. cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams Mrs. Anne E. Brown, Director Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Ms. Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Dr. Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary EnclosureLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PRE SPECIALIST ASSIGNMENT BY SCHOOL 1995-96 School PRE Specialist School PRE Specialist Central Fair Hall Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Kathy Penn-Norman McClellan Parkview Metropolitan J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby K Penn-Norman Cloverdale JHS Dunbar JHS Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale JHS Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights JHS Southwest ALC K. Penn-Norman K. Penn-Norman J.J. Lacey J. J. Lacey Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Elem. Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Magnet Kathy Penn-Norman Kathy Penn-Norman J. J. Lacey Kathy Penn-Norman Kathy Penn-Norman Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith Selma Hobby Kathy Penn-Norman Selma Hobby Kathy Penn-Norman Mabelvale Elem. McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Interdistrict Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby J.J. Lacey K. Penn-Norman Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Selma Hobby Paul J. Smith Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey Paul J. Smith J.J. Lacey K. Penn-Norman Selma Hobby K. Penn-Norman Selma HobbyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 12, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject: Brown New administrative position In reviewing the latest LRSD organizational structure chart for 1995-96, which is dated August 22, 1995, 1 notice a new position for Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Support. Please send me a copy of the business case which sets forth the decision-making rationale for this new position. 1 also want to know the job description, the proposed associated costs, the date of Board approval (or anticipate approval), and the target date for filling this position. Tliank you very much for your assistance.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 13 U 0)  o Q 3  \"5 n ATTACHMENT 1 Organizational Chart O O g* ca  T a\u0026gt; c o\u0026gt;  Cf) O 2 33 - o co o .i C C OT =? 3 c cn O T O g Q 4\u0026gt; s O *0 o 0 \u0026lt; C s = H X 3 o tM hl \"'5 ii d e \u0026lt;3 5 1 ? 3 s* IL - sH I3 -I 1 I I I I I I I s 1 i I  2 Ij iJi I Id Ji J 0 IJ ,1 fa JI Si kaU 'J 11 |d h \"d nl ai u  2 ?  r J 1 s 1 Jl 2L- I d si 3 c 4 U J? Hi w IL 2^^ $ c H 3 3 ad Ii J a Id . s i J 1 b. 4 = J H -2 H \u0026lt;5 -S ^3 o I J S \u0026lt;3? I = d p ir -5 3 \u0026lt; 11 t = 1 jil\nri s? ii .TTiHf p ill W __ I_ . . _ JRECEIVE^ SEP 1 5 1995 VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Office of Desegregation Monitonn^ MEMORANDUM September 13, 1995 TO: Administrative Departments FROM: Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator SUBJECT: Empty Copy Paper Boxes and Broken Appliances and Machinery A volunteer at the Alternative Learning Center needs copy paper boxes for a project he is working on with the students. We can be a part of this hands-on art project by collecting boxes and lids. He also needs broken appliances and machinery, i.e., fans, toasters, lawn mowers, coffee makers, clocks, condensers, etc. to use in helping the students leam to use tools. Please call Bill AUsop at 666-6367 (or 666-2030 answering machine) when you have two or more empty boxes or appliances and hell come by to get them. Thanks for your help.Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SEP 2 0 1995 MEMORANDUM Office of Dssegrsgation Mcrawnng DATE: September 19, 1995 TO: Districtwide Biracial Committee Members Committee Members of Incentive School Monitoring Instrument Review Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Richard Rochelle, Knight Intervenors Attorney John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director RE: Incentive School Monitoring Instrument for 1995-96 Please find enclosed the Incentive School Monitoring Instrument to be used by the Districtwide Biracial Committee during the 1995-96 school year. Also enclosed are the 1994-95 Districtwide Biracial Committee Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools and the Spring 1995 Incentivi School Survey Report. If you have questions, please call me at 324-2120. Enclosures cc: LRSD Board of Directors Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of SchoolsOffice 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 \u0026gt;371-0100 September 26, 1995 Mrs. Sue Strickland 19 Peartree Place Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Sue: Congratulations on your election to the Uttle Rock School District Board of Directors. Your experiences with teachers, administrators, parents, and children give you insights that will be invaluable as the district makes decisions that affect the lives of so many. Im looking forward to getting to know you, and hope well find a time to begin that process soon. Please give me a call at your convenience and lets arrange a time to get together. 1 hope you will also feel free to drop by ODM at any time to meet my colleagues and tour our offices. Under separate cover to your LRSD mail box, Im sending you some of our recent monitoring reports. I know that as a new board member youll be inundated with all sorts of paper, and I dont want to add too much to the pile. Well routinely send you and other members of the board our new reports as we issue them. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep an open door and a pot of coffee on at all times, and well always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. I know youre going to do a fine job. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: September 29, 1995 To: Board Members From: Re: Desegregation Representation For the past two years Ive watched with interest and concern the court proceedings related to our 12 year old desegregation case. As I have watched and been involved in what goes on in court, and observed the relationship between the attorneys, as well as the judge in this case, I have- become increasingly concerned and frustrated. The concern is essentially with the informality, the comfort, and the accommodating behavior exhibited by all the attorneys in the case. So much so, I believe, that very little is being accomplished in the way of moving the District away from federal monitoring, from settling any major issues, and not at all moving this District or any of the other Districts away from court supervision. Based on what has happened or not happened over the past two years, my thinking is that what is needed is a more aggressive approach by attorneys who represent the District who can and will focus on the major issues contained in the Plan by assuming a more aggressive professional posture and looking at the real issues in the settlement and not the \"nitpicking\" surface issues that prevent movement in the case. I believe that we can move forward. But we cannot as long as we are held to historic and undocumented elements of the Plan by Mr. Walker. Pieces of the Plan that at one time were important, but are no longer as significant as they__ once were, because of changing conditions and circumstances in the Little Rock Community. In order to move forward and become further enured in the rhetoric of the case, a determination and decision has to be made and agreed upon that we either follow the settlement agreement or modify what exists. I4 Page 2 Mr. Walker has cleverly, through legal maneuvering, delayed decisions, stalled proceedings, and in general slowed the process by using the threats of contempt of court against the District because he feels we want to change too quickly and without regard to black children. This is absolutely not true. The time has long passed for these kinds of delays, and the need to settle certain aspects of the case is of paramount importance because of changing conditions and circumstances. Little Rock is not the same city that it was in 1958, nor is it the same city that it was in 1993. It is now a city with greater potential for economic growth and development. Development and growth, however, that will not be realized until the LRSD has cleaned up its image, changed the Plan, and is free from federal supervision. I The LRSD cannot afford the current plan and if it has been followed according to the letter of the law, it carries with it serious financial implications and consequences. LR must do like-so many other cities and school districts across the country. Kansas City, Dallas, and Denver have recognized that changing social and economic issues have put a serious strain on their ability to operate without additional revenues, and they have moved aggressively to gain relief from federal court. We in LR must do the same thing and we must do it with legal representation that is both well-schooled in desegregation law and who share the same sense of urgency that we do to be released from federal supervision. With that in mind, 1 am suggesting that we look at other law firms in Little Rock, such as the Mitchell firm, the Kaplan firm, or the Hogan and Hartsen firm out of Washington. D.C. to assist the District with our desegregation case. I recognize that the Friday. Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm has  represented the LRSD for many years and has provided the major portion, if not all, of the legal battles and done a capable job. However, with the change of conditions in LR and what is happening with school districts across the country it is time for a change.4 I Page 3 I do not advocate that we discontinue our association with the Friday firm on other legal matters, only that we consider moving the desegregation portion to another firm. Until such time that we are represented by counsel who are willing to enforce the conditions and agreements of the settlement we will continue to \"spin our wheels\" in an attempt to reach a solid footing that will allow us to move forward or in the direction of getting out of court. 1 would respectfully request that the Board consider the need for representation from another firm with regard to the desegregation case. Consideration of this matter would be appreciated at the October 12, Board Agenda session. It is clear to me and to others who have followed this case that we are no further along the road to reduced court supervision than we were four years ago. We are bogged down by the notion that the intent of the Plan is more significant than the actual component parts of the Plan. The Board will recall that last year I proposed that we put into place an inhouse staff attorney. One that would deal very specifically with  desegregation issues and keep the Friday firm focused. This position was not funded. However, by restructuring the work of the Friday firm to deal with problems other than desegregation, it is quite possible that we will salvage enough resources to support this proposal. I would like your support in this area and I am prepared to discuss the issue with you at your convenience. IOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {501)376.6200 Fax (SOI) 3710100 Date: October 3, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: , ^V/\\nn Brown Districtwide Recruitment Plan 1 was pleased to receive a copy of the districts newsletter News \u0026amp; Views, the first such publication in a long time. It was a newsy and interesting edition, and 1 look forward to reading the coming issues. The \"Desegregation Update\" section on the first page of e newsletter states that a districtwide recruitment plan has been written, and that the individual schools have put together strategies for action at the school level. The section goes on to say that the district and parent recruiters will work toward improving the image of the public schools to encourage voluntary student transfers. 1 was also glad to read that ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report has provided further direction for recruitment efforts. Because recruitment and public relations are areas critical to desegregation, 1 salute you for having completed the plans that will support implementation of the activities referenced in the Update. Its a credit to you and your colleagues that the district has started the school year well prepared with road maps. Please help us get a head start on monitoring this years recruitment activities by sending me a copy of the revised districtwide recruitment plan that will be guiding you. In conjunction with that plan, 1 would also appreciate the information listed below. Brief answers, summaries, or copies of materials will do fine at this point. 1. Point out how this years districtwide recruitment plan differs from that of the previous year. 2. State the districtwide goal of the recruitment plan in quantitative terms by race, i.e., the percentage increase in enrollment and the total number of students that percentage represents. 3. State the school-based recruitment goal in quantitative terms by race for each school, i.e., the percentage increase by school and the target number of students you hope to recruit to each school according to the racial balance needs of each.October 3, 1994 Page Two 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Forward the results of the evaluation (fast-track or otherwise) you did on the previous recruitment plan that enabled you to determine what changes needed to be made in the current plan based on the successes or failures of last years plan. The Court long ago required the LRSD to establish a tracldng system that would enable the district to determine which recruitment efforts are successful and which are not. Indicate the status of the tracking system, when it was established, who is responsible for it, and how it works. Summarize what youve learned from the system, and also how youve used that Icnowledge to modify the elements of your new recruitment plan. Summarize the recruitment strategies that each school has put together for this year. Or, if it will be easier, just include copies of the school-based plans. The desegregation plans state that parents and Parent Recruiters, along with such groups as the PTA, recruitment teams. Incentive School Parent Recruitment Committees, speakers bureaus, and the Biracial Committee, will assist with recruitment. Indicate the role envisioned for such individuals and groups in the current districtwide and school-based recruitment plans. Include the timeline of the current districtwide recruitment plan. Indicate who is responsible for the major events on that timeline. Describe the plans of the district and parent recruiters for improving the image of the schools, the timeline of the plans, and the responsible personnel. Indicate how you factored in the elements of the Public Relations sections of the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Describe or list those elements of ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report that the district will be using in recruitment. Or, in other words, how has the district modified its current recruitment plan to incorporate elements of the incentive school report?JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 onr Office of Desegregaacfi 'nr- 5 1^95 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 4, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I would be remiss if I did not request that you require the administrative staff under the aegis of Dr. Russ Mayo to be fully desegregated and integrated. I am also requesting that Dr. Mayo be reprimanded for his actions. I remain, Sincerely yours, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann BrownS! 4 11 Little Rock School District October 5, 1995 To: Area School Advisory Linittee Representatives From: Leon Modeste, U Special Assistant tothe Superintendent Subject: Reminder of next meeting of the Area School Advisory Committee Please mark your calendars for Monday, October 9, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. for the meeting of the Area School Advisory Committee. The meeting will be held in the LRSD Board Room, with Fred Smith, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District giving the latest report on the Districts Facilities Study. We look forward to seeing you there. LEM/dge 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)321-2000SHULTS, BAY \u0026amp; KUBKUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 boatmens bank BUILDING SOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE BITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72SO1-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KUBRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TEI^EPHONE \u0026lt;CO1) 375-S3O1 FACSIMILE (501) 3Z5-6861 October 6, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 OCT 1 0 1995 Office oi Desegregauon Monnoiiug Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann, John and Hank: Based on present enrollment and demographic trends, we are failing in our efforts to promote quality desegregated education in Little Rock. I know that Little Rock School District students generally achieve at higher levels on standardized tests than students in surrounding geographic areas, and we have some other bright spots. Nevertheless, it is clear that the District is continuing to lose far too many students to private schools. The ramifications of these losses can no longer be ignored. As \"advantaged\" students leave the District, the District becomes more segregated, and the remaining students have more intense needs. Community sunnort wanes. We are at a critical time when the District must reverse the support wnen tne uibiricb mu\u0026amp;b levciac current enrollment trend, or we will become an all black \"have not\" district. We must not allow this to happen because it will ultimately result in a resegregated district incapable of educating its students. In order to see this point, you need only review the enrollment statistics for our elementary schools. These schools indicate future enrollment trends and demographic patterns for junior and senior highs, as well as demonstrate the immediate problems associated with elementary schools. This year it appears that Little Rock will have 14 elementary schools which are over 75% black and which have declining white enrollments. In essence, these schools will be one race schoolsSHTJBTS, SAY \u0026amp; KUREUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 2 with one race attendance zones. Other elementary schools are also experiencing severe declines in white enrollment. As late as 1992, white enrollment was on the increase, especially in the area elementary schools. In 1995, for the first time in several years, we see that several of the desegregated area schools are having declining white enrollments, even though the demographic patterns in their attendance zones have not substantially changed. These declining white enrollments will translate into substantial decreases in white enrollment in the junior and senior high schools. Unless we are willing to have a one race district which will have a much harder time maintaining community support, we must take dramatic action. If enrollment trends are not reversed for next year, the District will become a typical urban district with limited community support and with no real prospect of success for its students. This is not fair and this is not what I would like, but I can now clearly see that this is what will occur unless major steps are taken to change the trends. Continuation of the current plan will result tn resegregation. This was not the purpose of the plan, this is not what a lot of us want, and I want to work aggressively to see that it does not occur. I believe that continued acrimonious litigation will actually accelerate the resegregation of the Little Rock School District. I think it is up to the parties to the settlement to change it to achieve the goals and objectives which the parties share. In order to cooperate to make the changes necessary for success, the parties themselves will have to change the way they interact publicly and privately. Public interaction will have to be positive, cooperative, and cordial. Otherwise, the perception is that the District is unstable, mismanaged, and beseiged. The following actions need to be taken in order for the Little Rock School District to survive: 1. 1. The concept of incentive schools (characterized by better than 80% black enrollment) needs to be reconsidered because a great many more schools will have these same enrollment characteristics in the next several years. Rather than II \"incentivise\" all of these schools with programs which are designed to attract whites, we should recognize that these schools will not be desegregated withSHUKTS, RAY \u0026amp; KURRUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 3 enhanced programs. We should concentrate on providing smaller classes, incentive compensation to teachers and administrators in these schools, and enhanced special opportunities (Reading Recovery, Junior Great Books) designed to improve the skills of the students in these schools. It is not possible to desegregate these schools under current conditions, and the best approach is to simplify the program so that the schools work for the students who are there. 2. We need to consolidate some of the small schools in the central core of the city. At the same time, we need to build at least two new schools - one to serve the students in the central city and a new school to meet the growth in west Little Rock. Even though the west Little Rock school would be essentially all white, if we do not provide a school for the students in these areas, they will continue to go into the private system and will not be available to assist in desegregating area junior highs and high schools. The Little Rock School District should not abandon its obligation to serve all of the youth in the District just because of changing demographic patterns. This is illustrated by the demographic changes in southwest Little Rock. Even though the schools there are basically area schools, if the students tn those schools have exceptional needs, the District should plan on meeting those needs. By the same token, if demographic changes result tn the need for a new school in a new area, the school should be built and should have an attendance zone which insures that the students in that area will attend that school. Little Rock actually needs a new school on its far northwest border to serve the satellite zone for Forest Park and part of the Fulbright zone, as well as a school in the Wilson satellite zone to serve the major new subdivisions of Sandpiper West, Sandpiper Creek, Cherry Creek, Parkway Place, St. Thomas, St. Michael, and St. Charles. At the present time, these students, who are mostly white, are generally attending private schools. It is noteworthy and distressing that there are now more white students m Pulaski Academy than there are in Fulbright, Terry, McDermott, Forest Heights, and Hall, combined. Under the present desegregation plan, the Little Rock School District will not survive as a multi-racial district. In order to survive, the District must grow and must be operated in a way that instills public confidence. Up to this point, the three of you have not accomplished that goal. There is no room for blame and no time for mistrust. I believe that there is still a chance that we can marshall the community support necessary to construct two new schools and adequately fund theSHXTLTS, HAY \u0026amp; KUBHUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams October 6, 1995 Page 4 special needs we now have, but only if we work cooperatively in the next three months to agree upon the major building blocks. If the three of you will graciously, publicly, earnestly, and optimistically cooperate, there is reason to believe the District can survive. Each of you will be required to compromise. We do not know that success can be attained, but we can clearly see that our current efforts are insufficient and are leading to results which are unacceptable for our students and our community. I am willing to try to help each of you. Despite what you may hear, there is a great deal of community support for an integrated public school system which delivers quality education to its students. I would propose that the District draft a short ten-point revision to the existing desegregation plan, based upon input from each of you. You should get together and compromise the differences which may exist, and then propose the plan by joint motion to the court. In this way, you will not only enhance the educational opportunities of the students who are involved, you would also demonstrate to the community a real commitment to cooperation and success. This alone will greatly enhance the possibility of a successful future for the District. We should then draw plans for the new schools, organize a millage campaign for next September, and then pull together and pass it. Sincerely, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb cc: Mr. Jim Hathaway Dr. Russ Mayo Mr. R. B. McDonough, Jr. Mr. H. Maurice Mitchell Mr. Gerald Osterman Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John Riggs Mr. Winthrop P. Rockefeller Mr. John SteuriLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM 11 To\n?1 Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ocr / .J 1995 From: V, Russ Mayo,*Associate Superintendent 0lfiC3 of ^oni iCf Date: October 13,1995 / '9 Subject\nMeasurement of Achievement Disparity The Office of Desegregation Monitoring released, June 21, 1995, a status report on achievement disparity. The report concluded that ODM does not assert that only one method of comparison is possible or that one is innately better than another. We appreciate recognition of this by ODM. To keep you informed, we are working with the Arkansas Department of Education in determining an acceptable method of comparing test data. Any information that you feel would be beneficial in our study will be appreciated. RM:dk C: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Ed Jackson, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation tMVAUXK\nW'' |^ f? i- z I\n'.' P R f n A Y , F. T. n R C ! TV\n. {, I A. ft' A I^AFfTrtftFgri\n?* cr '. 4- X '\nu- At? s' 'ii! 3 ? t C . hu-- Iff . \" \u0026lt;K JAW\n!t  ( i-'t''.*'-'  -1. *f 01- k. r.i. ! c \u0026gt; ('1i'Pt .'icf\n.) ytT. OsC t.h K 0  i', A i\u0026lt; tc is, 5:  L A S ^., ThCMo LUd? f r : . * A J\u0026amp;H*. L'tWtV W(. :\u0026lt;-.*(. r.\n.. n I./-\n^ - \ni  1 F*u* -J 5 * Cf' * A * ?- . 5 0 1 : /  2  * S-- i-C t * \u0026lt;.T- Iv. StAs  . c ' IK IH A I k \\ A rtc^cr- t m a /. hJf. '..ffrt r 'I T r-\" '. 7-2 viK e i A  i 3X*3 1-N ^Al\n7 1.'' A L  ' U * (* .? ,*. J ftTrtEJf i.i ' ,1. pic\n,!.-\n' ,1 * .V\nV y */ I: ii V J  Ji. .('\\ftfi tE T* Vi f.. ?l' A .'\u0026lt; a/I .^ . y . :\u0026gt; tA ' s '  ' ,  f. Oct oer i.-A*O A 0  '*11.* 71\n vrur .1. ms*-\n '\u0026gt; v- f\u0026gt;.'.i.. /'.V  0.XI rf- r \u0026gt;( L T Vfe A iSaAi'V \u0026gt;. -i: I : 'll sk'1C ? r*s '\u0026lt;\u0026lt; 'I* . A. '.A. 'J 11 ii, f d J t 'f J \ndO\nj c A J \u0026gt;{.'. 1'^ Ct. f f. 't 0. \u0026gt;1?,. R.  'i'iOMV . t S '* 'j si N ',o.'0''Cif urn  iihi.,.\n,' ,7.':*. h 1 4i^,\n*OMV 'iV ''k.6i3 X r.-As V , ,'(' 'i: Ki'. Mi7A)Z**a ui rciVi - K ^  V 4 sf. i.75 w SMcf i  1- U 'i i\u0026gt; W . I' i '  N c {  's\n, AOMii .\u0026gt; A /i I r\nA, .) fiiJ.''- \u0026lt; # . frC f H^nry p. is Reck Wil li-.Siins School Distr.ict t nt.'irkhara Aft 7 2201 :j'e.^r.incf - S3.tvrday, Hercher i you last\nwesx o i. JiOj ou+:  ther the hear i.ng achem Id ie'j notify you as scon O,\" ' : cihs purpesa - J- .r 'is': GOS - ci corLt\n. John .'he iie.'?rJ. \u0026gt; c^^nt.r'act. wil^ GG the I ,nsve -iLtfit thy i/ u X fs^.sr S Saturday, pooling niGt\ni o.n ?.e\nTned that lier^/ics JiisEter conttart. .ss c?\u0026lt;?tcbisr 3S hearing Qr- tor rstgardlng the. the s'i,tto\n5 iac of (J'S. n ths agreejsciTC and W i th you soon ii brsnrtl* the diifs Jsr.rv Kai.tr\ntisc?.- ! I ISCUSS fo^ .13 He w i i i hiBir inu. Your V  Chri tc^iisr' t id'll i\nSP flT o\u0026lt;S /f rFRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1 994I ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EtSEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OP INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILOING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 October 26, 1995 KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDETAB'TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES QSCHWENO, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. PENDLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY (Hand-Delivered) OCT \u0026gt; if 1995 Oifice Ct Dasegr iiu!) COUHSCL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P.A. WfllTCR'S DINeCT NO. (501) 370-1553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: LRSD/Various Labor Issues Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for our telephone conversation on Thursday, October 26, 1995. We have discussed various labor matters over the past several weeks involving persons represented by your office. This letter is to outline the recommendations I will make to the Little Rock School District on resolving most of these matters. Please understand that it appears that these recommendations will be accepted by the District, but final numbers must be obtained prior to me receiving final authority, where indicated. Ms. Betty Forbes, in return for the execution of a release agreement to be drafted by me, will remain in her current position at the same salary she received in her previous assignment in the superintendent's office. as long as she remains in this position. There would be no reduction in her salary Should she voluntarily change positions, her salary would be computed in accordance with District policies and procedures on such voluntary transfers. Should she be circumstances transferred involuntarily, the nature dictating such involuntary transfer of and District's practices, polices and procedures will apply. the the Ms. diu\\pcud\\waiker.lt6Mr. John W. Walker October 26, 1995 Page 2 Forbes will receive any raises she would have otherwise received in her prior position and her personnel file would not reflect any negative conduct or performance as it relates to the transfer from the prior position to the current position. Mr. Don Phillips and Ms. Debra Hamilton will be compensated the difference in pay (for the 1995-96 school year only) in the compensation they would have received had they remained employees of the LRSD when compared to the compensation received as employees of Laidlaw Transit. Please recall that the calculations on these amounts have not yet become final and the final authority to agree to this resolution can only be granted after those computations have been received and considered. in The District takes the position that Mr. Christopher Watson is different position from Mr. Phillips and Ms. Hamilton. Further, it is our information that Mr. Watson did not suffer any difference in pay from moving from the LRSD to Laidlaw. I have talked to Ms. Joy Springer regarding this matter as well as the others to be discussed herein on several occasions, whether ray information is correct. I will verify Ms. Debbie Jackson was formerly employed in the Information Services Department of the District. She was involuntarily transferred to the Purchasing Department at the same pay and benefits. It is my understanding that she voluntarily accepted another position with lower pay at McClellan High School. Under the circumstances, any loss in compensation is the result of her own actions. However, Joy and I did discuss the possibility of Ms. Jackson going back to Purchasing at the same pay as she had received in Information Services. I will check to determine whether the position is still open and whether she can be given a definite job description and job title. If so, it would be my recommendation to the District that she be allowed to return to that position. Ms. Zola Tyiska was reassigned by Brady Gadberry to her position at Forest Heights Junior High School. However, subsequent to the reassignment, Ms. Tyiska submitted a letter of resignation due to an illness, now become moot. Accordingly, it appears that this matter has Mr. Ernest Mason, a custodian in the District, has requested a head custodian position. that his health has played However, it is my current understanding consistently opening schools a on role time in preventing him as head custodians from are a dttna\\pcud\\wBlker.lt6Mr. John W. Walker October 26, 1995 Page 3 required to do. Accordingly, there are currently no head custodian positions available in the District which would not entail the duty to open schools on a consistent and regular basis. It is also mv understanding that the nature of his illness would likewise prevent him from timely notifying others when he would be the school himself. It is also my - - - - unable to open . , It will be my recommendation to the District that we continue seeking an appropriate position for Mr. should an appropriate position come available, Mr' assigned to it. ' ' - Mason and, come available, Mr. Mason be Notwithstanding this recommendation, I must advise are continued concerns recardina Mr. Mason's you that there are, continued concerns regarding Mr. Mason's Accordingly, my recommendation would not constitute waiver of any steps or actions the District must take, should his absentee circumstances war-rAnt such. absenteeism. a if any, Please consider the recommendations notify me should you have any concerns. I am making herein and _ - - Otherwise, I will attempt to move forward and obtain final authority from the District resolve the matters as I have outlined herein to Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. JLM/dtw cc: Mr. Brady Gadberry diam\\pa*d\\w*lkar. 116 Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD AttorneyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 29, 1995 Ms. Stephanie Johnson 8701 Interstate 30 Apt. 206 Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Stephanie: 1 should have written this letter to you right after the election. Please forgive me for being slow to tell you how much I will miss you as a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Education. Although your tenure on the board was brief, it was nonetheless very significant. You displayed a quick grasp of the issues and a sincere, steadfast concern for the welfare of the children, parents, and employees of the district. You stepped in during a difficult time in the districts history, but you did not flinch when making touch decisions nor did you waver when taking a stand for your convictions. As both the desegregation monitor and a fellow citizen, 1 greatly appreciate the service you gave to our community as a board member. Although this phase of your public service is over for now, 1 know youll continue to serve in other roles because your heart is ftill of love and you will always care for others. Thank you for all youve done to make our town a better place for all of us. Your have my sincere best wishes for every success. Please dont ever hesitate to call on me whenever 1 can be of any help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. ' ! . 'f 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 i October 30, 1995 Dr. Russ Mayo Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Russ: Tliank you for your October 13, 1995 memo regarding measurement of achievement disparity. I appreciate hearing from you, but Im concerned about certain aspects of the memo and want to clear up some apparent misunderstandings. According to your memo, which refers to an ODM report on achievement disparity dated June 21, 1995, \"The report concluded that ODM does not assert that only one method of comparison is possible or that one is innately better than another.\" Although 1 think 1 understand the purpose of your correspondence, 1 must point out that the sentence which we wrote out has been taken out of context and also misapplied in your memo. First, the statement to which you referred is not a report conclusion. The sentence appears not in our Summary and Conclusions section, but rather in an introduction subsection entitled \"Report Purpose and Scope.\" Rather than representing a conclusion, the sentence is merely an expository statement to which the previous sentences in the same paragraph are antecedent. Secondly, we wrote the sentence as part of our explanation of how we presented information in the report. The comment addressed one specific test (the SAT 8), a certain time period, and the particular way in which we chose to present the test data in that report. We were pointing out that the SAT 8 data can be disaggregated and compared in a variety of ways and in various combinations, such as by grade level, subtest category, or complete battery. We were acknowledging that the way in which we presented our SAT 8 analysis was not the only possible way to do so, nor did we assert that our way was superior to other ways in which SAT 8 data might be presented. Also, according to your memo, you were keeping me informed by relating that youre working with ADE to determine an acceptable method of comparing test data. Gene Wilhoit told me many months back that the meetings on the topic of testing were initiated by the LRSD over a year agoPage Two October 30, 1995 and have focused on far more than simply comparative methodology. The discussions obviously have been sparked by the districts concern that it will very soon face the obligation to begin repaying millions of dollars in loan money if it should fail to remediate the achievement disparity between the races, as set forth in the settlement agreement. The parties are certainly free to discuss all aspects of measuring achievement disparity. As a matter of fact, our report points out that standardized testing is only one of several ways by which student achievement can be evaluated. Nevertheless, the settlement agreement is clear as to the method by which the parties agreed to measure student achievement. Until such time as the parties might propose and the Court might approve a change in that provision, the terms of the settlement-and the standard for measuring the disparity gap-are binding. Although 1 have no objection whatsoever to the parties weighing the various means by which to gauge student progress, 1 believe the parties would be wise to heed the closing paragraphs of our recent report on achievement disparity, and to concentrate their efforts and resources accordingly: Regardless of how academic progress is measured, if students are not making the academic headway our community requires of them, and the desegregation plans promised, then the districts are obligated to find out why and to alter their programs and approaches as necessary. .. (Tlhey must pay particular attention to assessing the links between programs, process, and results. To determine whether and how to change strategies for closing the achievement gap, the parties must thoroughly evaluate program and service concepts, the scope, quality, and consistency of implementation in all schools, and the extent to which the results represent steady progress toward the goals. Without such analysis, it will be impossible for the parties to make well-informed decisions that keep the faith and boost all children toward success. Conclusions, page 29.) (ODM Report on Achievement Disparity, Summary and Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Hank Williams Ed Jackson 3CC. Zz/dD-vOffice 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) 3710100 Date: November 8, 1995 To: From: Subject: Bobby Lester, James Smith, Hank Williams I ,1 Brown ODM 1995-96 Monitoring Priorities and Procedures My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1995-96 school year, which are listed on the enclosure. As is our custom, we identified our monitoring emphasis by reviewing the desegregation plans and mandates from both the circuit and district courts. We also noted court orders and directives issued during hearings that require ODM to review certain desegregation activities or to scrutinize specific provisions of the plans or court orders. It is possible that some of the attached topics will change depending upon unforeseen events that may develop, such as new court orders. Some of our monitoring will be in the nature of a foUow-up on previous reports, such as those on the alternative schools, racial balance in school enrollment, and the LRSD incentive schools. A few of the topics we will address appeared on our monitoring list for the last school year, but we are not initiating them until this year, such as the specialty programs in the PCSSD and the secondary LRSD schools with magnet programs. At the conclusion of each monitoring project, we will summarize our findings to the Court in some type of written report. Some of our reports will be brief and limited in scope, such as double fimding of the incentive schools\nothers, such as that on the secondary interdistrict schools, will be more comprehensive and, therefore, lengthier. You can expect our monitoring procedures to remain essentially unchanged front previous years, continuing to include review of records and other written information, interviews with principals and other administrators, and visits to schools. Our observations will be guided by a written monitoring guide, the same type of instrument we've used in the past. As usual, we will review the guide with your staff before beginning formal monitoring so you'll know what we are looking for.November 8, 1995 As our monitoring timetable develops, we will notify you so you can plan accordingly. We are trying to establish a schedule that avoids dates which would conflict with the schedule of other monitoring groups, such as the Biracial Committees. As you're aware, some of our monitoring guides include charts that reflect various data, such as school enrollment and staffing. Because ODM monitors gather this data from the annual school profiles, rather than asking school staff to fill out forms or charts, please send the 1995-96 nmfiles QU all schools to QDM by November 22. 1995 if you have not yet forwarded that information to my office. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. We're looking forward to being in your schools during the year ahead. cc: Bobby Acklin Bill Bowles Russ Mayo Counsel of Record1995-96 ODM Monitoring Priorities  Radal balance in student enrollment within individual schools  Staffing patterns and staff recruitment for racial balance among administrators, non\u0026lt;ertified personnel, and secondary teachers  Academic achievement and closing disparity in achievement between the races  The alternative learning centers in the three districts  Recruitment for the four-year-old program to promote desegregation  Facilities, with emphasis on schools having an enrollment outside the racial balance guidelines  M-to-M transfers of special education students among the three school districts  Finance: assuring that settlement money use is consistent with the desegregation plans and court orders\ndetermining that the districts exercise fiscal responsibility such that they can fulfill their plan obligations\nwhether money is being wasted  Incentive schools, with emphasis on facilities, theme implementation, programs and those aspects of the schools that previously have been dted as needing improvement  Staffing in the incentive schools to determine the extent of racial balance within employee categories  Double funding of e incentive schools  The extended year program for incentive schools during the summer of 1995  Secondary schools with magnet programs: Henderson, Dunbar, Central, and McQellan secondary schools in the LRSD  Specialty programs in the PCSSD at Mills and Sylvan Hills High Schools, Fuller Junior High, and Fuller, Landmark, Bates, and College Station Elementaries and racial integration within those schools  Multicultural education in the PCSSD1995-96 ODM Monitoring Priorities  Racial balance in student enrollment within individual schools  Staffing patterns and staff recruitment for racial balance among administrators, non-certified personnel, and secondary teachers  Academic achievement and dosing disparity in achievement between the races  The alternative learning centers in the three districts  Recruitment for the four-year-old program to promote desegregation  Facilities, with emphasis on schools having an enrollment outside the radal balance guidelines  M-to-M transfers of special education students among the three school districts  Finance: assuring that settlement money use is consistent with the desegregation plans and court orders\ndetermining that the districts exercise fiscal responsibility such that they can fulfill their plan obligations\nwhether money is being wasted  Incentive schools, with emphasis on facilities, theme implementation, programs and those aspects of the schools that previously have been dted as needing improvement  Staffing in the incentive schools to determine the extent of racial balance within employee categories  Double funding of e incentive schools  The extended year program for incentive schools during the summer of 1995  Secondaiy schools with magnet programs: Henderson, Dunbar, Central, and McQellan secondary schools in the LRSD  Specialty programs in e PCSSD at Mills and Sylvan Hills High Schools, Fuller Junior High, and Fuller, Landmark, Bates, and College Station Elementaries and racial integration within those schools  Multicultural education in the PCSSDef i^-. \u0026gt;\u0026gt;: -r--' \n J- 1 fV ' c -''PH BttEf r 'oLn-' ANT , SEfty ICES { 12:05 No.003 P.02 i I TEL : 501- 0-4027 Nov 08,9 Little Rock School District November 8, 1995 Mb. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Ms. Brown: I 72201 The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has requested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Planning Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together Implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education, Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 the office of Student Assignments. a.in., November 9, 1995, in 1 apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as * - - to you. a result of that meeting will be forwarded Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. sincerely yours, I h ug:i^s C. Eaton RECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invito 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 73801  (501 \u0026gt;884-8000 \"f i I \u0026lt; - n '7. I 1I t I ! II I  -J 'i i   4111  ff TTIM r- I-  if I'- I.. I in?.  f[ i. 3 NCV- I- SUSAN W.BRIGHT District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: FAX fiO. 5013246576. Novemter 4,1995 c, . 0 -^:  Oi: '^r Per our phone conversation Friday, October 27,1 appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding how John Walker is handling various issues that involve the Little Rock School Di,strict. As an involved parent of children in the school district, I have ..  grown weary of xMr Walker's arguing for arguments'sake instead of truly protecting the interests of the children and parents whom he claims to be representing. 1 realize that you have a ven- dtflicult job tn overseeing the desegregation proces.s in the LRSD and am grateful that you take into consideration parent opinion when making decisions that affect all of die children in the district. I ioofc forward to corresponding with you about other LRSD matters in the future. Sincerely, Laura Doramus i v 4 I? ' 'f- 't'it .'S 'FAv Q\u0026gt;rc/\\u\u0026gt;^ A S'** 4\n.fi' r  :\nb\nV J  U'lU'^  I X .y * ---------- y '  ' Tor :resT' LETLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation RSQ'Pn h 2 2 1995 ^1 lii(j/lnj MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 1995 To: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Subject: h'krtrj } 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report c ' I iec - Tfsty Please find enclosed your personal copy of the 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report. Also enclosed are copies for distribution to the Board members. If I can be of further assistance, please call me. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Joshua Intervenors John Walker, Attorney /^Office of Desegregation MonitoringA JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHD^TON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 RECEIVED NOV 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Monaoruia November 21, 1995 Delivered Via Facsimile 501-324-2281 Dr. Russell Mayo Student Assignment Center Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Mayo\nWould you please share with me the District's policy which authorizes you to charge $.50 a copy for copies made under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Sincerely, /John W. Walker y JWH: krd cc\nAnn BrownFRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H, FRIDAY (1922-1994) ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 November 21, 1995 RECEIVED KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. CLYDE\"TAB* TURNER, P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H, TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY,JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY NOV 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation wioniioring COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (50n 370-1553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street 72206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL Sc STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol Sc Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the LRSD's 1995-96 First Quarter Status Report which was filed with the Court on Tuesday, November 21, 1995. I'n By agreement, three copies of the above documents are being delivered to Mrs. Brown and two copies are being delivered to Mr. Walker. diaiH\\pcss\u0026lt;I\\filing4.ltrGentlemen and Mrs. Brown November 21, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM/dtw Enclosures cc (w/enc): Dr. Henry P. Williams Dr. Russ Mayo Dr. Ed Jackson diana\\pcssd\\filing-4.)U'FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION district court eastern district ARKANSAS KOV 2 f MS JAMES VJ. McCORMACK, CLERK By\n__________ DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVFO DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV ? 1 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS VS . LRSDs 1995-96 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Status Report for the first quarter of the 1995-96 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Volumes I and II) is a true and accurate copy of the District's First Quarter Status Report of Desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's First Quarter Status Report of Non-desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Desegregation and Non-desegregation Status Reports for the first dianaXpcssdisuius. 1st -1-quarter of the 1995-96 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT erry L. Malorie Bar I. D. No. 85096 diana\\pcs5d\\sanis. 1st -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's First Quarter Status Report for the 1995-96 school year has been hand-delivered on November , 1995, upon the following\nMr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets 2^' diana\\pcssd\\satus. Isi Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street _____ Little Rock, AR 722 ry L. Malone -3- ^6^ A a 6\u0026lt;r f\\loy* Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court \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_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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["66 pages"],"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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_341","title":"Correspondence","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":["1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"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/341"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":["97 pages"],"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-zZ, \u0026gt;1,//-/.,,) EIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET JUL t 1 1993 TO: FROM: SUB J: DATE: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 72204 Offics n. :g3\nicn '3 Ms. Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent, LRSD Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Douglas C. Eaton, Director, Plant Services Attached After Action Report - Site Selection Process for Stephens Elementary School June 25, 1993 I am forwarding to you a copy of an informal After Action Report that I wrote concerning the Site Selection Process for Stephens Elementary School. As stated in my After Action Report, I am, of course, disappointed that the site that we recommended was not selected, but fully understand that this school must tie in to our desegregation efforts. I express to you my disappointment for a ninety-day delay in selecting a new site, or another site, to be presented to the Court. The delay of the Stephens Elementary School for the sole fact that all parties could not agree 100% on the site serves no purpose whatsoever in furthering desegregation within the Little Rock School District. Our Motion to the Court closely paralleled the concerns of the Pulaski County Special School District in tying together recruitment on the part of the Pulaski County Special School District and the inter-district school concept. Pulaski County's inabilities to successfully recruit to Romine Elementary School, their concern and apparent difficulty in recruiting to King Elementary School, and their stated further concerns about having to recruit to a third inter-district school should have been sufficient evidence for the parties to realize that we should not continue with a third inter-district school in the inner city for which recruitment strategies have evaluated, or appraised. not been clearly defined. I know that the matters expressed here are not directly related to my responsibilities to the District as a Director for Plant Services and Engineering  but when I assumed the responsibility, for what it's worth, to assist in long-range planning, it brought into light matters for which I am concerned. I don't know what procedure or policies will be followed by the It parties It finding a new site, but as long as the misconception persists that the exact siting of that school is the sole factorPage Two Continued that leads to desegregation difficult time in success, we are selling our education programs. going to have a There are countless examples where site is not the determining factor, but that the education process is. I refuse to believe that Mann is a successful junior high because it is built next to an interstate in an industrial area. We must give credit to the academic program. If we don't, then how do we explain Carver Elementary or Williams Elementary? I feel that the County is running scared because they have no program from which to recruit, they've never been forced to provide a program to recruit, and now, when they may be held to task and there will be three (3) schools laid out in front of them and the Court to which they must recruit white children. other hand, On the our success in recruiting black children to County inter-district schools is a matter of record with regard to Crystal Hill. Whatever procedures we followed, I am sure we will follow again for the new elementary school. I don't know if my concerns will ever be surfaced officially, such that those that are making decisions will take these comments in the context in which they are offered. But anyway, I wrote this After Action Report to forward to you, and as may be noted below, I have forwarded a copy to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for information purposes only. DCE/rlh/mpch Info, cc: Ann Brown, Chairman, Office of Desegregation MonitoringMEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUB J: DATE: Stephens Site Selection Committee After Action Report June 25, 1993 I am writing this as a follow-up after the Court appearance on 24 June regarding the Stephens site selection process. It is unfortunate in a way that the Federal Court has extended the construction of the Stephens School after such a tremendously diligent effort was exerted to find the best possible site for this school. However, I understand that the construction of this school must lead to, and assist, the Desegregation Plan if it is to be successful. With regard to the site selection process, I feel that the process used by the Little Rock School District, even though I was a major part in drafting the plan, was as fair and as unbiased a procedure as could be, and allowed the greatest opportunity for input from all parties in the final recommendation. To clarify unasked questions, but possible concerns on the part of the Federal Judge, I must commit to writing that the selection and nomination of members by name to the Site Selection Committee was done by the various parties. When the Strategic Plan was drafted, there were nine (9) parties which would comprise the Site Selection Committee, each party having one (1) vote. When one looks at the number of persons on the Committee, when it was first formed, you will notice a large number of persons assigned from the Little Rock School District. It was made known to all members of the Committee that their presence was not as a voting member, but to provide technical assistance and answers to any Committee Member regarding the multiplicity of operations in the Little Rock School District. Those members included representatives from operations, curriculum. communications, desegregation and school administration. It was made clear to all parties up front that each organization as represented from the original nine (9) had one (1) vote. The Little Rock School District had two (2) official representatives\nmyself as Technical Advisor, and Ms. Marie Parker, as the Little Rock School District Representative. V,__1 ________ '1 , ___ -- mine was to be as objective a teclinical different reasons We each got one (1) vote for evaluation as I can render based on my construction and planning background, and Ms. Parker's was to be with the consult of the Little Rock School District Administration as the School District's vote as to the site selection. As the process advanced, certain parties refused to participate, most notable were the Joshua Intervenors. After repeatedly being notified of the meetings, telephonically and in writing, they failed to participate in any way in the selection process. The final vote that was taken on 23 February was taken by those persons that actually visited the sites and cast votes. It is unfortunate that all parties were not represented, nor did all parties vote.Page 2 Continued In the final vote, the Pulaski County School District did not submit recommended site locations. Additionally, in the final vote, the Joshua Intervenors (who had not attended any meetings) failed to vote on any of the prescribed sites. Needless to say, those two (2) critical, missing votes could have very easily changed the final recommendation to the Board of Education and the critical. Court with regard to the site. I blame myself for failing to consider party apathy with regard to siting this school. Although it was clear and evident that certain members of the Site Selection Committee were predisposed, preferred sites before all were evaluated, the process had to or continue as objectively as possible, and without outside influence. If I am involved again the site selection process, I will have no other course of action but to follow the procedures established during the first process. that 1 and equitable, and to I believe these to be fair include the widest range of concerns. aspects, and points which must be considered in the location of such a vital element in today's community. DCE/rlh/aare/e^. Attn. Ann A Brown JUL 2 1993 Little Rock School District Desegregation Office O.*\no Dei i'ega^on Mcni 201 E. Markham Heritage West Building Suite 510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am writing this correspondence in behalf of the Chicot Elementary P.T.A. (representing staff and parents) We have monitored capital needs to our school for the past few years. We have tried to the best of our ability to maintain the upkeep of our facility. However it is impossible to prevent the wear and tear on certain items when serving a large number of pupils daily. Our carpet throughout the school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance on a special project of work toward recarpeting on our entire building. We appreciate the financial commitment you have given us throughout the years. Please let us know at what capacity you can help us. We will be eagerly awaiting your ponse. ir.cerely. Tina Gatson Chicot Elementary PTA Chairman d.o.Q-^r OOa/I Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 6, 1993 To: Mark Milhollen, Controller Little Rock School District Froin:/^^-^olly Ramer Throi nn Brown Subject: June Payroll Reimbursement Enclosed you will find check number 584 in the amount of $4439654, payroll reimbursement for the month of June. The breakdown follows: $40359.86 3,08756 949.12 Salaries Social Seciuity Insurance $4439654 Total12 F: Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 6, 1993 To: Mark Milhollen, Controller Little Rock School District Fromt/^^-^Polly Ramer Throi nn Brown Subject: June Payroll Reimbursement Enclosed you will find check number 584 in the amount of $4439654, payroll reimbursement for the month of June. The breakdown follows: $40359.86 3,08756 949.12 Salaries Social Security Insurance $4439654 Total \u0026amp; '! Little Rock School District * July 12, 1993 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 1st Commercial Bank, Suite 2000 Capitol and Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1993 0ffic3 of Desegregation Mciiitoring I am sending this as an interim status report to keep you abreast of our progress with regard to the Junior High Capacity Study. As you know, the Little Rock School District's Capacity Study was submitted in September of 1992, and a subsequent request made by the Court to expand on issues identified in the Study in particular, the effect of M to M Transfers and programmatic needs\nand. to add points of consideration regarding capacities and projections in both the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. As of this consisting of date. myself\nI have put together a Capacity Committee Ms. Marie Parker, Office of Student Assignments\nMr. Ed Hogan\nand, Mr. Billy Boles from Pulaski County School District\nMr. Jerry Massey\nand, Ms. Mabel Bynum from North Little Rock. Our Committee has met three (3) times. Our first Committee Meeting was to lay down the basics of understanding with regard to how we interpreted the May Court Order with regard to the desires of the Court in the Capacity Study. Questions were raised as to whether or not the Capacity Study had implications with regard to North Little Rock and Pulaski County, and what those implications would- be. For our second meeting. we invited members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring who brought together the thoughts of the Court with regard to how the Capacity Study should cross district lines to show inter-relationship and dependency on schools in order to support the desegregation effort. For our third meeting, at Pulaski County, we invited members of North Little Rock and Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors failed to attend. During that meeting, we discussed the 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SODST-t-sdei Page Two Continued We arrived at the fact that be, methodology of calculating capacity. capacity is not calculated the same through all Districts, nor need be. It was explained that the method of calculation of capacity by the District need only be used by that District, and be explainable within the context of the Capacity Study. There is no requirement for capacity to be computed identically, as long as a parallel can be drawn between capacity and projections among the Districts. Our next meeting is scheduled for 15 July. At that meeting, both North Little Rock and Pulaski County are to have their narratives complete, explaining the methodology of calculations, their projections, at least through the year 2000, a chart aligning their projections with the capacities, and a summary as to their plans to either increase junior highs, or to retain the status quo. their information, and that which I submitted in September, w wxxi put together a .final summary specifically addressing the areas of interdependency at the junior high level of the schools to support the desegregation effort. explaining the methodology of From we will I will keep you abreast of our progress once that meeting has been completed and, hopefully, we should have a Court submission within the next sixty (60) days. Sincerely, Ddu s C. Eaton RECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/ch cc: Ms. Ann Brown., Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Estelle Mathis, Acting Superintendent Mr. Ed Hogan, Pulaski County Special School District Mr. Jerry Massey, North Little Rock School DistrictS -f'-  To: From: Re: Date: Judge Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 0**^ '753 \" n \u0026gt;.i JUL 2 2 1993 Mr. John Walker, Attorney Mr. Stephen Jones, Attorney Mr. Richard Rochelle, Attorney Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorne ,'ro Stephen Interdistrict School Site Selection Process July 21, 1993 Wright recessed the hearings in June regarding the site selection process. Our instructions were to conduct another process whereby the parties, parents from the current Stephens area, parents from the Pulaski County School District and administrators from all school districts could be involved to see whether a consensus could be reached on a site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The Board of Directors of the LRSD has met to discuss this process and has instructed me to communicate with you to ensure that full participation is achieved. The timeframe is short, therefore, we must start immediately. Please recall that the court has already scheduled a hearing for September 30, 1993, should the parties not reach a consensus. The task of the committee to be discussed below is simple, committee must receive wide-input regarding proposed sites for the The school\nassess and evaluate each of the proposed sites\nand make a recommendation to the LRSD Board of Directors. Board will Thereafter, the LRSD have the opportunity to either accept the recommendation, reject or make appropriate modification. the opportunity to The LRSD has deterained that the committee should consist of nine (9) individuals evenly split among representatives of PCSSD, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Further, the committee should be composed of parents or patrons of the various districts who did not participate in the first site selection committee. The idea behind this criteria is that this committee should not be tainted with the determination reached by the prior committee. This is not to say that those persons who participated in the prior process should not be allowed to provide input and have appropriate involvement. Further, although the parties are free to select their own representatives as they see fit, it is strongly recommended that Attorneys July 21, 1993 Page 2 the PCSSD select parents from the target zones of recruitment and that the LRSD select at least two parents from the present Stephens School. John Riggs has agreed to serve as a non-voting chairperson of the His role will be to organize meetings, fcn_ili___ discussion and ensure that necessary resources are obtained. Mr. Billy Bowles of the PCSSD and Mr. Doug Eaton of the LRSD could committee. facilitate Mr. serve as consultants to the committee to answer questions relating to recruitment, facility construction or related areas within their fields of expertise. To allow the committee to complete its work, LRSD Board action and the a report to the court in time for the September 30 deadline, the committee must have its work completed and submitted to the LRSD Board in time for inclusion on a special agenda for a September 9 Board Meeting. Specifically, the order issued by Judge Wright on July 1, 1993, mandates that the parties must, in the event no consensus is reached, file their alternative proposals on a site no later than Wednesday, September 15, 1993. To accomplish its task under the scenario outlined above, it is suggested that the committee meet on at least three (and possibly four occasions). The tentative meeting dates and times are as follows: (1) Tuesday, July 27, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (2) Tuesday, August 10, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (3) Tuesday, August 24, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (4) Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. It is suggested that either the 10th committee could take or 24th of August, a tour of the suggested locations, meetings themselves would take place in the LRSD Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. the The At the initial meeting of the committee (July 27), the attorneys for all of the parties (LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, Joshua Intervenors and Knight Intervenors) would be requested to present the committee withan explanation, either in person or by written communication, stating the pui^ose of the interdistrict school and outlining the agreed upon criteria to be used to select a site for the school. The remaining time could be used to discuss the criteria and, P^lllriarily, possible sites. Time at the second meeting could also be devoted to further refinement of the criteria and further development of the list of sites. At the second or third meeting.Attorney July 21, 1993 Page 3 a field trip could also be taken to all of the possible locations identified. The final meeting should involve further discussion of sites, ranking of the various sites identified and a vote on the recommendation to be made to the LRSD Board. in the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate timely completion of our task. However, all parties and committee members are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase the likelihood that consensus will be reached. Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three working days of receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as outlined. Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993.  Sam Jones and Joy Springer.) (I have already spoken to Mr. Walker, By copy of this letter, I am notifying Mr. Sammy Mills and Mr. Foster Strong of our plans and request that they assist in securing two parents from the current Stephens School to the committee. I am also requesting that they stand ready to provide any and all assistance desired by the committee, there are others they feel should be a part of this process, I would request they provide notification to those persons. serve on If Thank each of you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, future. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near c: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Samuel Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Charles Johnson Mr. Frank Baugh Mrs. Ann Brown / Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred UrseryTo: From: Re: Date: Judge .\u0026lt; \u0026gt;. t J /\n/ / Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5! W -J \" J t' JUL 2 2 J993 Mr. John Walker, Attorney Mr. Stephen Jones, Attorney Mr. Richard Rochelle, Attorney Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorne Stephen Interdistrict School Site Selection Process July 21, 1993 Wright recessed the hearings in June regarding the site selection process. Our instructions were to conduct another process whereby the parties, parents from the current Stephens area. parents from the Pulaski County School District administrators from all school districts could be involved and to see whether a consensus could be reached on a site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The Board of Directors of the LRSD has met to discuss this process and has instructed me to communicate with you to ensure that full participation is achieved. The timeframe is short, therefore, we must start immediately. Please recall that the court has already scheduled a hearing for September 30, 1993, should the parties not reach a consensus. The task of the committee to be discussed below is simple, committee must receive wide-input regarding proposed sites for the The school\nassess and evaluate each of the proposed sites\nand make a recommendation to the LRSD Board of Directors. Board will Thereafter, the LRSD have the opportunity to either accept recommendation, reject or make appropriate modification. the The ^SD has determined that the committee should consist of nine (9) individuals evenly split among representatives of PCSSD, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Further, the committee should be composed of parents or patrons of the various districts who did not participate in the first site selection committee. The idea behind this criteria is that this committee should not be tainted with the determination reached by the prior committee. This is not to say that those persons who participated in the prior process should not be allowed to provide input and have appropriate involvement. Further, although the parties are free to select their own representatives as they see fit, it is strongly recommended that Attorneys July 21, 1993 Page 2 the PCSSD select parents from the target zones of recruitment and that the LRSD select at least two parents from the present Stephens School. John Riggs has agreed to serve as a non-voting chairperson of the His role will be to organize meetings, fa\u0026gt;_il' discussion and ensure that necessary resources are obtained. Billy Bowles of the PCSSD and Mr. Doug Eaton of the LRSD could committee. facilitate Mr. serve as consultants to the committee to answer questions relating to recruitment, facility construction or related areas within their fields of expertise. To allow the committee to complete its work, LRSD Board action and a report to the court in time for the September 30 deadline, the committee must have its work completed and submitted to the LRSD the Board in time for inclusion on a special agenda for a September 9 Board Specifically, the order issued by Judge Wright on July 1, 1993, mandates that the parties must, in the event no consensus is reached, file their alternative proposals on a site no later than Wednesday, September 15, 1993. Meeting. To accomplish its task under the scenario outlined above, it is suggested that the committee meet on at least three (and possibly four occasions). The tentative meeting dates and times are as follows: The tentative meeting dates and times (1) (2) (3) (4) Tuesday, July 27, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 10, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 24, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. It is suggested that either the 10th committee could take or 24 th of August, the a tour of the suggested locations, meetings themselves would take place in the LRSD Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. The At the initial meeting of the committee (July 27), the attorneys for all of the parties (LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, Joshua Intervenors and Knight Intervenors) would be requested to present the committee with an explanation, either in person or by written communication, stating the purpose of the interdistrict school and outlining the agreed upon criteria to be used to select a site for the school. The remaining time could be used to discuss the criteria and, preliminarily, possible sites. Time at the second meeting could also be devoted to further refinement of the criteria and further development of the list of sites. At the second or third meeting.Attorney July 21, 1993 Page 3 a field trip could also be taken to all of the possible locations identified. The final meeting should involve further discussion of sites, ranking of the various sites identified and a vote on the recommendation to be made to the LRSD Board. In the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate timely completion of our task. However, all parties and committee members are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase consensus will be reached. the likelihood that Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three working daysof receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will outlined. expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993. ' . . . Sam Jones and Joy Springer.) (I have already spoken to Mr. Walker, By copy of this letter. I am notifying Mr. Sammy Mills and Mr. Foster Strong of our plans and request that they assist in securing two parents from the current Stephens School to serve on the committee. I am also requesting that they stand ready to provide any and all assistance desired by the committee. there are others they feel should be a part of this process, I would request they provide notification to those persons. If Thank each of you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, future. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near c: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Joy Springer Billy Bowles Doug Eaton Samuel Mills Foster Strong Charles Johnson Frank Baugh Mrs. Ann Brown \u0026lt; Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery\u0026gt; Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 IF!?., ii D 1 11 2 3 1993 To: Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney From: Re: Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet School - Recruitment Date: July 21, 1993 This letter is written to you in your capacity as the attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District. The recruitment of white students from the PCSSD to the new King School is crucial to both districts. The obligations imposed on both parties under the interdistrict plan will, hopefully, enable us to be successful in that effort. I have been advised that the PCSSD is in the process of sending letters/brochures to the parents of the PCSSD. It is my understanding that those letters/brochures will only go to targeted parents. In consultation with representatives from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, it has been concluded that if the PCSSD mailing will be so limited, the PCSSD is not taking full advantage of the opportunity available to maximize the recruitment effort. Accordingly, this letter is written to encourage the PCSSD to consider sending those letters and brochures to the parents of all eligible white students in the PCSSD. This will probably only limit those attending Fuller Elementary School. Additionally, I have been advised that the principal at each elementary school in PCSSD make a referral to the next closest school when a student cannot be accepted in his/her closest school. By encouraging those principals to familiarize themselves with the offerings at the new King school, keeping sufficient brochures on hand and making referrals to that school when appropriate, it is believed that the PCSSD could significantly improve its current recruitment results.Mr. Sam Jones July 19, 1993 Page 2 The LRSD stands ready to play an appropriate role in this process. In fact, the LRSD has already scheduled activities and is well under way in its recruitment activities. your thoughts, comments or concerns. together to resolve any major stumbling blocks. Please let us know of Hopefully, we can work Please let me hear from you after you have had an opportunity to review this matter and discuss it with your client. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter. JLM:nr c: Mrs. Estelle Matthis / Mrs. Ann Brown Mrs. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Steve Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Rochelle Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery^SCBsVSD AUS 4 1993 Office of u ^'QuuGii Mcniic'ing LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: July 22, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Sterling Ingramy'Director Planning, Research^ and Evaluation Through: Estelle MatthisS Interim Superintendent Re: Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report As requested in the agenda meeting, I am providing a progress report relative to the Desegregation Plan Audit. I am available to answer your questions. bjgNashville Mailing Address P.O. Box 121114 Nashville. Tennessee 37212-1114 Telecopier (61S) 259-4668 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW *11 MUSIC CIRCLE SOUTH NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 37203 (615) 259-4664 July 27, 1993 RECEJVED Little Rock Office 3400 TC BY Tower 425 West CapHol Avenue Linie flock. Arkansas 72201-3472 (501)375-1122 Jerry L. Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUL 2 9 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring RE: Stephens' Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Dear Jerry: I am in receipt of your memorandum of July 21, 1993 regarding the new site selection process for the Stephens' Interdistrict School. In your memo, you indicate that the site selection team should be limited to representatives of the PCSSD, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. to the Stephens School, While the NLRSD will not be sending students it is a party to the litigation, settlement agreement and the District's respective plans. the As a result, the NLRSD is vitally interested in the ultimate success of the new Stephens School as an interdistrict magnet. While we will defer to the LRSD's decision as to who should serve on the Site Selection Committee, we do want the parties to be aware of the NLRSD's position. Without belaboring the obvious, the overriding purpose of LRSD interdistrict schools, including Stephens, is to attract white students to inner city Little Rock areas in order to create an integrated educational environment. Given this overriding goal, the NLRSD believes that the ability to recruit white students to the new Stephens School is of paramount importance and is. in effect. a consideration of other site selection factors. condition precedent to the This did not appear to be the case with respect to the previous site selection process. and we are pleased that a new effort is being made. the result will be a site the District is able to support. Hopefully, SWJ:tc cc: James Smith Christopher J. Heller, Ann Brown John W. Walker, Esq. Samuel Jones, Esq. Very truly yours. Stephen W. Jones Esq. Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 29 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring MEMORANDUM FAX 376-9442 U.S. MAIL To: Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney From: erry L. Malone, Attorney Re: Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Date: July 27, 1993 On Friday, July 16, 1993, I spoke to you by telephone and informed you of the meeting which would be held on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, regarding the site selection process. 1993, By a memo dated July 21, I informed you and the other interested parties of the proposed process and the planned meeting schedule. I have now received word that Billy Bowles might not be able to attend because of a conflict with the special budget meeting being held tonight. It is also my understanding that the parent repre- sentatives of the PCSSD may not be able to attend tonight's meeting either. In light of the above, I would request that the PCSSD provide written comments which can be reviewed by all of the persons who received a copy of my initial memo. By doing so, it is my hope that we can remain on schedule and be prepared to discuss those comments at the August 10 meeting. written comments are received the better. Accordingly, the earlier those Please keep in mind that the above is merely a suggestion. If you and your client have a better procedure whereby subsequent comment can be provided between now and the second meeting, please act accordingly. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.Mr. Sam Jones July 27, 1993 Page 2 c: Mr. John Walker Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Rochelle Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Sammy Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Charles Johnson Mr. Frank Baugh i/Mrs. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred UrseryTo: From: Re: Date: As per efrotStSr Little Rock School District Stephens School Site Selection Committee John Riggs, LRSD Board of Directors Site Selection Process July 28, 1993 the schedule of activities. RECBIV5D AUG 4 1993 OHice of Desegregation Monitoring the Stephens School Site Selection Committee met at the LRSD Administration Building on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, from 5:30 p.m. until 7 p.m. persons were in attendance: The following As 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. John Riggs, LRSD Board Member Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Ms. Melanie Gibson, LRSD Parent (Rockefeller Incentive School) Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Sam Jones, PCSSD Attorney Paul Evans, PCSSD Administrator Debbie Parker, Joshua Intervenors Charles Johnson, LRSD - Stephens School Ms. Connie Hickman, Office of Desegregation Monitoring evident. the Committee is not yet Accordingly, the representatives from LRSD, fully PCSSD, formulated, and Joshua Inteirvenors were strongly encouraged to identify and recruit additional parents to serve on the committee. each party Please recall that IS requested to have three parents serve committee to allow for a total of nine (9) voting members. on the Upon opening the meeting, I served as non-voting chair, provided an overview on how this committee came to be. prior committee\nthe selection submitted I made reference to the to the court\nthe objections raised by PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua Intervenors\nand the formation of the current committee. It was clearly explained that the intent was for this committee to have as much leeway as possible and not to be improperly influenced by the work and decision of the prior committee. encouraged to avoid the tendency to think in a \"box.\" All present were Rather, each should bring his/her \"wild\" ideas so all available opportunities can be fully explored. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Stephens School Site Committee July 28, 1993 Page 2 Sam Jones and Jerry Malone both provided their thoughts concerning the interdistrict school concept and purpose. Mr. Jones stated that it was his belief that the sole purpose for the interdistrict schools was to allow for one district to send, over a period of time, close to 50 percent of the students needed to populate the interdistrict school. As such, LRSD interdistrict schools would remain slightly majority black and PCSSD interdistrict schools would remain slightly majority white. Mr. Malone commented that the interdistrict schools were also intended to be constructed in such a way to reduce the busing burden imposed on LRSD black students\ncompensate those students providing high-quality facilities\nin incentive schools by and allow incentive school children to experience desegregated educational opportunities. It was also pointed out that the busing burden on black students is of great concern to the court. Additionally, since the incentive school are far from being integrated, interdistrict schools would, hopefully, allow more incentive school students to attend the interdistrict schools, thereby, creating room for recruitment in the incentive schools. It was suggested that the committee structure this selection process whereby consensus could be gained regarding which location held the most promise for recruiting PCSSD white students. Thereafter, a determination could be made regarding the perceived impact on the present Stephen's attendance zone students. vigorous objection was raised to such a format. However, In particular, it was noted that the introduction to the interdistrict desegregation plan states that it the physical movement of bodies. \"is insufficient to establish as a single goal 11 It was also pointed out that location was not the only factor to consider when addressing recruitment strategies. highlighted as examples. Washington Magnet and Carver Magnet were The committee was also advised that the court had made very positive comments regarding the process used by the prior committee. That process took all of the critical factors into account by ranking them equally. That process took all of the critical factors A brief discussion was had regarding a vacant lot near 1-30 and Roosevelt Road (across from Mann Junior High). The PCSSD expressed its position that it would be easy to recruit to a school located at that site. However, it was pointed out that the Interdistrict Plan recognizes that both PCSSD and LRSD must engage in \"early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts.\" \"Easy\" recruitment II Easy II can not be the sole consideration, since both Carver and Washington serve as examples that people will come when the right packages are put in place. Ms. Gibson, thereafter, commented that vigorous recruitment and advertising would be of tremendous benefit in attracting parents toStephens Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Page 3 the school. She further noted that the \"magnet\" designation is an important draw for most parents. with quality programming, The term has become synonymous recruitment process. a very important variable in the She equated this with the quality programs available at Rockefeller Incentive School which served to recruit and retain families in the District. When asked what was the most important reason for her to remain after discovery of the school and its programs, Ms. Gibson responded that it was \"the attention given to my son.\" In other words, the staff/personnel at the school play the critical role in providing the type of environment (or package) parents are seeking. Since the interdistrict schools. like incentive schools. are to have quality programs and dedicated staff, it was suggested that marketing/recruitment would be the primary consideration once the programs and staff are put in place, becomes a secondary consideration. At that point, location Some mention was made of possible sites west of University Avenue. It was pointed out that this would bring another factor into play. Namely, there has been concern regarding the lack of adequate capacity for those black students living east of University Avenue. To build additional capacity west of University could exacerbate this concern. Prior to adjourning, those present were encouraged to consider possible sites to visit and to remember the need to fully compose the committee. As per the request, attached hereto are copies of the attendance zone for the current Stephens School. The next meeting of the committee is set for August 10, 1993, at 5:30 p.m. in the LRSD Administration Building (the Board Room may not be available). Please make every effort to attend and provide all available information and input. Those who will not be able to attend are encouraged to provide written comments and submit suggestions prior to the meeting dates. Any such comments can be sent to me for distribution to the committee members. Thanks. Enclosure - Stephens Attenda: c: Distribution List e ZoneStephens Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Page 4 Distribution List Ms. Debbie Parks Ms. Melanie Gibson Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Charles Johnson Ms. Connie Hickman Tanner Mr. Paul L. Evans Mr. Jerry L. Malone Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Rochelle Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Sammy Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Frank Baugh \u0026gt;^Mrs. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 DATE\nTO\nFROM\nSUBJEC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM July 29, 1993 A k Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD WtA^ilala Daggett, Community Education :T:^- 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community Education 93-94 budget. As I explained over the phone, wo have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, I wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut progreuns if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalCopy filed - LRSD -Budgeting Process Report filed in library LRSD - Report FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H, SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK 5. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM IM. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 July 29, 1993 received KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDE TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M.GRAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. JUL 3 0 1993 COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WHITER'S DIRECT NO. Office of Desegregation Monitoring (501) 370-1 553 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 Re : Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al\nU.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the long-range planning program and budgeting document being submitted to the Court pursuant to its June 15, 1993 Order.I Mr. John Walker, Mr. Sam Jones, Mr. Steve Jones, Mr. Richard Roachell, Ms. Ann Brown July 29, 1993 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Jerry L. Malone JLM/lwg Enclosures cc: Ms. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterline Ingram Mr. Mark Milhollen Ms. Marie Parkert Mr. John Walker, Mr. Sam Jones, Mr. Steve Jones, Mr. Richard Roachell, Ms. Ann Brown July 29, 1993 Page 3 bcc: CJH FSU'B'J to\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nlittle rock SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM LITTI^'^OCK, ARKANSAS January 4, 1993 All Building principals and Department Mac Bernd, Super new policies find two intendent of a Lf k.f, . JAN 1 2 159,5 -i'rejaron ill j-r- Heads Schools C new policies Note also relating to that the the manner _ in Board will S?ch\"Je conduct an agenda revi committee Meeting onth (at 5 p.m. )  meeting will continue of each conduct is now eliminated. to be a-i-  P  m. on Please dispose these two insert - . .  of the policies new policies they replace. in your policy manual andEPS CODE: BDDB ADOPTED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDB  SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools. The method used by the Superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. Only items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in a regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is agreed to in compliance with Policy BDDEB (Suspension of the Rules of Order). The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Call to Order Roll Call Minutes Presentations A. B. C. D. Superintendent Citizens Committees Board Members Partnerships Remarks From Citizens Action Agenda Report Agenda Consent Agenda Audience with Individuals or Groups Student and/or Employee Disciplinary Recommendations Adj ournment Persons wishing to address the Board during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section of the agenda will be required to sign up and state the subject of their remarks prior to the convening of the meeting. The Board may vote to set time limitations or require representatives to speak for large groups whose interests are similar. Persons speaking about issues on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section. If additional time is required for or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address a single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the \"Audience with Individuals or Groups\" complete the pending agenda in a timely manner. section in order toEPS CODE: BDDC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADOPTED: 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDC PREPARATION OF SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools in the following manner: On the second Thursday of each month the Board of Directors will meet to review the agenda topics proposed by the Superintendent of Schools for that month's regular Board meeting on the fourth Thursday During the agenda review meeting Board members will have the opportunity to place items on the agenda and will decide whether items will be on the action agenda, report agenda, or consent agenda. At the conclusion of the agenda review meeting, the agenda will contain only those topics introduced by either the Superintendent or members of the Board of Directors. The Board will strive to keep its regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of each month\nhowever, for good cause, the Board may move any regularly scheduled date to another date agreed to by a majority vote of the Board. The Superintendent will have the agenda and the appropriate background materials printed and delivered to the Board members at least two days prior to the regular Board meeting.John w. walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 Si \u0026amp; FEB 2 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. * Also admitted to Practice in Georgia Si the District of Columbia. =1 mg February 1, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd: I would like to have the names, addresses, telephone numbers and race of all the members of the advisory committee on budget about which you spoke this afternoon. I would also like to have a copy of their minutes of each meeting held thus far along with their agenda and any reports they have made today. I would like to pick this information up by the end of business on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell /. . rOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brawn, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 3,1993 To: From: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District  Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor Subject: Crystal Hill Chronology Attached is a chronology of PCSSD building Crystal Hill Elementary. I thought it might be informative. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call. cc: Mac Bernd3/30/90 5/1/91 8/16/91 9/17/91 9/30/91 10/8/91 PCSSD CRYSTAL HILL SCHOOL MAJOR EVENT CHRONOLOGY Architects hired - Plans and specs developed May 1 revisions to plans - Biracial site selection committee formed Site selection made - Offer extended on property NLR Planning Commission recommends against site NLR City Board in special meeting approves site Board votes to issue second lien bonds for construction 11/21/91 Contractors bidding notified of time constraints and warned no customary \"act of god\" provision 12/5/91 Bids due in to PCSSD 12/9/91 Board reviewed bids - Voted to close by 12\\ 18 \u0026amp; let bid 12/18 12/18/92 Site purchase closed - Bids let for construction 1/16/92 Draft of letter on theme sent to committee 1/20/92 Committee meeting to discuss theme 2/04/92 Official public groundbreaking 2/13/92 Motion for magnet designation 2/17/92 Theme survey results compiled 2/18/92 Proposed attendance zones announced to parents at Oak Grove meeting 3/5/92 School 30 % complete - Bond sale in jeopardy because of bad credit - District court grants magnet designation 4/1/92 Principal for Crystal Hill hired 4/27/92 Asst principal hired 5/5/92 Successful millage election 5/7/92 Bonds successfully sold 5/14/92 Meeting of teachers for Crystal Hill 7/20/92 400 seats from Maumelle \u0026amp; Crystal Hill area filled 8/1/92 PCSSD assumes \"beneficial occupancy\" of buildingLittle Rock School District 7 4 S February 5, 1993 FEB 1 1 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham Suite 510 Office of Oessgr\nmg Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have appreciated your help and support as all of us work hard to improve the Little Rock School District. I also am concerned about carrying out the orders of the desegregation plan. Court with regard to Because of my concern about this issue, our I would sincerely appreciate your sending me the instrumentation which you will be using for future monitoring activities. I am making this request so that the District can better follow the desegregation plan and maintain its focus on this vitally important issue. I would certainly appreciate receipt of these instruments as soon as possible so we may use them in conjunction with our own compliance efforts. We have appreciated your past cooperation in this regard and apologize for any possible duplication, but we would like to have a complete set of past instruments as well complete file of all of these documents. we may have a Sincerely, so Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220L  (501)324-2000 T ij e Ma r 0 2 11:54 1 = P . -s e CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A FARTNEaSHn OF INDIVIDUALS AND FHOFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAFITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Tcltphone (501) 376-2011 Fk No, (501) 375-2147 Diicet No. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR, MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plais presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan, In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: \"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations.\" On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2ue Mar 11 :  -i 1 : Court alsonotified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher 4^i.^u*AVt Wi4b T vv*x*-* uiau 111U.5XV UCaVAlVl positionsn^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3Mar 02 11:54 1 9 93 P a e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review e effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 17, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mae Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1993, which I received on February 11, 1993. As you requested. Im enclosing copies of monitoring information 1 provided last fall. If you should need additional copies of any ODM monitoring reports, which I have routinely furnished all parties, please let me know. I share your concerns about the importance of the districts carrying out the desegregation plan and related court orders. Thats why I place such emphasis upon communication and understanding, and why my staff and 1 spend a great deal of time trying to promote both those processes in the spirit of helpfulness and support. As a matter of fact, since last July when you became superintendent, my staff and 1 have had more than 30 meetings with your administrators to discuss ODMs monitoring. The implications of the December 30, 1992 Court Order, which deals with the impact of the LRSD budget cuts, have been the subject of some of ose discussions. Over the months, weve also covered many other topics, including ODM monitoring priorities, instruments, methods, and findings\nthe incentive schools\nearly childhood programs\nthe Biracial Committees\nthe McClellan magnet program\nincentive school staffing needs assessment\nthe alternative school\nthe Academic Support Program\nthe Four- Year-Old Longterm Plan\ncounseling services and state counseling standards\nthe budget process and budgeting cuts\nthe aerospace magnet school and grant\nand the King assignment zones and theme selection process. In addition to the many in-person meetings, there have been countless phone calls exchanged between members of my staff and yours about these same topics and many others. You are also well aware of the numerous conversations that Chris Heller and I have engaged in, as have you and 1.Page Two February 17, 1993 Moreover, to promote accuracy and to minimize the chance of \"surprises,\" we routinely review our written monitoring reports with district administrators before filing them with the Court and releasing them to the press and the public, judge Wright has also taken steps to ensure the best use of the time and resources of us all, issuing a scheduling order prior to hearings so the parties and counsel can fully prepare for the subjects to be covered. I also try to help you and your colleagues anticipate what to expect at hearings. Prior to the last hearing, 1 repeatedly emphasized to you, Chris, and others that the Court would have many hard questions about the status of the LRSD budgeting process and junior high capacities. 1 also stressed that, since Judge Wright does not engage in ex parte communication, she would likely pose questions on other topics related to her Orders of May, November, and December 1992. There is no secret or mystery about how ODM monitors. My staff and 1 frequently discuss our monitoring priorities, methods, and findings in both formal and informal meetings with district personnel. Also, 1 recap the ODM monitoring approach in the introductory section of each ODM report. As 1 stated in my October 15, 1992 letter, which listed ODMs 1992-93 monitoring priorities, our monitoring is based on the desegregation plans, court orders and directives, and any \"unforeseen events\" related to ODMs charge. A recent order is one of those unforeseen events to which ODM is now responding. As you know from the last court date, judge Wrights December 30, 1992 Order will be the subject of a hearing to be scheduled soon. To explain ODMs response to that Order and what you can expect at the hearing, 1 will briefly summarize information that has appeared in my previous letters, memos, and reports about ODMs monitoring approach: All our monitoring relates to the districts settlement agreements, court orders, the judges directives, and state requirements. The monitoring instruments (or \"guides\" as we call them) used in long term monitoring are based directly on desegregation plan and order language. The introduction to ODMs June 5, 1992 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report details ODMs systematic approach to a long term monitoring project and the three main information sources we use: written information, interviews, and observation. In short term or \"status\" monitoring, which takes place within a short time period, we do not create a special monitoring instrument\ninstead, as explained in the introduction to the October 8,1992 McClellan Status Report, ODMs investigation is guided by plan provisions and court orders that pertain most directly to the subject being scrutinized. We also rely on the same three main information categories: written sources, interviews, and observation. (The distinction between a long term monitoring report and a short term status report is clearly defined in the McClellan report.) Given the short timeline we have for monitoring the December 30, 1992 Order, ODM is presently conducting a status type investigation, as we did with McClellan last fall, using the specific language of the Order, the desegregation plans, and state standards to guide our monitoring. Also because of the brief time period, instead of publishing a written report, we will present our findings during the hearing scheduled for that purpose.Page Three Februaiy 17, 1993 By analyzing the December 30, 1992 Order and reviewing our previous monitoring reports, you and your staff will be able to anticipate the focus of our current monitoring and how we are going about it. Heres an example that, while not exhaustive, illustrates how we are carrying out our present monitoring assignment: In the section of the Order entitled \"Counselor Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel Department,\" the Court stated (on page 10) that \"if monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore eliminated positions.\" To monitor this part of the Order, we are looking at a variety of information that includes the requirements of the desegregation plans and state statutes\nreviewing documentation to determine the number and placement of counselors before and after the reductions\nexamining records to assess the extent of any caseload changes\nreviewing school records and interviewing counselors, principals, and other administrators to identify any changes in the number and types of counseling programs or services mandated by the plan and state standards, such as individual and group counseling, at-risk interventions, career development activities, test-taking assistance, etc. If you or your staff want to contact me or my associates for additional information about a particular aspect of our current monitoring, well be happy to answer any questions. Very truly yours. Ann S. Brown Enc. 7??^ ?'e3 Cp'J'/'** '=SX'a c Mar 1 I :5 ,/e ' CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNEMHI? OF INDIVIDUAL3 AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCLATIONS ATTCftNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 .VEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72:01-34 Telephone (501) 376-2011 Fix No. (501) 376-2147 Direct No. 370-1506 1 MEMQRAiNDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that  Li]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V, Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistiict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Coutl since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation pl^. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: II (1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations.\" On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2P a ? Ef Court alsonotified e Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher . xxwxv x^ijuivu Uiat XU VYVUIU iqi^LUic UlUL UXUMv LcacncT positionsf^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregadon efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Coun and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared. all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3T u e Mar 11:54 0 2 199 P a e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continning concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case.1 , 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 23, 1993 Mr. Larry Robertson Little Rock School district 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Robertson: This morning 1 received a fax copy of Ms. Joy Springers February 22, 1993 letter to you about a tour of proposed Stephens Interdistrict School sites. According to the letter, the tour is to take place this morning, February 23, 1993. The fax from Mr. Walkers office is the first information ODM has received about visits to potential school sites. Locating new schools is of such importance to the Court that Judge Wright herself participated in a well-publicized February 1992 tour of potential sights for the King Interdistrict School. The PCSSD has so closely involved ODM in the process being used to select its new interdistrict school site, the district requested that a member of my staff serve on their Site Selection Committee. While 1 am not asking you to place an ODM staff member on any LRSD committee, I do ask that you keep ODM informed of all developments in desegregation-related matters, particularly those having to do with the highly sensitive issue of locating new schools. Notification of events regarding new schools should be made to ODM and all parties well in advance. Keeping the Court and the parties amply informed will help build a positive reputation for LRSD good faith communication and cooperation. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Mac Bernd Marie Parker bcz'. JLittle Rock School District February, 25, 1993 i \u0026lt; Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 2 0 1993 OS r.f :iing Dear Ann: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which I indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 I February 26, 1993 Hrs. Lucy Lyon Library Coordinator, LRSD Franklin School 2600 N. McKinley Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Dear Mrs. Lyon: RECEIVED MAR 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The program, originally and funded by the desegregation plan. elementary library instruction, access to the materials greatly and research. concerned that and we library at the provided for small approved in group assistance to teachers. point of need for have been unable to We are meet the requirements of the desegregation plan ___ librarian has been required to do large group instruction as provision teacher-release time. During large group instruction, access to the library is limited. this year because the for a large large additional group hinders us time from instruction and hampers resources for our our meaningful to using hands-on support curriculum. that they these students. activities ability at-risk Furthermore, to and the The basal need and deserve in denies the which provide students, are more teachers the implementing the new new curriculum literature curriculum, textbooks materials. requires and more In order your utilization. less and less dependence and more on library on and the library program must to achieve success with this consideration of the library This revision will following be revised. plan require only for We request library the current staff (an elementary librarian and library clerk) and no additional funding. Lessons would be teacher input at each based on curriculum grade level. These objectives and emphasize literature appreciation, lessons which will skills class) will be taught to on alternate weeks. small research methods, and study heterogeneous groups (1/2 on activlties This will enable us to use hands- and to the needs of all of our With a small group in session, the library and its can remain continuously available to other students under the supervision of the clerk. students. materials better meet of These revisions are respectfully submitted in the belief they will enhance the that educational opportunities for all our students. We thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. students. Sincerely, Little Rock School District Elementary Librarians1 cc\nDr. C.M, \"Mac\" Bernd Dr. Katherine Mitchell Dorsey Jackson John Moore Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli John Riggs William Hamilton Honorable Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor -'J Little Rock School District  -I March 3, 1993 MAR 3 1993 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring West Heritage Building 201 E. Markham St., Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Office of Dssogrcgaficn fvfon.i ing Dear Ms. Brown, Attached are several reports that have been requested by your office. The first report is a summary of the activities that will be facilitated by the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities will contribute toward recruiting for the district as a whole and for the specific types of schools which we seek to promote. The second report is submitted by the Communications Office and summarizes the activities that have been completed during the 1992-93 school year in support of the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities also support the LRSD recruiting effort for the district and specific schools. In addition, the Communications Office has supplied their Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline. Information you requested about New Futures For Little Rock Youth is also attached as the third report. Reports which your office requested concerning the 4-Year-Old Program and Academic Support are forthcoming. Sincerely, Marie Parker Associate Superintendent Organizational and Learning Equity 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000C.F. W in punis 'J \u0026gt;4 ROCK SCHOOL  DISTRICT MAR 8 1993 Office cf Dosegregsiicn Morthonny Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 North Pine Street Phone 671-6250 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 February 2571^3 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 West Heritage Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I met with Dr. Bernd on February 24, 1993, and discussed my proposal to develop a \"University School\" specialty program for Pulaski Heights Junior High for the 1993-94 school year. Please send me all of the guidelines, rules, procedures, etc., required in order to gain approval of a specialty program. It is my opinion that Pulaski Heights is the only nonmagnet junior high school to successfully achieve the main integration goals of the desegregation order, continue that success. We want to Sincerely, Principal cc: Sam Stueart Assistant Superintendent \"WHERE EXCELLENCE IS A TRADITION\" Little Rock School District March 4, 1993 ajc3 ^3 MAR 4 1993 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Off'ce of D^isgrsg, :n McJ li-.Q 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: Enclosed for your review is a draft outline of the Little Rock School District budget process and a draft of the revised budget document. Please respond in writing if these documents meet your approval. We cannot proceed with budget development until we have your approval. Sipfcerely, Ga' E Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Enclosures cc: Ms. Ann Brown (w/enclosures) c:\\budget\\drafts.wpd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 1-9  - - '  . y'  ''k': t ' \u0026gt;1 ,,, \u0026amp; 14 L ( \\ t 7)014cL Si 13 ^3 I n I ?Lt% SCkcQ I S HCxYrrT^^n Ss^VED  C!c7 f\\f i\u0026lt;a n s?._ I MAR 1 0 1955 Qj? skr 01\" ..b\u0026gt; i. 1^01'Ci Office of Desegrog. Ki j^'X, )q, IV 1'5. 'J half- .- \u0026lt; , O^Y f ttr-i c. A.\\jT5  SA 7. k /A I Vx'V4tu\u0026lt;t .stvx Kv\u0026lt;T ..A^q- rvA_^J'4 Ti A c, Cvru i m uc^t J 4, uTi't^... ,...o_fe..h..4 y ^Te.\u0026amp;.LLs _______________________ ...j'l^,.Sh\u0026amp;Ap ! CUlii Jf..'p'e.%I .Ra_____ :.ph-.Y s!M-eii'b a ll t,si,-h\u0026amp;^- ipor j)(yiT pe\u0026lt;j~-\u0026gt; fiT^AS-ki tt ff'(... .C9.ik^\u0026amp;Qi..j9k'i^sSc\u0026lt;^ l -S-c -1 ft s 7r j levy [MlYCk 5/ 1.33.3 b-Y A ' I3'!.)\\^ ..h'S.V'Sn'i-K'^i., Q.y^...'. .\\ \\ !i : I y - ...f -J iii 41 J iPk\u0026amp;ia. ppc,sA.U^-A'l^_L0(4'k [Tjci-hOeT. ^'' I  I K^, 6, L_J,  ._\\( c \u0026lt;X \\:2:S--ijT.sLL\u0026amp;J/. I I  I i 1'^ ,^(gxlCtfc- !l\u0026amp; II er / . 1'^ C-E'rEP SPRINGS PEC p.l I FAX from GEYER SPRINGS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 5615 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Office (501) 565-3474 * FAX (501) 562-4189 FAX TO\nlOloAii'fea t ompany/Division\nFrom: 0 nr\\ 1-4\u0026gt;^k Number of Pages: (Including this cover page) Time Sent: Date Sent: IfAX Number: ST/'O/oo\n?/o/y3- COMMENTS: /)\u0026lt;/ iS, bJ U7e ,Q?n ' t^-t. u\u0026gt; UJ^siC 1 J. t/\"' \"bQ. lit Ct. \u0026gt;ZO r '1 ft jS/ oC 3 o r 3/\u0026lt; 1^^- p 'ZZ. (!. a 10 '93 09:57 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.2 A LIST OF NEEDS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH as compiled by the staff HEALTH A health room that can accommodate wheelchairs, one that has more than one cot for 650 students. Areas separate from each other for waiting, counseling and health room cots, built-in storage cabinets, racks or tables as well as cheerful walls. Our ninth grade area needs the following\na vacuum pressure pump, a free fall tube, 2 bell jars, meter sticks, pulley demonstration kit, a gyroscope, an AC geiger counter, tuning forks, a wave motion apparatus, a c'nss set of magnets a Van De Graf generator, 10 triple beam balances, a class set of alcohol burners, ar-  nomica) telescope, a class set of each of the following\nwater buckets, safety goggles, electric motors (DC) kit, linear spring scales, graduated cylinders, funnels, scissors, large test tubes, plane glass mirrors magnifying glasses, spectroscopes, a general purpose hot plate, mortar and pestles, and a parabolic reflector set. Our eight grade area needs the following\na class set of lab tables, drain tables, meter sticks, AC Geiger Counter, Magnet Set for class, Van De Graf Generator, 10 triple beam balances, class set of Bunsen burners, safety goggles and safety gloves, graduated cylinders, general purpose hot plate, large set of test tubes and racks. Class set of thermometers, specimen slides (plant and animal), refrigerator, micro projector, money for supplies to do experiments, anemometer, sling psychrometer, wind vane. Our seventh grade area needs lab tables, light microscopes, a skeleton, electrical outlets for scopes. classroom sets of each of the following\ngraduated cylinders, test tubes, thermometers, specimen slides (plant and animal), blood pressure sets, scissors, metric rulers, beakers (100ml and 400ml). magnifying glasses, lab aprons, compasses, globes. They also need a hot plate, models (cell and mitosis), refrigerator, calipers, mtcroprojecfor safety glasses, peir, W- W8M. BUSINESS EDUCATION A seven period day to facilitate course requirements, 4 computer work centers which will serve 6 computers per station, software for business applications. SPECIAL EDUCATION A seven period school day is a must, real classrooms for the Resource teachers (who roam). This area enclosed an order form for approximately $1000.00 worth of supplies that are badly needed. Our CBI students need a toilet in their classroom, their teachers need access to a telephone, as well as a set of kitchen cabinets.rWR 10 '93 09:58 GEYER SPRINGS EBC P.3 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND ATHLETICS Seven period days with the athletic period as the last period of the day, locker space - currently our students have to carry their P. E. clothes with them each day as there are only enough lockers for students to use during their class periods, girls are required to share lockers with as many as 3 others, a class set of Fit For Life books to be used in our physical fitness unit, an exhaust fan to remove heat from the avm during the hot months, insulation and soundproofing would help make the gym warm in the winter, an intercom that works, restroom facilities that work, water fountains that work, volleyball standards that meet AAA requirements, a multipurpose room to separate all three grades in P,E..sanding and refinishing of the basketball court, charts and teaching aids for first aid and physical fitness, a budget to allow the teachers to replace broken and unsafe equipment. HEALTH EDUCATION Classrooms not shared and big enough to hold a full class, more time to teach health (nine weeks is not enough for eighth graders), current videos, funds for field trips. AMERICAN HISTORY U. S, History projection maps, land acquisition map, erasable white chalkboard with markers on a easel, a set of current encyclopedias, and dictionaries, a U,S, flag as well as an Arkansas flag, construction paper, globes, various teaching video tapes a classroom set of newspapers, student desks. READING 20 more computers are needed so our english classes can attend and use them for writing and research, 2 more computers are needed in the library, computer language arts programs, In our reading classrooms we need weekly newspapers, tape recorders,. CAFETERIA Other cafeterias have salad bars as well as potato bars, a change in the menus would be appreciated. SPANisa First and foremost, one class room or one shared with the French teacher to allow ideas and plans to be implemented, and to eliminate roaming between 3 class rooms throughout the building. The class room would need the following: a working overhead projector, adequate blackboard space, maps of Hispanic countries, bulletin boards, VCR, TV, computer, language listening center to include  earphone sets, computer, VCR and TV, a quality tape recorder to project adequate sound to the class, two oblong tables, up to date textbooks (a request that was bypassed), additional tapes, computer software, videos, games, supplementary materials (i.e. activity materials published by Foreign Languages Publishing companies) to enhance visual/listening/oral learning, set of Spanish dictionaries, monthly Spanish publications such as Scholastic and funds to provide each student with his own copy. MAR 10 '93 09:59 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.4 CHORAL MUSIC For their classroom\nseated risers, choir folios (100 at $3.95 each) piano repair this requires a cabinet maker to replace hinges on the keyboard cover, 50 music room chairs with table arms (since other courses are taught in our music room, and exploratory music requires extensive note taking), a piano cover, sight reading texts, audio-visual materials, a relatively new set of encyclopedias, and music filing boxes, gANQ Better scheduling (seventh graders only have one elective class) smaller classes (teaching 9 different instruments in one class at the same time doesn't work) instrument storage lockers, 7 field drum cases, 2 bass drum cases, sheet music, an instrument budget, new uniforms (not used handed down ones). MATH One class set of math explorer calculators, one overhead math explorer calculator, cabinets with locks to house $2000 of math manipulatives for three rooms, educational software these are all things that our teachers have asked for earlier but have not received. EmUSH One class set of Thesauruses (35 copies), a set of dictionaries for 5 classrooms, our current dictionaries are at least 20 years old, a subscription to Scholastic Press for 35 students, teaching packets for several current novels- We would have to buv 10 more sets of novels to be equal to magnet schools. COUNSELORS A conference room for support groups, parent conferences, locked storage rooms for tests (we are currently storing them on the floor of the counselors office) a small private room for testing, a direct telephone line, a long conference table. Posters, maps, work booklets, overhead transparencies, a set of current encyclopedias, a book rack.MAR 10 '93 09=59 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.5 ART ROOM The art room needs: 8 new art desks with stools, a paper cutter, a drying rack COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND TECH PREP. because of the 7 period days at the New Futures schools, students are given the option to take Keytxjarding tn the 7th and 8th grades in preparation for Computer Tech in the Sth grade. This is a vita' prerequisite to the Sth grade course, as required by State Education Department but not availabie at MJHS, 2. The New Futures schools let students taking Computer Tech have a full year's course instead of one semester. As a result of the 7 period day, 80% of each of the 9th grade classes are taking Computer Tech in these schools versus only 30% of the 9th graders at MJHS. 3. The New Futures schools have television production studios purchased by New Futures money available to the students with video editors and computer graphics generators using Amega computers for invaluable experience in video production. 4. Mabelvale only received 9 new IBM computers when new computers were purchased for the 9th grade computer labs last year as opposed to at least 16 new IBM for all of the magnet schools and New Futures school labs. Students are not getting the hands on experience of using up-to-date computers with hard drives tike they are in all the other junior highs in the Little Rock School District. 5. The computer lab at MJHS is crammed into a 20' by 22' old classroom with no room for students to move around. The lab's cabinet doors are falling off their hinges, Work orders have been ignored or refused. The electricity is wired over the floor in raised boxes which students frequently trip over. The room frequently floods and has a leaky roof which endangers the welfare of the students. 6. All of the other computer labs in the district have direct on-line network access to the Colliers Encyclopedia in the Learning lab on CD/ROM except MJHS which has not ever had access. 7. Frequent request for software to fulfil curriculum requirements for Desktop publishing and Graphics have been ignored.MAR 10 93 10:00 GEYER SPRINGS EEC F.6- February 10. 1993 Dr, Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools UtUe Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Mac, c^rhAAi of f-ittle Rock School District which included funds to do r--------- High. We understand that this work was nut nn kaw eu\" . , = laucivaie uumor the new superintendent and his staff time to bfirnmafom-r resignation to allow date, we haVe not heard of ar!v 0^ \"bs. As of this patrons of the school district. The fSSvXuXXhpt a by the resolution that states: '^^^eivaie Junior High P.T,A. Executive Board has passed a passed a milage increase for the Little Rock ,H a! construction at Mabelvale Junior We urge the school district administration \"I and Board to proceed with capital improvements which are v^al to th^l^p^e^-ng year. The proposed restructuring model would the 1993-1994 academic in day or other innovative scheduling models such interdisciplinary team teaching. Under present r be left at a disadvantage by being \" as block scheduling and court orders and district plans, our We understand that stalos\nhowever, I. you lookaX as well as other parts of the District based draw from our neighborhood We feel that the term a magnet school. We on the needs of the students. leei mat me term maonet drhnni\" ie  siuoenis. junior high school that provides them with a oualitv eduratinn allowed to go to any High. Southwest Little Rock mixed community. can no longer be viewed as primarily one race or the other. We are a provide our students wi^h^e?ra^currTulJSiX^?dh'\" '^7^ buildings. - by neglecting physical improvements in favor of these magnet schools by failing to On numerous to our TOI then. ve7 dien. We want you  VvS are doing very well so^* j^ou^donn^o construction and restructuring. our concerns about We feel that the Board and the Administration is of the opinion that all of the problems that areMAR 10 '93 10:01 GEYER SPRINGS EEC p.7 occurring m the central office are more important than the education of ____ feel neglected by the Board and Administration and want them to know that many of us our students. H oh rJ ? 1^' to Mabelvale Junior  curriculum and it's teachers. However, if the Soard and Administration fail to act on the improvement of the facilities, we are prepared to once aoain no h.nk m n.iZ St?: we are prepared to once again go back to private schools. We fool fhr,* k,, ...K r a\"\"'ya'-''w povdie scnoois. the children. neglecting to provide the kind of education needed by all mrough ******\" **  'P  school 1. 2. our^Siool^ 3. 4. 5. 6. By directing the support services staff to perform much needed repairs remodelling, and construction at our school. By allowing us to have direct control of our heating and air conditioning (recently, the District came out and turned off heat pumps which provided air conditioning to our classrooms, and as a result when the weather turned cold our students did not have heat - several rooms were 45 degrees during the school day.) By providing our teachers with equipment necessary to provide our students with a quality education (we have one microscope for an entire class yet, magnet schools have one for eve^ student). By allowing us to have a seven course school day and more teachers to support the restructuring. By adding classroom space. We have no parent conference room, limited storage space, no room for the math assistants, inadequate special education classrooms, cramped cafeteria, roving teachers using other teachers Classrooms during prep time, inadequate in-school-suspension area, poor playground facilities, and a building falling apart around us. We know the district administrators are interested in the education of our students We are Sons Mtoe?'*\"  ***' * * P' I ciOiiyi iw muv'*qQ^\u0026amp;, We are anxiously awaiting a reply from you regarding our concerns. Sincerely, Tom Brock, President Mabelvale Junior High P.T.A.:-iR 10 -93 10:01 GEYER SPRINGS FBC LIULE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mabelvale Junior High School P.8 P.O. Box 187 Phone 455-2413 Mabelvale, Arkansas 72103 February 22, 1993 To Inborn It May Concern: the en on. I joined the faculty at Mabelvale Jr. High School, I cam aboard with My vision was and is to help those to have an interest in art to to their fullest potential and also to impress upon the uninterested ty of the arts. I still have that vision. a 'TH/ T use this medium to express my concern. The classroom designated for art class does not provide adequate space to effectively conduct my class. Jiie of the most important factors in an art class is the pleasure of displaying your art work. It lends an opportunity for each student to study their own art work in addition to review and appreciate the conversation expressed through the handiwork of others, I must report that limited space prohibits us from ' ---in. .able to do so. Further, this hinderance deprives other students who are interested in of the chance to enroll in the class. I would welcome the challenge to an additional class inorder to accommodate all of those students who are T humhl. appeal to you to allow me the opportunity to fulfill my vision. 1 am asking for more space and an additonal art class. It would please me greatly if you would give serious consideration to my request. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Edgar Porchia aCME OF TBS BED BJUSSBO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: jBoard THROUGH SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR March 11, 1993 of Directors 72201 fGary Jones, Manager of Resources and School Support 'C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Approval of Lease Agreement on Parkin Building Attached is an agreement to lease the second floor of the Parkin Building with adjoining parking space located at 6th and Ringo Streets. The annual cost of the lease is $84,672 plus utilities. The term of the lease is sixteen months. The purpose of the lease is to relocate the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) from the former Lee School and Franklin Elementary. The administration plans to pursue a lease/purchase of the entire building during the term of the lease. We recommend that the Board approve the lease as submitted. c:\\niemos\\parkin2.upd LEASE By this agreement of lease, dated By tnis agreement ot lease, dated_____________________________ 1993, Virginia B. Hodges, Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust, Virginia L. Boyd Testamentary Trust, and Jack T. Lynn Testamentary Trust, all of Little Rock, Arkansas and for convenience herein collectively called \"Lessor,\" leases to Little Rock School District, herein called \"Lessee,\" the following described premises: Approximately 24,000 square feet, being all of the upper floor within the building located at 6th and Ringo, Little Rock, Arkansas, together with all of the parking area located on the east side of the building (legally described as part of Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12, Block 290, Original City of Little Rock) for use as ad^^^tr^tive offices and storage area for a term of seventeen (17) months, commencing 1993 and expiring July 31, 1994, at an annual rent of $84,672.(X) payable in monthly installments of $7,056.00 in advance on the first day of each month, commencing with the first month of the term, to The Hathaway Group, 3600 Cantrell Road^ Suite 301, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202\nall on the following terms: 1. UTILITIES AND SERVICES The parties agree that each shall pay for utilities and services as indicated below: (a) (b) (c) Lessee shall pay for the natural gas, water, sewer, and electric utilities used in connection with the occupancy of the leased premises, defined as 64% of the total utility usage for the building. Such payments shall be made by Lessee to Lessor upon Lessees receipt of periodic invoices for utility consumption. Lessee shall be responsible for its own janitorial service. Lessor shall pay real estate taxes and premiums for fire and extended casualty insurance. (d) Lessor shall maintain the premises as specified in Paragraph 11. QUIET POSSESSION 2. So long as Lessee performs its obligations. Lessor covenants to it quiet and peaceful possession of the leased space. D:\\WT51\\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA3. LESSEES OBLIGATIONS Lessee agrees as follows: (a) (b) To pay rent as due and to deliver possession of the premises to Lessor upon termination of this lease in the same condition as received, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire, the elements or other casualty excepted\nTo use the premises in an orderly fashion and not to suffer or permit any violations of laws or ordinances therein\n4. 5. (c) Not to assign or sublet without prior consent of Lessor, which Lessor agrees will not be unreasonably withheld. LESSORS REMEDIES Lessor may terminate this lease and enter and take possession of the premises from Lessee, all without waiving any rights which it may have at law hereunder, without further notice or demand (all such notices and demands being hereby waived) following any of these events: (a) (b) (c) That Lessee should fail to pay rent due hereunder within thirty (30) days following written notice of default therein\nThat Lessee shall fail to commence curing any other violation of its covenants within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, or, having commenced to cure the same as aforesaid, should fail to carry the same to conclusion with due diligence\nUpon the adjudication of Lessee as a bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of its property. UNTENANTABILITY If the premises, or any portion thereof, are made untenantable by fire, the elements or other casualty, rent for the entire premises or affected portion thereof shall abate from the date of such casualty to restoration of tenantability. Lessor shall restore the same with all reasonable speed, and if Lessor does not restore the premises or the affected portion to tenantability within ninety (90) days thereafter. Lessee may then terminate this lease, retroactive to the date of casualty. If the premises are more than fifty percent (50%) destroyed by casualty, either Lessor or Lessee may terminate this lease, retroactive to such date, by notice delivered within thirty (30) days thereafter\nfailing D:\\WP5l\\nLESURH\\LRSD.LEA -2-Lessor shall restore the premises to tenantability within one hundred twenty (120) days of such casualty and rent shall abate as aforesaid. LESSEES ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 6. (a) Lessee has inspected and accepts the demised premises in their present condition. I A mU * t I A. J* _ * Lessor shall grant permission for Lessee to make such alterations and improvements and install such identification signs, furniture, fixtures and equipment in the demised premises as may be necessary. Lessee agrees to pay for the same, to indemnify, save and hold Lessor harmless from any cost, expense or liens arising in connection therewith. Any such alterations and improvements shall be subject to Lessors approval, not to be unreasonably withheld, and shall comply with all applicable national, state and municipal laws or regulations. 7. 8. 9. (b) (c) Lessor shall not unreasonably withhold consent to Lessee making further alterattons during the term of the lease, which further alternations shall be on the conditions contained in (a) above. Except as provided in paragraph 7 or as otherwise stated in Lessors consent to the making thereof. Lessees alterations and improvements shall become Lessors property at the termination of this lease. REMOVAL OF LESSEES IMPROVEMENTS Upon termination. Lessee may at its option remove office equipment, business machines manufacturing equipment and machinery, trade fixtures, if any, and signs, plus such installations as Lessee may make and may be permitted to remove under this lease provided that it restores the premises to their original condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and repairs damage done by such removal. INSPECTION Lessor has the right to enter the premises for reasonable inspections at any time and to show the same to prospective tenants during the last six (6) months of the term. LIABILITY Unless caused by the negligence or willful act or failures to act of Lessor or its agent or employees. Lessee waives all claims against Lessor for damages to the property of Lessee, resulting from the building or its equipment being out of repair, or from act or neglect of any other tenant or occupant or any accident or theft in or about the building. D:\\WP51\\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA - 3 -LIABILITY INSURANCE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Lessee, at its expense, shall maintain in full force and effect a comprehensive public liability insurance policy, with respect to the Leased Premises and all activities conducted thereon, with both Lessor and Lessee as named insureds with a single combined limit of liability of $1,000,000.00, such policy to contain a provision that it cannot be canceled without at least ten (10) days prior written notice to Lessor. Lessee shall at all times provide Lessor with written evidence that such insurance policy is in effect. If the terms of the issuer of blanket policy do not reasonably satisfy Lessor, Lessee shall provide a supplemental policy as described above. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR The Lessor shall, at its own cost and expense, keep in good condition and repair during the term of this lease, sidewalks, sewers, gutters, drainpipes, downspouts, driveways, window sash and frames, parking lots, air conditioning and heating systems, stairways, foundations, exterior walls, roof and structural parts of, in or about the premises and the building of which the premises are a part including gas, water, and electric pipes and conduits within the foundations, floors, walls, and structural parts thereof and all other generally accepted areas of Lessors control or responsibility of said premises. SIGNS Lessor will not unreasonably withhold consent to Lessees lettering or windows or erection of signs as are reasonably necessary to Lessees business and are in keeping with the standards maintained in the building. PARKING FACILITIES Lessee, its employees, customers, and visitors shall have the exclusive right to use the parking lot and loading area on the east side of the building. HOLDING OVER BY LESSER If Lessee shall remain in the demised premises after the expiration of this lease without having executed a new written lease or extended this lease through a modification, then Lessees monthly rent shall immediately escalate to $8,820.00 per month and Lessor shall have the option to treat Lessee as one not lawfully entitled to possession of the premises, and shall thereupon be entitled to take all lawful action for Lessees immediate removal therefrom. D:\\W51 \\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA - 4 -15. 16. 17. 18. 19. CONDEMNATION If ^y portion of the premises or the access thereto is condemned and if, in Lessees sole opinion, the remainder is inadequate, then Lessee shall have the option (to be exercised within ninety (90) days of written notice to Lessee of the area to be condemned) to cancel this lease as of the effective date of condemnation\nin such case, any portion of a condemnation award or settlement attributable to the Lessees leasehold (including options to extend the same) shall be paid to Lessee. Lessee shall have reasonable opportunity to participate in the condemnation proceedings. If any characteristics of the premises are made less desirable by condemnation, and Lessee elects not to cancel then there shall be an equitable adjustment of rent to reflect such fact for the balance of the term. SUBORDINATION This lease and Lessees rights hereunder shall at all times be subordinate to the liens of mortgages now or hereafter placed on the building or any underlying leasehold estate. So long as Lessee performs its covenants, its right to possession hereunder shall not be disturbed under the rights or powers granted in any such mortgage. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, neither Lessor nor Lessee shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage caused by fire or any other risk insured against by fire, standard extended coverage and malicious mischief and vandalism insurance, in force at the time of such loss or damage. AMENDMENTS There are no agreements between the parties except as stated in this lease, amendments hereof shall be effective unless in writing, signed by both parties. NOTICES No The delivery of notices provided for herein shall be effective only if delivered to Lessor at the address provided for payment of rent and to Lessee at Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 D:\\WP5I\\FILES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA - 5 -20. 21. Mailing of same so addressed, by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, shall constitute delivery. No employee of Lessee at any other address has or shall have any authority to receive notices hereunder. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Lessor represents to the best of its knowledge and belief that no hazardous or toxic materials subject to regulation by State or Federal law or regulations have been manufactured, stored, or disposed of on or about the Leased Premises. Lessee hereby covenants that it will not manufacture at or install in the Leased Premises any such hazardous or toxic materials during the term of this Lease. BROKERAGE FEES Lessor agrees to pay The Hathaway Group (Agent) professional fees as outlined in Exhibit A which is attached to Lessors and Agents copies of this lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this lease to be executed on the date first above written, hereby binding their respective successors, assigns, heirs, executors and administrators. LESSOR: LESSEE: Little Rock School District Virginia P. Hodges (50% Owner) George Prange, Trustee Virginia L. Boyd Testamentary Trust (9.705% Owner) George Prange, Trustee Jack P. Lynn Testamentary Trust (9.705% Owner) Virginia L. Boyd, Co-Trustee and Louise Parkin Lynn, Co-Trustee Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust (30.59% Owner) D:\\WP51\\F1LESURH\\LRSD.LEA -6- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI to be the person described Before me personally appeared Virginia P. Hodges to me well known and known to me who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to - - - -'O o **'^** '^**^**'^ MllU UVAJIk/ and before me that she executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. 1993. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of My Commission Expires\nNOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared George Prange, Trustee for the Virginia L, Bovd Testamentary Tryst, to me well known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 1993. day of My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D.WPSnriLESURHXLRSD.LEA - 7 -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared George Prange, Trustee for the Jack P, Lynn Testamentary Tryst, to me well known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. 1993. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared Virginia L. Boyd and Louise Parkin Lynn Co-Trustees for the Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust, to me well known and known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that they executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of 1993. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D:\\WP51\\F1LES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA - 8 -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI On this day personally appeared before me the undersigned, a Notary Public within and for the County and State aforesaid, duly qualified, commissioned and acting, the within named ----------------------- \n----------------------------------being the ____________________________of Little Rock School District, and who has been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well known, who stated he is duly authorized in his capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and on behalf of Little Rock School District, and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed and delivered said oregoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. this IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on day of 1993 My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D:\\WP51\\FILES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA -9-fip. Lett) Pa r^ VA fj :^=\n? :^2C X J- /] M 1 ' CIV,co 0* ^en t^oriWnr'S Williams Magnet Staff Williams Magnet School 7301 Evergreen Street Little Rock, AR 72207 March 9, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Director Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The academic year of 1992-93 has seen many dramatic changes to the curriculum and educational process in the Little Rock of 1992-93 has seen many dramatic . - -  ----------- Public Schools. As the Magnet Review Committee meets to discuss, plan, and implement new changes, the staff at Williams Magnet School respectfully requests that you read, consider, and review our professional views before implementing the current changes, staff would like to address a few concerns about the future changes. the staff at you read, address changes for the academic year 1993-94. concerns about The Williams Magnet School, successful as North Little learning environment all records innovative idea. Rock, and for hundreds indicate, has been a Because Pulaski County students. of Little of its initial witnessed the growth of all the other Magnets. to the whole child. success We are It we Rock, was an have committed to generate We need all the components of the curriculum the same degree of success achieved in the past. is our opinion that no one part of the program should be removed. It It is diligence and teachers and all enthusiasm and creative energy of magnet program a success. the specialty area teachers classroom that makes this. With economic problems in many areas of that cutbacks are inevitable in L.R.S.D. is costly cutback choice. and unproductive. society. The new we recognize We feel that ABACUS ABACUS program should be the not the established successful program in place. In closing we would respectfully remind you, that Williams has an outstanding staff is reputation reputation. proud of the hard throughout the We believe that classroom teachers but art. special area their children teachers as magnet work we have done it is the area. Williams earning our solid effort not only of the music, physical education, and other well, that Parents brochures on expect the program waiting lists for motivate patrons to and disadvantageous videos. to the that is years to enter outlined and place our school, advertised in We children. feel The the change wou Id children are our be main concern and the whole child needs all, not parts, of the program.Thank you for taking time to consider these deep felt concerns. Professionally yours. i ! - t yytha^-yli ~nu. f bV .^U^X-x 'OAl^n . iM-L 'iTua. fna^'^^nUn^ 'Ijyt^. ^j!^ ^1  IA . A '} \\y. i L \"i f a. PivUUIm'i^I^ /VlzcMol^ 17/1993 17:11 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. JOHN \\LKER RV.PH \\S abHINGTON MARK BVKNRI^..^. WILEY A. RRANToN. -JR. AtSTIN PORTER. -JR. , .. ..  A5* a'Jn'ittr*- I J * I [*! h- 'J. TO 3710100 P . 02 JOHN w. Walker. p.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LiTFLE Rock. Akkansas Telephone (-501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-418 ( DELIVERED VIA FACglMII^ March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. Little Rock School District c/o _ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nWould you plan to use at know who you plan to call as kindly provide me with_ anj_ new exhibits that you the budget hearing on Friday. - ----- witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jo^n W. Walker-^^ Jo JWW: im r. (*1 / Mb TOTAL P.0203/17/1993 17:10 FROM JOHN W.WfiLKER P.P. TO 3710100 P . 0 1 JOHN W. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72zo6 Telephone (501) 374^58 FAX (601) 374-4187 JO. WlXER RAI- d WASHINGTON MARK BURNED WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. auetin porter, JR. , ...  Alm Kimittal  i\" 4 w Datnrt ot Columbia. TO: jv\nFAX NO.: FROM: DATE: ... RE: message: I THIS FAX CONSISTS OF '3^ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. OUR FAX NUMBER IS: (501) 374-4187 I I I u I.A 03 .' 17/1993 16! 44 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.ft. TO 3710100 'fr iS P . 0 1 March 17, 1993 D C. Mac Bemd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd: On March 12, the accompanying letter was faxed to you regarding the unprofessional conduct of employees at Little Rock Central High School. At the writing of this letter, 1 am still waiting for the response that has been requested. TUnfortunately, on Tuesday, March 16, conduct of a similar nature (harassment) was demonstrated by still another employee at the LRSD, this time a school bus driver. After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve this matter concerning the bus driver, I visited with the employee at the bus stop on the morning of March 17. The employee demonstrated an attitude and behavior that was very unprofessional in the presence of students. Additionally, support personnel at the LRSD bus terminal and in the office of Mr. Gary Jones also demonstrated very poor judgement and communication skills during my attempts to resolve this matter. 1 Dr, Bemd, I am responsible, much like you, to parents and students in this District, I would like very much to share with them the response that can only be provided by you, regarding the reported cases of student harassment and your efforts to resolve the matters. I I Please respond by letter at 2603 S. Brown St., Little Rock, AR 72204 or you can fax your letter to me at 374-4187. Respectfully, I i 1 I Hafeeza K Majeed Ad Hoc Committee for Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools 1 II cc: i^s. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Ms. Shirley Thomas, LRSD BAC Chairperson Mr. Brad Montgomery, Supervisor, LRSD Transportation Dept. Mr. Gary Jones, Associate Superintendent, School Support TOTAL P.ai s.-- .r \u0026lt; * P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT NAR-17-93 WED 16:41 DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE MAR-17 16:39 501 374 4187 1'28^ 1 RECEIVE OK X )(( X  )K jSB1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 March 22, 1993 TO: Mr. Sterling Ingram FROM: THROUGH: Marie Parker SUBJECT: DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of this memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. report please include any plans. As a part of this systems documents, or timelines that outline the assessment processes mentioned herein. 2. Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. 3. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose of the aspect of the plan being evaluated\nand (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. . 4. Please prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue as a graduate school project. The information she has gathered may be quite useful to you as you prepare your report. In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement o\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_280","title":"Budget, court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/280"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["23 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\"'''^'- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION y: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS i MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On November 14, 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the cause to the Court to review the parties' proposed modifications [May submissions] to the 1989 plans. 1 Little Rock School District, et al., Nos. 91-2640EA, 91- 2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA, slip op. (8 th Cir. November 14, 1991) . In response to the order of the Eighth Circuit, the Court scheduled a hearing to begin on December 18, 1991. It informed the parties involved that. prior to reviewing their proposed modif ications, it would ask. the Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD] to report on its financial situation and hear a ^The three school districts involved. Little Rock School District [LRSD], Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD], and North Little Rock School District [NLRSD], and the Joshua Intervenors submitted proposed modifications to the settlement plan approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990).report from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budgetary processes for desegregation expenditures which are employed by the three school districts involved in the matter. The Court determined that before it could consider proposed modifications to the settlement plans, it needed to learn whether there are district budgetary processes in place which will enable the Court to monitor the implementation of the plans. At the conclusion of the second day of the hearing, the Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect the three school districts' intentions. goals, and priorities regarding their desegregation efforts. The Court specifically mentioned the state of the Little Rock School District's [LRSD] budgetary process. In its opinion approving the settlement plans of the three districts, the Eighth Circuit noted the parties have committed to \"solemn undertakings\" and stated: We accept these undertakings, again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit further directed the Court to \"monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and agreement. -2-and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" Id. at 1394. The Court monitors the use of settlement monies through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM]. In October 1991, the ODM informed the LRSD that it must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. a [Document # 1517] Pursuant to the directives from and the considerable latitude and discretion given the Court by the Eighth Circuit, the Court finds that the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites and that it is necessary for the LRSD to submit revised cost figures to the Court. 2 Therefore, (1) The LRSD must submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan and which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 2 In a note to its May submissions, the LRSD indicated that the cost figures originally submitted with its desegregation plan were outdated and it would provide revised cost figures in a separate desegregation budget. To date, the Court is unaware of any such revised figures having been submitted or filed. -3-a (2) The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on per annum basis which covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (3) The LRSD must submit.a long-range revenue projection covering the same period of time, which includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. This long-term projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. (4) The LRSD has maintained that a significant portion of desegregation expenditures are \"start up.\" The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are \"start up\" and when these start up costs will terminate. (5) The revised budget shall be prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and shall be submitted to the Court within thirty (30) days after the Court rules either from the bench or in a written order on the proposed modifications. - By this Order, the Court confirms its oral approval of the construction of the interdistrict school at the Crystal Hill site. Further, the Court confirms oral instructions made to the parties to explore alternative sites for the construction of King -4-Interdistrict School along the 1-630 corridor. DATED this ^/^^dav of January, 1992. '1^. trNlTED STATES DISTRICT J JUDGE r : OtJ ,PL!A\n2V...,^. - -- .. 1-,3-h '1?^ BHEET IN i) FRCP -5-4- oirsidTSSaSBAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT may -1 199\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court held hearings on the parties' proposed modifications (May submissions) to the 1989 settlement plans on December 18-19, 1991\nJanuary 21-23, 27-28, 1992\nand February 6-7, 1992. This Order addresses those proposed changes. In its order approving the individual settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that ''[i]t may be necessary. in order to make a smooth transition. for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court rejected the parties' May submissions. finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991).4 The parties' motion for reconsideration was denied. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schools District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1491 (E.D. Ark. 1991). remanded the case and stated: On appeal, the Eighth Circuit The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case. The parties are not authorized to modify it at will Further, we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak, wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction i.. commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan . . . The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. in particular, the We an in their The If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation. District Court has the authority to consider it. such changes, for example, as the District Court noted? may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. they the Some Even changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows. (1) double fundinc for stuHont'c: arronH-i-nrr retreat should be approved. They are as . funding students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\nincentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the a^eed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of i^terdist.-ict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools\nand (7) appropriate involvement of parents. Appeal of Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special -2-School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, cLnd Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255-56 (Sth Cir, 1991) , In remanding the case to the District Court, Circuit further stated: the Eighth The parties' agreement should be upheld if 1^ constitutional, workable, and fair to class members, vu the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. if it is On case. xue xaay Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, that constant change creates. ' even chaos, , - The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or aeserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into when such changes are proposed and considered. goal. account We recognize that the language somewhat general. of this opinion is It leaves a considerable degree of latitude District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. 7^ --_ _i__ ____ its own best judgment, what changes should be~approved\"\" notwithstanding their going beyond the level of detail* because they would advance desegregation or for other- sound reasons. The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. . . .[W]e will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. to the That It must also determine, in Id. at 257. With this background in mind, the Court addresses the parties' proposed modifications. The changes that the Court approves will not be enumerated or addressed, for the most part. The Court comments on changes it approves subject to certain conditions and discusses in detail the substantive changes it will not approve, generally following the order of the provisions and their section -3-headings as they are found in the plans. are attached to the Order. INTERDISTRICT PLAN Baker and Harris Elementary Schools The 1989 plans require the Pulaski The plans as approved County Special School District (PCSSD) to establish interdistrict schools at Baker Elementary School and Harris Elementary School. The PCSSD now proposes to modify the settlement plan and eliminate Baker Elementary as thematic interdistrict school with expanded seating. According to the proposed modifications, the 200 a additional seats originally planned for Baker the new interdistrict school at Crystal Hill. would be placed at The PCSSD proposes to eliminate Harris Elementary as an interdistrict school and establish a new interdistrict school to be built along the Highway 67/167 corridor. The PCSSD claims that Baker has been desegregated without having to convert it into an interdistrict school,  the reason for its becoming an interdistrict school. thus obviating However, the Court finds that Baker's designation as an interdistrict school was intended not only to desegregate that school but also to aid in the desegregation of three additional elementary schools: Romine in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Lawson and 1, Other changes such as historical background and context, timelines, changes to correct language discrepancies and inconsistencies, and other changes which contribute to clarity or support intent, are not discussed. language discrepancies -4-Robinson in the PCSSD. Testimony and figures presented at the bearings indicate that failure to designate and promote Baker as an interdistrict school as originally planned may be impacting desegregation negatively in schools having difficulty achieving or maintaining compliance with the minimum required racial balance of their student enrollment. Because of the Court's concern about difficulties with racial balance at Baker, Romine, Lawson, and Robinson, and in the interest of adherence to the agreed number of interdistrict schools, the Court finds that Baker should interdistrict school. remain an The Court requires the district to look carefully at the quality of the programs at Baker, particularly the extended day program which was intended to attract students who would promote desegregation of the school. The extended day program must be expanded as necessary to accommodate additional students, particularly those transferring from the Romine area as emphasized in the plan. As promised in the original language of the plan. the PCSSD shall continue to provide its full compensatory education program at Baker so long as 35 or more black students have transferred from LRSD to Baker. The Court approves that portion of the modification that deletes the required addition of 200 seats at Baker. regard to Harris, testimony at the hearings convinced the Court that deleting the designation of Harris Elementary as an 2 PCSSD Superintendent Mr. Bobby Lester stated at the hearings that Baker is considered to be an interdistrict school. -5-interdistrict school and establishing instead a new interdistrict school in an easily accessible location is wise decision. a Because the Court finds that this proposed change will likely advance desegregation, it adopts the modification but delays until a later date ruling the PCSSD ^s motion to postpone for five years the construction of the new interdistrict school. The Eighth Circuit ordered in November 1991 that the agreed number of interdistrict schools be operated according to the agreed timetable. However, in a number of instances it was impossible to adhere to that order. For example, under the 198 9 plan. Crystal Hill was scheduled to open in 1990-91. It is now scheduled to be ready for the 1992-93 school year. Romine did not meet the original date but it is now open. As with the new interdistrict school to take the place of Harris, the dates for the establishment of Stephens and King are the subject of a pending motion and will be determined at a later date. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT As with the interdistrict plan, the Court determines that the ^^jority of the modifications proposed by the PCSSD are concerned with details and. therefore. are approved. However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive of two of the primary goals of the and student achievement. case. and unsupported in light i.e. racial integration PATWICK The PCSSD proposes to eliminate PATWICK, a program established -6-to enable parents to meet and work activities designed to aid their cooperatively with teachers in children's progress in school. Dr. Bobby Altom, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, testified that other parental involvement programs are being planned but are not identifiable at this time, of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement. In light the Court determines that PATWICK should remain in the plan until the district has designed, and the Court has parental involvement program that holds approved, a comparable promise of meeting the goals PATWICK was expected to achieve. Special Education The parties propose to delete certain language in the plan regarding the reduction of disparity between black and white students and the elimination of disproportionality within races in special education. While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between disproportionality in special education. social deprivation and the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. In the plan section dealing with special education screening and internal monitoring. changes have been proposed that would eliminate the requirement for a central office review committee. thereby reducing from three to two the levels in a screening process intended to prevent black students from being referred for -7-special education indiscriminately. At the hearing, a PCSSD witness testified that meaningful changes in the referral process should come from involvement at the local school level and that building practitioners should bear the burden of responsibility and accountability for the initial special education screening and review. The witness stated that the district will require those schools with over representation of black special education students to submit plan for correcting the placement disproportion. The Court is reluctant to condone alteration of a process which should prevent special education placement problems and obviate the need for process to correct such problems after they have materialized. However, the Court agrees that site-based decision-making may encourage accountability and responsibility at the local school level by increasing the involvement of those closest to the children. The Court approves the change in the number of review levels from three to two with the may require the district to restore the third\ncaution that it review level if monitoring reveals ineffective efforts to eliminate special education placements. disparity in Information/Special Services The parties propose to strike references to each school having programs which include school volunteers. parent advisory committee. parent/teacher/student discipline committee. a a a a a school/community partnership arrangement, and \"any other organized structures which the principals and their respective communities feel necessary for positive schoolcommunity relations. Because -8-the Eighth Circuit considers parental involvement crucial to the success of the desegregation plan, the Court does not allow the change. Parent and community involvement in education must be enthusiastically invited and carefully managed throughout the district to sustain the interest and continued activities of parents, business people, retirees, and others in the schools. The district must strive to maintain positive relations with the public, supporting those efforts through such organized groups and programs as school/community partnerships. school volunteers. parent advisory committees, Biracial Committees, in the plan. and others named Secondary School Curriculum Coordinators The parties propose a modification that reduces the number of PCSSD secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six.^ The 1989 plan promised that an instructional coordinator would be provided to support every discipline and that every teacher would have a coordinator to provide materials, demonstration teaching. instructional supervision, moral support, of each school's program effectiveness. and an annual assessment The Court is concerned that testimony regarding the curriculum coordinators indicated that the figure of thirteen was placed in the plan even though the PCSSD failed to consult with the district's assistant superintendent for instruction. In addition. Dr. Altom testified that the PCSSD did not believe that by was Testimony at the hearing was that seven and one-half curriculum coordinators presently were employed by the PCSSD. -9-describing thirteen positions in the plan it was committing to always having thirteen coordinators in place, testimony is combined with that heard during\nWhen Dr. Altom's a hearing on August 7, 1991, on the parties' joint motion for partial stay pending appeal, the Court is particularly disturbed. In August 1991, the PCSSD lawyer stated that the PCSSD did not intend for the number of curriculum coordinators to be a component of the settlement plan and that the district was merely \"loading\" its plan. In spite of the discrepancy between the plan language and subsequent testimony, the Court approves the reduction in the number of secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six in light of Dr. Altom's testimony that the reduction was made in the firm belief that removal of the positions would not result in substantial change in student performance as measured by the district's standardized tests. the exit exams at the secondary a level, and the MPT exams at the third. sixth, and eighth grade levels. However, the Court recognizes the significant role of curriculum coordinators in providing important services to teachers and in the development, implementation, and maintenance of quality academic programs. When a reduction in the number of coordinators results in shifting many duties to a smaller group of employees. there is a danger that the increased administrative and supervisory responsibilities will yield inadequate support for personnel and programs that directly impact student performance. If disparity in student achievement does not improve or if test scores decline. the Court may require that the full number of curriculum -10-coordinator positions be restored. The Court also notes that the parties propose to delete in the Compensatory Education section the full time instructional specialist at the elementary level and assign the specialist duties to the assistant principal or Chapter 1 coordinator at schools where black student enrollment exceeds 40%. ] the instructional specialist position at each Elsewhere in the plan, elementary school has been deleted and the assistant principal is referred to as assistant principal/Chapter coordinator or assistant principal/instructional specialist, Once again, the parties seek 1 to saddle one individual with multiple duties and accept the risk that all duties will not get done. While the Court approves the modifications, it will carefully monitor student achievement and the district may be required to restore the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program deleted positions. The PCSSD also proposes to change certain features of the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program, a program designed to recruit black teachers as facilitators in the district's Talented and Gifted Program. As the Court understands it, the proposed changes concern that portion of the program which offers tuition assistance for black teachers who work for the district and who are interested in completing graduate courses which will qualify them to teach gifted and talented students (TAG and ALPHA programs). The program provides that for every one year that the teacher works for the school district. the PCSSD will fund six hours of coursework. If the teacher does not maintain a certain grade point -11-average, he or she must refund the money. Also, if the teacher does not complete the program, the debt must be repaid. The PCSSD proposes to lower the grade point average (GPA) these black teachers must maintain from a 3.0 to a 2.8 on a four-point scale and to forgive the debt for black teachers who are fired. The Court is troubled by these proposed modifications and declines to approve them. Lowering the GP.z^ requirement for black teachers receiving district-subsidized tuition for the gifted education courses they take sets a separate and inferior standard of performance for black teachers. The proposed change suggests that minority teachers either will be unable to maintain a 3.0 grade average or will be attracted to the program by a substandard achievement requirement. In addition, at a time when national and local emphasis is focused on higher expectations for student performance and the importance of educators as role models responsible for leading children to meet those increased expectations, it is inappropriate to lower the achievement standard for any group of teachers. of debt for teachers who Furtheirmore, the proposed forgiveness fired is illogical and inconsistent with the requirement that the tuition money be repaid the district by any teacher who chooses not to continue the program or who fails to fulfill the obligation to work in the district for one year for every six hours of coursework funded by the district. Air Force ROTC Program The parties proposed in the 1989 settlement plans to move the PCSSD's Air Force ROTC program from Jacksonville High School to -12-North Pulaski High School. In its modifications, the PCSSD deleted the proposed transfer and stated in hearings that the Air Force refused to grant pemission to move the program. In this Court's Stay Order of August 22, 1991, transfer of the ROTC program was \"stayed pending appeal, effective upon receipt by the Court of documentation of the PCSSD's efforts to move the program and the Air Force's denial of that move.\" To date, the Court has not received the information requested last August, obligated to furnish the required documentation Early Prevention of School Failure Program The parties remain to the Court. The Court approves the modification of language concerning measurement of the effectiveness of the Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) program and agrees that the Biracial Committee may have the opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of such programs. Any decision regarding the effectiveness of the EPSF program is a curriculum issue, however. and not one within the exclusive province of the Biracial Committee. Furthermore, the Court understands that EPSF is a nationally validated program which is based upon young children's developmental stages. Any program which might replace EPSF, in whole or in part. must be comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding. Biracial Committee The Court notes that the parties have included a new plan subsection describing in some detail the composition and role of the PCSSD Biracial Committee. The Committee is to have 14 members -13-who are representatives of the district 's population and geography with each election zone to have two representatives, one black and one \"other member. The parties have agreed that the Joshua Intervenors will appoint half (seven) of the Committee members, four of whom will be black. In another area of the plan, new language regarding the Biracial Committee has been introduced. providing for a 30 day period for the \"advise and consent\" of the Biracial Committee regarding unresolved desegregation grievances. While the Court approves the changes concerning the Biracial Committee, it understands that the primary role of this volunteer group is to monitor the progress of the district toward the goals of the desegregation plan. If the Committee is asked to take on additional duties. the members must be recruited with full knowledge of the scope of their responsibilities and the time required to fulfill them. the Biracial Committee with new duties and allowing a 30 day period for the group's action must not be allowed to detract from the basic monitoring function of the Committee. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan Under the terms of the 1989 plan, all schools in the LRSD were to implement a four-year-old program by the 1993-94 school year. The May submission deletes that commitment and proposes to replace it with provisions contained in a long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991, and discussed -14-in the February 6 hearing. During the hearing the Court expressed specific concerns with certain of the modifications proposed in the LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan (Long-Term Plan) and questioned the impact upon the implementation of early childhood education programs, a provision of the desegregation plan which the Eighth Circuit has identified as a crucial feature. The Court agrees with the parties that four-year-old programs are both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better kindergarten and also act to attract white preparing children for children to the public schools. The parties have convinced the Court that, as a desegregation tool, it is wise to place four-year-old programs in those schools or areas which have Therefore, the LRSD will not be proved difficult to desegregate, required to place four-year-old programs in every elementary school. However, the parties have made solemn promises regarding early childhood education. The Court views the four-year-old program as a substantive component of the settlement plan which holds achievement disparity between black promote racial balance in the schools. great promise to reduce and white children and to The Long-Term Plan does not satisfy the original intent of the parties regarding the scope of the four-year-old program. The Court will not release the parties from serving the number of children who would have been served had every school offered a four-year-old program as agreed in the 1989 plan. Also, the Long-Tenn Plan contemplates converting Ish incentive school to an early childhood center. The Eighth Circuit -15-has said that the incentive schools are crucial and stressed the importance of a period of stability. Closing an incentive school altering the function of such a school is a highly disruptive event which the Court would be reluctant to approve absent compelling evidence that such a change would better of desegregation. serve the goals The LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan is not approved. The parties are required to refine the provisions of the Long-Term Plan and again petition the Court for approval within 30 days of this Order. The revised Long-Tera Plan must: 1) identify the precise number of children to be served by the LRSD using the standard of 18 classroom, as agreed by the parties\nstudents per 2) accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\n3) place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance\n4) eliminate the closing of an incentive school\n5) follow a time schedule in which implementation of four-year-old programs is completed by 1994-95, completion date identified in the Long-Term Plan\nthe and 6) limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through agencies, such as Head Start, which the -16-district does not control and the goals of which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location. and so forth. While the district IS encouraged to continue its cooperative relationship with agencies such as Head Start and the Cii.y of Little Rock Day Care Center, the parties may not shift to such programs the obligation the parties themselves assumed when they wrote the Special Programs 1989 plan. The LRSD proposes to eliminate Little Rock Job Corps Alternative Program from the settlement plan. Mr. James Jennings, LRSD Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services, testified that the Job Corps Center no longer offers the Alternative Program and that there are other programs in place that deal with high school students who are at risk of dropping out of school: the LRSD Alternative Learning Center in the old Carver building, the JTPA Summer Learning Program, and a Changing Directions program. Additionally, Mr. Jennings and Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs for the LRSD, mentioned programs such as New Futures for Little Rock Youth and the Cornerstone Project with which the district collaborates to provide various services which promote student success. The district also proposes to delete the Homework Telephone Hotline for English, math. establishment of a science, and social studies. (This phone service is not the same homework hotline -17-which the district is required to provide for incentive school students.) Mr. Jennings testified that the funding for this Hotline, which was to be provided by the business community, had not materialized. Instead, some students who attend the four LRSD junior highs involved in the New Futures program can phone a recorded homework assignment message and can participate in an after school tutorial program. There is also a corporate-sponsored state telephone homework line which Little Rock students The Court approves the changes regarding the Little may use. Rock Job Corps Alternative Program since Job Corps no longer offers the program. However, the district must continue to provide students who are experiencing attendance or disciplinary problems with other programs similar to the Job Corps Alternative Program, such as this may wax and wane but the district remains Programs obligated to assure that there are ongoing comprehensive and effective services for students needing specialized support. The district is expected to make wise use of all available community resources. to maintain strong coalitions with such organizations as Job Corps, New Futures, and Cornerstone, and to seek new resources to take the place of those no longer available. The Court will carefully monitor the district's use of community resources and the LRSD's programs, policies, and practices which are designed to enable students to remain in school, promote their academic success, alleviate behavior problems. and The requirement for the Homework Telephone Hotline, other than the homework phone line which serves incentive school students. may -18-be removed from the plan because similar services are being provided by other organizations. However, the Court may restore the requirement for the district to implement a homework hotline if comparable services become unavailable elsewhere and students are not receiving adequate help with homework through hotlines other means. or New Futures The 1989 plan contains certain references to operations of the New Futures program which largely have been deleted in the May submission. The Court understands that the program as originally described in the plan is now outdated, operations of the program have changed. as certain features and At the hearings, several references were made to New Futures by two district witnesses. This testimony indicated that the district continues to depend upon New Futures, especially in four junior high schools, to provide such services as after-school tutoring centers, phone recordings of homework assignments, and extended day programs. Also, LRSD financial statements contain New Futures budget allotments and debits which attest to the district's ongoing relationship with the program. It IS incongruous to remove plan references to New Futures while continuing to rely heavily upon New Futures as a partner. The Court will not approve deleting from the plan language which describes New Futures' functions in LRSD schools at the time the plan was written until the parties provide the Court updated information which will replace the obsolete description of New Futures and its role in the LRSD schools. -19-Academic Support Programs In the 1989 plan, the LRSD approach to academic remediation was largely embodied within a program known as Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL). When PAL was incorporated into the plan, there was general understanding among the parties as to what the program entailed because the LRSD had developed an extensive written description of PAL and had begun widespread inservice training on its implementation. Mrs. Matthis testified at the January 23, 1992 hearing that there has been dissatisfaction with the results of PAL as it has existed and that the district desires to modify PAL and change the district's overall approach to remediation. The parties proposed to delete PAL from the language of the plan, replacing it with generic reference to an a unspecified number of unnamed \"LRSD academic support (remediation) programs.\" The Court is convinced that PAL as it has been implemented is an inadequate approach to remediation and does not wish the district to continue investing resources in an ineffective program\nyet the Court cannot sanction a complete abandonment of PAL or deletion of all references to it in the plan until the parties are able to replace it with an interrelated, programmatic approach to remediation that is sufficiently detailed for the Court to monitor. Therefore, the parties must submit within 60 days a written plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to replace PAL. The plan must include the following\n1) the name and location of each academic support program\n-20-2) Clearly stated goals and objectives for each program\n3) a comprehensive description of each program's components and activities, including those which may be \"extended day\" in nature\n4) an overview of how all the individual academic support programs will be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources\n5) the number of students targeted for participation in each program by school and grade level\n6) the number of teachers or other staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering each of the academic support programs\n7) 8) implementation time lines\nanticipated costs\n9) an overview of the necessary staff training by content, by year, and by number of training participants\n10) evaluation criteria that will indicate how effectively teachers are implementing new instructional approaches. an element termed \"critical\" by the LRSD witness at the hearings\nand 11) evaluation criteria that will measure the degree to which each academic support program is successful in meeting its particular programmatic goals and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction -21-of disparity between black and white students/ According to LRSD financial data, materials and personnel for PAL have been underwritten by millions of dollars in settlement money. The district must salvage to the extent possible what has been invested in the PAL remediation approach. Staff positions, computer hardware, software programs. and other equipment and materials previously devoted to PAL should be properly reallocated toward the new approach to remediation. Additionally, in the LRSD remediation programs designed to address students' learning deficiencies, the parties propose to delete science and social studies as \"core areas\" through which requisite skills are maintained and reinforced at the secondary level. In their joint motion for partial stay pending appeal and during the hearing on the motion. the parties contended that science and social studies were deleted from the list of discrete academic support programs in order to emphasize remediation in the areas of English, reading, and math rather than \"diluting\" the program by including science and social studies.- At the hearing in January 1992, Mrs. Matthis indicated that removing students from class for remediation in social studies and science as well as for reading and math would result in increasing the isolation of students from the regular classroom, decreasing the cooperative *If it appears that the Court is being too particular in setting forth required components of proposed programs such as the academic support programs and the Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan, it is because the parties have failed to provide the Court with well thought out, comprehensive program plans which can be closely monitored. -22-learning interaction among regular students and those participating in remediation programs, and decreasing the ability of these students to complete the number of courses required for graduation. (See Exhibit 19A, attached.) Mrs. Matthis also testified that remediation in math and reading would benefit student achievement in both science and social studies since math and reading skills are prerequisites to success in other curricular areas. She stressed that it is \"critical\" that the district provide the staff development necessary to ensure that teachers are able to assume greater responsibility for the total educational experience of students rather than only specific subject-oriented content. The Court allows the change regarding science and social studies as proposed and requires the district to provide all teachers with ongoing training to meet students' need for academic remediation in the most inclusive setting and comprehensive manner possible. The Court will closely monitor student progress on test scores in social studies and science. If students fail to progress in these areas or if improvement is not made in reducing overall achievement disparity between black and white students, the Court may require changes in the plan. The parties propose to modify the plan by adding language that gives the LRSD an option of merely informing parents rather than actively involving them in each identified phase of the remediation programs in which their children participate: individual assessment, individual improvement planning, formative assessments. -23-workshops, and. summative evaluations. Given the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement, the Court denies the modification. Focused Activities Testimony indicated that approximately 8 0% of the black elementary students in Little Rock do not attend an incentive or magnet school but are educated instead in area schools. In order to advance desegregation and reduce achievement disparity among the large number of students served by area schools, the plan gives each area school the option of developing a program of focused activities which may center around a theme. The goals of focused activities are to promote a community of learning among parents, staff and students\nto provide enrichment opportunities at the schools\nand to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the area schools. The parties also wish to continue a related program. the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program for the area schools. The Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program provides up to $75,000 for each area school over a three year period to fund programs which will improve the education of all students and reduce student achievement disparity. The Court approves continuing the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, which the district will evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognizes the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of. the original focused activities feature of the plan. Focused activities will -24-continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme, and will operate according to the original plan which provides for community and parental involvement and allocation of funds. an annual Junior High Schools The parties propose to eliminate from language concerning the possible construction the settlement plan of a new junior high school, leaving only \"planning\" for additional junior high capacity. Evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the LRSD is experiencing serious capacity problems at its junior high schools, with four of the district's eight junior highs at or above 100% capacity. (See Exh. # 27, attached). When this case began. there were three junior high schools located in the eastern or central sections of Little Rock: Booker, Dunbar, and Mann. Within the last few years, all of these schools have been converted to magnet schools. Dunbar and Mann have remained junior highs and Booker is an elementary magnet. Consequently, those children (most of whom are black) living in the east and central city have been largely displaced from that area's junior highs and must bear an unequitable burden of transportation to attend high schools in the western sections of town. nonmagnet junior Moreover, when capacity of the junior high schools is inadequate for the number of children eligible to attend them and the buildings become overcrowded, these schools are rendered unattractive to parents who hesitate to place their children in an environment that offers less than optimal learning conditions. -25-The Court does not approve the modification. The language of the plan does not require the LRSD to build immediately a new junior high school but it does obligate the parties to conduct careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to- M needs, If results of the study, based on current and complete information, indicate that construction of a new LRSD junior high school is necessary, the Court will require the district construction timGlinss and. procGdurss  Incentive Schools to submit Reserved Seating and Parent Recruitment - The parties propose change in the plan that would allow the district to place black children in vacant seats which had been reserved for white children at the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten levels in the incentive schools. Mr. James Jennings testified that the district now fills a a any unclaimed reserved seats after the first week of school. The Court is concerned about the impact of this change. When seats intended for white children are instead filled with black children, desegregation at the incentive schools is seriously impeded. No matter how successful subsequent recruitment might be, once seats at a particular grade level are filled with a racially imbalanced enrollment, the imbalance tends to persist at that grade level as those students matriculate from one year to the next. The parties have pledged to desegregate the incentive schools with aggressive and sustained recruitment of white children, including the strategy of targeting geographic neighborhoods for recruitment -26-to a specific incentive school and stressing group preference as an assignment option. In order for this type of group recruitment plan to work, there must be seats available at the incentive schools. In their June 1990 Joint Brief for Appellants, the parties explained to the Eighth Circuit that the incentive schools would be desegregated in phases \"through combination of white recruitment into the Incentive Schools. and by reserving a a ^.siqnated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. Joint Brief for Appellants at 36, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89- 2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 90-1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90- 1580) (emphasis original). First of all, the number of black students identifiable schools will be reduced in racially automatically through the plan. Our target is to reserve fifty percent of the seats in the incentive schools for white students each year, beginning with next year's kindergarten class. A certain number of those seats will be reserved whether or not the white students show up. And that number, we have discussed in the past with the Joshua Intervenors. The fifty percent target will work if all of our schools are allowed to go forward with the construction schedule of inter-district schools. If not we would still retain, at least, the district average of whi\u0026lt;.e students who would reserve, at least, that many seats throughout the entire six years, so that if, three or four years from now, a group of white students decided to go to the fourth grade at Rockefeller School, would be available for that purpose. That is our target. show up. If not. seats Id. at n.64. Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance of the various types of LRSD schools: interdistrict schools -27-at 50 percent black/white with a variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race\nmagnet schools at between 50 and 55 percent black\nand area schools at an enrollment of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. While the plan does not identify a specific target racial balance in the incentive schools, the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit require that a racial balance at the incentive schools be 50 percent of each race, at least in the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten levels. This proportion is to guide the district in the number of seats which are initially reserved for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. The Court will reluctantly allow seats reserved for white students to be released after a reasonable period only if timely. vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts to fill the seats with white children are unsuccessful. These recruitment efforts must be thoroughly documented by the districts to the extent that the Court can determine that--the parties are diligently trying to recruit white students to the incentive schools before any reserved seats. releasing The parties also propose to modify their plan language so as to limit the LRSD's incentive school recruitment efforts to potential kindergarten students. Such a change would allow the _ ^The Court, recognizes that the Eighth Circuit has defined racially identifiable black elementary school in LRSD as\nelementary school that is 81% or more black (rounded in LRSD \"a any uuc is ex-5 or more black (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number) .\" _ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 339 f 2d 1296 1988) . ' 1307 (Sth Cir. -28-LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's \"automatic\" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court is mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-schools ultimately can be achieved or at least significantly increased. The Court encourages the district to analyze the success factors that are contributing to the desegregation of these two schools to enhance desegregation of the remaining incentive schools. Pupil-teacher ratio and classroom aides ~ The plan describes in detail a wide range of special features which are unique to the incentive schools. These enhanced programs, activities, support systems, and funding levels are compensatory and remedial in that they are intended to help children overcome past discrimination and boost student achievement. They also are designed to promote racial desegregation by attracting white children to these predominately black schools. The Eighth Circuit has underscored the importance of the many special incentive is important for the settlement plans to be school aspects: \"It scrupulously adhered to and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools...\" 921 F.2d at 1386. Among the distinctive incentive school features is a pupilteacher ratio that is lower than that of other LRSD schools. In the 1989 plan, the parties promised that the incentive schools would have a maximum pupil-teacher ratio of 20 to one. This ratio is consistent with the February 9, 1988 opinion of the Eighth Circuit which states that \"the most important element of the compensatory and remedial programs should be the reduction of class size in the racially identifiable black elementary schools to 20 -30-pupils per teacher,\" Little Rock School District v- Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, The low incentive school pupilteacher ratio 1307 (Sth Cir. 1988) . was again stressed by the Eighth Circuit in its order of December 12, 1990: \"A salient feature of these [incentive schools] would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one.  921 F.2d at 1379. The school district has used this reduced ratio in marketing the incentive schools, promising a \"low pupil/teacher ratio: small classes of 20:1 which provide more time for teacher interaction with students\" in a LRSD recruitment brochure which was used to attract new students to the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year. The LRSD's Incentive School Strategic Marketing Plan for 1992-1997, published in May 1991, enumerates the many strengths and benefits of the incentive schools, listing among them smaller class sizes, lower student-adult ratios. and an instructional aide for every classroom. Clearly the LRSD has represented to the courts and to the community that incentive school students. teachers, principals, and parents could expect that the children would be taught in smaller classes with pupil to teacher ratios lower than that of other schools, indeed lower than that by state accreditation standards. required Yet language in the plan creates confusion about the twenty to one ratio and the number of students that actually will be seated in a classroom. The 1989 plan states that \"there may be more than 20 students per classroom. however, there will be certified aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those -31- aclasses.\" (LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan, May 1, 1991, p. 256) In their June 1990 Joint Brief to the Eighth Circuit, the parties reaffirm their commitment to a \"specific and detailed\" plan for the incentive schools and state that \"Incentive Schools would have a maximum effective pupil/teacher ratio of 20:1 by placing a second teacher or certified instructional aide in each class with more than 20 pupils (where classes of that size were permitted by state law).\" Joint Brief for Appellants at 43, n.76. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- Earlier, in its Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the Special Master, filed with the district court in May 1989 and included in the Joint Designated Record on Appeal, the LRSD had addressed the ambiguity of the plan that promised a 20 to 1 pupilteacher ratio but also allowed more than 20 students to a classroom: The Special Master expressed concern at an off-the- record conference that the pupil/teacher ratio was beina rnanrrorl 4_____ . _ . . changed to twenty-five to though the maximum class one. LRSD explained that even size would be twenty-five students, the pupil/teacher ratio would remain at twenty to one. LRSD provided the example of four classrooms with twenty-five students and one full-time teacher in each classroom. A full-time language arts teacher would be assigned to work with those four classrooms, overall ratio of one hundred students to five teachers or twenty to one. The Special Master indicated that such an arrangement would be acceptable provided that teachers and not certified aides were used to achieve the to one ratio. for an twenty Joint Designated Record, Vol. II at 2767, Little Rock School -32-District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- At the January 1992 hearings on proposed 1989 plan revisions, this Court noted Eighth Circuit orders which specifically refer to the twenty to one ratio. Responding to this Court's concern about what the parties had represented to the Eighth Circuit regarding the incentive school pupil-teacher ratio, the LRSD lawyer indicated that the Eighth Circuit's order of December 1990 was based in part upon oral arguments made before the judges in June 1990 when the parties explained the difference between a class with a maximxim of 25 students and a pupil-teacher ratio of twenty to one. The lawyer stated that \"Judge Arnold is not a judge to waste words in an opinion, and the issue was before him concerning the difference between class size and pupil-teacher ratio. And we explained that we would have a class size with a maximxim of 25 students but an effective pupil-teacher ratio based on a total staff devoted to those students of 20 to one.\" However, this Court's review of the Eighth Circuit's own audio tapes of those oral arguments reveal that. while there was discussion of double funding and other aspects of the incentive schools, there was no reference whatever to the size of incentive school classes nor the pupil-teacher ratio. The numerous extraordinary features of the incentive schools have been represented to the Court and the of substance and not of mere semantics. community as a matter This Court finds that -33-sBBsasiQ^sssEaEgB^e^s^E Si providing a smaller-than-usual class size in the incentive schools was intended in the settlement agreement as a means to promote both academic achievement and racial balance in the schools. The Court notes that to have anticipated placing up to 25 students in each incentive classroom would have been a violation of Arkansas accreditation standards which permit an average of 25 students per elementary classroom only in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Recognizing that language in the settlement plan allows for more than twenty children in a classroom. the Court orders that the maximum individual classroom enrollment at incentive schools will be as follows: 18 students in four-year-old classes. as agreed by the parties\n20 students in kindergarten, 23 students in grades one through three. and 25 students in grades four through six. class sizes which are consistent with certain of the state's accreditation standards. fi This Court is mindful of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on the reduction of class size in the incentive schools to 20 pupils per teacher and that Court's caution about reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools without significant justification. In order to effect a low pupilteacher ratio as provided in the settlement plan, the Court orders that there be at least one full time instructional aide per incentive school classroom in those schools where any classroom contains more than 6 The table on page 254 of the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan concerning capacity at incentive schools is being modified in accordance with this Order. -34-20 students. the district should choose to reduce class size to a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten through sixth grade classroom in an entire incentive school, the Court will allow that school to have two instructional aides for every three K-6 classrooms. In any case, an appropriate number of supervision aides will be provided at each incentive school, regardless of whether there is one instructional aide per classroom or, in those schools which elect to have no more than 20 children per K-6 classroom, two instructional aides per every three K-6 classrooms. Infomnation presented at the hearings indicated that over half of all incentive school classrooms presently have more than 20 students. The Court is sensitive to the tremendous disruption that changing schools causes for children and their parents. In adjusting to reduced class size for the 1992-93 school year. the Court will not require that students currently enrolled in the incentive schools be transferred mandatorily to some other school. Children attending an incentive school during the 1991-92 school year may remain at that school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to another school. No new student shall be enrolled in an incentive school if that student's enrollment would cause the ordered class size limits to be exceeded. However, the Court is willing to permit an exception if the new student's enrollment would improve racial balance. Academic Programs - Given the importance of parental involvement. the Court does not approve a change that would remove the requirement for the district to develop a parent component model -35-and incorporate it into the district's four-year-old program. The Court will approve a proposed change in the four-year-old program content model from the designated High/Scope Curriculum only if the shift is to comparable developmentally appropriate curriculum model which continues to foster the active and independent of each child. learning The Court is not convinced that school themes at the incentive schools should be deleted from the 1989 plan and does not approve their elimination. The Eighth Circuit has stressed the importance of parental involvement. School themes, developed at the local level by parents and staff, provide an important avenue for community participation. Themes have proven their value in magnet schools as successful desegregation tools which offer a focus for enrichment activities. help give schools an identity and individuality, and provide parents with more options for their children's education. Moveover, considerable money, materials, and personnel already have been invested in thematic development at the incentive schools\nit will be a wise use of resources to continue to build on the thematic foundation which has already been laid. The parties propose to modify the plan to allow science laboratories to be either mobile or permanent. The modification would release the district from the requirement to have traditional laboratory in separate room reserved for that purpose. The district has cited lack of adequate space for housing permanent laboratories in some of the incentive schools as the basis of this proposed change. The Court is reluctant to approve a a a -36-modifications in the plan that stem from lack of planning foresight on the part of the parties, as is evident with the science laboratories, but will allow mobile science laboratories in those incentive schools where adequate space for a full size permanent science lab is not available. The mobile labs must be fully equipped so that students using them receive the same range and high quality of experience as students who are taught in permanent labs. At the August 1991 hearing on the motion for partial stay. LRSD Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele stated that preparation of Parent Home Study Guides was linked to the completion of the district's new Computer Managed Instructional Technology and related cxirriculum reform. The Court allows the modification to delay development of Parent Home Study Guides. However, the guides must be completed and ready for parental use at or before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the date the district has indicated it will complete the guides. The LRSD seeks to eliminate its commitment to establish foreign language laboratories at each incentive school. Because children cannot be expected to achieve a degree of foreign language proficiency without the practice and reinforcement afforded by a language laboratory, the modification is not allowed. The Court notes language contained in the parties' joint brief filed in June 1990, enumerating the wide array of activities, enhanced programs, and support mechanisms that would be available at the incentive schools. The Eighth Circuit has emphasized the importance of the -37-incentive schools and this Court will not allow the district to diminish the scope and quality of the schools' instructional programs and enrichment activities. Year Round School The 1989 agreement offered year round school and summer school at all incentive schools. The parties propose to modify the settlement plan by replacing year round school with an extended-year program and providing summer school at possibly only one site. The Court approves the change but notes that there is a significant difference between a traditional summer school which emphasizes academic remediation and an extended-year program which may include remediation but also adds a variety of enrichment opportunities that enhance and extend children's learning beyond the regular school year. The parties remain obligated to provide incentive school children with summer learning experiences that go beyond the customary basic curriculxim of an ordinary summer remedial school. The extendedyear program for incentive school students must be located in a facility or facilities with \u0026lt; sufficient to accommodate all of the eligible students who attend the program. capacity wish to Washington Attendance Zone - The parties propose to add language offering certain incentive school educational services, such as extended day activities, extended year activities. and a scholarship program, to students who reside in the Washington attendance zone but cannot attend that school. The parties' July 25, 1991 stipulation indicates that these services are available to students who are enrolled in Washington. The parties' positions -38-are unclear. Before the Court will approve the modification, the parties must provide more details, such as: 1) the status of the LRSD's plan to include these newly- eligible children in the incentive school extended-year, and scholarship programs\nextended day, 2) whether the LRSD has budgeted the money to underwrite incentive school services for additional students. e.g., transportation. after-school snacks. materials and supplies, additional personnel to satisfy the staffing requirement for Homework Centers, and so forth\nand 3) how communication will be coordinated among the staff at Washington, staff at the incentive schools. and parents in order to develop individual Student Education Plans and otherwise assure continuity of services for the Washington students who elect to take advantage of proposed provision. this The Court will not approve the modification until details are forthcoming. Camp Pfeifer - Provisions throughout the parties' plans obligate , them to make use of community resources (such as New Futures and the Cornerstone Project, discussed above) which aid overall progress toward desegregation goals. Camp Pfeifer is a type of residential alternative program for children needing additional assistance in order to be successful students. The parties propose to add wording to the effect that district students will participate provided the funding of the Camp Pfeifer continues and -39-the program meets the needs of the students. The Court allows the new language with the understanding that the change does not relieve the parties from their obligation to manage their relationship with community agencies in all good faith with careful attention to maintaining ongoing communication, cooperative teamwork, and complementary support. The parties are wise to join with the community in strong working partnerships to build a solid support network for children. The Court will monitor changes which the parties may wish to make in their relationship with such community resources as Camp Pfeifer, New Futures, Cornerstone, and others to determine the impact of those changes on desegregation. In further considering the parties' reliance on various community resources, the Court notes that the parties have added language making the continuation of several programs contingent on the availability of outside funding. For example, in the Interdistrict May submissions (p. 415) and in the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan (pp. 10, 41, 46, 166, 304) , programs and services provided through such agencies as JTPA, HIPPY, Camp Pfeifer, and local cable education access channel are to continue only if other funding is available. The Court allows the modifications but stresses that funding availability refers only to the particular programs. The parties' obligation to provide comparable services is not negated by the unavailability of other funding. -40-Program Specialists and Other Recommended Positions - The parties propose to delete the positions of specialist for alternative classroom and program specialist and to base the position of assistant principal on enrollment. The Court disapproves the deletion of the program specialist in each incentive school as the position is necessary to support the thematic emphasis required in each school. In addition, the Court does not approve the language which would make student enrollment the sole determining factor for including an assistant principal as part of an incentive school's staff as there are other indicators of a school's need for the position. The district must place an assistant principal, or any other staff position which has been recommended in the plan. in accordance with equitably meeting the identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school. For example, an assistant principal may be needed to help with the additional documentation. services. and enhancements that are required at the incentive schools. An assistant principal can serve as a classroom observer and program monitor to assure the sustained quality of the incentive schools. As stated in the plan, positions recommended for each school are not all inclusive since additional or different positions may be identified during the needs assessment process. The district must make decisions regarding recommended staff positions based upon criteria linked to a current needs assessment of an individual school. this vein, the Court does not approve removing an alternative classroom specialist from the list of recommended staff and requires the district to determine the need -41-altsmativs classrooms and establish them where necessary to serve students who will benefit from the specialized alternative setting. staff Development - The parties propose to create at each incentive school a staff development committee composed of Instructional Resource Center specialists, teachers, parents, principals, and other administrators as appropriate. Because there is great value in parents' taking active part in all aspects of the incentive schools, the Court approves the school-based staff development committees. This change will provide an avenue for frequent parent input into the operation of the schools since the plan requires the committees to meet on a monthly basis to plan activities related to meeting the needs of students who are achieving below acceptable levels of mastery. The functioning of these school committees will be supported by the incentive school coordinator and staff development department which must ensure that there is a smooth transition from the LRSD Staff Development Planning Committee as originally provided in the plan to the individual development committees. school staff Incentive School Curriculum - The Court allows the deletion of the requirement to develop curriculum specific to the incentive schools. but if the regular core curriculum is used in the incentive schools, it must be amplified as necessary to properly incorporate and support the thematic emphasis of each incentive school. It will be appropriate for the district to seek parent. teacher. and other school staff input into the development of -42-curriculum that will incorporate individual school themes and serve the specific needs of students attending the incentive schools. Consultant/Monitor The original plan called for the Special Master to appoint a consultant/monitor to make quarterly- evaluations and recommendations to the Special Master. changes replacing the Special Master with The Court approves the the Court. It does not approve the language requiring the Court's Monitor, who directs the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), to make at least quarterly visits to all schools in the three districts nor to report to the Court on a quarterly basis. The ODM is an arm of the Court which is responsible only to the Court. Its schedule and activities are not determined by the parties. None of the language in the plan's Consultant/Monitor section shall be construed as a comprehensive description of the appropriate function of the Monitor nor shall it limit the activities of the ODM. Such determinations are reserved for the Court. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Court determines that the modifications proposed by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) the guidelines set forth by the Eighth are in conformity with Circuit. The changes concern details and adapt the original plan to existing circumstances. The Court notes, however, that the NLRSD plan makes reference to and includes a voluminous appendix. While the Court -43-questions the current significance of some of the documents included in the appendix, the NLRSD plan attached to this Order includes the appendix as presented by the parties modified plan. as part of their SUMMARY The Court hereby approves the revised plans as attached to this Order. The Little Rock School District is ordered to file with the Court, within 3 0 days from the date of entry of this Order, a Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan. It is further ordered to file within 60 days from the date of entry of this Order a plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to take the place of PAL. In addition, as this Court previously ordered on January 21, 1992, the LRSD must submit within 30 days from the date of entry of this Order a revised budget. The parties must file any motions for clarification and/or modification of this Order by May 14, 1992. DATED this 29th day of April, 1992. JNITED STATES DISTRICT JI UNITED JUDGE -44-TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 18, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: Remediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Provided is additional information to suppon our argument for providing remediation within the regular classrooms and reducing pull-out programs 9 . Students educational programs should not be implemented in isolation. . Facilitates the reinstitution of tracking of students by their supposed academic potential as most remedial classes are more than 90% black. . Proposal institutes more cooperative learning among groups of young people with varying abilities. . Allow teachers to team teach in more flexibly-designed curriculum blocks that integrate several disciplines rather than presenting students with disconnected, rapidly separated 50-minute subjects. . Train teachers to acquire a repertoire of teaching strategies that will enable students to acquire skills in learning how to learn, problem solving, and communication skills. . Existing staffing decisions and the program deliver/ model need to be reviewed and revised in accordance with our revised curriculum. . Existing compensatory and remedial programs rarelv teach the development of higher-order skills. . The amount of time recommended in each content area bv ADE and National Association for Accredited Schools is prohibitive to student mobility in completing course requirements for graduation (20 credits) as well as devoting recommended time in each elementary discipline. EXHIBIT 19 ARemediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Page 2 . Students are prevented from benefiting from panicipation in electives. Remediation becomes punitive and is resisted by students and their parents. Remedial and compensatory education services must be provided as additions, otherwise, providing remedial services in lieu of would be considered supplanting by our accrediting agencies (ADE and NCA). SCHEDULES Elementary Level Subject Recommended Time Grades 1-3: Language Arts Mathematics Social Living (science, geography, history, economics, health/safety Creative Recreation (art, music, P.E.) 180 min. daily - 900 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Grades 4-6: Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science Creative Recreation 150 min. daily - 750 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 30 min. daily - 150 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Secondary Level A minimum of 50 minutes per class is required with the exception of some vocational courses. Most of our classes are 55 minutes in length. Students must acquire a minimum of 20 credits to graduate and, by ADE statute, must exit school by age 21. The amount of time allocated to complete course work will not allow pull-out programs in all core areas.TO\nFROM: SUBJECT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 11, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Long Range_Building Planning Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent BradyGadberry, Labor Relations Specialist Sterling Ingram, Director, Chip Jones, Manager of Planning, Support Services Research \u0026amp; Eval : ucng Range Building Planning Coanittee As we have considered the building dis.._c. schools, recommended uses of vacant buildincs. and secondary capacity. of buildings, X . School Sites The District currently owns-- four properties pouentia_ as sites for new or expanded schools, have Deen held with Philander that have fifth site. Smith College for Discussions a possible (a) One site is located at th e present Westside camous. Westsioe property is only a few blocks from 1-630 areas of the City and County acjacent to Arkansas Childrc ' \"   - accessible to all t: ve and o (b) c: ,inc-n\ns\\ already expressed located near them. xs xas en's Hospital (ACK). AC.H r enthusiastic support for a school support for xOr joint use of the prooertv develop a partnership to needs of children. They also would like to develom olans _ sc that LRSD and AC.H  serve educational and health , . P-p-iininary site plans indicate that f a capacity of 656 K-6 students and 40 four-year-olds for a total located on the sit two-story building with e. use of space, but offers exiting facility. w 11 or 696 students can be This plan will require efficient the potential for a unique Rockefeller School is located on a tract well-suited for expansion. and of land that is Ample space is available for P-vide seats for students , school is also easily accessible and has been successful in attracting student Citv. east s from all over the EXHIBIT 27Ruth Steele June 25, Page 2 1S9 1 ! II. (C) (e) The current Stephens site is adequate to support a school for approximately 656 K-6 students and 40 four- students for a total of 696 students. The year-old current Stephens building would be replaced with a new structure. Rebuilding Stephens on the current site enables a site significant number of black students .to attend school without being bussed out of the neighborhood. to The site the former Kinc/Oakhurst physically attractive location situated east of Field . fortner School is a of Curran- Conway Field. The King site is also large enouch to accommodate approximately 840 K-6 students and 40 feur- .year-olds .fo-r a total of S80 students. The King site is also attractive because of its proximity to Curran-Conway Field. The District would seek to enter into a joint-use agreement with the City so that the students will develop interests in a variety of extra-curricular activities. Field. st In order to populate a school on the King site, it be necessary to transport some black students from predominately black will one attendance zone to predominately black attendance zone which would i the burden of busing-for-black students. another ncrease Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training orocram and would like to develop a partnership with the District. They have rejected cur proposal to build a school on their campus, but we should continue to plan to develco cooperative efforts with Philander Smith'. Attendance Zone Data - Elementary Schools This section will address the attendance zone changes that are needed to objectives. First, King phens Schools will be rebuilt in the 1-630 Corridor. \u0026lt;St comply with two First, and schools will become interdist These Ct schools, and they will have a racial balance of 60 percent blac.k and 40 percent white. The white population in these schools will come primarily f^cm PCSSD. Second, bussing the District on zones as possible. is seeking to reduce the burden black students by eliminating as of many satellite The fulfillment of this objective is restricted by the minimum black percentage that is required in tul elementary area schools. As a result, some schools in all west satellite Little Rock must maintain some, if zone blocks in order to comply desegregation requirements. not all, of their with court-ordered c:\\fnemos\\: . wodRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page J two objectives x..ese zwo cojectives are interrelated. The construction projects will make it possible for students who live attendance zone of incentive/interdistric in the --- schools to attend these These projects will also, to some reduce the burden of bussing on black students. schools. extent, A zotal of 2190 students currently reside in the attendance zones of the incentive schools. The total capacity of the seven incentive schools is 2405, r*' of 1:25. Although 215 vacancies will The total 1:25. using a teacher/pupil ratio exist if all azzendance zone students attend the incentive schools, of the vacancies can be filled by students who currently nearby satellite.^ zones.   reside in satellite these zones allow the respective attendance zone A total of 281 students that can be eliminated reside in currently and s i 1 1 0 minimum desegregation schools to comply with This requirements. situation is complicated by the fact that 200 of the 281 satellite students live near the Stephens/Garland area. Ar her se azzendance zone. rious problem involves the Washington Magnet School Washington is the only elementary magnet zone,- This zone was drawn initiallv to accommodate 1050 incentive school students. school with an attendance converted to a Desegregation Plan. magne school The Diszric under the The school^was Tri-Distric,t recently received czu^z oval to continue to operate Washington as a magnet school. T..e attendance zone for Washingzon is too large to accommodat an of e the black students. Washington's capacity is are 892 black students who reside in the Washington The desegregation requirement for Washingt,.. As a result, only 60 percent '(488) of the black- a zendance zone studenzs nay attend Washington. 404 students must reassigned to non-attendance schools.  from eas e Washington's azzendance zone. is 60% black. 404 mus be 814 . ^n to The remaining zone These reassignments usually involve busing students t Little Rock to southwest Little Rock. Most of the 404 students from the Washington attendance (235 studenzs) reside on the northeast edge of the District. The closest elementary schools to these students are Carver- Magnet School, Booker Magnet School, and Rockefeller Incentive School.  zone The magnet shadow preferences for Carver and Booker (25 percent of building capacity) are too small to accommodate these students. percen the are small c: \\fnemos\\blscf\u0026gt;r.2. wpdRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 4 Ill. Attendance Zcne Data Secondary Schools In a separate process, calculate capacities for from' fomnula has a formula been developed secondary schools. to It is apparent .the study that very little capacity exists currently che junior high level and a significant amount of caoac at  , . - -----wt caoacitv exisus the highs. However, the District seems ti n.aye reached the peak of junior high enrollment in 1990-91 and that enrollment will decrease for a couple of years begin to increase again slightly in 1993-94. indicate that senior high enrollment will in the senior highs. However of the Distric and then IV. 'ext five years but not to the extent . The projections increase over the is required. required in 1992-93 that additional capacity However, adjustments to attendance zones mav be iQ-)Lno _'_______ or subsequent years. (See Attachment 1) While educational trends indicate that articulation between seventh grades, eighth to ninth grades, and ninth to sixth o tenth grades is best with a grade s 9-12, appears that the it District ucture of K-6, changing its secondary grade struc secondary capacity problems. should not 7-S, and consider re as a means for solvin Junior high enrollment will range, from 93% without the additional seats for' the juni 90% to 94% rest r to 102% of capacity .------- junior high schoois\"an,d with the proposed construction. Heights is expected to exceed the The enrollment a ... - - -- ----- -- current building capacity in 1993-94 and continue to increase in 1994-95 1995-96. Tne enrollment will range from capacity with the proposed construction. At The 37% to 97% and of Southwest Junior gh iu appears' that replacing 4 portable classrooms, 2 classrooms, . , - - ----------, adding and utilizing 3 classrooms in.the PDC will be the maximum advisable construction and-will provide additional space for attendance zone students. The other junior high school that should be expanded is Mabelvale. - -  Replacing the pori.able c...assrooms and building 4 new classrooms will provide adequate space for Mabelvale and southwes much of the growth is occurring. Little Rock, where 1990 Census The Office of Desegregation is presently involved in analyzing A map overlay has been prepared that black/white population count for each census tract. The 1980 Census data will be added to the facilitate comparisons of data by race and each census tpact. the 1990 Census data. map overlay to tn a total population in Preliminary comparisons the population trends that expected to continue. were evident seem to indicate In particular, in 1930 can be the. population in c: \\memos\\i:l dcomZ. updRuth Steele June 25 Page 5 1991 central and east Little Rock will continue to decline, and the population in portion of southwest and northwest Little Rock will continue to increase. it 1 did was recently announced that the original 1990 census count include 5.3 million ..persons. Our analysis of the no original census data for Little Rock Our analysis seems to confirm that ese figures are too low. We are in the process of obtaining e revised census counts. It should be noted, however, that e revised counts have not been.,approved by the U. Bureau. S. Census Further analysis,\nwill be needed to identify trends in specific geographic areas. each census block. The next step is to analyze the data for several census blocks. (Note: Each census tract is made uo of The census block data report * has approximately 700 pages.) In addition to examining census block data, another map overlay will be drawn for the attendance zones. There will probably be numerous discrepancies between the boundaries for the census tracts and the boundaries for the attendance zones. In such cases, the census block data will be usedto determine the exact number V. of students in a particular attendance zone. T.ne census map for 1990 is not the same as the census 1930 . Most of the changes in map for he boundaries for the census tracts occurred in southwest Little Rock and the western edce of the City. These differences will have to be reconciled in order to be able to make valid comparisons. Professional Development Cente For many years, SU I oort tie the District's instructional specialists and functions have been spread across Little Rock with chance for a coordinated instructional management The Math, Reading, Science, Staff Development, Social and English Departments are currently located in the former Lee School Building, now called the Instructional system. Studies, Resource Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Pupil Services, and the Student Hearing Officer, are located in the District's Annex Building on West Markham, and Library Media Services is currently located at Franklin School. Center (IRC). Health Services, Markham, c: \\mcmos\\blscom2 . upd Ruth Steele June 25, Page 6 1991 For several years, the District has been concerned about the physical condition of the IRC building, but the District has not bad opportunity to provide a satisfactory solution^ Trr Dictritt Desegregation Plan In the Tri-District    i I f d Magnet was proposed for Southwest Junior High. a University Lab -  . . -  As a result of ...IS proposal, the District chose the Southwest site for a new professio.nal development center that would provide state-of- the-art administrators. drawings of instructional space for students, teachers, and An architect for the District has develooed students, VI. provide a two-level 45,000 s\u0026lt;^are foot building which will - uf instructional specialists, a space for all of the multiple purpose auditorium, ctional specialists, . a professional library, wcrk/production r^ooms for teachers, classrooms, instructional classrooms, generous techrtology labs,\"an instructional management - . center, and many Ou.'er functions. The professional development center will be located south of Southwes er functions. Street. facility (PDC) Junior High along Sryant The District considers the construction of critical to improving the potential this new ,  -  r--------- for sLal cevelopment for the District's teachers and administrators. (The PDC has been designed so that it \u0026lt;__ additional junior high seatsif necessary. Dcr-.-icus currently occupies Services School. can be converted three classrooms The relocation of Library Media to Library Media at Franklin Services to the Professional Development Center will'allow Franklin's caoacitv to increase by 75 students.) Other Properties The^ District currently has several buildings that are not suited to meet the instruction goals of .the District, buildings or sites that do not fit several buildings tha The into the long range plans of the  are the former Gillam School, Eastside ' Auditorium, the former King/Oakhurst School, and the fonaeT- Lee School (the current IRC).  he orium, District School, and the (a) Gillam School - The District currently leases of the building to Watershed, Inc. a majority . - - Rental income oavs approximately 66% of the operating cost of the building. The is located on Confederate Boulevard in Little Rock. Preliminary Requests for Proposals being developed to attempt to sell the property to site Preliminary Requests east are profit agency. a non( b) Eastside Auditorium - The auditorium a Eastside has not ysed^ for many years. The other portion of the building is used primarily for Adult Education. The auditorium is in very poor condition and is not been for Adult Education. of without significant and very expensive habitable renovation.Ruth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 7 Eastside Rockefeller. is located near 1-630 and 1-30, not far from (c) Lee School^ (IRC) - The Lee School Building is in very condition, and the District should find new the staff housed there as soon as The site would not be appropriate for a school because of traffic congestion and its limited poor facilities possible. VII. Recommendations  1) Direc - The Lee School Building is the District housed find soon size. our attorney to prepare stipulations to proceed .with rebuilding Stephens School at its present location and new King school at the old Westside site (14th Marshall Streets). and Stephens will have a capacity of 696 (including 40 four-year old students). addition to the present attendance area of zone blocks 0573, 0441, 0572, 0574, 0583, part of the McDermott lite zone (zone block 0562) will be added Stephens School. During the construction of the students four-year old In 0441, 0574 , 0583 , part 0562) Stephens, the const current students reassigned to the closest schools will to new be available. temporarily The new attendance zone for Stephens will have approximately.. 370 K-6 students. The new King School will have a capacity of 69 6 students (including 40 four-year old students) .* zone for King School will The attendance blocks: consist of the following zone 0442, 0443, 0445, 0446, 0459, 0458, (from the current Mitchell attendance zone). 0444, 0457 0439 (from the current Rightsell attendance zone) 0438 (from the current Jefferson satellite zone) The boundaries for the new King School are 12th, High, 16th, and State attendance zone Streets. The new attendance zone for King School will have approximately 380 K-6 students. In order to comply with the racial balance requirement for interdistrict schools, 40 percent of the seats at the ' r    ..w s, (,.1C new Stephens and the new King Schools have been reserved for white students.. This primary responsibility for recn at each school. means that PCSSD will have ting 40% of PCSSD will have he stude recruitment efforts to meet t' to s goa 1 . implement In addition s ma] or toRuth Steele June 25, Page 8 1991 recruitment to interdistrict schools, PC serious attention to the recruitment of PCSSD needs to give 2) the elementary magnet ipulation allows PCSSD to fill current s schools. more students to The magnet elementary magnet seats. 33.7 percent of the During the 1990-91 school year, PCSSD represented 23 percent of the total elementary magnet population. students percent the If PCSSD is unsuccessful the District will Garland school(s). in fulfilling its obligation, recomme^id closing Rightsell afford to reseirve seats The Distric will and/or not be able to for more than a year once the new _sc..ools .are* constructed. The number of seats to be reserved is approximately 500. The number of If PCSSD sends 500 M to M students to LRSD, approximately $2.0 million of will be generated to pay for school coeraticns. tesezrved seats are not filled by MtoM students. District will not be able to schools when school. seats are revenue If the the afford operating separate available to absorb an entire When the new King School is close Ish School and Mitchell and Rightsell. revise available for occupancy, the attendance. zones_^for The new attendance zones for Mitchell will be the following zone blocks: 0472, 0485 0451, 0452, 0453, 0476, 0477, 0479 , 0430, The boundaries' for 'the new Mitchell School attendance zone are 28th, Wolfe, 37th, and State Streets. Also, small area bounced by Roosevelt Road, Battery, 29th, High Streets, and a small area bounded by 22nd Street, a and Howard Street, Roosevelt Road, and High Street. ' attendance zone for Mitchell School will approximately 340 K-6 students. The new have The new attendance following zone blocks: zone for Rightsell will be the 0448, 0450, 0449, 0454, 0464, 0473 The boundaries of the new Rightsell 16th, High, 28th, and State Streets. a zone students. for Rightsell will have ttendance zone are The new attendance approximately 282 .X-6 Assign zone block 0553 to Jefferson and zone block 0552 to Forest Park.Ruth Steele June 25, Page 9 1591 4) Add approximately 270 seats to Rockefeller classroom addition. Move zone blocks 0210, and 0121 from the Washington with an 11 5) 6) 7) 8). 9) . Rockefeller attendance attendance 0111, zone 1 to 0112, the zone. The boundaries for this area are the Arkansas River, Interstate 30, part of East 13 Street, and part of East 6th Street. This area has approximately 135 K-6 students. ill be districts. filled by white The remaining 135 seats students from the three During the construction of the new Stephens, the curre students will be temporarily reassigned to the closest ,available.schools . For the schools that are vacated or for sites no longer utilized by the district, we will issue offering circulars to established non-profit organizations to seek we issue competitive proposals for the buildings. tr.d intended use -  Offering price 2nd of the property will be among the evaluation factors. The sites that should be offered immediately _ for sale or lease are Gillam School, Lee School (subject to court ^approval for building the FDC) and Pankey. * ors.  among the Direct attorney to prepare stipulations approval for a building replacement at Forest Junior High (as previously submitted to the Court) with a net increase of 6 classrooms, a 6 classroom addition to Southwest Junior High to replace 4 portable classrooms :or a net increase of 2, and a classroom addition, with a net increase of 4 classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High. our prepare seeking Heights ted to the Court) wi Direct attorney to prepare a stipulation approval the construction of a professional development center near Southwest Junior High. our for a a seeking LRSD, the other parties, and the Magnet Review Committee will study the of shadow preference for Booker, Carver, Consideration will be given to reducing the number of neighborhood students who are displaced by the current assignment process used for use and Gibbs. will be given students who these schools. assignment process usedMann jr.it i\u0026gt;iaoN4\u0026gt; P-.a*K K\u0026gt;\nnt6 Ss-iiwes\nM am Cemal UsCella.') r aif\\-e* Cent! al Fair Kall McC)i:an Parkvt* Aeiossaae Cioacify 733 959 59* 692 702 *50 S.656 67 653 959 i,7\u0026lt; 692 603 751 *50 6.C39 1.691 934 1.218 1.085 5.5*6 1.891 90* 1.216 1.065 450 400 5.9*6 LRSO long-Sange Ar.encance Zone Pi Conaifwo^n 0\u0026lt; Nw Seal* 1W2-93 1993*M 795 74 9 1.C21 M9 702 631 764 0 5.SS1 795 7*9 1.C21 6t9 7Z2 -/A 831 764 0 5,551 1.751 918 1.088 1.221 0 *.966 1.751 918 1.066 0 4.966 1 C2 1 CJ 1 0 1 ifi 1 01 1.C2 0.00 0.96 0.93 0.56 1.06 1.C2 1.01 1.03 1.02 0.39 0.92 74 7*2 977 641 679 BM 605 0 5.5*9  Cl , Cl 1 02 ns 0.96 1.2 1.07 0.00 0.96 f? 799 1 C?3 Ml MS 914 627 0 5.701 CcMiucJier Ne* Statt 781 7*2 977 681 679 66* ks 0 5.\u0026lt;37 0.91 0.67 1.02 1.01 0.96 1.10 1.07 c.oo 0.90 612 799 1.023 661 665 91* 627 0 - 5.701 VAihout Conciruetion ot A\u0026gt;o*eact Snio( H^h Sctiooit C.93 1.C2 0.69 1.13 e.c: 0.90 0.93 1.02 0.89 1.13 0.00 0.90 1.825 1.C2 1.916 985 1.09 1.C26 1.069 1.339 5.338 5.90 1.23 5.00 0.96 1.0*3 l.*C2 0 5.38* Win Conatrueiion ol Aiopaee Snor Hifh Senoo)* 1.925 1.02 1.916 965 1.09 1.C26 1.389 1.339 0 5.338 - Sai.o on cu.i.nt ntoUm.nn 0. an.noanc. ion. (so,, noi \u0026gt;.ll.ct .nioUmani, Oy icnool). - S.ai, lo\u0026gt; Im.ioiatnot Uagn.i Scnoo at. count.d in io\u0026lt;al caoacily. Out no .luo.nt. at. .non lot in, - No .iio.anc. Ka, o..n mao. lo. u-io-u iiancl.i, a iniiaamtnci o.\u0026lt;.g..gatK\u0026gt;n i.an.l.... =age 1 0.90 1.23 0.00 0.96 1.0*0 1.402 0 0 5.36* 'jec'.icns  09 1 C7 C.9 1.30 0.00 1.01 5.95 1.07 0.96 0.9 1.10 c.oo 0.94 1.01 1.13 0.5S 1.29 c.oc 0.97 1.01 1.13 0.86 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.C35 *53 697 919 634 0 5.759 634 1.C35 653 657 919 0 5.759 1.530 1.439 0 5.451 1.561 1.030 1.021 1.439 0 0 5.451 995-S t C3  .C 1.0* 1.13 1 Cl 0.00 1.02 C.96 1 06 0.97 1.01 c.oo 0.95 1.C4. C.F* 1.33 5.03 0.98 1.0* 1.1* 0.6* 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.X7 1 35 6*3 7C3 6*9 612 0 5.M9 626 1.0C7 5*3 703 6*9 612 0 5.\u0026amp;9 1.973 1.03* 1.573 1.034 1.001 0 0 5.4*9 1 Zt 1 Z2 0.00 1.00 C '^7 0.95 1 22 1.38 C.9* 0 2 0.58 0.62 0 00 0 05 ) achooi* \u0026amp;cau they n* nc aiienaance\none.XiX. Timeiifies Litiie Hock School District Building Plan Timeline Court AppfcvaJ qI Building Plan AMtgn arehiiectc RockalatUr Stephan* King Fores Haighla Southwest Mabalvala POC Working Drawings Prepared Aockelaiiar r Stepheng Xing Forest Heiphts Southwest MaOeiviJa POC Cpoiracts Awarded Rockaiallar Sephans King ....... Fores\nHeights Southwest Mabalvaia Relocation of Saphang' Sudanis Consinjclioo Phaea Rockelailar Saphans King Forest Haights Southwest MaPalvaia POC Occupancy Rockefeller Saphans King Forest Heights Souihwast Mabaivilia POC Spring Fail Winiw XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 1M1 XXX XXX XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Spring 1602 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Summer 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX Fll 1002 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX \\Vinier 1003 XXX XXX XXX Spring 1003 XXX XXX XXX Sommor 1003 XXX XXX . Fall XXX XXXIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 93 JU 30 PH 5: IP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPL : HTS.CL.\n: PLAINTIFF V. BY_ _ _ _ LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following budget documents required by the Court's June 15, 1993 Order: 1. An updated 1993-94 tentative LRSD budget document which includes: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that incudes any changes from the 1992-93 budget as to additions. deletions. and i reinstatements\nB. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses. the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses. and the 1993-94 budget\nC. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 2. A LRSD budget summary projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years which reflects annual incoming settlement monies (and any settlement loan funds the district anticipates drawing). The summary must also include anticipated yearly M-to-M revenues. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Bar No. 8108 .ristopher CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of June, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Hell . -X ' * .it'- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Offics of Qessgi yui !n Mor:'ior-t'} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING On January 21, 1992, this court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit certain information concerning its desegregation budget. The required budget information was filed on June 1, 1992. The budget projections which were previously submitted have now been revised based on current information. The revised budget projections are attached to this Notice of Filing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helfer Bar No. 81083 kaihyiNoticB of FilialCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He knihy'Noikx of Filing 2 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Revised 7-30-92 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation Monitoring (ODM). with the Office of Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD committed to the programs of Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed is 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. the as precise commitments of funds. it is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more costeffective ways. It The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be Consequently done with certainty. For the purpose of these projections, it is assumed that annual step and experience increases will be provided to all employees. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. The LRSD Board of Directors adopted a balanced budget for 1992-93 on July 23, 1992. None of the budget reductions will prevent LRSD from implementing its Desegregation Plan. modifications to the Desegregation Plan proposed by LRSD and The approved by the Court for Henderson and McClellan, however, will have to be adjusted in order to implement the proposed budget reductions at those schools. At this time, the LRSD takes no position as to the necessity for a millage increase. The reasons for taking this position are as follows: A) B) C) It is not practical to rely on a millage increase in the near future to balance the budget. The LRSD's ability to fund long-range capital improvement projects is linked to the issue of extended millage. The LRSD Board of Directors must set its priorities and develop a long-range plan priorities. and budget around these It is assumed that capacity for the incentive schools will be limited to a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher. The projections show in summary the revenue and expense of the most significant federal programs.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. covered with second-lien issues possible extended millage. Any additional improvements will be or from bonds secured by 10. The 1993-94 reduction 11. 12. 13. Programs, equipment. reflects in program Some funding the completion #10, Academic Support is maintenance of this equipment. added of payments for PAL for replacement and The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not provided separate accounting codes at this time. This means that cost information for implementation must be extracted from other budget line items. The opening dates of the new King and Stephens Schools shown as approved by the Court. are The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code desegregation expenses. will be used for identifying The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified, known \"start up\" costs are as follows: The A. Academic Support Program $1.0 million ends in 1992-93 B. Data Processing $.25 million in 1992-93 and $.50 million in 1993-94 through 1996-97 C. Four-Year Old Programs $34,500 for five new programs and $30,000 for playground equipment No other significant \"start up\" costs are projected. 15. Because of the new reporting codes used for 1992-93, reconciliation between 1991-92 and 1992-93 program budgets is The District will provide any specific answers which may arise because of the change in accounting coding imperfect. structure.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. Each budget manager will submit a proposal for spending allotted funds. These proposals will be conjunction with the Desegregation Plan audit. reviewed in Once specific plans for spending have been proposed, the Superintendent will prepare a proposal for Board approval. In addition the Superintendent will prepare a process for requiring Board approval for changes in planned expenditures above a to-be determined spending authority. Once the types of expenditures have been programmed, the Purchasing Department will not be authorized to issue a purchase order except for those items programmed and approved. D. The Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. E. The Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a proposals. Desegregation Plan audit and related budgetLITTLE FIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 40,093,227 22.453,744 4,577,692 144,200 309,000 226,914 484,050 309,000 102,874 41,416,117 23,196,645 4,615,022 148,526 318,270 229,183 508,253 318,270 104,932 42,786,512 23,966,307 4,753,473 152,982 327,818 231,475 533,665 327,818 107,030 44,206,276 24,718,335 4,896,077 157,571 337,653 233,789 560,348 337,653 109,171 TOTAL 64,998,181 66,559,408 68,700,700 70,855,217 73,187,080 75,556,873 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 15,350 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 88,769 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 28,394,849 8,094,112 73,419 1,500,000 903,594 240,873 3,000 3,300,000 575,436 3,600,000 718,517 29,814,591 6,042,591 73,419 1,545,000 993,953 252,917 3,000 3,564,000 604,207 5,200,000 740,072 31,305,321 3,829,942 73,419 1,591,350 1,093,349 265,563 3,000 3,849,120 634,418 5,460,000 762,274 32,870,587 683,125 73,419 1,639,091 1,202,683 278,841 3,000 4,157,050 666,139 5,733,000 785,143 TOTAL 48,670,683 46,367,563 47,403,799 48,833,751 48,867,755 48,092,076 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 9,385 129,428 394,675 40,000 262,000 600,000 35,000 272,480 400,000 30,000 283,379 300,000 25,000 294,714 200,000 20,000 306,503 100,000 TOTAL 533,488 902.000 707,480 613,379 519,714 426,503 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,291,121 113,913,390 116,896,398 120,386,766 122,658,968 124,159,872UTTLEFIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-37 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER 3,272,693 224,423 558,810 1,076,226 4,474,288 215,020 569,986 1,097,751 4,563,774 219,320 581,386 1,119,706 4,655,049 223,707 593,014 1,142,100 4,748,150 228,181 604,874 1,164.942 4,843,113 232,745 616,971 1,188,240 TOTAL 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL REVENUE 119.423.273 120.270.435 123.380.584 127.000.636 129.405.115 131.040.941LITTLE KICK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 072992 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995 - 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, EQUIP. DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 66,364,271 9,208,546 19,148,407 14,972,774 9,090,123 600,000 67,691,557 9,254,588 22,515,161 15,421,957 8,845,248 700,000 69,045,388 9,300,861 23,246,037 15,884,616 8,258,921 800,000 70,426,296 9,347,366 23,732,324 16,361,155 8,041,468 900,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 112.604,098 115,872,561 119,384,121 124,428,511 126,535,823 128,808,608 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL EXPENSES 131,624,091 136,395,260 140,317,274 145,780,327 148,314,675 151,023,037 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 (1,959,171) (2,487,723) (4,041,745) (3,876,855) (4,648,736) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,321,865 362,694 (2,125,029) (6,166,774) (10,043,629) ENDING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 (2.125.0291 (6.166.7741 (10.043.6291 (14.692.3651 FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 3.874.971 5,833.226 6.956.371 INCREASE(DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE RECORD LOAN REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTIONS (1.959.171) (2.487,723) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (4,041,745) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (3,876,855) 2,000,000 3,000,000 (4.648.736) 3.000.000 ENDING FUND BALANCE 362.694 3.874.971 5.833.226 6.956.371 5.307.635 * $1.5CX3.OOO recorded as revenue in 1992-931105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S 4000 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 138,077.08 2,760,904.00 28,381,519.29 3,989,261.59 4,023,283.53 1,013,772.90 1,143,799.80 2,570,622.02 2,667,369.46 198,491.86 3,895,984.12 287,255.96 COMMUNITY SERVICES NON PROGRAMMED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 79,415.14 347,089.07 6,024,779.24 1,354,685.45 1,158,370.16 697,588.87 253,127.76 183,211.79 1,174,153.77 1,631,966.93 446,175.31 1,983,094.66 19,318,518.35 2,161,066.34 740,723.24 32,450.45 7,950,100.01 DESEG 94,937.48 6,072,099.95 10,538.70 107,559.18 35,631.06 1,589,524.16 309,073.21 1,479,959.60 441,244.35 107,262.02 1,041,101.85 465,561.53 504,079.83 3,738,667.07 TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 302,717.88 338,788.30 130,394.89 3,123,267.62 55,541.49 371,072.25 301,061.72 88,318.56 429,905.44 8,567,902.51 276,198.03 592,044.13 5,333.69 181,901.87 658,847.84 414,539.17 4,792.23 302,192.60 114,004.58 1,207,390.15 1,050,413.66 503,364.75 51,070,341.61 45,536,516.54 15,997,239.99 5,132,152.12 13,887,841.24 312,429.70 3,537,898.51 49,046,300.99 5,933,401.65 6,220,045.30 863,614.82 5,985,026.13 1,564,454.95 5,083,769.09 6,494,896.88 1,174,230.08 7,193,730.95 21,414,826.09 2,913,883.83 1,546,995.67 7,950,100.01 131,624,091.50Prg # Pa# Description 1 5 2 5 5 28 6 28 7 39 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation Extra-Curricular 8 44 Teacher Recruiter 9 46 10 48 12 63 13 82 Staff Development Academic Support Multicultral Programs Incentive Grants 14 86 15 114 16 129 17 129 18 143 19 148 21 148 22 224 24 227 25 1-9 Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M-to-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transp Romine Theme 26 93 27 34 28 35 Community School In-School Suspension Job Fair 29 28 32 106 33 1-56 34 131 35 125 Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Services 49 00 To Be Allocated Incentive Schools: 51 149 Office of Incentive Schools 52 152 53 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 54 153 55 153 56 153 57 154 59 158 61 171 64 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 65 172 Extended Year 66 176 72 190 73 193 74 194 75 153 Incentive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development TeK:her Stipends Other Academic Programs SUB-TOTAL INCENTIVES GRAND TOTAL SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 214,295 278,772 284,347 290,034 295,835 301,751 811,591 88,332 452,998 31,072 45,924 400,069 2,846,490 164,490 658,575 3,738,667 56,291 703,830 200,727 354,920 0 0 373,686 0 17,267 295,276 914,101 4,063 0 588,441 22,367 62,714 0 268,247 0 13,314,433 261,482 1,096,193 1,325,132 2,682,807 15,997,240 1,202,033 1,238,094 1,520,236 1,810,843 1,847,060 99,087 101,069 103,090 105,152 107,255 433,133 441,796 450,632 459,644 468,837 0 0 0 0 0 42,204 43,048 43,909 44,787 45,683 447,446 456,395 465,523 474,833 484,330 2,785,221 1,840,925 1,877,744 1,915,298 1,953,604 240,315 320,000 3,800,000 110,307 617,038 411,583 721,442 0 0 391,495 10,000 85,816 115,000 748,258 1,500 11,350 716,504 27,000 65,863 5,000 200,000 13,886,365 63,147 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,500 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,664 17,013,029 245,121 320,000 3,876,000 112,513 629,379 773,930 543,085 2,603,300 0 399,325 10,200 87,532 115,000 763,223 1,530 11,577 730,834 27,540 67,180 5,000 200,000 15,927,943 65,041 15,450 15,450 15,450 7,725 5,150 868,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 3,220,464 19,148,407 250,024 255,024 260,125 320,000 320,000 320,000 3,953,520 4,032,590 4,113,242 114,763 117,058 119,400 641,967 654,806 667,902 789,409 805,197 821,301 553,947 565,026 576,326 2,655,366 2,707,000 407,311 10,404 89,283 115,000 778,487 1,561 11,809 745,451 28,091 68,524 5,000 200,000 19,198,082 66,993 15,914 15,914 15,914 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124 238,703 58,350 3,317,078 22,515,161 2,708,473 2,761,140 415,457 10,612 91,068 115,000 794,057 1,592 12,045 760,360 28,653 69,894 5,000 200,000 19,829,446 69,002 16,391 16,391 16,391 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,591 23,246,037 2,762,643 2,816,363 423,767 10,824 92,890 115,000 809,938 1,624 12,286 775,567 29,226 71,292 5,000 200,000 20,213,235 71,072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088 23,732,3243 NOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION filed NOV 0 51992 0iiiC3 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK By.. DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 school yeeir for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal at Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet ElementarySchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the par\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_885","title":"Job descriptions, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School employees","School administrators","School principals","Teachers","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Job descriptions, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/885"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["258 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n( (_ l JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: Assistant Superintendent for Business Services QUALIFICATION1S): Administrative Certification in State of Arkansas 2) Experience in Planning, Developing, Implementing and Maintaining the Business Services of a School District 3) Experience as a Central Office Administrator SALARY: In accordance with District Policy ACCOUNTABILITTYhe: Superintendent of Schools DUTIES: The Assistant Superintendent of Business Services is the Chief Financial Officer of the District. As such, The Assistant Superintendent of Business Services is responsible for all matters pertaining to the business services of the District, including the development of the annual budget. In fulfilling job requirements, the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services: Prepares regular progress reports of the budget during the year which shall be a part of the agenda for the regular monthly meetings of the Board Gathers data and other information necessary for preparation of the budget Assists the Superintendent in presenting to the Board the necessary information on the proposed budget and the millage needed to support it as prescribed by school law Maintains the financial and statistical records of the District Prepares the annual statistical report Supervises all buying and purchasing and examines all bills Recommendps ayment of all bills which have been properly processed Maintains all financial and business records of the District in safe-keeping Receives and records receipt of all monies Serves as custodian of the vault and all its contents and makes certain that only authorized individuals are allowed to have access to the records and permitted in the vault Prepares all warrants and secures proper signatures Works with the Pulaski County Treasurer in maintaining appropriate tax fund records and the receipt of those funds for the District J (. l 15. Recommend purchase of all kitchen and dining room equipment, replacements and maintenance. 16. Approving official for Free and Reduced Price Meal Applications. 17. Assist in planning and supervising all special functions served by School Food Service. 18. Arrange for workers when requested by P.T.A. groups. 19. Work with other staff personnel in planning new kitchens or remodeling old ones. 20. Maintains current information on U.S.D.A. policy updates. 21. Keeps updated on new foods, supplies, and equipment which would fit into a school food service operation and/or make the operation more efficient. 22. Implements the appropriate use of computer technology in the management of child nutrition program. 23. Implements sanitation and safety standards. 24. Any other duties assigned by the Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs. JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: Director, Computer Services QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Four years supervisory Data Processing experience 2. Experience on IBM System 3X equipment 3. Experienced RPGII/III Programmer (3 years) SALARY: In accordance with District policy ACCOUNTABILITY: The Superintendent of Schools DUTIES: GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Responsible for providing administrative and technical direction and support to the office systems staff and for coordinating activities with other departments or divisions requiring systems support. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES Supervision and control of the Information Systems area and personnel. Has budgetary and administrative responsibility for the Information Systems section. Exercises independent judgment in acquisition and maintenance of hardware and software systems. Participates in staff capacity in optimizing annual District expense. Scope of staff activities includes systems design, programming and installation, technical research, equipment and software evaluation, and implementation of systems. Includes both manual and automated systems. PRI.ARY DUTIES: 1. Establishes appropriate organizational structure, determines staff training and development in accordance with group requirements. Has administrative responsibility for personnel. 2. Coordinates information systems development activities with District departments. 3. Develops appropriate operational and strategic planning for the effective and efficient utilization of Information Systems facilities. 4. Directs projects for evaluation, design, development, programming, and implementation. 5. Participates in the evaluation and approval of systems equipment, software, and facilities for the District. 6. Locates and evaluates outside sources of information systems services. 7. Recommends information systems standards and procedures and ensures compliance. 8. Provides information systems direction for all locations and provides assistance, consultation, and recommendations for improving District operations. 9. Maintains contact with outside groups and professional associations in order to keep abreast of developments in information systems. 10. Assists in the preparation of the budget and controls expenses in the information systems areas, ensuring that they are controlled within the framework of the budget. 11. Where appropriate, in conjunction with local and area support management, provides information systems installation support, guidance, and direction. 12. Participates in the direction of special projects as assigned. C. . (_ l TITLE: Director of Purchasing QUALIFICATIONS: Arkansas Teachers Certificate based upon a Master's Degree with preference of prior experience in Administration . SALARY: REPORTS TO: DUTIES: Based on Administrative salary schedule. Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs. The function of the Purchasing Department is to organize and administer purchasing for all departments of the District under the direction of the Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs in accordance with authority delegated by the Superintendent of Schools, School Board policy and State Purchasing laws. Specific duties include: (a) Supervise activities of purchasing office. (b) Coordinate the procurement needs of the District. (c) Compile specifications for items to be purchased. (d) Evaluate the quality of materials and supplies. (e) Keep up-to-date vendor lists. (f) Distribute bid request to vendors, receive bid quotations and evaluate bids in consultation with users. (g) Compile recommendations for bid awards to be presented to the.Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs. (h) Follow-up on the execution of bids by vendors. (i) Communicate and counsel with vendors. (j) Follow through to delivery, invoicing, and payment on all purchase orders. (k) Serve in an advisory capacity to assist schools and departments. (1) Examine and approve invoices for payment. (m) Handle adjustments with vendors involving replacement of materials not conforming to purchase specifications, return of materials, cancellations and insure that appropriate credit is received. (n) Maintain an appropriate file of catalogs, price books, etc. (o) Coordinate District inventory. ------- - --- ---- C l Director of Purchasing Page 2 (p) Maintain inventory for administrative offices. (q) Maintain appropriate insurance coverage for the District. (r) Keep record of equipment under maintenance contracts. (s) Coordinate In-District printing. (t) Perfonn other duties as assigned by the Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs. ( l JOB DESCRIPTION Title: Director of Food Service Qualifications: Must hold a valid teaching certificate based on the master's degree and prefer prior administrative and food service experience. Salary: Based on Administrative Salary Schedule. Accountability: Affairs. Directly responsible to Assistant Superintendent of Business Duties: A person who plans, organizes, directs and administers a school food service and nutrition education program for the school district. Basic responsibilities include program planning, personnel planning, organizing a program of nutrition education, and establishing marketing and communications procedures. 1. Serving a nutritious meal that provides 1/3 of the recommended daily food requirements of children and that meets U.S.D.A. regulations and maintains records for audit showing that we meet these regulations. 2. Administers and directs the school nutrition program in compliance with federal/state and local regulations. 3. Maintaining daily, weekly, and monthly records for reimbursement each month for lunches and maintaining complete files for a period of three years in addition to the current year. 4. Accounting and depositing of daily collections from each building. 5. Keeping up to date inventory of food, supplies and equipment. 6. Preparing a proposed budget for the consideration of the Assistant Superintendent of Business. 7. Recommends the hiring, dismissal and assignment of Food Service personnel. 8. Preparation of payroll for Food Service personnel. 9. Receiving products and delivery schedules from warehouse to individual buildings. 10. Establishes satellite delivery schedules. 11. Provides inservice training of personnel. 12. Supervises Food Service personnel in each building and works with principals on special problems. 13. Requisitions food, supplies and equipment. 14. Supervise the preparation of menus. J(. ,. . I ( l JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: Computer Programmer/Operator QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of 3 years in Business Systems 2. Good verbal and written skills 3. Proven ability to work on multiple projects within a given time span. 4. Good conceptual and analytical abilities. SALARY: In accordance with District policy ACCOUNTABILITY: Director, Computer Services DUTIES: GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Assists in the design, coding, and testing of program instructions. Prepares systems procedures documentation. Assists in the education of end-users. Responsible for the operation of computer and related equipment. Applies malfunction procedures. Responsible for all regular and special forms. PRIMARY DUTIES: 1. Know and understand systems specifications. 2. Know and understand program instructions. 3. Assists in design of program logic and coding. 4. Assists in design/preparation of test data. 5. Help debug programs. 6. Prepare documentation. 7. Maintains/develops ability in designated programming language (RPGII/III) 8. Maintains positive user relations. 9. Knows and understands computer operating instructions. 10. Operates the main computer console. 11. Monitors and controls computer function warnings. 12. Monitors and controls I/O devices. 13. Keeps a safe and clean computer room. 14. Maintains knowledge/understanding of hardware changes. ( l Works with the local banks as depositories of the District's funds Maintains various funds, bank accounts, and investments Supervises the preparation of all payroll checks as well as the delivery of checks to all personnel of the District at the time specified in the payroll schedule Receives applications for use of school buildings and grounds and ascertains the advisability of allowing the use requested. Presents these applications and requests to the Board at its regular meeting for approval in accordance with the merits of each request Assists in planning any capital improvements, new buildings, or additions Supervises maintenance of student attendance records of the District Supervises the work of the Director of Athletics, Director of Food Services, Director of School Plant Services and Director of Purchasing Supervises operation of the Accounting Department, including accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, payroll deductions, and insurance claims. (, ( l. JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: Director of Plant Services QUALIFICATIONS: (1) Administrative Certification in State of Arkansas (2) Experience in Planning, Evaluation, Research and Management of Plant Services (3) Experience in Supervision SALARY: In accordance with District schedule ACCOUNTABLTEO : Assistant Superintendent for Business Services DUTIES: The Director of Plant Services has the training, competencies, and qualifications necessary to direct the plant services program. In fulfilling job requirements, the Director of Plant Services: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Directs and coordinates the activities of the plant services department Recommends the personnel needed to maintain the school property Directs the personnel selection, dismissal, assignment, and preparation of the payroll Responsible for placing buildings and grounds in condition for safe, sanitary, and efficient operation and for maintaining such conditions Prepares an annual report on conditions of buildings and needed repairs Develops and conducts inservice training programs for department personnel Directs the activities of the Supervisor of Plant Services Coordinates with administrators in the upkeep, repair, and special needs of their buildings Coordinates all new construction and serves as the clerk-on-the-job Coordinates building security and energy conservation Maintains an inventory and distribution system of maintenance and custodial supplies, equipment, furniture, and fixtures Develops an annual proposed budget for the operation of the department Applies for and administers plant service grants Performs other duties as assigned C JOB DESCRIPTION Title: Nutrition Coordinator Qualifications: Must hold a valid teaching certificate, preferably in the area of foods and nutrition. Salary: Classroom Teacher Salary Schedule expanded to 12 months. Accountability: Directly responsible to Director, Food Services. Duties: A person who assists the Food Service Director in planning, organizir and supervising a school food service program and coordinating the nutrition education program for the school district. Basic responsibilities include ment planning, personnel supervision and organizing a program of nutrition educatio1 1. Visit and supervise work and personnel in school cafeterias daily. 2. Prepare nine weeks menu cycle (4 per year) for lunch and breakfast. 3. Check recipes to ensure fulfillment of nutrient content requirements and adjust to meet requirements if necessary. 4. Suggest new menu items, develop recipes and monitor the trial of these new items in schools\ncafeterias. 5. Authorize menu changes for Food Service Managers. 6. Assist with inservice of managers to teach procedures of keeping accountability records. 7. Monitor accuracy of production records. 8. Communicate with Food Service Managers relative to all personnel's duties, responsibilities, concerns and problems through memorandums and telephone contact. 9. Assist Food Service Director in managers' meetings. 10. Develop banquet menus offered to organizations utilizing Food Service's banquet services. 11. Work with Food Service Managers responsible for banquet preparations in total planning of banquets. 12. Assist in actual preparation of banquet. 13. Coordinate Food Service coffee breaks for inservice meetings and workshops held within the school district. 14. Organize plans for National School Lunch Week and coordinate Food Service Activities for this event. 15. Accept requests from elementary school principals for sack lunches and field day lunches and relay this information (dates and numbers) to Food Servic~ Managers for preparations for same at the respective schools. (. (. (__ 16. Organize National Dairy Council Workshops (Nutrition Education) for secont and fifth grade teachers in the school district and coordinate with Instruction Department. 17. Organization of Ashdown Project (state department's Nutrition Education Training Program project) workshops for kindergarten through fourth grade. 18. Coordinate food order forms from teachers for the Ashdown Project. 19. Organizes special events planned for school cafeterias to promote participation by students in lunch and/or breakfast programs. 20. Assist with approving, filing, updating, and verifying Free and Reduced Price Lunch Applications. 21. Any other duties assigned by Director. ---- ( (: (__ JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: Supervisor of Plant Services QUALIFICATIONS: (1) Experience in multiple areas of Plant Services (2) Experience in supervision and evaluation (3) Experience in job planning and management SALARY: In accordance with District schedule ACCOUNTABLTEO : The Director of Plant Services DUTIES: The Supervisor of Plant Services has the training, competencies, and qualifications necessary to supervise the plant services program. The Supervisor of Plant Services will directly oversee the custodial programs and will assist in overseeing the maintenance program. In fulfilling job requirements, the Supervisor of Plant Services: (1) (2) (3) ( 4) (5) (6) (7) ( 8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) Performs tasks necessary to place the buildings in a safe, sanitary, and efficient condition and to maintain this condition Assist in the supervision of the maintenance staff and assign tasks according to their trades and abilities Assists with staffing assignments Supervises the distribution and inventory of supplies and equipment Coordinates the payroll functions Coordinates custodial evaluations and perform maintenance evaluations Counsels with principals on the work habits and assignments of custodians Coordinates the technical phases of custodial tasks Coordinates the summer cleaning program Coordinates the work of the custodial foremen Provides supervision to day and night custodians Assists in determining needed work orders and their feasibility Assists in planning capital improvements Assists with building security Performs other tasks as assigned C C l JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: Secretary/Data Entry QUALIFICATIONS: 1. High school diploma. Business school diploma helpful. 2. Secretarial and equipment experience 3. Proven ability in data entry on mid-range systems. 4. Understanding of procedures and equipment. SALARY: In accordance with District policy ACCOUNTABILITY: Director, Computer Services DUTIES: GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Responsible for performing secretarial functions with speed and accuracy. Responsible for data integrity involving the the student, payroll, and personnel data bases. Responsible for the accurate entry of all data as assigned. PRIMARY DUTIES: 1. Key enters data with emphasis on quality, quantity, and speed. 2. Assists in receiving, logging, and distributing incoming and outgoing work. 3. Works with end-users to develop a sense of confidence in data administration. 4. Uses in-depth technical knowledge of the advanced equipment handling in accordance with the established patterns of the office. 5. Takes responsibility for the distribution of various forms as requested from end-users. 6. Takes responsibility for running various procedures as assigned. 7. Assumes operational responsibility as assigned. 8. Performs other duties as assigned by the Director. ( RUBY MITCHELL, HEAD BOOKKEEPER ( L JOB DESCRIPTION Coordinate and supervise all duties of the department. Maintain working knowledge of all jobs. PAYROLL: Collect and verify information on teachers payrolls. Prepare data entry forms for same. Prepare absence data entry forms. Enter data for payroll. Prepare salary purchase orders. Assist with payroll bank statements. Prepare workers compensation claims and unemployment claims. FRINGE BENEFITS: Prepare information for payroll authorizations. Make changes to keep information current. Prepare information for computer services when rates or credits change. Send authorizations to employees. Make changes as requested by employees. Keep records of Aetna insurance for retired teachers and send statements for premiums due. Keep records and pay insurance premiums for employees who continue their group insurance. Send collection notices for insurance premiums. Send insurance applications to companies. Prepare policies and process death claims. BILLS: Verify vendor number changes on blue copies of purchase orders. Check printouts of pink copies of purchase orders, vendor adds, changes and inventory formats. Line invoices in number order. Attach non-negotiable copy of check and verify invoices on same. Balance salaries in accounts payable file with payrolls. Type and sign special checks for payments made during the month. Prepare data entry forms for clearing accounts on teachers and custodial payrolls. Type and sign checks for same. Attach checks with billings, prepare envelopes and mail to agencies. Prepare billings for Group Life, Hospital Indemnity and Dental/Vision insurance. XI. Maintain bond accounts\nincluding the comparison of payments with statements and preparing warrants for bond payments. XII. Prepare warrants for state and local monies. XIII. Distribute monthly budget information to appropriate administrative personnel. XIV. Prepare monthly financial reports for the Board. XV. Assist the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services with other tasks as requested. XVI. Prepare daily agenda. \\ - .. l PAYROLL JOB DESCRIPTION GENERAL BOOKKEEPER JO ANN GREEN Collect and verify payroll information for food service, custodial and transportation. Assist with teachers' payroll. Enter data into the computer. Verify the printouts and registers in the processing of the checks. Sign and tear checks. Prepare unemployment claims and wage verification statements. Prepare data entry forms for clearing account checks for the food service payroll. Type and sign these checks. Reconcile the payroll bank statement each month. BILLS Verify vendor number changes on blue copy of purchase orders. Check printouts of pink copies of purchase orders, vendor adds and changes. Line invoices in vendor number order. Attach non-negotiable copy of check and verify invoices. Sign account payable checks. Type and sign special checks that are prepared during the month. REPORTS Prepare Federal Tax Reports and Social Security Reports after each food service and custodial payroll. Prepare Use Tax Report each month. Prepare Quarterly State Retirement Report. Assist in tearing, sorting and preparing W-2 forms for distrubution. Assist in signing and tearing teachers' contracts. Prepare the nine weeks and annual Attendance Report. Collect all end of the year reports. Prepare the weekly and final United Way Campaign Reports. Distribute and collect the United Way Welfare Reports twice a year. ( C L REPORTS: Prepare Federal Tax Reports and Social Security Reports for bank after each teachers payroll. Prepare monthly State Tax Report and Use Tax Report. Prepare Labor Report for State. Prepare monthly Teacher Retirement Reports. Prepare information for wire transfer for Tax Annuity. Prepare quarterly Employment Security Reports, Teacher Retirement Reports, Social Security Reports and Federal Tax Reports. Prepare annual Workers Compensation Reports and Social Security Reports. Prepare and verify information for W2 Froms. Tear, sort and prepare forms for delivery to schools. Tear and assist in signing teachers contracts. Prepare salary verification forms for retiring teachers and secretaries. PHONE CALLS : Receive numerous calls daily from employees, health offices and companies for information. Perform other tasks as assigned. ( (. (_ JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: General Bookkeeper/ Mikki Black (A) Bills 1. Match purchase order number on invoice and purchase order. Check extensions and amounts. 2. Check for proper signatures for payment. Check for allowances. 3. Process file maintenances for vendor numbers and purchase order numbers. 4. Enter pink copies of purchase orders. 5. Batch bills and run tapes before entering into the computer. (B) Incidental Bills 1. Prepare sheets for data entry. 2. Prepare batch tapes to compare with bill runs. (C) Car Allowances 1. Check mileage on travel logs. 2. Process with regular bills. (D) Utility Bills 1. Check each bill against the previous month. 2. Prepare for \"Special Pay\". (E) Inventory 1. Assign the proper class codes and other required information. 2. Group sheets together by location. 3. Assign inventory numbers. 4. Enter information into computer. (F) Statments 1. Determine the accuracy of each statement. (G) Signing Checks 1. Sign, tear and stuff checks for regular bill, cafeteria bills, and f!l Payroll. 2. Sign checks for #3 Payroll. 3. Sign and tear Activity checks. (H) Perform other tasks as assigned. ( C (_ MISCELLANEOUS Receive phone calls from.employees for information on their health insurance and calls for verification of employment on bus drivers. Collect coffee and coke money. Fill the coke box in the absence of the custodian. Prepare a coke statement once a month. Order cokes and coffee. Receive and deposit petty cash funds. Prepare special checks and transfers from the petty cash account. Receive cash purchase orders and prepare checks for them. Collect Aetna Life Insurance money and prepare deposit. Collect insurance money from Food service and custodial personnel during the summer months. Collect, verify and prepare United Way deductions for payroll report purposes. Prepare, place, collect, and verify secretarial time cards for payroll purposes. Prepare secretarial payroll time.sheets. Perform other tasks as assigned. Business Office Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Secretary Data Processing Director of Computer Services Computer Programmer Secretary Bookkeeping Dept. Head Bookkeeper Bookkeeper Bookkeeper Bookkeeper Purchasing Dept. Director of Purchasing Secretary Production Clerk School Food Services Dept. Director of School Food Services Coordinator of Nutrition Secretary Head Clerk Maintenance Dept. Director of School Plant Services Supervisor of School Plant Services Secretary Secretary April 16, 1990 THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SERVICES MEMO TO: Mr. Charles Brown, Asst. Supt. for Business Affairs FROM: ~D Greg Daniels, Director-Computer Services SUBJECT: System Description and Terms of lease/purchases The following is a brief description of the computer system that all administrative functions utilize: IBM Application System 400 9406-B30 System Unit - 4MB Std Storage 3060 16MB Main Storage 9331-001 8-inch Diskette Unit 9347-001 Magnetic Tape Drive 9332-400 400MB Rack Mounted DASD (5 units) The accounting department is utilizing the FMS (Financial Management System) module of the CIMS III software. The equipment described above is on a lease/purchase agreement that is for 5 years. The first year of that agreement will be completed in July, 1990. -L .,. lntt1rnationaBl usinessM achinesC orporation Armonk, New York 10504 Name and Address of Customer: Installment Payment Agreement (~r,~e 81Jd Local G_~ver~rnent) Reference Agreement No.: G6Gl 729 North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar '89 JUL 18 P4 :4-1 North Little Rock, AR 72114 IBM Branch Office Address: 111 Center Street Suite 800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Reference Supplement Dated: 001 Agreement No.: 5T20298 IBM Branch Office No.: 5T2 Customer No.: 6569393 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and the Customer agree that this Installment Payment Agreement supplements and amends the referenced Agreement for Purchase of IBM Machines and its referenced Supplement with respect to the following IBM machines, features, model upgrades, machine elements and/or accessories (hereinafter called \"Machines\" unless the context requires individual reference). Qty. 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 IBM Plant Order or Machine Serial Model or Type Number (') Feature 9406 0YFZLH P30 9309 0YFZLJ 002 9331 0YFZLK 001 9347 0YFZLL 001 9332 0YFZLM 400 0YFZLN 0YFZLP 5853 0YFZLQ ooz 4234 0YFZLR 0lZ Description A/S 400 Rack Enclosure Diskette Drive Magnetic Tape Drive Direct Access Storage Modem TSP Printer (012) **Prices Include Volume Discounts Dev. Purchase Price$ ** (Net Unit Price) $43,690.00 2,646.00 3,528.00 6,967.00 12,331.00 608.00 11,602.00 ** Amount$ $ 43,690.00 2,646.00 3,528.00 6,967.00 12,331.00 12,331.00 12,331.00 608.00 11,602.00 (')An\"*\" indicates Machine Serial Number. ** TOTAL:$ 106,034.00 Statement of Transaf~~~ RACT AGCf?T[O ilASEO ON ADJUSTED PRICES 1. Cash Price (if this were a cash sale) ................................................... $ __ 1_0_6\"'-,0_3_4_._0_0_ 2. Trade-In Allowance Credit (from IBM trade-in agreement) ............................... $ _____ o_._O_O_ 3. Cash Down Payment ................................................................. $ _____ 0_._0_0_ 4. Total Down Payment (Sum of Items 2 and 3) ........................................... $ ____ _.O.....,.'\"\"'O\"\"O'-- 5. Unpaid Balance of Cash Price (Item 1 minus Item 4)........ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ ------1- 06,034.00 6. State and Local Taxes, if applicable .. {4~Q0@ .+. .$-25.0 0} ............................ $ ___ 4_,2__6_6__3. 6_ 7. Amount to be Financed (Sum of Items 5 and 6) ........................................ $_-=-11=-0=--,...,3~0'--'0'\"\"'.~3~6_ 8. FINANCE CHARGE (Time Price Differential on Item 7). Finance Charge consists of interest at an ANNUAL PERCENTA GE RATE of 9, 14 % ........................ $ _ __.2...,6...,,.. .._,.:Q4.=.,4,.-8..,,7...,. 9. Tax on Finance Charge, if applicable, (payable in first installment) . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . $ ____ ..a.... .... a.... .a... ~ 10. Total Amount of Remaining Payments (S um of Items 7 , 8 an d 9) ......................... $ ---~--1-36,787. 40 11. Total Time Sale Price (Sum of Items 4 and 10) ......................................... $ __ 1\"\"\"3\n..\n6\"-','-'-7-\"'8-'-7-'-.-'-Z120-2791-03 (Rev. 07 /84) U/M 025 1 Page 1 of 4 Payments The Customer agrees to pay the Cash Down Payment, if any, (a) upon the Date of Installation of the Machines or (b) with respect to installed Machines, on the Effective Date of Purchase, and agrees to pay the Total Amount of Remaining Payments in consecutive Periodic Payments, including Finance Charge, for the Fiscal Periods as set forth below in either Payment Plan I or Payment Plan II. Fiscal Period 2 3 4 5 6 Fiscal Period PAYMENT PLAN I Periodic Payment (Annual) (Biennial) ro ..- Finance Charge {Included in Payment) 1 CONTRACT AC\"i=PTED B =:,. Ot \"~  ASfO I ADJusrrn PRICES co'\n::'.eAYMl:NT PLAN II Periodic Payment (Total of Monthly Payments for Monthly Fiscal Period) Payment ,\nl~ 071.r,9 Total Finance Charge tor Fiscal Period (Included in Payments) The Customer may, at any time, pay in advance the full amount due hereunder and the Finance Charge will be adjusted by IBM to reflect the shorter payment period. All remittances are to be made to the IBM Branch Office address listed herein unless otherwise requested by IBM. Assignments This Installment Payment Agreement is not assignable by the Customer, nor may the Customer sell, transfer, substantially modify, relocate or dispose of any or all of the Machines without prior written permission of IBM. In no event may the Machines be relocated outside the United States. Any attempted assignment or transfer by the Customer of any of the rights, duties or obligations of this Installment Payment Agreement is void. Customer's Covenants The Customer covenants and agrees that (a) it will not create, assume, or voluntarily suffer to exist, without giving IBM at least 15 calendar days' prior written notice, any mortgage, pledge, encumbrance, security interest, lien or charge of any kind upon any or all of the Machines\n(b) it will keep the Machines in good repair and operating condition\n(c) It will !?romptly pay all taxes, interest and other charges when levied or assessed upon the Machines or their operation or use, or upon IBM, exclusive of taxes based on IBM's net income, in connection with this Installment Payment Agreement\n(d) it will promptly satisfy all liens against the Machines\nand (e) there are no mortgages, pledges'. encumbrances, security interests, liens or charges of an~ kind by an~ party other than IBM or assigns upon the machines on which features, model upgrades, machine elements or accessories will be installed subject to this Installment Payment Agreement. 1 12 $18,931.68 'f $2,279.79 .:ii.35?.tfT  1 117.ftJ'' ~8 , 42.5,Sfl Insurance 2 12 1 ,823.~ f- {~ft~~ f ' The Customer further agrees to procure and maintain fire 3 12 ~7,351,4JJ. 1 , 712 . 85 1-\nJ.1,55'/.l fl.  4 12 23,782.68, 5 12 :l i-df:.'J,lt  2~, . 9 ~ 2,279.79 2,279.79 2,279.79 2,279.79 insurance with extended coverage against loss, theft, ,s\n?PI': ft, Ill, damage to or destruction of the Machines for the full :S, 644. 63 /- insurable value thereof for the duration of this Installment J', 1S4.5J . Payment Agreement, the policy for such insurance being 3_,574. 8fl 'I- endorsed !O show loss payable to IBM and assigns as /4.S-()4-55 \"',  respective interests may appear. Upon request, a certificate 1, :1'ei,. 4~ of such insurance will be furnished to IBM or assigns. Any 6\n., J. 19. 19\n, J 7'}.1'/ The Periodic Payment for Period 1, which includes the Tax on Finance Charge, if applicable, is due on the first business day of the month following the Date of Installation or the Effective Date of Purchase, and the Periodic Payments for Periods 2 through _ ____,__ are due on the first business day of each succeeding Fiscal Period. If Payment Plan I has been chosen, payments must be made in full on the due dates. If Payment Plan II has been chosen, payments must be made in equal consecutive monthly installments, except that the first installment will include the Tax on Finance Charge, if applicable, beginning on the due dates and continuing on the corresponding day of each month of each Fiscal Period until fully paid. Payments include Finance Charge in the appropriate amount indicated above. The Customer having been offered the choice of purchasing at the foregoing Cash Price (plus applicable State and Local Taxes) or at the Total Time Sale Price has elected to purchase at such Total Time Sale Price. 2120-2791--03 (Rev. 07/84) U/M 025 proceeds received directly by IBM under such insurance shall be credited to the payment required from the Customer pursuant to the Section entitled \"Casualty Occurrences.\" Casualty Occurrences A Casualty Occurrence shall be deemed to exist if any of the Machines shall be lost, stolen, irreparably damaged or destroyed or otherwise rendered permanently unfit for use from any cause whatsoever prior to the payment in full of the Total Time Sale Price. To the extent permitted by law, the Customer shall promptly pay to IBM a sum equal to the aggregate Casualty Value of such Machines. The Casualty Value of each Machine suffering a Casualty Occurrence shall be the sum of the unpaid balances of the State and Local Taxes, Unpaid Balance of Cash Price and Finance Charge at the time of such Casualty Occurrence and attributable to such Machine. The Finance Charge shall be adjusted by IBM to reflect the shorter payment period. Any money so paid shall be applied by IBM to reduce installments thereafter falling due so that such installments represent only the payments due for the remaining Ma- 1 Page 2 of 4 chines. Any excess insurance payments received by IBM shall be credited to the Customer. Events of Default Any one or more of the following are Events of Default: (a) the Customer fails to pay when due any amount required to be paid by the Customer hereunder and such failure shall continue for a period of seven days after the due date, except as provided in the Section entitled \"Funding\"\n(b) the Customer fails to procure and maintain insurance as required in this Installment Payment Agreement\n(c) the Customer fails to perform any other provisions hereunder or violates any of the covenants or agreements made by the Customer hereunder, and such failure or breach shall continue for a period of 15 days after written notice is received by the Customer from IBM\nor (d) any insolvency proceedings of any character, voluntary or involuntary, shall be instituted by or against the Customer. Any failure of IBM to require strict performance by the Customer or any waiver by IBM of any provision of this Installment Payment Agreement shall not be construed as a consent or waiver of any other breach of the same or of any other provision. Remedies,, If an Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing, IBM or assigns may, to the extent permitted by law, (a) recover from the Customer any and all amounts then due and to be become due\n(b) take possession of any or all of the Machines, wherever located, without demand or notice and without any court order or other process of law, or render them unusable, and retain all prior payments as partial compensation for their use and depreciation\n(c) require the Customer to assemble the Machines and make them available to IBM, freight prepaid, at any place in the continental United States specified by IBM\nand/or (d) incur reasonable attorney's fees and legal expenses in exercising any of its rights and remedies upon default which the Customer hereby agrees to pay. Upon repossession of such Machines, IBM may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any or all of the Machines in a commercially reasonable manner, with or without notice and by public or private proceedings, and apply the net proceeds thereof towards the amounts due under this Installment Payment Agreement after deducting the reasonable expenses of retaking, holding and preparing for such disposition and deducting reasonable attorney's fees and legal expenses. IBM will pay to the Customer any portion of the net proceeds in excess of the unpaid Total Time Sale Price. In the event IBM repossesses and removes a feature, model upgrade, machine element or accessory, it shall be the Customer's responsibility to restore any remaining information processing equipment to good working order. The Customer aqrees that IBM shall have no liability for damages caused by the repossession of such a feature, model upgrade, machine element or accessory or by the Customer's failure to fulfill such responsibilities. Further, IBM shall have no obligation to reimburse the Customer, user or any other secured party for the cost of repair resulting from such removal. IBM may pursue any other remedy available at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, seeking damages, specific performance and an injunction. No right or remedy is exclusive of any other provided herein or permitted by law or equity. All such rights and remedies shall be cumulative and may be enforced concurrently or individually from time to time. Funding Since the Customer intends to request the appropriation of funds periodically to be paid for the Machines, if funds are not appropriated for the Customer for such Periodic Payment for any future Fiscal Period, the Customer will not be obligated to pay the remainder of the Total Time Sale Price due beyond the end of the then current Fiscal Period. Such event will not constitute an Event of Default. The Customer agrees to notify IBM in writing of such nonappropriation at the earliest possible time. In the event that funds are not appropriated as provided above and the Customer is unable to make further payments due under this Installment Payment Agreement beyond the end of the then current Fiscal Period, IBM will, within a reasonable time after the end of such Period, enter and take the Machines from the Customer's premises and will retain all sums previously paid by the Customer to IBM as partial compensation for machine use and depreciation\nprovided, however that upon the Customer's request, the Customer may, prior to such repossession, retain the Machines during a reasonable period agreed to by IBM at a monthly charge designated by IBM, beginning on the first day following the last Fiscal Period for which payment has been made hereunder. Page 3 of 4 Security ln_teresat nd Location of Machines To secure the payment of the Total Time Sale Price, IBM reserves a purchase money security interest in each of the Machines, and the Customer hereby grants a security interest in any substitutions, replacements, accessions, and additions thereto and the proceeds thereof. Such interest shall be satisfied by payment in full of the Total Time Sale Price. A copy of this Installment Payment Agreement may be tiled with appropriate state and local authorities, at any time after signature by the Customer, as a financing statement in order to perfect IBM's security interest. Such tiling does not constitute acceptance of this Installment Payment Agreement by IBM. The Customer also shall execute from time to time, alone or with IBM, any financing statements or other documents and do such other act or acts considered by IBM to be necessary or desirable to perfect or protect the security interests hereby created. The Machines shall remain personal property, not become fixtures to real property, and be kept at: 2700 Poplar (Street address) No. Little Rock Pulaski AR (City) (County) (State) where IBM may inspect them at any reasonable time. Genera/ If the Net Unit Price tor any Machine is adjusted as provided in the referenced Agreement, or the trade-in allowance tor any trade-in equipment is adjusted as provided in an applicable IBM trade-in agreement, Items No. 1 through 11 in the Statement of Transaction and the Payments herein agreed to be paid shall be adjusted, and this Installment Payment Agreement shall be deemed to be amended accordingly. The terms and conditions of this Installment Payment Agreement shall prevail notwithstanding any variance with the terms and conditions of the referenced Agreement. Should this Installment Payment Agreement and/or the referenced Agreement be held by the courts to be invalid or -Ifiid L,l{. AR,\n,O .!UN L9 11: ?5 Re~ ~~-Little. _R_ o_ck/5T.2_ _____________ _____________ By ~/l_(/ ------~-~----~-~---------------- anager's Signature ()(\n,/2 } _m_ If _Du_ro _d i! c -----------------------3-o--}1-- --- Name (Type or Print) Date unenforceable, the parties agree that the Machines shall be deemed to have been installed under IBM's State and Local Government Lease Plan pursuant to the terms and conditions of IBM's applicable agreement and/or amendment at IBM's applicable Lease Plan Monthly Charges, commencing with the Date of Installation or the Effective Date of Purchase of the Machines. For the period prior to such holding, IBM shall credit to the applicable Lease Plan Monthly Charges the amounts paid by the Customer to IBM under this Installment Payment Agreement and amounts paid by the Customer tor maintenance, property taxes and insurance. Any excess credits will be refunded to the Customer, and any deficiency shall be due to IBM\nbut in no event shall any amount be due to IBM in excess of funds appropriated. In the event that the affected Machines are not available from IBM under a lease or rental agreement, at the time of such holding, the Customer and IBM will agree upon a fair and equitable Lease Plan Monthly Charge for the period prior to and following such holding and, otherwise, the provisions of this Section shall apply. If any provision or provisions of this Installment Payment Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, and the preceding paragraph does not apply, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. THE CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE CUSTOMER HAS READ THIS AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND BY THE CUSTOMER'S SIGNATURE BELOW, ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE CUSTOMER IS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT. FURTHER, THE CUSTOMER AGREES THAT THIS INSTALLMENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT, THE REFERENCED AGREEMENT AND SUPPLEMENT AND ANY APPLICABLE IBM TRADE-IN AGREEMENT CONSTITUTE A SINGLE AGREEMENT AND THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER AND IBM, WHICH SUPERSEDES ALL PROPOSALS OR PRIOR AGREEMENTS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ALL OTHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF. co \\0 co i'\", ,l j,\"\n, (I ' I .....,.. . ' ... No. Little Rock School District By ....~ ~e~~.: ..: -:.. ........................... ...... Authorized Signature ....c ....L ... Brown ................................................~..:.:.:.~ ~.-::~..9_ - Name (Type or Print) Date PLEASE PRESS FIRML y WITH BALL POINT PEN ON A HARD SURFACE FOR MAXIMUM LEGIBILITY. Z12G-2791-G3( Rev. 07/84) U/M025 1 Page 4 of 4 IBM Cre~it Corporation Stamford, Connecticut 06904 Addendum to Agreement (State and Local Government) Tax-Exempt Status/IRS Reporting Requirements Customer Name and Address: North Little Rock SchoolTO~trict 2700 Poplar OEF North Little Rock, AR 72114-2332 IBM Branch Office Address: 111 Center Street Suite 800 Little Rock, AR 72201 a9 JUL 1 s P 4 :n Dale Prepared: 6-22-89 Referenced Agreement No.: 5T20298 Addendum No.: 001 Customer No.: 65693-93 IBM Credit Corporation and Lessee/Customer agree that the Financing Agreement, Installment Payment Agreement, or Term Lease Master Agreement referenced above between the parties is hereby modified by adding the following provision: THE RATES IN THIS AGREEMENT ARE BASED ON THE LESSEE'S/CUSTOMER'S UNDERLYING DEBT OBLIGATION QUALIFYING TO PAY INTEREST WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 103{a) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE {Code). Accordingly, Lessee/Customer represents that ii qualifies as a State or political subdivision of a State for purposes of Section 103{a). Lessee/Customer agrees that any misrepresentation of its status under Section 103{a) is an event of default under this agreement. Further, Lessee/Customer agrees to comply promptly with all information reporting requirements of Code Section 149{e) and Treasury Regulations thereunder. Lessee/Customer specifically agrees to file Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G or 8038-GC, whichever appropriate, for this transaction. If the Lessee/Customer does not file Form 8038-G or 8038-GC as agreed herein, the interest rate for each affected transaction will be adjusted to reflect the loss of tax-exempt status.\n0 JUN 63 11 : 5 j Accepted by: IBM Credit Corporation By _ _..!._~_..i....._.::...\n(\n...'.f-.d,:.___L _ Autl1t'Ad. Sf:11'.}it) I\\ y(, ft, Name (Type or Print) MANA 8 [ R !P A AOM I M , 'oate North Little Rock School District ./L Lessee/Customer - By_--1,~\n,...::::....::.__\n~~=-~A~u~th~o~rlz~ed-=:::-,Si~gn-at~ur-e-~------- C. L. Brown 6-29-89 Name (Type or Print) Date 2125-4149-00 7/88 - 29 - TITLE: Superintendent of Schools QUALIFICATIONS: 1. As set by the state board of education. REPORTS TO: SUPERVISES: JOB GOAL: 2. Such other qualifications of academic, professional, and personal excellence as the board may specify. 3. Masters degree and diploma of advanced study Board of Education Directly or indirectly, every district employee To inspire, lead, guide, and direct every member of the administrative, instructional, and supportive services team in setting and achieving the highest standards of excellence. ROLE AND AREA OF SERVICE: Laws of the fifty states present a confused picture of the school superintendent. In some states, the laws make no reference to his existence. In others, excessively detailed powers and duties are listed. Frequently, these enumerated powers and duties prescribe trivial and unimportant functions for the superintendent, thereby tending to de-emphasize his importance as the executive officer of the board and the leader of the school system. The characteristics of the American school superintendency are changing rapidly and it is increasingly apparent that the traditional.concept of the superintendency is inadequate for the needs of educational leadership in modern society. Traditionally his responsibility has been that of directing the instructional program and it must continue to be the same in the future. However, the intervention here is becoming less direct as human relation, management, accounting, insurance, maintenance engineering, due process and individual rights, court orders, etc. further direct his time from the instructional program. In practice he is the executive officer appointed by the board of education to manage the educational enterprise in a responsible way. He is the person through which the educational program of the board is put into effect and through whom most of the business of the board is transacted. As the professional advisor to the board, the superintendent advises and recommends those things he considers necessary for the school program to function effectively. As the trained expert in school administration, the superintendent fills the important functions of rendering his informed opinion and furnishing professional advice to the board on matters of policy that he believes need to be considered by that group. His advice grows out of his experience, knowledge, and recognition of the need of the school system. - 30 - His position exists to administer and operate the schools under the direction of the board, He is their spokesman since he is in the best position to handle this responsibility effectively. As executive head of the school, he is the logical person to handle vital information and this official representation makes him responsible to the board for implementing its adopted policies and to supply the leadership upon which the efficiency and progressive development of the entire system depend, He is on the one hand, the chief advisor and executive officer of the board and, on the other, the full time leader of the school staff, He is the connecting link between the board and staff, serves as a medium by which all staff members may connnunicate to the board and his role is to lead them toward connnon goals. He is concerned with organizing and coordinating the efforts of others in performing functions of his job and releasing the energies and talents of staff and board members in accomplishing the functions of their specialized areas. As the chief executive officer of the board and the administrative head of all divisions and departments of the school district, he may delegate responsibility for the operation of various segments of the school system, but he shall be responsible to the board for the results produced. He shall exercise those duties which are mandated by the statutes and those which are specifically designated in the school board policies, rules, and regulations of the district, PERFORMANCREE SPONSIBILITIES: 1. Administers as chief school executive, the development-and maintenance of a positive educational program designed to meet the needs of the corrnnunity and to carry out the policies of the board, 2, He is responsible for placing into effect and carrying out all policies and plans adopted by the board of education. In matters not specifically covered by board policies, he is to take appropriate action and report his actions to the board. 3. Attends and participates in all meetings of the board except executive sessions of these meetings which are concerned with the superintendent's employment. 4. Reconnnends the number and types of positions required to provide appropriate personnel for the operation of such a program. 5. Nominates for employment-promotion-dismissal-retirement of any school employee, ass1gns, and defines the duties of all personnel subject to the approval of the board. This involves preparing regulations and giving instructions in assigning duties and responsibilities, 6. Supervises the preparation and presentation of the annual budget and recorrnnends it to the board for approval, C. l - 31 - 7. Administers the budget in accordance with the needs of the district, the state laws governing school finance, and the adopted policies of the board and to interpret such action to the board as necessary but specifically at regular monthly meetings. 8. Authorizes and directs all purchases, such expenditures to be confirmed by the board. 9. Formulates and recommends policies on personnel, organization, finance, instruction, school plant, and all other functions of the school program. 10. Provides professional leadership for the educational program of the school and is responsible for the development of a system for regularly reporting to the board on all aspects of that program. 11. Formulates and administers a program of supervision and evaluation of the overall program of the schools. Interprets the policies and plans of the board in such a manner that an accurate appraisal is possible. 12. Conducts a continuous evaluation of the progress, the developments, and needs of the district and strives to keep the board and the public informed on conditions of school. 13. He is responsible for the development of a program of maintenance and improvement or expansion of buildings and site facilities. 14. Confers periodically with professional and lay groups concerning the school program, and transmits to the board suggestions gained from such conferences. 15. Prepares, in cooperation with the president of for all official meetings, preferably one week twenty-four hours in advance of said meeting. and press shall be duly notified. the board, the agenda and no later than Members of the board 16. Serves as treasurer of the board and is bonded accordingly. -- -- ------- C C l TITLE: Director of Personnel QUALIFICATIONS1.: Arkansas Administrators Certificate based upon a Master's Degree, or higher, and meet all requirements of the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges. REPORTTSO : JOB GOAL: 2. Minimumo f five years experience as a teacher and/or administrator. Superintendent of Schools To serve as chief personnel officer of the District and to see that working positions are staffed with the highest caliber of employees possible. In fulfilling the duties of the office, the Director for Personnel shall: 1. Through various recruitment activities, secure applications from the most professionally competent persons available. 2. Screen and interview prospective teachers and other certified staff and work cooperatively with the Superintendent, principals, and other administrative staff in the selection of personnel. 3. Secure references that attest to the personal and professional qualifications of each applicant and secure and analyze any other information necessary to a sound employment decision. 4. Determine exact salaries and complete contracts for all District personnel. 5. Notify staff and principals of assignments for the upcoming school year, and of any reassignments made during the school year. 6. Ensure that staff members hold appropriate certificates and credentials as required by the State of Arkansas and North Central Association. 7. Conduct an annual survey to determine the status of employees in regard to continued employment, and staff desires in regard to desired changes in job assignment. 8. Through posted announcements, inform employees of vacancies within the District. 9. Conduct frequent conferences with principals regarding personnel performance. 10. kt as office manager of the District in all matters concerning clerical and secretarial employees. c:_ l Dir ector or flersc,,111eI page 2 11. Provide frequent updates to the Superintendent on the status of personnel performance in the District. 12. Cooperate with principals and the Department of Instruction in determining a staffing recommendation for submission to the Superintendent. 13. Visit the schools regularly in order to be knowledgeable of the administrator-teacher-student relationships and the general problems confronting each. 14. Direct the evaluation process for teachers and non-certified staff of the District. 15. Maintain files for all employees and insure the appropriateness and the security of their contents. 16. Hear and consider all claims and complaints against employees of the Di strict. 17. Perform other duties as may be assigned by the Superintendent. l \\ N TITLE: Assistant Superintendent for Personnel QUALIFICATION1S.: Arkansas Administrators Certificate based upon a Master's Degree, or higher, and meet all requirements of the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges .. REPORTTSO : JOB GOAL: 2. Minimumo f five years educational administrative experience Superintendent of Schools To serve as chief personnel officer of the District and to see that working positions are staffed with the highest caliber of employees possible. In fulfilling the duties of the office, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel shall: 1. Serve as the Chief Negotiator and head of the Board of Education negotiations team. 2. Manage or coordinate the employment of all certified and classified employees of the District. 3. Hear and investigate complaints, concerns, and claims relating to the job performance of District employees. 4. Assist the Superintendent in managing legal affairs that relate to District employees. 5. Through various recruitment activities, secure applications from the most professionally competent persons available. 6. Screen and interview prospective teachers and other certified staff and work cooperatively with the Superintendent, principals, and other administrative staff in the selection of personnel: 7. Secure references that attest to the personal and professional qualifications of each applicant and secure and analyze any other information necessary to a sound employment decision. 8. Determine exact salaries and complete contracts for all District personnel. 9. Notify staff and principals of assignments for the upcoming school year, and of any reassignments made during the school year. 10. Ensure that staff members hold appropriate certificates and credentials as required by the State of Arkansas and North Central Association. . ' ( C Job Description I Assistant Superintendent for Personnel page 2 11. Conduct an annual survey to determine the status of employees in regard to continued employment and staff desires in regard to desired chan~es in job assignment. 12. Through posted announcements, inform employees of vacancies within the District. 13. Conduct frequent conferences with principals regarding personnel performance. 14. Act as office manager of the District in all matters concerning clerical and secretarial employees. 15. Provide frequent updates to the Superintendent on the status of personnel performance in the District. 16. Cooperate with principals and the Department of Instruction in determining a staffing recommendation for submission to the Superintendent. 17. Visit the schools regularly in order to be knowledgeable of the administrator- teacher-student relationships and the general problems confronting each. 18. Direct the evaluation process for teachers and classified staff of the District. 19. Maintain files for all employees and insure the appropriateness and the security of their contents. 20. Perform other duties as may be assigned by the Superintendent. EMINDER: School employees touch the future today and every day. Happy Teacher Appreciation Day! tititi March 6, 1990 tititi from the North Little Rock Board of Education and School Administration ., ~ TI!LE: QUALIFICATIONS: .. f.ai) ~\n~/! 1~f' O/' REPORTTSO : Coordinator of Informational Services 1. Bachelor's Degree-is required (Master's or above is preferred) 2. At least five years experience in public education or public relations work related to education. 3. Evidence of successful experience in communicating with school patronage. Superintendent of Schools JOB GOAL: To foster within the community-at-large a favorable attitude towards the schools of the North Little Rock School District\nand to generate, through communications and involvement, better staff and student morale. : PERFORMANRECSPE O NIS8 ILITIES: 1. Plans, organizes, and conducts the informational programs of the School District. 2. Serves as the infonnational liaison between the school system and th~ community-at-large. 3. Establishes annual objectives for the District's informational program and plans budget and deadlines for meeting objectives. 4. Serves as the liaison officer between the District and the news media and supervises the production and distribution of news releases. 5. Arranges for press conferences as required. 6. Notifies news media of all meetings of the Board of Directors. 7. Coordinates all functions that are designed to inform staff and students concerning activitfes and plans of the District. 8. Prepares brochures, media presentations, booklets, flyers, letters, and other communications about the School District. 9. Maintains District talent bank of staff members willing to serve corranunity organizations as speakers or as volunteer resource specialists. 10. Maintains open lines of communication with all community organizations and provides prompt responses to requests for public information about the District, its policies, and its programs. North 11. Edits all official publications of the/Little Rock School District. 12. Cooperates with the curriculum director and other staff members as appropriate, in publicizing and promoting any perfo~ances, exhibitions, displays, or regular classroom curricular activities evident in the schools. Improves appreciation for programs within the schoo 1 s. r I - coordinator of Infonnationa1 Services page 2 13. Maintains and regularly updates a file of community organizations and their officers, mailing lists of residents, and mailing lists of communitygr.oupsw ith clearly expressed interests in educational affairs. 14. Surveys the community systematically to solicit significant opinions, suggestions, and concerns that bear importantly on the policies and operations of the Board and the school system. 15. Assists the Superintendent and the Board in obtaining and effectively using and recognizing the services of highly competent laymen on its advisory committees. 16. Assists the Superintendent in expl~ining public opinions to the staffs of the school system. 17. Speaks at public meetings on issues of general or specific pertinence to District schools and programs. 18. Perfonns such other tasks as may from time to time be assigned. TITLE: Coordinator of Informational Services QUALIFICATION1S.: Bachelor's Degree is required (Master's or above is preferred) 2. At least five years experience in public education or public relations work related to education. 3. Evidence of successful experience in communicating with school patronage. REPORTTSO : Superintendent of Schools JOB GOAL: To foster within the community-at-large a favorable attitude towards the schools of the North Little Rock School District\nand to generate, through communications and involvement, better staff and student morale. PERFORMARNECSEP ONSIBILITIES: 1. Plans, organizes, and conducts the informational programs of the School District. 2. Serves as the infonnational liaison between the school system and the community-at-large. 3. Establishes annual objectives for the District's informational program and plans budget and deadlines for meeting objectives. 4. Serves as the liaison officer between the District and the news media and supervises the production and distribution of news releases. 5. Arranges for press conferences as required. 6. Notifies news media of all meetings of the Board of Directors. 7. Coordinates all functions that are designed to inform staff and students concerning activities and plans of the District. 8. Prepares brochures, media presentations, booklets, flyers, letters, and other communications about the School District. 9. Maintains District talent bank of staff members willing to serve community organizations as speakers or as volunteer resource specialists. 10. Maintains open lines of communication with all community organizations and provides prompt responses to requests for public information about the District, its policies, and its programs. North 11. Edits all official publications of the/Little Rock School District. 12. Cooperates with the curriculum director and other staff members as appropriate, in publicizing and promoting any performances, exhibitions, displays, or regular classroom curricular activities evident in the schools. Improves appreciation for programs within the schools. f (__ JOB DESCRIPTION TIT LE: Assistant Superintendent for Instruction QUALIFICATIONS 1) Administrative Certification in State of Arkansas 2) Experience in Planning, Evaluation, Research, and Management of Instruction Programs 3) Experience as a Central Administrative Officer SALARY: In accordance with District policy , ACCOUNTABILITY: The Superintendent of Schools DUTIES: The Assistant Superintendent for Instruction is the chief educational officer of the District. As such, the Assistant Superintendent supervises all instructional leadership staff and all curriculum and instructional activities throughout the system. In fulfilling job requirements, the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction: Directs programs of inservice education of teachers and principals for the purpose of improving instruction Evaluates the effectiveness and outcome of instruction and recommends those changes deemed necessary for improvement Appraises and recommends textbooks and other instructional materials and equipment in keeping with approved procedure Arranges for and supervises the proper orientation of new teachers, principals, and instructional administrators Recommends the personnel needed to discharge the responsibi Ii ties of the office of the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Serves as professional consultant to principals, teachers, and administrative officers on all phases of the instructional program Keeps the Superintendent informed concerning the condition and progress of the instructional programs Directs the activities of all instructional directors and supervisors Prepares lists and costs of all instructional needs to be considered in budget preparation for the ensuing year Serves as consultant in determining and recommending instructional requirements and functions of school plants (. ( l Joe Description for Ass't Supt. -Instruction page 2 . Supervises budget development and expenditures for instructional purposes Oversees all counseling and guidance programs in cooperation with the individual school principal Supervises and coordinates the student-teaching program and other. instructional programs involving colleges and universities Coordinates the curriculum and correlates teaching methods in all schools Plans and develops educational programs and services as needed in the District Oversees programs for special-need students such as gifted, special education, vocational, and compensatory education Supervises the District media services Performs other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned by the Superintendent of Schools. JOB DESCRIPTION TITLE: Secretary to the Assistant Superintend~nt for Instrection QUALIFICATIONS: High school diploma, secretarial skills, knoledge of office procedures, two years cf secretarial experience. SUPERVISOR: Asbistant surerintendent for Instr~ction RESPONSIBILITY: The role of the secretary to the assistant suerintendent involves the coordination of all secretarial duties of the assistant superintendent's office. The secretary provides accurate and efficient secretarial services. The secretary . assists in assessing the supply and equipment needs for the operation of the office inventories supplies and equipment and initiates purchase orders as needs indicate to maintcin efficient and economical operation of the office assists in plc.11,ning the tasks to be completed and the scheduling of dQily activities to effectively perform the necessary jobs assists in determining activities, appointments and work assignments to effectively utilize time . demonstrates proficiency in the coordination of all secretarial duties efficiently performs routine office procedures assists in gathering and recording information for reports and records demonstrates proficiency in operating office machines demonstrates proficiency in providing maximum efficient utilization of the day through scheduling appointments, arranging meetings and general effective office operational procedures demonstrates proriciency by completing the details regarding meetings, including scheduling, making arrangements, contacting participants, preparing programs and attending to serve as recorder denonstrates proficiency in arranging details ~or professional travel for the assistant superintendent Eecures and compiles m~terials for the school board meeting agenda assists in securing information and compiling data for budget meetings and other meetings relating to budgetary items supervises other clerical personnel assigned to the assistant superintendent's office contributes to a positive atmosphere in which all constituents cooperate to provide an environment conducive to maximum production relating to the promotion of the school district's goals and objectives demonstrates empathy-competence and shows respect for staff members by genuinely considering the feelings, value system, interests and concerns of the individual staff member cooperates with other staff members and communicates effectively to contribute to the overall effectiveness of the operations within the office promotes positive school-community relations through effective communication demonstrates empathy-competence by genuinely considering the feelings, value system interests and concerns of parents and other community members assumes personal responsibility for enhancing competencies through staff development, renewal programs, professional organization membership and active participation in professional confer~ nces and reading of current literature . initiates procedures to modify performance, as deemed necessary, based on self-analysis of of actions 2.nd feedback from staff members ( (. l NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS TITLE: Coordinator of Instructional Materials QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Valid teaching certificate JOB GOAL: 2. Minimum of three years teaching experience 3. Certification as required by the Arkan3as Department of Education 4. Master's degree To coordinate the District media and textbook program:, PERFORMANCREE SPONSIBILITIES: 1. Directs the District textbook program which includes budgeting, purchasing, and circulating textbooks. 2. Coordinate the District's media program with the total educational program of the School District. 3. Serves as a consultant for each school's media program. 4. Supervises the operation of the film/video library which includes circulating these materials to the District schools via the daily courier service. 5. Maintains a District audio visual repair service for use by individual schools. 6. Coordinates staff development in the use and simple maintenance of equipment for media specialists in the District. 7. Supervises the District television studio which includes sc.heduling District programs to be transmitted by cable. 8. Provides a centralized equipment loan service which includes recommending the purchase of equipment to loan to schools. 9. Administers the development and maintenance of the District professional library. 10. Coordinates an instructional materials center which includes maintaining .1 center for District teachers to use to make teaching materials. 11. Serves as an instructional specialist by assisting principals and other administrative staff members in selecting supplemental instructional materials. 12. Serves as the coordinator for the Administrative Annex, (_ (_ 13. Coordinates the District's daily delivery service which includes establishing a regular schedule for the courier, receiving requests for additional pick-ups and/or deliveries, and scheduling these requests. 14. Performs other duties and functions as assigned by his/her superordinate. - ----------- ------- ( ( - 35 - TITLE: Director of Education QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Valid teacher's certificate REPORTS TO: SUPERVISES: JOB GOAL: 2. A master's degree 3. Experience in teaching and/or supervision. 4. Certificate as required by state and NCA 5. Such alternatives to the above qualifications as the board may find appropriate and acceptable. Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Instructional program To insure that each elementary and secondary school student is provided with the richest educational experience the district can provide. ROLE AND AREA OF SERVICE: The director of secondary/elementary education, as a member of the central office administrative staff, represents an attempt to ease the problem of coordinating the elementary/secondary school program in larger school districts. There are varied expectations concerning the role of this individual and the many functions which might be performed by people in this position. A definition of role and job description must be developed and adequate planning conducted to properly interpret his function. This meaningful discription will help to minimize role conflict and insure the position's effectiveness. Effective coordination of the total program K-6 and 7-12 is one of the most pressing needs in American public education today. We can no longer afford the waste-of human resources that is involved in overlapping courses, duplication of teaching effort, and lack of continuity from one school level to the next. A careful curriculum plan ~bracing the entire school experience from initial entry to graduation is imperative and long overdue. The director plays an essential role in deciding the nature and content of the curriculum, in selecting the school organizational patterns and learning materials to facilitate teaching, and in evaluating the entire educational process. The position requires a high level of educational leadership for its implementation. The director must be equipped personally and professionally to handle the position of responsibility to which he is called. He should be one with recognized expertise and an abundance of personal persuasiveness. His training and experience may or may not exceed that of the principals and supervisors with whom he will be working. The result is that he cannot rely on the power of coerciveness but must draw heavily upon the more legitimate administrative power sources mentioned above. The relationship between these individuals must be that of \"first among equals\" as professionals and true leadership is required to successfully achieve this relationship. c- (__ - 36 - While the director cannot possibly be an expert in all fields which he coordinates, his knowledge should include the availability of resource leaders in all the areas and in supervision for improvement of instruction. He may be a specialist in c2rtain disciplines, but he has to be a generalist in his approach to the total school program. Even though the educational and administrative philosophy are in close agreement with that of the school system and community, good interpersonal relations are maintained, a well defined role and job description are available, this must be accompanied by adequate planning to properly interpret his function. Even though he operates with line authority in matters pertaining to instruction, he needs to know how to mobilize talent in order to achieve the schools objectives. He cannot effectively develop an instructional program in an atmosphere of authority. He must recognize that pupil needs will be better served when goal-setting and decision-making are the result of careful and cooperative study by teachers and staff. Line organization is basically simple in that it involves a direct flow of authority upward and downward. As a line officer he has power and authority over subordinates, but this should be consistent with reasonable goals of democratic administration. He is a generalist who executes administrative actions. The job certainly requires that one know curriculum theory and practice and that the person read extensively, attend study sessions, seminars, etc. It is strategically designed for a person to assist principals, supervisors, etc. in regularly examining subject areas, preparing new courses of study, and resource units. The role provides opportunity for inserting the proper person--successful teacher--native intelligence--broad grasp of the educational process in society--skill in human relations--to take a leadership role in reseach and evaluation. Although he may not collect the data himself, periodic appraisals of pupil achievements and programs is essential to avoid repeating the mistakes others have made. It is here, too that someone can spend time to appraise the worth, durability, and appropriateness of the schools' products. PERFORMANCREE SPONSIBILITIES: 1. Supervises the instructional program and serves as a leader of the staff in the development of curriculum and the improvement of teaching techniques, methods, and procedures, 2. Assists in the development of district goals and curricular objectives and in carrying out a district-wide program of curriculum development and improvement of instruction, 3, Integrates instructional programs among schools and articulates curricula between all grades and organizational structures, Plans and coordinates instruction in all special programs, subject areas, etc, 0 l - - 37 - 4. Conducts classroom visitations at regular intervals as well as at the request of administrators and teachers. Serve as resource person, demonstrates teaching techniques, share ideas, etc. S. Provides educational leadership through individual and group teacher conferences to exchange ideas, seek suggestions about classroom techniques and materials, and identifying possible areas of curriculum study. 6. Develops and conducts inservice education programs for administrative and teaching staff district-wide and by building based upon need and requests. 7. Works with committees in developing guides and curriculum and in evaluation of instructional materials, textbooks, equipment, etc. 8. Works cooperatively with. other supervisory and administrative staff members in coordinating the entire program. 9. Works cooperatively with principals to improve curriculum and assists in the resolution of problems associated with the program of instruction. 10. Organizes, coordinates, and administers the staff of instructional specialists and supervisory services in the various schools. 11. Assists in the evaluation of instructional methods and programs and reconrrnends such changes and improvements as are needed, and provide leadership in preparation of instructional materials, teaching aids, etc. 12. Assists in the preparation of the district's supervisory budget and the principal's instructional budgets. 13. Recommends staff allocation for each school, individual school schedules, teaching positions, teacher load and class size, and changes in organizational structure. 14. Assists in preparation of job descriptions for all positions and participates in recruitment, interviewing, selection, and assignment of qualified candidates for positions on the staff. 15. Recommends administrative, supervisory, and teaching personnel for promotion, transfer, continued employment or dismissal. 16. Assists in evaluation of performance of administrative, supervisory, and teaching personnel. 17. Recommends assignment of substitutes for teachers with extended absences. 18. Supervises and coordinates the student teacher program and serve as liaison officer in other instructional projects. C (' l - 38 - 19. Works cooperatively with principals and other supervisory personnel in developing educational specifications for furniture. 20. Develops with, principals and supervisory personnel, educational specifications for new buildings or for any physical changes in existing buildings. 21. Attends professional meetings, workshops, etc. and serves on committees sponsored by state department of education, professional organizations, local agencies, and institutions, etc. 22. Coordinates North Central Association activities in the schools and serves on reevaluation teams of the regional accrediting agency. 23. Designs, recommends, and carries out educational experimentation and disseminate/interpret results to all concerned parties. 24. Assists in the development and execution of policies governing the classification, promotion, retention, and progress of pupils. 25. Prepares proposals and applications for special funds and coordinates special programs in operation within the district. 26. Prepares and presents educational programs to community groups and interpret the school program to the public. 27. Assists in population projections, demographic data, and continuous study of community as a means upon which to base future staff and physical facility requirements. 28. Makes arrangements for field trips, community activities, resource persons, etc. 29. Coordinates the pupil testing program and guidance services. 30. Plans and supervises the orientation program for new teachers to school and community. 31. Provides an annaul report, including evaluations and recommendations for improvement of programs. 32. Keeps the assistant superintendent and superintendent informed about the district instructional program. C C NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS TITLE: Director of Elementary Education QUALIFICATIONS: Master's Degree, Administrator's Certificate as per Arkansas Department of Education regulation, three years classroom experience, three years administrative experience SUPERVISOR: Assistant Superintendent for Instruction SUPERVISES: Certified and non-certified personnel assigned to him/her RESPONSIBILITY: The role of the director responsible for the elementary school instructional program involves the system-wide coordination and administration of the instructional program within the framework of the philosophy and objectives of the educational program established by Board policy, consistent with statutes and standards of regulatory agencies. The director of elementary education: administers the total organization of the instructional program including curriculum design, grouping of students, special programs and projects assists supervisory personnel in planning and implementing staff development programs and activities to strengthen identified areas needing improvement assists in planning educational research and evaluation appropriate to the needs of the District cooperates with the appropriate personnel in providing assistance to personnel responsible for diagnosing student learning and/or behavior problems prepares a budget for programs involving his/her department based on identified needs and priorities of the District cooperates with the department of personnel in the selection and recommendation of administrative staff members involved in the instructional program determines staff needs for his immediate department and for special programs and projects and cooperates with the director of personnel in securing qualified personnel supervises and evaluates professional and non-professional staff assigned to him/her coordinates non-instructional activities and serves as a support to the instructional program C C (__ STUDENT NEEDS promotes positive community relations through effective communication and involvement of community members analyzes personal characteristics and strengthens areas of behavior as necessary for the fulfillment of his/her assignment performs other duties and functions as assigned by his/ her superordinate The Director of Elementary Education assists in the planning and implementation of the District's student assessment program cooperates with supervisory personnel, principals, and counselors in planning for individual student ass~ssment assists in an advisory capacity in generating specific assessment data for utilization in writing proposals for special programs assists in the formulation of goals and objectives for each component of the instructional program initiates,.the development of curriculum programs and activities to meet the student needs in the District articulates goals and objectives of each component of the educational program for the total staff for continuity of effort coordinates the District's guide writing program to support the District's instructional program as reflected in its curriculum guides ~ assists the supervisory staff in its involvement with individual school staffs to implement appropriate teaching strategies and classroom manage- ment activities recommends for purchase appropriate programs, equipment, and materials identified by school and supervisory staff members cooperates with the department of personnel in Jetermining staff needs and selecting personnel for the administrative staff and for special projects recommends types of facilities and space utilization for the District to best meet the needs of individual students and programs coordinates the instructional program time units to promote opportunity for the maximum of experiences for students c- guides in the evaluation of instructional methods and programs and recommends changes necessary for providing more realistic opportunities for students designs, recommends, implements, and evaluates educational experimentation assists in maintaining a continuous program of staff development to provide for specific needs as identified through competency-based staff assessment engages with his/her staff in ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructional program Improving Instruction assists in planning the best possible facilities for promoting an environment conducive to maximum learning provides supporting realia within budget allocations to promote maximum opportunities for achievement of go~ls and objectives of the instructional program demonstrates his support of the local school in its efforts to conduct meaningful instructional activites by providing the assistance coordinates and supervises special programs and projects of the District to assure consistency of goals and objectives for each program prepares reports and maintains accurate and complete records as required by administrative regulation, District policy, and the Arkansas Department of Education demonstrates knowledge and skills by making a positive contribution to committee work which supports the instructional program \\ organizes committees for evaluation and selection of textbooks, equipment, and other instructional materials supervises and evaluates personnel assigned to him/her assists supervisory personnel and principals in encouraging attendance, acceptable conduct, and awareness of good health habits of students prepares the annual budget relative to those phases of the instructional program for which he/she has responsibility interprets evaluation and reporting procedures to the principal Interacting with Colleagues involves the staff in planning, decision-making, and implementation of the total instructional program cooperates with staff members in other departments to contribute to the effectiveness of the total District program --- -- - ---------- .. (- (. (_ plans with principals to implement all phases of the instructional program maintains an effective system of communication between central office personnel and individual school staffs exhibits a professional attitude toward criticism demonstrates a professional attitude as a member of internalcommittees Interacting with Community Members communicates and interprets Board policies, procedures, and Arkansas Department of Education regulations to members of the community emanates a positive image of the school in the community by involving community members and agencies in a supportive role demonstrates his/her support of the community through active participation and involvement in civic affairs Personal Skills demonstrates enthusiasm for acquiring new skills in exploring the results of educational research which may influence teaching and the curriculum assumes personal responsibility for participating in available staff development activities which are designed to enhance the personal skills of personnel in this job classification accepts and analyzes constructive criticism in a professional manner ' accepts responsibility for professional conduct regarding attendance of and attitudes toward scheduled meetings -- - ------------------- ( (. l NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TITLE: Director of Secondary Education QUALIFICATIONS: Master's Degree, Administrator's Certificate as per Arkansas Department of Education regulation, three years classroom experience, three years administrative experience SUPERVISOR: Assistant Superintendent for Instruction SUPERVISES: Certified and non-certified personnel assigned to him/her RESPONSIBILITY: The role of the director responsible for the secondary school instructional program involves the system-wide coordination and administration of the instructional program within the framework of the philosophy and objectives of the educational program established by Board policy, and consistent with statutes and standards of regulatory agencies. The director of secondary education administers the total organization of the instructional program including curriculum design, grouping of students, special programs and projects assists supervisory personnel in planning and implementing staff development programs and activities to strengthen identified areas needing improvement assists in planning educational research and evaluation appropriate to the needs of the District cooperates in providing assistance for diagnosing student learning and/or behavior problems prepares a budget for programs involving his department based on identified needs and priorities of the District cooperates with the department of personnel in the selection and recommendation of administrative staff members involved in the instructional program determines staff needs for his/her immediate department and for special programs and projects and cooperates with the director of personnel in securing qualified personnel supervises and evaluates professional and non-professional staff assigned to him coordinates non-instructional activities and services as a support to the instructional program ( l STUDENT NEEDS promotes positive community relations through effective communication and involvement of community members analyzes personal characteristics and strengthens areas of behavior as necessary for the fulfillment of his assignment performs other duties and functions as assigned by his superordinate The Director of Secondary Education assists in the planning and implementation of the District's student assessment program cooperates with principals, and counselors in planning for individual student assessment assists in an advisory capacity in generating specific assessment data for utilization in writing proposals for special programs Planning for the Implementation of the Instructional Program assists in the formulation of goals and objectives for each component of the instructional program initiates the development of curriculum programs and activities to meet the student needs in the District articulates goals and objectives of each component of the educational program for the total staff for continuity of effort coordinates the District's guide writing program to support the District's instructional program as reflected in its curriculum guides assists the staff in its involvement with individual school staffs to implement appropriate teaching strategies and classroom management activities reconunends for purchase appropriate programs, equipment, and materials identified by school and supervisory staff members cooperates with the department of personnel in determining staff needs and selecting personnel for the administrative staff and for special projects recommends types of facilities and space utilization for the D\\strict to best meet the needs of individual students and programs C ( (_ coordinates the.instructional program time units to promote opportunity for the maximum of experiences for students guides in the evaluation of instructional methods and programs and recommends changes necessary for providing more realistic opportunities for students designs, recommends, and implements educational experimentation assists in maintaining a continuous program of staff development to provide for specific needs as identified through competency-based staff assessment engages with his staff in ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructional program Improving the Quality of Instruction assists in planning the best possible facilities for promoting an environment conducive to maximum learning_ provides supporting realia within budget allocations to promote maximum opportunities for achievement of goals and objectives of the instructional program demonstrates his support of the local school in its efforts to conduct meaningful instructional activities by providing the assistance of a supervisory staff coordinates and supervises special programs and projects of the District to assure consistency of goals and objectives for each program Managerial Services prepares reports and maintains accurate and complete records as required by District policy and the Arkansas Department of Education demonstrates knowledge and skills by making a positive contribution to conunittee work which supports the instructional program organizes committees for evaluation and selection of textbooks, equipment, and other instructional materials supervises and evaluates personnel assigned to him/her assists personnel and principals in encouraging attendance, acceptable conduct, and awareness of good health habits of students prepares the annual budget relative to those phases of the instructional program for which he has responsibility C Interacting with Students interprets evaluation and reporting procedures to the principal and his staff who in turn assist the student in understanding his educational progress assists personnel to understand student behavior to more realistically meet the needs of each student Interacting with Colleagues involves the staff in planning, decision-making, and implementation of the total instructional program cooperates with staff members in other departments to contribute to the effectiveness of the total District program plans with principals to implement all phases of the instructional program maintains an effective system of communication between central office personnel and individual school staffs exhibits a professional attitude toward criticism demonstrates a professional attitude as a member of internal committees Interacting with Community Members communicates and interprets Board policies\nprocedures, and Arkansas Department of Education regulations to members of the community emanates a positive image of the school in the community by involving community members and agencies in a supportive role assists in maintaining a communications network to interpret school goals, policies, and practices to connnunity members and to elicit suggestions for making the educational effort relevant to community goals demonstrates his/her support of the community through active participation and involvement in civic affairs Developing Personal Skills develops personal leadership skills characterized by good judgment, logical thinking, creativity, and imagination demonstrates enthusiasm for acquiring new skills in exploring the results of educational research which may influence teaching and the curriculum initiates procedures to modify his performance based on self-analysis of his/ her actions in assuming his responsibilities assumes personal responsibility for participating in available staff development activities which are designed to enhance the personal skills of personnel in his job classification accepts and analyzes constructive criticism in a professional manner accepts responsibility for professional conduct regarding attendance of and attitudes toward scheduled meetings (' (. L NORTII LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS TITLE: Supervisor of Gifted and Talented and VIPS Coordinator QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Valid teaching certificate JOB GOAL: 2. Minimum of three years teaching experience 3. Master's degree To supervise the instructional program for the gifted and talented child and coordinates the volunteers in public schools PERFORMANCREE SPONSIBILITIES: 1. Supervises and coordinates all District programs for gifted children and helps develop policies and procedures for special instruction. Helps to establish and maintain special classes and services for gifted and talented students. 2. Assists the directors and assistant superintendent for instruction in developing and recommending the District gifted and telented education plan. 3. Conducts regular and requested classroom visitations, observes teachers in instructional settings, and assists them with teaching methods, teaching techniques, instructional aids, and room organization. 4. Plans and supervises a system of record keeping and supplies data as requested on financial and program reports required by the Arkansas Department of Education. 5. Assists in the selection of instructional materials, supplies, and equipment necessary for instructional purposes in gifted and talented education programs. 6. Assists in curriculum development and inservice programs in gifted and talented education. 7. Arranges for outside consultants to provide assistance to teachers in resource rooms and to regular classroom teachers who work with gifted students. 8. Assists principals and teachers in implementing a differentiated curriculum. 9. Assists with periodic evaluation of existing programs and services and specifies individualized programs of instruction and services for students who require them. 10. Assists in determining need for new programs and services by presenting new concepts and ideas based upon present practices, C L- 11. Assumes responsibility for professional growth and development and provides liaison with professional organizations. 12. Serves as a consultant and resource person to principal, other administrative personnnel, teachers, students, and parents. 13. Assists the director of personnel in selection and placement of gifted and talented teachers as needed. 14. Helps to interpret the program to school personnel and the cormnunity at large. 15. Assists in orientation of new teachers. 16. Assists in the writing of management plans for each student. 17. Works with special services'in testing students for the gifted and talented program. 18. Supervises the student identification procedures for gifted and talented. 19. Assists in writing and disseminating the gifted and talented newsletter. 20. Serves as the coordinator for the District's VIPS program. 21. Acts as liaison between VIPS chairman in the building and the school staff. 22. Identifies the staff's volunteer needs. 23. Publicizes the VIPS program. 24. Maintains records of volunteers, jobs, and hours of service. 25. Encourages continuous recognition of volunteers and helps to plan foran appreciation event near the close of the school year. 26. Coordinates the VIPS program with community agenci~s. 27. Performs other duties and functions as assigned by his/her superordinate. C TITLE: Language Arts Coordinator QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Valid teaching certificate REPORTS TO: JOB GOAL: 2. Master's degree 3. Broad te~ching experience in language arts areas 4. Certification in reading/language arts 5. Such alternative to the above qualifications and/or as the Board of Education may find appropriate and acceptable Director of Elementary Education/Secondary Education To achieve and maintain standards in the classroom so that each student may derive the greatest academic and personal benefits from the study of reading/language arts PERFORHANCER ESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Coordinates reading/language arts program, K-12. 2. Coordinates an operational framework for curriculum development and instructional improvement in reading/language arts. 3. Coordinates reading/language arts curriculum development activities and serves as chairman of such committees. Functions as resource person in program planning, curriculum development, and introducing new course offerings. 4. Coordinates the development, writing, editing, and publishing of locally produced curriculum guides. 5. Makes recommendations concerning major changes in programs and policies affecting reading/language arts curriculum and inst~uction. 6. Establishes procedures for regular evaluation of both existing and new curricular patterns and practices, new instructional procedures and practices, and recommends any changes therein. 7. Visits reading/language arts classrooms on a regular basis and also at the request of individual teachers, principals, and other administrators. 8. Interprets policy to principal and assists in making desirable adaptations of these policies. Works with principal on a consultant basis. 9. Supervises reading/language arts classroom instruction and assists teachers in improving instructional practices. 10. Instills in principal and teacher the use of initiative, desire~ a~d ability to exercise judgement, innate skills, and acquire knowledge. 11. Serves as a resource person to principals, teachers, parent groups, and textbook committees, etc. C ( 12. Assists in planning and implementing inservice education training for classroom teachers and administrators at both building and District level. 13. Performs demonstration lessons on effective teaching techniques for observation by teachers using actual classroom conditions. 14. Helps teachers with teaching methods, room organization, and teaching techniques. 15. Assists each teacher in the system in making the most effective use of materials. 16. Orients new teachers in the use of curriculum guides, philosophy of the department, and of reading/language arts materials available. 17. Uses test results and other effective evaluation techniques in planning individual student programs as well as total curriculum planning. 18. Serves on reading/language arts textbook selection committees and assists in implementing new programs. 19. Assists in evaluation, selection, and utilization of instructional materials. Shares with principals and teachers those materials and ideas which enhance the teaching-learning process. 20. Assists cooperating teachers as they work with student teachers. 21. Prepares quarterly reports on school matters as they develop services provided, and an annual report including evaluations and reco=endations for improvement of the program. 22. Serves on North Central Association Visiting Connnittees as evaluations ., by other school systems are conducted by State Department of Education. 23. Maintains a systematic and continuous awareness of new trends and publications in supervision of teaching and learning by reading, attending conferences, and visiting other schools. 24. Maintains and up-dates knowledge in the areas of reading/language arts, principles of child growth and development, the teaching-learning process, and curriculum development. 25. Participates in those activities most likely to lead to continued professional growth. 26. Assists in efforts to maintain standards of excellence in the teachinglearning process so that each student may derive the greatest academic and personal benefit from the learning experience. L NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS TITLE: Coordinator of Mathematics QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Valid teaching certificate JOB GOAL: 2. Master's degr8e 3. Minimum of three years teaching experience To achieve and maintain standards in che classroom so that each student may derive the greatest \u0026amp;cademic and personal benefits from the study of mathematic~ PERFORMANCREE SPONSIBILITIES: 1. Coordinates the mathematics program, K-12. 2. Designs, modifies, and coordinates an operational frarnework for curriculum development and instructional improvement in mathematics, 3. Coordinates mathematics curriculum development activities. Functions as resource person in program plqnning, curriculum development, and introducing new course offerings. 4. Coordinates the development, writing, editing, and publishing of locally produced curriculum guides. 5. Makes recommendations concerning major changes in programs.. and policiP.s affecting mathematics curriculum and instruction. 6. Establishes procedures for regular evaluation of curriculum, and recommends changes based upon the evaluation. 7. Interprets policy to principals and assists in making desirable adaptations of policy. 8. Works with principals on a consultanL basis. 9. Serves as a resource person to principals, teachers, parent groups, and committees. 10. Assists in pla.nning and implementing inservice education training for classroom teachers and administrators at both builcing and District levels. 11. Visits m~thematics classes and helps teachers with teaching methods, room organization, and teaching techniques. 12. Assists in evaluation, selection, and utilization of instructional materials. Shares with principals and teachers those materials and ideas which enhance the teaching-learning process. .... (.) 13. Prepares appropriate reports on school matters and services provided, and prepares an annual report which may include evaluations and recommendations for improvement of the program. 14. Serves on committees as needed. 15. Maintains and updates knowledge in the areas of mathematics, principles of child growth and development, the teacher-learning process, and curriculum development. 16. Performs other duties and functions as assigned by his/her superordinate.  ' TITLE: Coordinator of Instructional Services QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Valid teaching certificate REPORTS TO: JOB GOAL: 2. Experience in teaching and/or supervision 3. Master's degree 4. Certificate as required by state and North Central Association 5. Such alternatives to the above qualifications as the Board of Education may find appropriate and acceptable Director of Elementary/Secondary Education To provide an atmosphere and context for the improvement of instruction and the marshalling of appropriate resources to create a stimulating learning environment. PERFORMANCREE SPONSIBILITIES: 1. Assumes responsibility forthe writing of all proposals and the filing of all applications for federal funds or those requiring some form of initiation. 2. Remains up-to-date on laws, regulations, and guidelines regarding federal funds available to schools. 3. Conducts inservice education workshops in the writing of performance objectives, the drafting of project proposals, and the interpretation of specifications for federal funding. 4. Serves as a resource person and consultant to central office staff, principals, and teachers in seeking outside sources of funds for special projects. 5. Encourages local personnel to exercise initiative in developing projects\ndevelops proposals himself and assumes supervision of projects granted the District. 6. Evaluates ideas and projects proposed by members of the staff for relevance to criteria and eligibility for funding. 7. Disseminates project information, as appropriate, to the staff and for the public at large. 8. Attends all meetings, workshops, etc. that are held with regards to guidelines, applications, reports, etc. pertaining to special funds. 9. Serves as coordinator of Chapter I, Chapter II, and other funds that require special applications, accounting, evaluation, final reports. 10. Evaluates all funded projects as required by regulations and makes reports as required. r (-) 11. Attends seminars on grantsmanship and proposal writing, and stays abreast through reading, correspondence, and other communication with matters in the field. 12. Prepares purchase orders and supervises the procurement of all equipment, materials, supplies, and services that are purchased through special funded projects. 13. Assists in the selection of materials, supplies, equipment to be purchased for the special projects. Works with purchasing agent as necessary on specifications, securing items, etc. 14. Serves as liaison person and reporting station for principals and for teachers who must complete reports or supply data as part of a project requirement. 15. Coordinates monitoring and evaluation procedures as required by guidelines. 16. Coordinates mechanics and informational matters for all inservice workshops as called for in project. 17. Coordinates all advisory meetings, completes arrangements for such, and assumes responsibility for all necessary plans. 18. Works with business affairs office in matters of accounting, handling of funds, etc. 19. Maintains records for accounting purposes, at least to the extent that program expenditures and services can be easily monitored. 20. Maintains internal general records on individual travel both local and out of district, workshops conducted and attendance, use of substitutes, and other pertinent data. 21. Coordinates services of an administrative and instructional nature associated with printed forms, plan and record books, etc. Keeps forms current through continuous review, places orders, and distributes forms as needed. 22. Coordinates mechanics of inservice training meetings, staff development sessions, and curriculum planning. Serves both as consultant and presentor in such workshops. 23. Assists in planning for staff members to attend local and state workshops and conferences and maintains an awareness of workshops for professional and educational growth. 24. Assists in planning, developing, and supervising a system-wide testing program. Chairs review committees, places orders, distributes materials, and maintains scoring service. C ( l 25. Assists in the selection of standardized testing material\nadvises on teacher-made tests, grading, student reporting, and student records. 26. Assumes responsibility for interpretating results of testing program, schedules of testing, grade level summaries, etc. 27. Works with counselors in standardized testing program, planning for new courses, and in other curricular matters. 28. Prepares that part of the supervisory budget relating to instructional supplies and equipment and initiates purchase orders for expending funds from designated categories. 29. Conducts local research relating to problems in curriculum development and instructional improvement and keeps supervisors informed of trends in this area. 30. Cooperates with national, state, regional, and other groups in developing and assessing new instructional programs in areas of development, instructional practices, inservice training. 1., ' \\ , ( NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS TITLE: Instructional Computer Coordinator QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Valid teaching certificate JOB GOAL: 2. Master's degree 3. Minimum of three years teaching experience 4. Broad experience in the use of computers for instructional purposes To provide leadership and support in the use of computers for instructional purposes PERFORMANCREE SPONSIBILITIES: 1. Coordinates all uses ot computers for instructional purposes, K-12. 2. Coordinates the development and evaluation of all District programs related to the use of computers for instructional purposes. 3. Coordinates the process for developing guidelines and course outlines for computer literacy programs. 4. Coordinates the long-range planning process for the use of computers in instruction, 5. Provides ongoing staff development activities for teachers and administrators related to the use of computers in instruction, 6. Assists teachers with the use of the computer as an effective instructional tool. 7. Provides appropriate services to teachers and administrators. 8. Serves as a resource person to teachers, principals, and central office personnel. 9. Works cooperatively with subject area coordinators in the integration of computer software/courseware into all disciplines. 10. Coordinates curricular objectives with computer software/courseware resources. 11. Works with the coordinator of instructional materials in maintaining a computer software/courseware curriculum inventory, 12. Coordinates the process for the selection and evaluation of all instructional software/courseware in the District. -- ------ () (_ 13. Coordinates, implements, and monitors systems for computer managed instruction, 14. Works cooperatively witl, subject area coordinators in designing and imp1ementing computermE.naged objective-based testing programs. 15. Assists with budget devElopme.nt to support and maintain the computer education program. 16. Cocrdinates the selecticr. of all computer hardware and peripherals to be used for instructionEl purposes, 17. Monitors the legal and Ethical implications involved in the use of computers. 18. Maintains a continuous awareness of new trends in using the computer as an instructional tool in relation to the principles of child grow~~ and development, the teaching-learning process, and curriculum development. 19. Assists in efforts to maintain standards of excellence in the teachinglear. ning ~rocess so that each student may derive the greatest academic and personal benefit fro~ the learning experience. 20. Performs other duties and functions as assigned by his/her superordinate. (- l, / L NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS TITLE: Supervisor of Vocational Education QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Valid certificate as a teacher 2, Master's degree 3. Minimum of three years teaching experience 4. Vocational administrator's certificate as required by the Arkansas Department of Education JOB GOAL: To develop and continually update a vocational education program which provides the greatest benefits to students preparing for living, employment, or a profession PERFORMANC' E 1 RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Formulates and administers a comprehensive program of vocational education. 2. Develops the \"Local Plan\" for the District's current and projected involvement in vocational education. 3. 4. 5. 6. Works cooperatively with the director of secondary education, principals, and tP.achers to improve instruction and the learning environment. Designs, modifies, and coordinates an operational framework for curriculum development and instructional improvement in vocational education. Mak~s recommendations for long-term adjustments, changes, additions, and deletions in the vocational education program to meet changing needs. Is responsible for the development of proposals for new courses and projects involving state and federal funding for vocational education. 7. Assists in the modification of existing courses and the implementation of new courses in vocational education. 8. Coordinates the development, writing, editing, and publishing of locally produced curriculum guides for vocational education courses, as needed. 9. Works with vocational education textbook selection committees. 10. Maintains close working relationships with community and state agencies in order to provide training consistent with needs. 11. Works cooperatively with advisory committees, teachers, and students in their clubs and organizations. 12. Serves as liaison person between the Vocational Education Division of the Arkansas Department of Education and the School District. ( / 13. Participates in the affairs of p~ofessional organizations devoted to the advancement of vocational education, 14. Develops and maintains articulat:'_on with other vocational programs at the secondary and post-secondary J.l'.vBl. 15. Maintains currcP-t knowledge of regulations and procedures pertinent to vocational educ.ation. 16. Interprets policy to principals Rnd assists in making desirable applications of these policies. 17. Coordinates and assists principals and teachers in the completion of forms and reports as may be required fer vocational education classes. 18. Assists in the evaluation of curriculum and makes periodic reports on the program of instruction--its progress and needs, 19. Responsible for the collection, review. and submission of all forms and reports to state and federal agencies relative to vocational education. 20. Maintains records for the vocational education program as required by state and federal agencies. 21. Prepares quarterly and annual rep0rts on school matters and services provided. 22. Assists the director of personnel in ~he recruitment and securing of teachers as needed. 23. Coordinates the activities of adult vocational classes and reporting. 24. Coordinates the c0operative programs i~ the schools in the area of vocational education. 25. Assists in evaluation, selection, and utilization of instructional materials. Shares with principals and teachers those materials and ideas which enhance the teaching-learning process. 26. Develops specifications for the m~jor equipment items to be purchased for vocational education labs. 27. Prepares and administers operating budgets for equipment, materials, supplies, and services for vocational education classes. 28. Locates, contacts, and recommends vendors of materials and equipment for the vocational education program, as needed. 29. Manages the inventory system of equipment purchased for vocational education labs as required by the state. 30. Performs other duties and functions as assigned by his/her superordinate. ( ( l TITLE: QUALIFICATIONS: REPORTS TO: JOB GOAL: Vocational Evaluator 1. Certification in vocational educa iun ar special education 2. Must be willing to acquire twehe add:i!..tt..i.rlll\\al semester hours in whichever area of tt..fule. l!.wr:o not certified, within two years Supervisor of Vocational Education To plan and carry out a functioning p~~~ra.rui t~at provides the evaluation component for swe~ia1 ~eeds students in vocational education. ROLE AND AREA OF SERVICE: The role of a vocational evaluator is to provide evaluation services needed to enhance participation of special nee~s st~ ~nts in vocatonal education courses. This special needs gro~p n~i~des students in special education, low achievers in basic ~ubjects those scoring low on standardized achievement tests, tl-05- with high absenteeism, and/or students with behavior problems. PERFORMANCJE{ ESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Schedule and perform vocational evaluation of spec a ne~u:s students including assessment of interests and apt1. Ges u. respect to successful completion of vocational prog.:.a11:l.s. 2. Draft and rcpo rt voe a tional prescriptions or eact1 st\"-'!..:tle,ru. evaluated. 3. Couducc client follow-up as needed. 4. Maintain evaluation equipment in working order. 5. Maintain accurate records. 6. Mainta.111 adequate inventory of supplie:.\n. 7. Plan and develop new formal or informal vocational evaluations/ woe~ sample units, as required. 8. berve as a resuurce person in the uevelopment of Individual Education Plans and Individual Written Plans for special needs students in vocational education classes. 9. Perform other duties as assigned. 10. Work closely with seconuary principals, secunuary co .i1selurs, ana :.\npecial .\nervices personnel. C ( TITLE: QUALIFICATIONS: REPORTS TO: SUPERVISES: JOB GOAL: Co6rdinator of Volunteers in Public Schools 1. A level of professional training and experience, and human relations skills 2. Ability to organize, provide leadership, and possess task commitment 3. Knowledgeable about schools, the educational process, and the community 4. Good health, moral character, ability to work under supervision, and to follow instructions 5. Enthusiastic about education, energetic, creative, and ample time to devote to program Director of Elementary/Secondary Education Volunteers program Design, implement, administer, and evaluate a volunteer program ROLE AND AREA OF SERVICE: A Volunteer In Public Schools (VIPS) program is a framework that has been developed to provide persons to work as volunteers at schools under the direction of teachers and other school district employees. Adults assist the educational  institution on a voluntary basis in activities that are used in the education of children. The main purpose of these volunteer services is to strengthen the school program and/or expand it through the use of the volunteers' special knowledge and skill. The potential benefit to students through the use of volunteers cannot be emphasized too much. The educational system is truly effective only if the community through volunteer programs and other means become involved in the educational process. Parents and other community volunteers provide educational benefits to the children as they enrich and improve the learning process. They are uniquely capable of tying the formal learning of the classroom with the learning that goes on informally in the community. This involvement in the public schools may have an important bearing on the quality of the schools. This community ''in-kind'' contributions of volunteer work also takes the place of money that is not available. Such a program enables teachers to know more about the people from the community and it enables community persons to know more about the school. Herein may lie possible solutions to some of society's problems as a way may be found in making fuller and wiser use of our human potentials and resources. An effectively designed, implemented, and evaluated program can accomplish improved community/ school relationships, student motivation, as well as monitory savings. l The volunteer need not necessarily have a child in the classroom in which she is assisting or even in the public school, as for that matter, in order to be useful to the institution. She should however, be able to relate to children, to be interested in them, and to accept them as individuals. They should be willing to give of themselves freely, have time and discipline to meet volunteer commitment on regular basis and be enthusiastic about education. A volunteer receives no pay but may perform some of the same duties as a paid employee. For a program to be effective, the relationship between staff members and volunteers must be thoroughly understood and clearly spelled out. It is important that teachers and other staff members be rea~sured that the volunteers are there to support and assist them, to extend staff efforts, and enable them to perform better the most professional aspects of their work. Any successful volunteer program must be constantly re-evaluated to remain successful. Policies and procedures which are effective and-appropriate may be somewhat common to a number of schools as well as cover a period of years. However, each program at each site must be tailored to meet the needs of institution and individuals participating. It should not become an educational tool to be manipulated by the professionals. A coordinator as a paid employee is needed to take responsibility for administering, designing, implementing, and evaluating a volunteer program. A well organized, effective program requires a leader with the time and talent to .devote to the project. The coordinator requires administrative skill, enthusiasm, flexibility, and the ability to c.onnnunicate and relate well to others. This person should be employed by the district on a part-time or full-time basis for this position. PERFORMANCREE SPONSIBILITIES: 1. Works closely with the directors of elementary and secondary education in a joint effort to develop specific guidelines for the North Little Rock VIPS program. 2. Assists with the design of a program to fit needs of the school and district in which it is to be implemented. 3. Conducts meetings with community persons and staff members to seek suggestions for program design. 4. Initiates the process required to establish goals and measurable objectives for the program while serving as clearing house for input. 5. Conducts needs assessment through use of inquiries or questionnaires to assist with the design of a volunteer program. 6. Recruits and retains the necessary number of volunteers for the program to function at its optimum level. 7. Drafts and supervises planning and operations in recruitment of volunteers and encourages teachers and administrators to invite individuals to participate ( ( l 8. Creates an environment which encourages volunteers to become involved. 9. Provides personal interaction, uses telephone, and conducts general meetings to explain the responsibilities and rewards of being volunteers. 10. Seeks to provide good working relationship among home, community, and school and creates a willingness of resource person to serve in the program. 11. Provides training for volunteers and assists the administration in orientation of teachers so each person may perform efficiently as part of the school's program. 12. Develops cooperative partnership between volunteers and the school and communicates the district's philosophy etc. to volunteers during inservice sessions. 13. Orients the staff of the school to the rationale and utilization of volunteers in the effort to provide competent assistants in the classroom and other areas of the school. 14. Maintains ongoing training throughout the school year to volunteers to improve their effectiveness in areas of responsibility and assist teachers and other staff members to gain information on the use of volunteers. 15. Maintains a list of vo\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_484","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive Desegregation Plan,'' Office of Desegregation","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":["1950/2026"],"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","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive Desegregation Plan,'' Office of Desegregation"],"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/484"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["37 pages"],"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\nLittle Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOLS DESEGREGATION PLAN Office of Desegregation i Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOLS DESEGREGATION PLAN Office of Desegregation INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM Introduction The Little Rock School District will have seven (7)* schools providing the incentive interdistrict school, but would continue to provide school program. Rockefeller may become an the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program wiU not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation these schools and in the entire school district. The following schools will provide the incentive school program: Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens The question of an additional incentive school for the 1992-93 school yw is ...  -s-i- * to add an additional discussion. The parties do not seek to modify the plan at this time incentive school. In order to be successful, the incentive program must address the academic, social and emotional needs of all student participants. The incentive program must also serve as a recruitment tool for meeting the desegregation requirements in these schools. With proper resourcm uhd cxpccutiom. the toceudve Khodl progruto wffl Kuve B a luodcl of otocBcncc for the county, ttate and nation. The iucce of the tocentive titoool progtan. is directly related of the long-term desegregation plan in the Little Rock School District. to the success of the long-term ocsBgreaouv**  u addmoa to the ongoms camprahaaaivt pragmas to the inacanvt ichooU, the will ..pin., the possible me of . trust fend to proride future eoUese tootatstop tocaioves. ^es toll detetmtoe the costs of impleinenttog t otoohmhip projnuu for the students schools end will detenutoe the feesihiUty of using trmt funds to prov.de . The parties who attend incentive such an taeeniw. B will have the responsibility for establishing the guidelines and criteria to be used in aUocating any resources to the students. The trust fund ac achievement incentive to students and would also assist would be used to provide an academic parents studenu to settin, retdistic gotds tar sttendtog college. Page 149 I I IIncentive School Progrem Committee developed by a committee of -3. The blueprint will be used ATf^ework'forspecific activities that are expected to occur after court approval of the The blueprint for the incentive school program was administrators, teachers, community represenutives and parents as incentive school program. The following areas were considered in the development of the incentive school program\nA. Staffing B. Parent Involvement C. Staff Development Acadf^i^ Programs and Curriculum Development E. Social Skills F. Support Programs G. Monitoring and Evaluation H. I. J. K. L. Special Student Activities Parent Recruitment School Ariministratiop School Policy and Procedures Counseling/ Social Worit The Incentive School Program Committee divided into five (5) sub-committees to address the above areas: Subcommittee 1 - Academic Programs - Special Student Activities - Sodal Skills Subcommittee 2 - Support Programs \u0026gt; School Administration . P^unneeling/ Sodal WOtk - Monitoring and Evaluation - School Poli^ and Procedures Subcommittee 3 - StafBng ~ Soff Development Subcommittee 4 - Parent Involvement Subcommittees - Parent Recruitment Page ISOf Blueprint for Excellence of this document is to clearly define the mission d pecuuo^ for the Thc purpose of this oocumcm is lu however, attempt to L 1 t'ka inf*^ntive School P^QPTBTn Committee did not, incentive schools. The incenti e ,-,~oTn This document merely fimishes the community with the parameters for exceuencc m local practitioners, and concerns for each individual incentive school must be in The local practitioners are the principals, teachers, parents and P program school The _____J.  ok. nr.rtiinitv foT thc oracuuoncrs to make certam decisions _____ depends on the opportunity for the practitioners OCDCuUd UU U*v J -------r . J This document is hereby submitted to the federal court and the community with the understanding that further details wiU be developed. The Incentive School Program Committee will continue to The committee will be expanded to include at least one parent function until August 1,1989. from each incentive school __ (function as a district-wide The council will have two parent represenutives from each X uC tUlUUUlVvv -- attendance zone. On August 1. the committee wiU be restructured to council of incentive school parents. The councu ww nave rwo p.uu incentive school. Also, four members at-large wiU be PP7^^n^totinE aU activities related Incentive School Program Parent Council will be responsiblefor^^m 5^*001 lo thc incentive school program. The Parent Council will p\u0026lt; to the Little Rock District Board of-Directors and Joshua Intervenors on a quarterly basis. The Aohlemic i^hievemoh, is to h of to that all children can learn, and broad-based commiuuty supptm. j certainly the with the availability of financial resources, educanonal exceUence pjwMlj. It belief of the District that all of these ideals will be evident in each Page 151I Section One: Incentive School Academic Programs and Curriculum Development Schools have the responsibility for expanding the scope of knowledge and for developing the rational, reflective, and critical capacities of aU children. The content of the education must be true, appropriate, and relevant. The processes of education arc cjqjccted to be democratic and humane- The aim of education is to be the complete development of the person. In addition, excellence in education must prepare a student for self-knowledge and to become a contributing problem-solving member of his or her own community and the global society as well.\" (Saving the African-American Child. 1984) The goals, the content of the academic programs, the instructional methodologies, and the use of instructional technology in the incentive schools will be reflective of the intent to have excellence in education. Augmenting the academic program will be special student activities and social skills building programs implemented to meet the cognitive, social, emotional, and interest needs of the students. However, the primary goals of education shall be attained through the mastery of a core curriculum of worthwhile knowledge, important skills, and sound ideals. Academic Programs General Areas for Implementation - (subject to an thereof) annual Bsscssmcnt of thc effectiveness 1. Four-Year Old Program (Early Childhood Education)-Thorne Rock^ool^^^ Four-Year Old Program will be operative in each incentive school. The Hi^Scope Curriculum or a coi5able curriculum which is developmentally appropriate and fosttis SSaS? P.S: componcn, lel be inconKnaud in me program model. 2. Writing-to-Read - An instructional technology program, such as Writing to Read, will be implemented at each incentive school for K-2 studentt. 3. VinriPT^arten - The Little Rock School District Early Prevention of School Failure rnodel -ive school. Release time and flexible scheduling will be Page 1524. 5. 6. 7. 8. iis for developing reading _ ______.bje Curric** will be a major emphasis for to \"^nri'clkical reading skills. Each subject area wiU also utihxe strategies to of L appreciation for reading (Pre-Kindergarten.6). Reading Across increase students pleasure of and appreciation fw.., Easmssinn Anmss the Cunicnlum wiU offer instmnnonel objecuves and trnKpes area designed to increase the oral commnnicanons and American English skills of the students (Prc-Kindcrgarten-6). Teaming Styles Inventories will be used in each inceimvc diversifying their teaching styles to JVC school to assist teachers in match the learning stjdes of the students. 7-____i will be developed at the local school level by parents recommended to be integrated into the total curriculum. School Themes and staff and are Snmiepartmentalinetion will be the recoi^ded 6. This organization wfll faciUtate the development of speoahied skills lor suoj teachers for the respective grade levels. 9. Instructional Technology win be available in specialized lhhorator.es and in individual classrooms. 10. Science Laboratories equipped wi\u0026amp; adequate equipment am mobile or permanent, will be available for students. id materials and supplies, either 11. rnpiitr Laboratories for remediation of 25 stations in each incentive school. ul enridmem wffl be expended for a miaidiain 12. Foreign Language be operative in each school. InOTKUooIaboratcrtes with appropriate equipment end mtetiahuill 13. Study and Test^aking Skills wfll be ttught in an each grade level. integral component of the curriculum at ---------- available for loan to students /Remediation and enrichment software will be available for Loan Program - portable computOT 14. Computer (grades 4-6) for use at home home-based experiences. 15 Parent Home Study Guides will be dewio^ in each core subject area for each grade (1-6). win be developed by the beginning of the 1993.94 school year in 16. Computer Managed Instructional Technology will be ing of the 1992-93 school year. njfd for continuous tracking of 17. Student Education progress by the beginning of the --------------------- win be developed, implemented, and monitored for each student. Page 15318. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Specialized Programs - Federally or state mandated programs (remedial, special education, gifted and talented) will be available during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended-day, week, or year programs. Incentive Programs - each school will establish an incentive program for recognizing academic excellence and academic improvement. Homework - homework as required according to Little Rock School District policy and regulations. Criterion-Referenced Testing - formative criterion-referenced tests will be computer generated for the ongoing assessment of students. Heterogeneous grouping will be utilized at each grade level in each subject, and instructors will utilize whole group, small group, and individualized approaches to teaching. Effective Schools model will be operative in each incentive school, with appropriate training provided for implementation. African and African-American History * each school will establish a sequential program to include the study of African and African-American history and culture. Specific Subject Area F-mphari^ The core curriculum for pre-kindergarten through grade 6 will be the Little Rock School District model. Areas for emphasis/expansion have been identified for each of the content areas. Readins - f -taming to Read Through Literature, with emphasis on ethnic classes in each genre, will be the primary reading program (R-) - Basal textbooks will be used to augment the classics reading program (K-6) - Strong emphasis on critical reading skills (grades 4-^ - Increased motivation and learning with oral expression through reading\neg^ choral reading, student storytelling, debate, drama, etc. (K-6) F.nglich/Uternture Arts - Writing to Read, or a similar program, as an instructional comfranent for K-2 - Writing Across the Curriculum will be used to enhance the writing skills of studenu (K^) - Latin Program will be used to increase the vocabulary and word attack skills of studenu (5-6) . . - Oral Language Expression wiU be a major emphasis m the reading anf English/language arts areas (K-6) Page 154- Penmanship wiU be emphasized at each level, with appropriate recogniuon of the developmental level of the individual student (K-6) Modeling will be expected in the oral expression, vocabulary, and usage Language skills of thc teachers (K-) Social Studies context-World History, - Emphasis on the study of history from a subject area American History, and Arkansas History (4-6) - Emphasis on introductory concepu in history, geography, and civics qk ) . fipnmnhv will be ttuEht throu^ active learning strategies S'\"??\"?  wm include a multicultural cumculum - riRph subject and grade level in social studies will include a - Learning strategies and activities will promote living social studies\" (K-6) - Emphasis on American and Arkansas History (4-5) - Empbosis on World History (6) - CfIfbrarinns/ ceremonies be integrated into the cumculum Mathematics - Emphasis on use of word or story problems (2-6) - Introduction to basic concepts in geometry and algebra (2-6) - Extensive use of manipulatives (Pre-K-S) - Use of computers for organizing and utilizing mathematical data - Emphasis on critical thinking in addition to methodology and results (K-o? Science Instruction wifi utilize a handson discovery and exploration approach to thc learning of scientific method and suggest the include prepped Wonnntion pieB describing ---------- Msienments wiu inci reinforce what has been ttught - Homework assignments   experiments parentt and students can in the classroom Fine Arts . Content will include an introduction to basic concepts in music and art in the content, knowledge, . S^phS in the earlier grades will be on pSZ^and crafts (Pre-K-3) the enjoyment and creation of music, Page 155- Emphasis at the intermediate level will expand creative expression and understanding to cultural and historical differences and developmenu (4-6) - In-school performances and/or exhibits and field trips will be used to reinforce the learning of concepts Foreign language - Each school will select at least one foreign language for study, with Spanish and a choice of an Asian language as strong recommendations - The instructional methodology for each language will be a \"total physical response\" approach - Emphasis will be on basic vocabulary, conversational, and cultural materials for 1-6. - A foreign language laboratory will be used for instruction, including computers where appropriate - Emphasis will be on transcribing and translating foreign language age-appropriate material (4-6) - Provision of practical experiences and interactions with a native language user. - Emphasis will be on vocabulary, grammar, reading, writing, and cultural materials (4- 6). Physical Education/Health - Family Life Education will be included in the total elementary curriculum (1-6) - Nifty Nutrition will be available for all grades (1-6) - Emphasis on \"wellness\" for the young (K-6) - Emphasis will be on the development of an understanding of and respect for the handicapped\nix., disabilities simulations (5-6) - Emphasis on team sports and lifelong leisure skills (K-6) Social Skills Social skills will be taught, where appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total staff at each school will be oq\u0026gt;ectcd to model exemplary behaviors toward each other, the students, and the total community. activities will be used to emphasize the development of appropriate social skills: FamDy Folklore - Students will learn the values and mores of their ancestors and family as a way to focus on personal positive behaviors. Positive Imaging . Structured lessons in self-esteem building will be taught in small group sessions. Inteipersonal Skills - Structured group sessions will focus on problem-solving, decisionmaking, peer pressure, etc. Page 156r Rites of Passage - A structured program will be initiated to respond to the emotional. physical, and social developmental changes in the young si may be established for male and female students. studenu. Separate programs Hole Model ProgrMi - Individuals (intetnalioual. national, state, local and cotnm^W Stations at the school in evet, area of the pr^ to models for students. Special emphasis will be placed on s----------- Afrirap-A-merican role models for males. Mentoring Program  Utilizing local resources in the community and the Partners Program, a mentoring program will be established for students. Additional or other social skills activities may be developed at the local school level. However, all academic programs, social skills programs/activities and special activities must be clearly and broadly articulated to the school community. Special Activities Special activities may be focused on academic reinforcement, special interest clubs. and/ or units of national or state organizations. Academic Reinforcement Activities may include G\u0026gt;ut not be limited to) the following. Peer Tutoring Program - Peer tutors will be assistants to teachers in the Homeworic peer tutoring (see Support Programs). Academic Reinforcement Qubs - Chess Club, Computer Progranumng Club. I^att Clu^hespian (Drama) Club. Math Club (Math Olympiads). Odyssey of Ae Mind. Great Boo^ Club. Science Club. Annual Knowledge Bowl (elementary level). Foreign Language Club Special Interest Clubs may include the following: Photography Newspaper Yearbook Choir/Glee Club Tennis Club Archery Club Camping Club String Instruments Sign Language Club Aerobics Club Cooking Club Band Swimming Club Bowling Club Rifting Club An Club Horseback Riding Qy^nnactif Club Dance Club Great Decisions International Pen Pal Club Sewing Club Page 157Field Ttips - Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaden cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) may be supplemented with a state or national trip. Examples include the following: Houston Space Center (Houston, Texas) Smithsonian Institute (Washington, DjC.) Martin Luther King Center (Atlanta, Georgia) George Washington Carver Museum (Tuskegee, Alabama) Gulf Shores (Gulfport, Mississippi) Each school will incorporate special activities into the total school program. Choices for each school will be determined by the needs/interests at the building level. Staff and parents will determine when and how activities will be implemented. However, School Program Plans must be submitted to the Board and administration for approval on an annual basis. Documented school-based involvement in the needs/interest assessment and planning process must accompany each School Program Plan. A projected budget must accompany each plan. Page 158Latin Enrichment Program Elementary T.ngiiag\u0026lt; Aits Classes L Background In the early 196Os, the Philadelphia (PA) School District raised reading an vocabulaiy scores of elementary school children through a progr^ using Latin m language arts classes. The program was developed by a team of Latin teachers, but the materials were designed to be used by elementary language arts teachers\nthe progr^ did not depend on using trained Latin teachers in the elementary classes. Since that time programs of this sort have been implemented in many other school distticts, such as Indianapolis, Indiana\nWashington, D.C4 St. Louis, Missouri\nDallas, Texas\nAngeles, California: New York City, New York\nOakland, California\nand Kansas City, Missouri. Some use the Philadelphia materials\nothers have developed then own materials. In these programs the focus is not on teaching formal Latin grammar, it xs on mantel m IIIWJV ya v--  using Latin words and myths as a means to improve English skills. These programs have also resulted in improved self-image among learners. The initial implementation of the program by Philadelphia and later in the ab^ identified districts was in inner city schools with a large minority poputotion. The targeted levels were grades five and six or grade six only. Reports concerning students performances on standardized tests in the above identified districts reveal at leut a one year growth in rr-ydinE and vocabulary and a significant amount of growth in o er content areas (see attached). In all districts, a team of Latin teachers trained thc elementaiy lan^^ arts teachers in nring the xnaterials and served as resource persons for background in Ro^ .  A -..._______________ if\u0026gt;mentflrv teachers studied to and Greek culture. As the program grew, many of these elementary Suu wZwClk UlULIUw* U** yaw^aaaa* ------  . . become proficient in Latin. A corresponding program using the Greek language has also been developed\nthis program uses the same methods and approach. The materials focus on using Latin and Greek word roots as a basis to increase English readinE and vocabulary skills. Materials arc varied\nthe two basic co^ are and riith crades and are based on classical mythology and lif . designed for fifth and sixth grada and are based on wide variety of subjects, including science, math. Supplemental courses cover a astronomy, and blacks in antiquity. n. Rationales th.n fnifi, of words in the English language are based on Latin words\nMore than 60% of words in uw vnowledee of word-building elements will increase knowledge of focusing on studies and reading curricula the GrtcoioM. world.\nvocboW Mterials that relau  te subject maJrer wiU broaden learning and provide enrichment. Page 159Ability to read English is not limited to language arts and other academic areas but affects success in life itself\nincreasing that ability creates more successful individuals who feel competent to deal with school and living. Latin is an unusual subject for studentt, especially in elementary school. While the study is not focused on learning the Latin language per se, study of an unusual and \"different\" subject, and seeing success in doing so, brings an improved self-image to the learners. The program itself is easy to implement. The cost is minimal, and investment of time by elementary teachers to learn the materials is limited. The materials are easy to . use. They are inexpensive to purchase and can be duplicated for distribution to teachers. The program has been successfully used by many areas with educational situations similar to Little Rock. The uniqueness of the program should appeal to parents as well as students\nno other public or private schools in Arkansas, certainly in the metropolitan Little Rock area, have such a program. The program would serve the desegregation plan for the incentive schools and would help in achieving the targeted objectives of raising standardixed test scores and eliminating disparity between scores of the major ethnic elements of the school community. Also, with the emphasis on multiethnic education within the Little Rock School District, materials can be developed locally to include this emphasis. Using the existing materials as models, LRSD teachers can create units that use their unique talents and skills and that are directed to the special interests and needs of the Arkansas students. HL Proposal It is proposed that the Little Rock School District implement an elementary Latin program in the elementary language arts classes at the fifth and sixth grade levels in the incentive schools for the purpose of increasing reading and vocabulary skills, improving standardized test scores, and enhancing the self-image of learners. IV. Program description After teachers for the incentive schools have been identified in the spring of 1989, these teachers win receive six hours of inservice training during the summer of 1989 in implamenting the program. The program wiU be implemented at the start of the 1989-90 school year and wiU be incorporated into the fifth and sixth grade language arts instructional block for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes per day. Throughout the 1989-90 school year, teachers will be involved in four (1) additional inservice workshops (two per semester). Also, these teachers will have the opportunity to become more proficient in Latin by enrolling in a college course designed especially for them\nthis course will be optional and at the teachers own expense. Throughout the year, the principal in each building will monitor the program. At the end of the 1989-90 school year, a formal districtwde assessment of the program will be made\nthis assessment will be based on surveys and test data. Page 160Instructional Materials Budget Sununar\n(Per Teacher) $ 30 Printins 60 Inservice Materials 30 Inservice Consultant Fee 15 College Course Materials 20 College Course Instructorss Fee 30 Inservice Stipends 60 TOTAL $245 Budget Summary (Program in all Sth and 6th grades in all incentive schools) 7 schools with 4 teachers each  28 teachers $6360 1 school with 10 teachers \" 10 teachers 2350 TOTAL $9310 Page 161LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Latin Program Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation t. To provide awareness of the Latta program to incenllw school prtacipab and staffs. l.l Present imptemenialbn plan proposal Io assoctate supertaiendenis and assisuni supertaiendenis. Jan 30. 1989 Foreign Language Supervisor Staff Dev Director Plan presentaibn 12 IJ Schedute awareness meelbg with principals of bcenllve schools. Develop ageoda for principals meelbg. March I, 1989 Assoc Supi for Edncalbnal Prog Meelbg on calendar 1.4 Conduct awarenem meeting whh prtacipab. IJ Schedute awarenem meeting whh current Sth and Ah grade teachers In tacenlbm schoob. 1.6 Conduct awarenem meeting whh current Sth and 6ih grade leachers. 1.7 Identify Sih and 6lh grade teachers who wish to remain at Incentive schoob. March I, 1989 March IS, 1989 March IS, 1989 AprU 1992 May 1992 Assoc SupI for Edncalbnal Prog Foreign Lang Supv SlafT Dev Dlr Latin Teachers Asst Supi Foreign Lang Supv Staff Dev Dlr Lalb Teachers Human Resources Director Prbled agenda Concerns/ quesibns expressed by prbcipals Meelbg on calendar Meelbg agenda Usl of Menlined 5lti and 6lli grade leachers 2? 5 IJ Reciull and fill vacancies. July 1992 Human Resources Director Idenllfted Sth and 6lh grade leachers al bcenllvc schools for 1989^.LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Latin Program (continued) Objectives 2. To provide Inservice to participating teachers. 3. Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 2.1 21 2J 2.4 23 2.6 2.7 21 2.9 Requisltloo lostrucllonal materials. DnpUcate copies of above materials. Schedule Iwo Inservice meetings of three hours each. Develop agenda for above two meetings. Conduct above two meetings. Contact UALR about offering college course. Schedule above college course. Implement above college course. Schedule four Ivrofomr Inservice workshops In local bulldtagsZdusters disirictwide. 2.10 Conduct above 4 Inservice workshops. I May 1992 July 1992 JuiK 1992 July 1992 Aug 1992 June 1992 Dec 1992 May 1993 Sept 1992 Foreign Lang Supv Arrival of materials Foreign Lang Supv Foreign Lang Supv Foreign Lang Supv Latin Teachers Foreign Lang Supv Latin Teachers Foreign Lang Supv Latin Teachers Principals Foreign Lang Supv One copy for each teacher Meettags on calendar Printed agendas Agendas and materials Course proposal Identified dales/times/place Completed course Meetings on calendar n e To Implement the elementary Latta program In Sth and 6th grades al incenllve schoob. 3.1 31 33 Schedule time for ctassroom tastructlon. Purchase/dupUcateZ create student materiab. Incorporate Latin program tato districts language arts program. May 1993 Aug 1992 Ongoing Ongoing Latta Teachers Principals Foreign Lang Supv Principals Meeting agendas School's instructional schedule Materials ready for classroom use Lesson plansLRSD desegregation PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Latin Program (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date lesponsibllity evaluation 4. To evaluate the elementary UtIn program. 4.1 Monitor classroom acllshlcs. 42 Identify student growth on standardized tests. 4 J Develop student, teacher, parent assepnmnt survey. 4.4 Disseminate abow satwys. 4 J Compile surmy lewHs. 4.6 Submit final evahialion report to nociale snperintendenls. May 1993 May 1993 AprU 1993 May 1993 May 1993 lune 1993 Principals Principals Foreign Ung Supv Utin Teachers Principals Foreign Lang Supv Foreign Lang Supv Identified strength and weaknesses Test data Printed forms Completed forms relumed Survey data Submitted report JAREA: Incentive Schools LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Goal I: To develop and Imptement a quatlly academic program for Incentive Schoo s. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Bcglniiiiig Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation I. To promote/enhance leadership and staff understanding of the Incentiw school concept. 1.1 Provide an faideplh pre-orlenlallon session on each component of the Incentive schools for principal. February IS. 1989 February 28. 1989 Supts Cabinet Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools 2. To develop Incentive School Plan for each school. 12 IJ 1.4 2.1 22 2J Develop ta cooperation with the principals a detailed process and formal for developing the Individual Incentive School Phn. Assist each building principal In presenting an In-depth pre-orlentallon session for sulf on each component. Assisi each principal and stalf-wlih orientation session for parents ta the Incenllm schools. Identify Incentive School Man teams. Develop the detailed Indlvidnal Incentive School Plan. Review and approve School Phn. March 3. 1989 March I. 1989 March I. 1989 June 1,1989 June 1989 June 1989 March IS. 1989 March IS. 1989 March IS. 1989 June IS. 1989 Inly 1989 July 1989 Supts Cabinet Asst Supt-faicenllve Schools Supts Cabinet Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Supts Cabinet Principals Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Principals Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools AU Divisions Supt's Cabinet Board of Dbectors \u0026lt; 85 3. To develop cnrrlcuhim specific to the incenllve schools. 3.1 Identify each area In need of curriculum dewlopmenl. June IS, 1989 July 31. 1989 Principals Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Cun Div SupvsAREA: Incentive Schools Goal 1: (continued) I Objectives 3. (continued) I A s: To procure equipment and furniture Ibr Incentive School Programs. LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginnhig Date Ending )ate Responsibility 32 32 3.4 33 3.6 3.7 33 4.1 Evaluation Identify teachers for cnrrlcsinm teams. Pten orleniallon and format for currlculnm development. Review prehmlnaty draft of revised cnrricniar for LRSD. Develop addhlooal components for each curricnium area. Proof and type toeentlve School Curricninm Ouldes. Print Curriculum Ouldes. Distribute and provide Inservice on (he hnplenientatloo of the currlculnm guides. Develop speclflcalloo for bld for equipment and fomltnre. Jone 1.1989 June 1.1989 June It 1989 June 1,1989 July 1.1989 July 20,1989 August I, 1989 March IS, 1989 June IS, 1989 June IS, 1989 June 30, 1989 June 30, 1989 July 20. 1989 July 30, 1989 August 30, 1989 April IS, 1989 Principals Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Curr Div Supvs Principals Asst Supt-IncentIve Schools Curr Div Supvs Curriculum Teams Curriculum Teams Curriculum Div Principals Curriculum Division Curriculum A School Division Principals Dlr of Purchasing Asst Supt-lncentlve School Staff-CurriculumAREA: Incentive Schools Goal I: (continued) Objectives 4. (continued) 5. To effect facility modUlcatlons for Implemenlallon of the Incenllve School speclaUzed programs. LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities leghinhig late Endbig Date lesponsibllity Evaluation 42 4J 4.4 S.l 9 Bld for specific equipment and fomlture. Order fiimllnre and equipment. I InttaU and Invenlory to ensure adequacy of aU equipment and fomhure. Review the detailed Incentive School Plant with the Support Servicet Division. 52 5J 9.4 April IS, 1989 May IS, 1989 Principala Dlr of Purchasing Asst Supt-lncentivc Schools Staff-Curricuhim May IS, 1989 August I, 1989 Principals Dir of Purchasing Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Siaff-Currlcuhim August I, 1989 AprU IS, 1989 August IS, 1989 AprU 30, 1989 IdentUy modUlcallons limeUne as previously eoUaboraled in the development of the plan. Contract for service at needed/ Mcnilfled hi the pUns. Implement the modlflcatlon pUn for the fociUtles. April IS, 1989 AprO 30, 1989 May IS. 1989 AprU 30, 1989 May IS, 1989 August IS, 1989 Principals Dir of Purchasing Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Slaff-Curriculum Div of Schools Assoc Supt Asst Supt Principal Div of Support Services Div of Support ServicesAREA: Incentive Schools Goal I: (continued) Objectives S. (continued) 6. To ensure the avallahllHy of adequate resources to Implement academic programs. LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation S J Make Unai Inspecllon on the work for the focilities modification. 6.1 Inhtale Idenitflcatlons of miterbh and lestbooha needed for the 1989-90 school year. 62 Involve school teams staff and parents hl revfewlng the needs Mentifled as required for core and special programs. 6 J Identify any materials or textbooks that must he ordered prior to fiscal year 1989. 6.4 Malnlaln hulMtag record of requbilloos for the 1989 school year. 6J Monitor and approve requisitions as requested from bcentim schools. 6.6 Malnlaitt audit for all materials received. May IS. 1989 May 1.1989 May 1.1989 May 1,1989 May 1.1989 May 20, 1989 July 1.1989 6.7 Cross validaie with purchasing all orders not received. July 1.1989 \u0026amp; 00  Bacept for articles requiring a much longer time period, all requbhlons are signed on or immediately following July August IS, 1989 June 30, 1989 June 30, 1989 May 20, 1989 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Principals Principal School Teams Principal Asst Principal All Divisions With major input from Purchasing Principal Appropriate Assoc Supi Principal PrincipalAREA: Incentive Schools Ooil I: (continued) Objectives 6. (contteued) LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 0 StratcgIesZ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date lesponsiblllty evaluation 6.8 6.9 Obtain requirements for participation In all special programs. Pay partldpallon fee and order aO necessary materials for special activity. March 15. 1989 April 30. 1989 Principal 6.10 Select sponsors for each special program acHvhy approved In the Incenllm School Plan. 6.11 Complete special contracts with aU enended day employees for the 1989^ school year. 6.12 6.13 Complele Master . Schedule for total school program. Review/revise as necessary the naff development plan for the foil (September-December). April 30. 1989 April 30. 1989 Augnsi I, 1989 AprU 30. 1989 Augun 30. 1989 (As necessary, but al lean once each semener) Jub 1.1989 Principal July 30. 1989 Principal August 30. 1989 August IS. 1989 September IS. 1989 (As necessary, but al least once each aemester) Principal Principal Principal o $I n AREA: Incentive Schools LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Goal II: To provide staff devetopment for Iniplementallon of Incentive SchodPI^ Objectives trategles/ Activities Beginning Date End big Date lesponsiblllty Evaluation I. To Implement staff devekipmenl activities for toeentlve schoob. l.l Identify the staff development needs of each toeentlve school. April 30. 1989 May 15,1989 Principals Dir of Staff Dev 12 Develop Inservice schedule to colbboralton with hnlMtog principal. May IS. 1989 May 30.1989 Principals Dlr of Staff Dev 12 Notify each achool staff of proposed toservice dales for pre-school Iratotog. May 30. 1989 Aug 30.1989 Principals 1.4 Pbn deialb for deSvery of Inservice, la., she, time, arrangemenls, etc. May 30.1989 July 30.1989 Principals Asst Supi Dir of Staff Dev IJ Obtain services of coosuhanls (as required). May 30.1989 July 30.1989 Principals Asst Supi Dir of Staff Dev I 1.6 Inplenenl fcS trataing cycle. Aug 1.1989 Aug 30. 1989 Principals Asst Supi Dlr of Staff Dev 1.7 Evaluaie sUff development acllvhy through suney response from each staff. Aug 1.1989 Ongoing Principals Asst Supi Dir of Staff Dev oSection Two: Incentive School Operations The focus, function and guiding process of the incentive schools will be to provide excellence shall exemplify the close partnership between parents motivational factor for students. The school program and the school community which is _ will address student success and XJIOU VftUUUW **** --------   development of potential from affective, skill based and academic perspecuves. Support Programs The following items will be components of every incentive school: A. Homework Centers - Although it is anticipated that the school day shall extend from Homework Centers will be extant in each school at iwt BKX) am. to 5:00 pjn.. Homework Centers wiU be extant m e^n  three days per week to assist studenu who are in need of specific help witn ciass material. The school day may be extended another hour if necessaiy. It will be necessary to provide transportation home for studenu who remain at e Homework Center so that studenu whose parenu cannot supply transportation and/ or who live outside of the area which is reasonable walking distance may a themselves of the center. If studenu choose not to attend Homework CentOT, other options for student assistance will be explored. Staffing for tae Homework enters will be in the form of classroom teachers who will be available on a \"volunteer Staff will be mtating basis, communi^ volunteers and peer tutors. - - - certified teacher working. If the number of studenu reaches 25, an instructional aide shall be added to_asM studenu. When the number of studenu attending regularly reaches 5U, an additional certified teacher wiU be hired. Thereafter, as each addinon^ u^ment of 25 studenu attend, instructional aides and teachers will be added on an compensatedJiomework Centers will have alternating basis. B. Homework Hotline - Homework Hotlines should also be put tato p^ S^\"ta^ for a hotline) to be open from 6KK) - 8^ MondHy- ThSrsday eventags. This too will be staffed by teachers on a rotating basis such timt ZS^ntive teStaer wiU provide one (1) evenings service approximately every 45 days. Staff will be paid for this time. c. will be selected from among a group of self-nominated Tntnrinn-Peer tutors will be seiecteo irom aniuuB o 6* _ a outstanding academic averages but will also be open - well with other students and who can verbalize an those students with achieving studenu who work acluvTiUB *******--------- . _____J understanding of subject matter to be covered. Peer tutors will be compensated with coupons which can be redeemed for donated win PC vu H -------books magazine subsenpuons, school '------Boods such as games, books magazine Xu  U B attletic cempment. luus. ett. To\u0026gt;s Will be assigned by subject area and on who wish to serve as peer tutors t rotating basis in order to allow all students the opportunity to do so. a Page 171D. Teacher Mentors - Efforts will be made to identify a feasible time for retired teachers to come into the schools and to work with individual students as tutors\nto sponsor clubs such as future teachers and to provide additional extra support such as story telling time with and for students. Mentors can work voluntarily or may be paid a stipend. E. Instructional Aides - There will be an instructional aide in every classroom. Applicants will be encouraged to work toward a degree. The LRSD will establish a program to provide financial assistance for instructional aides who have acquired the equivalent of one full year of earned college credit in order that they may work towards a degree in education. The program will be designed to forpve a certain portion of the loan for each year of service after graduation as a certified teacher, provided the aide is employed by the LRSD. Aides shall provide extra assistance for individual students and groups of students. Aides will also assist teachers with monitoring of Student progress, communication with parents and preparation of supplemental instructional materials. F. Supervision Aides - An appropriate number of Supervision Aides will be provided at each incentive school. G. Career SldUs Devdopment Program - A program will be developed within each school whereby written information, guest spe^ers, films and other presentations will be provided to students on topics relevant to possible career choices. Among the information given in earb presentation will be skills needed, academic background required, interest inventories, career planning recommendations, expected Miming potential and a general \"mapping* of how a student can pi ogress from elementary school to the desired' career goal. Other components of this category will be opportunities for students to participate in programs sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America. H. Extended-Year Program - A summer school program for remediation and enrichment will be offered at an incentive school site, or sites as needed, and wfil be available for all incentive school students free of charge. The program will be provided in accordance with other LRSD elementary summer programs. LRSD will advertise summer school for incentive school students and these students wiU be encouraged to participate. Students wiU participate in thc program generally on an elective basis with prescription for attendance from teachers of students who ye behind grade level in core curriculum areas. A few seats may be open to other students on a space available and paying basis as well. Transportation maybe provided. The number of incentive schools at which summer 1 rauspu __ . ,____J armIc nnd interests. will be held will be based on identified student needs and interests. programs Students participating in the Extended-Year Program wm be^tructed at their own endemic levels rather than by means of a specifically identified grade designauon iTomer words, a student functioning at grade 2 level in math would study at tha Page 172r 1. level but may also study at the fifth grade level in summer reading programs, regardless of his/her actual designated grade level. Community Access/Field Trips - A plan will be developed and implemented at each incentive school which provides for field trips and community access for students together with students from other LRSD schools. Field trips and access will include the opportunity for student experiences with:  historical events and displays  cultural events and exhibits  sciertifie/ mathematical events and exhibits to include both child-oriented activities such as the Arkansas Arts Center Children s Theater and also the opportunity to attend cultural events such as Arkansas Symphony Orchestra performances. Exhibits and performances will also be brought to the schools. Students have the opportunity to visit industrial complexes to view the actual manufacturmg process and to gain information relative to the world of work by means of visits to actual wrork sites and some shadowing experiences in the intermediate grades, ix fifth and sixth. Among opportunities in the community which exist are:  several major manufacturing corporations  a symphony  a repertory theater  an arts center  a ballet company  a museum of nature science and history  three previous state/territorial capitols  a planetarium at UALR  a zoo  a lock and dam (part of the McdcUan-Kerr river project)  an inland sea port  a major research/ teaching medical center Among other opportunities for students including, but are not limited to. banks, stock/bond houses, hospitals and a law school. J ..tw, Tnvnivompnt - OoDortunities to participate in both Boy Scouting and  will exist at each incentive school with existing troops at each building. Girl Scouting will exist at During thc 3:00 - 5 JO pin. time period (or whatever the K. spi.l sums be provdcd no, only designat^ r-nter and Peer Tutoring activities but also for students to SmilenBflmbingaoivibeseerlysbaUrepcmeither to or guardian. Page 173These skills shall be defined as the opportunity to participate in:  choir (voice)  music (instrumental)  dance after school, one (1) day per week. Assistance will be sought from area colleges and university schools of fine arts and local organizations to provide these services at no cost to the child and hopefully to the program), but certainly at minimal cost to the school L. M. N. Special Training * Ongoing training will be provided to staff in areas like human relations skills\nlearning and interactive styles\nTSA\nPET\nworking with youth at risk\nworking in an urban setting and analysis and use of data for enhancing student achievement. All staff, including support staff, will be involved in training. Parents will have access to special training in working with their students, assisting with homework, computer literacy, nutrition and human growth, and developments. Parental Involvement - Parents will be absolute partners in the learning process. Parents will be asked to sign all homework assignments on a daily basis. Regular communication will take place, both through written and oral means. Day visits for parents will be arranged to come to school to volunteer for the day and to work with students as well as to visit their childrens classes. Regular meetings, monthly, will be held at the school. Parental access will be provided for identified pick up points within the school community. Parents will be encouraged to provide classroom support in the form of tutoring, storytelling, and general assistance. Timing Time Schedules - schedules wiU be set to meet the needs of students to include the Homework Center, special skills training and leisure time activities, for example:  Homework Center  Special Skills  Leisure Activities \u0026gt;4 days -1 day -1 day \u0026lt; (volleyball, basketball, table tennis, dance, karate, chess, checkers, soccer, tannic etc. based on student interest and access to appropriate playing fields etc.)  Clubs, Extracurricular -1 day O Home/School Communication - Monthly reporting to parents wiU take place. Early indicators and early intervention programs wiU be formulated with \"alert\" and \"success\" cards to be sent to parents to update them on their childs needs and achievements. Page 174p. be involved in school Programs - Extracurricular programs will be establtthed to aUow studentt recognition, leadership experience and a chance to J activities. Among these wiU be future teachers programs. Just Say No uuos. SmSals. monik \"jobs' in the office (at recess or lunch time, not c^ ume . Ubrary. with the flag, safety patrol, fire marshals and student council membership . Attendance and behavior guidelines will trained personnel will help studenu with problem solving. Q. Attendance and Behavior Guidelines --------------------- provide nnigue opportunities to assist students and keep them in schMl. Tim areas staffed with studentt soivmg. Studentt will participate in the process of developing school-based managemen rules. Studentt and parents will sign a contractual agreement to be at school an on time each day. R Subject Related Extracurricular Activities - Other options for studentt may include, . ............... ...... ....hnnVc vnUnB but not be limited to, activities like math olympiad, junior great boolu, young authors club, young sdentistt, Olympics of the mind, elementary band and a strmg program. Parents will be informed of all of these options. Studentt will be encouraged to participate in these activities and a regular schedule will exist for club/academic- related activities. find cannot attend Note: Students who live in the Washington attendance zone Washington will have access to extended day aebvities^^^nded year acnyia^M thf rhf\u0026gt;itTghip program if a plan to manage this arrangement is appro y Court, CounseliiigZ Sorial Work A rIn Smtes Atcen . Ttae ih.ll be tags to county momii,i\u0026gt;ro\u0026lt;ledto.tiideiiBwboKtei\u0026gt;dtbeii\u0026gt;ceativei^ programs provided to students who attend tne mceni^ ^^STpropLis can be negotiated and/or secured by compact choir in the schools\nvolunteers and pre-professionals from area colleges and nnivefsities XD aSSiSt from social agencies to intervene personal need situations. if studentt need assistance in health and/ m - A mentoring program wiU be established hei^ten student expecutions with which will piuvid _,,-ness of wii ncces$ry for successful entry into the in riK\u0026gt; K \u0026gt;0 hagbte. student opecutiooi with otflote y pgloatt. Parents will also receive L_----- which arc open to their chUdren. this information so that they may be aware of the options Page 175c. D. E. F. G. H. Study Skills - Counselors and teachers will be responsible for working with students to enhance test taking skills, listening skills and study skills. Practice will be provided for students in test taking, ix., bubble sheeu will be used on some class tests and a variety of question types will be used by teachers. HomeZNeighbortiood Meetings - Meetings with parents will not always be held at the schools. Other meetings, for small groups of parents, will be scheduled at community locations such as churches and some homes if invited by parents. These less formal meetings out of the school environment maybe more productive and can help forge a school/ neighborhood partnership. It is suggested that local ministers be considered as part of the school partnership and community. Individual and Group Counseling - Individual and group counseling as well as peer facilitators will be employed at the school to assist students as they attempt to work through concerns and the normal issues which arise as student growth and development takes place. Students will also be taught conflict resolutions. Incentive/ Recognition Programs - Incentive/ recognition programs will be developed by students, staff and patrons at each school. Ideas (suggestions) presented m the subcommittee meeting included? awards programs, recognition days, good citizen clubs, free tickets to community and athletic events, tangible rewards such as a book of the students choice for academic growth and the like. Wellness Program - A wellness program will be in place at each building with availability of a full time nurse. Students will be screened for physical health Md will also receive information on topics like self-esteem, nutrition, drug prevention and awareness Md first aid. Presentations will likewise be made to parents on similar topics for their information on a continuing education basis. Camp Pfeifer - Students in need of additional academic assistance will have access to programs such as that currently in place at Camp Pfeifer, udiereby, they spend some time in residence at a program away from the school and the home which provides counseling, intensive academic support and time management skills. Parent involvement is m inherent part of this program in assisting them to work with students on homewotit and academics. Students will participate in this program provided the funding of the program continues and it meets the needs of the students. Monitoring and Evaluation A. Verifiable Monitoring of Student Growth - The Planning. Research and Evaluation District will be assigned the task of developing a plan for verifiable Office of the District will be assignee uw uu*.------------ at tmicnt growth id for the development of reliable procedures to accomplish these tasks. This plan ud its accompMjinB procedures should tore uccouot not o^y test 1 ________ . V , class achievement as evidenced scores achieved on norm-referenced tests but also class achievement as evidenced Page 176 AB. c. D. by teacher tests and curriculum and criterion-referenced tesu. There should be long-term monitoring of student growth. Regular Monitoring of Student Attendance, Discipline/Behavior and Achievemnt- Reldar monitoring of student attendance, ducipline/behavior accomplEhed through the development of and use of mdmdual tiSiles by classroom teachers and the buUding administrator. This done on a minimum of a quarterly basE. Individual student of interventions and/ or programmatic changes will be predicated on identif . assessment will or enrichment indicators determined through ongoing review of data. in the Development of Student Educational Excellence Pl^ - The Involve Patents in the Development oibtuoem taucauonai school staff shall involve parenu in the development and momtonng of s educational exceUence plans. Parenu are the first teachers of their students and sec a context outtide the school. In the parental capacity, there u spec^ .. .. extremely them in l -------------------- -------- awareness of a childs potential, talenu and interests. This input is important in reviewing not only academic programs but also extracurricular, peciai skills and extended day activities. Quarterly Reports and Visitations - Quarterly reports wiU be made and will take place for the purpose of assessing student progress, facility lykeep care of grounds and equipment The monitoring team wiU toma staff, school staff, patrons and representatives from the community. s write goaE. not only for the school in general, but also personal goaE staff member has a duty to provide a climate conducive to learning and should how t^nm will be composed of district and model high expectations for all studenu. Students will also be involved in the goal setting process \"contracts* for their own achievement. and will formulate evaluators will be asked to complete evaluations E Student Evaluators - Student (------------- relative to the school, iu dimate and then educational expenence twice a year. F. Sdd Cltamte - Studchts, tcKhen, ri pBChts wffl be riked to complete . *ool climate survey once each year. involvement quesnonnaires to the studenu regarding changes made m rriSd ih this evriuriic pwccss. The sun-ey results edU J^S^d^th each school for dissemination. Computerized datt access will be a reality in all G. Compuurixed - .nd 'am be incennve schools so ^[^^^,^eeededreladw torii school progin Bpecis. immediate for reports Page 177~H. School Site Teams - School site teams will be created to work to implement needed ~ programmatic modiflcations which will be a greater benefit to the students. Membership on these teams will be routing and on a semester basis so that staff (including custodial, aides and cafeteria works), patrons and students have an opportunity for input. School Policies and Procedures A. Flexible Programs - Every student will receive individualized instruction every day, as needed. Programs will be flexible in order that team teaching and extended time blocks for additional student assistance as needed will be provided. B. Additional Items - It is recommended that each incentive school have:  a permanent assigned substitute who is familiar and dedicated to the building and program philosophy  at least a half time assistant principal depending on school population (where there is a part time assistant, that person will devote the rest of his/her time to working with program development and community outreach).  Uniforms for student (such as blue jeans and a white shirt)  dress code for staff  encouraged PTA attendance (and other parent meetings and visits), at least two (2) meetings per year, one of which shall be the Open House  student handbooks available at every building which are produced in and reflective of the philosophy and program at that building  a science lab-----  a computer lab (to be used for other than remediation)  a playground for PE purposes  additional compensation will be given to teachers/ principals who work these extra periods of time at the incentive schools  community education classes should be investigated for presenution at incentive schools on a mrating basis for parenu in those communities to enhance their skills Page 178 Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. These programs will include but shall not be limited to: - field trips - enrichment activities - tutoring X - parent/child \"make \u0026amp; take sessions - book fairs - physical education activities Page 179LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal I: To develop support programs and procedures which will allow Incentive schools to provide enhanced educational opportunities for an students. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Begbubig Dale V I. 2. To provide Homework Centers and Homework Hotlines for the students al these seboob through the extended day program. To eslabUsh training for peer tutors and an ongoing peer Inlorhig program for students. l.l 2.1 3. 4. 5. 6. s To use the skUb of retired teacher mentors to tutor and sponsor clubs. To enhance student kaming through exiensiw use of ebssTOora based ,'taslructlotul aides. To develop and Impkmenl a career sUUs developmeni program whkh wlU help * students develop awareness and motivate them to enhance skllb kading lo specifk careers. To develop a program for year round school includlDg enrkhmenl and remedbl options. 3.1 4.1 S.l 6.1 Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation Schedules vriU be set at the schools to meet their students needs. Honrs wUl meet student needs. Teachers and students vriU receive training to peer tutoring. A model wUI be put bl place. Teachers wiU supervise the process. Mentors vriU volunteer. TheywUl provide esira support to students and suppleaKnl teacbm work. Instructional aides with college hours vriU be employed one to a chssroom to assist teachers and students. Written bfbnnatlon, guest speakers, films win be used to make students aware of career chokes. Summer segments In remedtatlon/ ehrkhment, prescriptions for courses to be taken. Transportation may be provided. Pan AnnuaUy AnnuaUy Annually July August Annually June AnnuaUy Ongofaig Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing July AnnuaUy AU divisions Staff Developmeni Asst Supts Coor of Inceollve Schools Office of Descg Educational Prog VIPS Human Resources Dept School Principab VIPS Educational Programs Coor of Incentive SchoolsLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal I: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date esponsibllltj Evaluation 7. Community access/ filed trips are to be arranged for enhanced esperience for students. 8. 9. To build a program of community Involvemenl to be provided for students with access to communhy organizations and volunteer esperlences. Special skills programs to be offered after school on a four day per week basb. 7.1 Visits to historical, sclentlflc and cultural events and eahibIts within the Chy and around to state and region whh appropriale chaperons to provide educational tapnt. 8.1 Establish OIrV Boy Scoot programs at each school. September Annually Fall Annually 00 9.1 Establish offerings to loctude some of the followiBg: choir, music and dance In addition to Homework Center and peer tutoring. September Annually Ongoing Ongoing VIPS Educational Programs Curriculum Desegregation Quapaw Council Asst Supts for Schools Coor of Incentive Schools Principals School StafT nLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Ool tt: To establish procedures for admlnlstrallon and staffing of the Individual schools such that spectai skills win be brought to bear for the benefit of students at these schools. Objectives StratcgIesZ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To establish a viable program for staff recruHment. 1.1 12 IJ 2. To provide special iralntag for staff on an ongoing basis and special training for parents. 2. 3. To establish meaningful attendance and behavior guidelines. 3.1 32 4. To provide subject retaled activities to enhance student leamlng. 4. Nationwide search. Hire staff on a one year bash. Parents IO be Involved In the Interviews. Staff win demonstrate commhmenl Io working wkh \"al risk* youth. TBSA, PBT. working whh youth al rbk. analysis and use of data human retallons skids - parent training on assisting with homework, noirhion and human growth and dcvelopmeel. Tfane-oul area staffed whh trained personnel. Student/parent agreement for attendance and behavior. To Include some or al of math olympiad, junior great books. Olympics of the mind and the like. July Annually August AnnuaHy August Annually August AnnnaUy Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 1 R Human Resources Div of Deseg Office-Curricuhim School PriiKipal Staff Dev Coor Incenllve Sch Principals Principal School Staff Principal School StaffLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal HI: To create a nrniTiM of Counseling/soctol worfc to provide estrt support to students to ensure them opportunity for success. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Begiiining Date sndbig Date Responsibility Evaluation I. 2. To provide community services access for aU students who need additional support. To provide college/ post graduation awareness vb a mentoring program wkh rote modeb to help students pten for the future. I. 2.1 2.1 3. To provide student tratabg In study skUb. testing sUUs and Ustentag skUb. 4. To hold home/ neighborhood meetings to Inctease parental/ neighborhood Involvement In student fearelng. 5. To Increase parental Involvement so that parents become true partners fat the learning process. Compacts vrlth community agenctes, univershtes to assbt with student opportunkbs. Parental Infbnnatlon. Mentoring program. 23 Special emphasb 00 schoob rectuhing mlnorlly students. 3. Testing, tbtening and study AUb wUl be provided to students as weU as particahr ei^ertence In testing. 4.1 Meetings al neighborhood skes wkh smaU groups of parents. 42 Meetings al homes wkh groups of I parents. 4 J Involrement of ministers. 3.1 Parent assbunce at schoob. 52 Parents win sign home*k' lune AnnuaUy Ongoing September AnnuaUy September Annually September AnnuaUy September Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing S 8S 3 J Regubr communication between, school and home wlU take pbee 3.4 Day visits for parents. 3 J Schedule settings. VIPS Office of Deseg Curriculum Educational Programs PupU Personnel Counselors VIPS Educational Programs PupU Personnel Counselors. VIPS Educational Programs Principals School Staff Principal School StaffLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal III: (continued) E Objectives Strategies/ Activities Bcgiiinhig Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 6. To establish learning lime schedules for the afternoon's emended day. 6. Schedule (sellings) weekly emended day programs based on hidlvldual school needs. August Annually September Annually Principal School Staff 7. To Improve home/school communicalioo. 7.1 Early Indicalor and early taferventloo programs. September Annually Ongoing Principal School Stair 8. 9 To establish meaningful elemeniaty emracurrlcutar activhles for students. To Implement Individual and group counseling for aU students. 10. Incentive/recognklon programs wtH be Implemented by 1990-91. II. To structure and begin wellness prorai\" students al each school. 12 8. 9.t 92 9J 2 1 Alert and Snocem cards sent regubriy to parents. Ohe students recognition and leadermilp opportunities vb ebbs and monkortag responsibilities. Peer bclUuiors. Counselors doing Individual and group counseling. Conflld resolution wiB be taught. lO.I Student recognition programs. lOJ Oood Chhen programs. lOJ Community Involmment In recognition. Il.l FuB-tlme nurse al each building. 111 Student screening. Ill Parent presentations. September Annually Ongoing Principal School Staff Pan Train Students Ongoing Pupil Personnel VIPS Partners In Education Health Services ILRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal III: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Itoginning I Ending Responsibility Evaluation 12. To work with community programs like Camp Pfeifer to supplement school programs for students. 12.1 122 I2J Study success of Pfeifer program. Work whli Director to target Incentive studentt. Work with other community groups to undertake similar projects. Date Date PapU Personnel DIstrici Divisions s nLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal IV\nTo more closely and thoroughly monitor Incentim schools fat order lo develop a clearer picture of student achievement al these buildings. Objectives StrategiesZ Activities Beglnnliig Dale Ending Date Responsibllitj Evaluation I. To develop a process for obtaining verifiable Informalion regarding student growth. l.l 12 2. To provide a systematic program for tracking student attendance, discipline, behavior a^ achlemmenl. 2.1 22 3. To Involve parents ta the developmeni of Student Educational Plans (SEP). 3.1 32 3J 4. To ptan and set parameters for quarterly reports and visitations by a mnkifaceted monitoring team. 4.1 42 4J 4.4 Developmeni of validZ reliable monkortag Insirumenl(s). Establish irataing for monkoring learns to use of the Instfument. To be done on a quarterly basb. Ctass and school profiles will be kepi In regard to attendance, behavior, discipline and achlemmeni. Develop SEP formal. Involve parents In wrking phn-based on student needs. To Include eattacurrlcnbr activities also. Develop reporting Format. Involve sMff. patrons, In mookorlng. Involve an staff In goal seutag. Bvahiale goal achievement. September Annually September AnnuaSy September Annuany September Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing J? n 3. To establish a student evaluator program for student Inpui and Meas. 3.1 Random seleclion of alndenis lo partlclpaie each year. Fan Ongoing 32 Student training*. 00 o* 32 Student generation of questlonnatres. Assoc Supts Ptanning Research and Evahialion Curriculum Specialist School Staff Pupil Personnel School Staffs PTA Officers School Staff Community Pbnnbig Research and Evaluation Planning Research and Evaluation School Staffs Principals 1LRSD desegregation plan implementation timeline AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal IV: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning I Ending Responsibility Evaluation 5. (continued) S.4 53 5.6 Analysis of data collection. Conclusions generated. Report back to students on response Io student evniualloo. 6. To establish a program for computerized data access at each Incentive school. 6.1 6J 63 7. To establish she teams al each school to trnplemenl programmatic modiflcations to beneflt the students. 7.1 Inftin compnteri. 73 13 Tie tato mainframe. Write programs Ibr reporting student data In a variety of modes. Include representatives aB sctir^ departments (cuslodtal, food service, aides and leachers). Team membership to be rotating and on a semester basis. Plan for parent/student meettags for tapni. lA Plan Ibr Implcnieniailon of changet. 73 Make lecommendatlona Ibr changea. Date Date 1991-92 Ongoing Data Processing School Staff Assoc Supts PaB Annually Ongoing I Principals I School Staff n 3 7.6 Implement changes. 7,7 Evaluate changes. (Each aspect wUI occur on a reguhr and rotating basis.)1 LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal V\nTo reassess Individual school policies and procedures as they rebte to meeting the needs of ah snidenis. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To establish a flexible programming approach al each incentive school which compiles with standards and also meets Individnal student needs. 1.1 12 IJ 2. Areas Io be Invesllgaled for possibfe phn Inclusion. 2.1 Allow for team teaching by means of scheduling. Provide for opportnnllfea for students lo remain In chases for extended Ifane periods as needed. Develop n phn for hidividualhed Insirucllons wkhln the specific building. Pennaneirt assigned snbsillale In each Incenllve school lo be avalhbfe as needed. August Annually August Annually Ongoing Ongoing School Principal Staff Assoc Supts Asst Supts 22 At feast  ooe-hair time assisMat principal. 2 J Uniforms for students. 2.4 Standard dress for teachers. 2J Encouraged PTA allendance (al least two (2) meetings per year for parents/all meetings for staff). 2.6 Student handbooks will be avalhbfe al every school and Individual lo that school. 2.7 A science lab al each school. u 22 A computer lab at each school. 00 oo 2.9 A complete phygronnd for PC purposes.LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - School Operations Goal V: (continued) Objectives Strategies/Activities Beginning I Ending lesponsibllltj Evaluation 2. (continued) 2.10 2.11 Additional compenaatloa for teachers/principab who work the eatra time periods. Community educatloo cbsses should be Investigated for parents hi the Incentive school communities. 2.12 Salnidajr earichnwnl programs. Date Date School community members \u0026lt; ooI Section Three: Incentive School Staffing The selection and support of quality staff members will be critical factors in the success of Incentive Schools. Carefully planned staff-selection criteria and procedures will provide the quality personnel capable of successfully attaining the goals and implementing the programs and curriculum of these schools. Ongoing staff development for Incentive Schools must prepare the staffs to attain the standards of excellence they uphold for achieving student success and fulfillment of potential. Stafling A. Little Rock School District (LRSD) Incentive Schools Staffing Committef - A committee will be established to assess staffing needs for Incentive Schools, to set criteria for staffing, to recruit quality staff members, and to determine procedures for staffing. The committee would be composed of teachers, parents, supervisors, principals, other administrators, and Joshua Intervenors. B. Staffing Needs Assessment - The needs and interests of student populations in the Incentive Schools will be considered before staff selections are made. Factors to be considered before adding new staff include the following:  Number of students per grade level  Race and gender  Academic achievement needs and interests  Disciplinary needs  Social interaction needs  Health needs Program goals and curriculum of the Incentive Schools win also be examined. The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will then utilize the student data, goals, and curriculum to identify staffing needs for the Incentive Schools. The foUnwing full-time positions are recommended for each school but are not all inclusive of positions which may be identified during the needs assessment process.  Classroom teachers  Counselor  Media specialist  Music  Art  PZ.  Social Worker  Permanently assigned substitute teacher (for each Incentive School)  Reading (remediation)  Math (remediation)  Computer lab attendant  Resource  Speech  Specialist for alternative classroom Page 1909 Media derk . Instructional aides (one per classroom)  Program specialist  Principal  Assistant principal  Non-certified supervision aides The LRSD will taiplemeot oogoios neUonwide reenduneot r Rtatt - The LRSD wui unpicaii^uh members. Swe^S^Zlpecial empl^ o reenntmg quehfled BWonV.!?. of Section. Item F). D. Staff Selection will develop criteria for LRSD Ihcehtive Schools Suffiog .C\"^^lX7:S^hTidared principal and staff selection. All ^^hnol so that they may be Principals shaU be selected first for\n^ved in staff selection and coUection and review of smdent oaia. criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following. 1. The vacant.  Race and gender  Successful teaching and/or adnunistrative  Record of commitment tonality (jTcoUeagues, principals,  Strongrecommcndationsfromavaiictyofso^(ix.,couis with at-risk youth college professors, and other administrators) Resonices outlining program schoob StdSn,. Connmncc wffl deiop\u0026gt; d.\u0026gt;ip and contractual requirements. and spedal contracts 3. The Human Resources Department wfll advertise the positions. The LRSD from five to seven members composeo oi uw -e will select interview teams of  Teachers  Parents I SthS^Xinistrators as  Joshua Intervenors rcpresentttive . The io^mew education and outline eJ^principals. The principals will The teams wfll make Human Resources Department, who will in then make recommendations to th . c,.hnni Board. then make  wake recommendations turn to the School Board. Page 191 56. With Board approval, contracts will then be issued. Principal and staff will be hired on a onc-ycar basis and involuntary transfer or other decisions may be enacted at the end of the year, depending on quality of performance. (This will also apply to aides, clerical, and custodial workers). A. Staff Recruitment - Certain specific experiences will be desired of all staff at the outset (relative to work in an urban setting with at risk youth)\nand ongoing training will be provided on a regular basis for all staff at each school. I 1. 2. 3. A nationwide search will be conducted for staff. Principal and staff will be required to show evidence of a commitment to working in an urban district\nto working with youth at risk and to committing the time necessaiy to provide the kinds of support and services provided at incentive schools. Staff will be hired on a one year basis with parent representation on the interview team. At the end of that year, an involuntary transfer or other district decisions may be put into effect depending on the performance and the success of the individual in woridng with students and procedures. This one year contractual feature will also apply to the positions of aides, clerical and custodial workers. For the 1991-92 school year, all staff members presently assigned to Franklin School who indicate a commitment to the incentive school program will be given the option to remain in so far as a racially balanced staff can be provided. B. Staff Commitmeiit/Effectiveness Monitored 1. Staff conunitment will be reviewed infonnally by the teacher and principal on an ongoing basis thrnngh the use of clinical supervision and monitoring of Individual tnprtwetnent Plans. formal review conferences also will beheld. 2. Monitoring of staff effectiveness will be based upon student academic achievement as measured by test results and other forms of measuremenL Semi*annual formal review conferences will be held to assess staff effectiveness. C. Staff Development: The LRSD Staff Development Department A committee at cach incentive school will assess staff development needs, plan staff development experiences which will meet identified needs, and faciliute staff development activities. The committee wiU be composed of IRC spec^ts. parents, principals, and other administrators as appropriate. These activities will be coordinated through the Director of Staff Development and the Coordinator of Incentive Schools. Dau the needs of student and teacher populations in the incentive schools wiU be coUected and analyzed by each school. Information to be examined includes, but is not limited to, the following: Page 192f  Number of students per grade level  Race and gender  Academic achievement needs and interesu  Disciplinary needs  Social interaction needs  Health needs  Attendance records  Tardiness records Program goals and curriculum of incentive schools will be examined. A survey o staff members to determine their staff development needs and interests also will be made. The LRSD Staff Development Department and school planing conmttee will use these data to identify staff development needs for thc incentive schools md to meet the identified needs. The then plan quality staff development experiences committee will function on an ongoing basis as staff development needs WUi AiUA^UWAi we-r ------------------  zfhlv The LRSD Staff Development Committee also will meet on a mommy identified. '****-*.* w~... ---------------------- , . basis to plan activities related to meeting the needs of students who are achievmg below acceptable levels of mastery. The LRSD Staff Development Department will act as a facilitator for the ^ool staff development committees by coordinating, arranging speakers, and gathering materials. An evaluation of staff development experiences wiU be made by participants following each session. D. Minimum Staff Development Requirements - The foUowing staff experiences are recommended as a tninitnum requirement but certainly Susive of experiences which may be identified during the needs assessment process.  PET (1 cycle and a refresher course every 3-5 years)  TESA (1 cycle)  Classroom Management (1 cycle)  Effective Schools Training  Cooperative Learning and Learning Styles  ^nS Commu^Pon and Hnnun Relations Skills : sSS^. E. Teacher Demonstration Program - A district^de Teacher Demonstration Program -----which will enable teachers at the administrators as appropriate. be composed of leKbcs. prmcipals. ud other Page 193I r schools where schools would serve in the capacity programs, and The incentive . teachers from other schools could come and observe curriculum. It is hoped that experience v----- _ which would assist teachers statewide. would be gained through these observauons F. Master Teacher Program  7...^  A committee of ipcective school teachers aiid_ win be established re plan a p. toigaed concentration of J^^SXrstomstatewide.aadlocalcone^jm^ re to iaceative schools. The commiuee win be romped of Sieges aad Other administrators, and faculty representauves from sute anfl locai and local coUeges and universities. schools would serve as laboretory Kh\u0026lt;b where prospective to weds ot in oroviding quality education m-------------- studuB fohtSonint below accepreble leveU of nresteiy. enil  a desegregated setting, in meetmg the neetU m i fphnneing the SCU esteem of these students. A pool of prospective sreff membere would be drewp tom tnmrhnrc assigucd to incentive schools through the Master Teacher gram. The Ftodpal reid concn faaU^r represcore^ wiU reoto of strengths and concerns. ii the iaceative Bdtools re ideadlT  pSSadt would be solicited tom studeat teachets. This lafonaattoa worn Shared with the staffs of the incentive schools. G with Special Instructional Needs - An . Asissasree te Nb. Terehere real Oshere sHsh Instructional Resource Center (IRQ newly hired or who are ongoing support to teachers in thc incentive schwls^^^ e^rienciir\u0026lt;lifficulty. Demonstranon materials and program mplemrata^. 7 nth^ needs wiU be addressed and bulletin boards, environ^t^ from ^principal and staff of the through a remediation planSS^XS^artment to assist IRC.ThismCspedalistwmworkwitt^S^^^ The Districts Staff with intervice training programs through . --------- i nmvidine will be directly involved as Development Department inservice training throughout the school year. a resource in providing A orindoals. fHministrators. and parents will be A. comniiths^e compc^ unlive tchnol program and recommend changes for the selected to review thewifiSemachers thc opportunity to provide 199,42 odiool ,r. to progrem. 7- -\nH. A committee appropriate input after one\n^taplcoiMiostheprogreoi. -----. Teachers will receive a stipend for their meet work The committees report work five days earlier for inservice. Incenuve ive school rerohere re.^  work .heed oi ed re rep^w\n^^^^ ' Separate! _ schedule. Franklin -- the 1991-92 school year than other LRSD teachers for inservice. Page 194 I ILRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Staffing and Staff Development 00.11: To Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date lesponsiblllty Evaluation I. Delermlne staffing needs and promote staff awareness of bcenllw school concepts. 1,1 Establish Distrlcl Incentive Schools Staffing Commhiee to assess ttafftog needs for each Incentive school. 12 Identify staffing needs (classroom teachers and fun-lime support personnel.!.. counselor. Ubrarhn. music, art. P.. social worker, PAL reading. PAL math. PAL oornputer hb. resource, speech, non- certlfled spectallsl for aliemative classroom, media clerk, certified Insirucllonal aides. Bupervlslan aide, permanently assigned I substllnte teacher, program apedaUsl, prfocipal, asslsunt principal, and others. February 1989 February 1989 IJ 1.4 IJ n 1.6 Develop erherte for principal and staff selectloo based on race/gender, successful leachtag eaperteuces, record of commitment 10 qnaUty desegregated education, and strong recommendations from a variety of sources (coUeagues, principals, and others). Develop Job descriptions Io include special programs and contractual requirements for staff and principal. Dectare all positions vacant and advertise positions. Provide an Indeplh orientation session on each component of the Incentive schoob for prtacipab and staff of esbitag schoob. February 1989 February 1989 March I, 1989 February IS. 1989 March 1989 March 1989 March 1989 Mar 30. 1989 Feb 28. 1989 Assoc Supi Asst Supi Incentive Schools Siamng Committee Asst Supt Incentive Schools Staffing Committee Human Resources Director Human Resources Director Assoc Supts Asst SuptsLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA! Incenllve Scbooh  Siadlng nd Swlf Developmenl Goal 1: (continued) Objectives StrateglcsZ Actlrilies Bifgtnnlng I Ending Responsibility Ernluatlon Date Date 2. Identify pool of prospective staff members and administrators. 2.1 Implement ongoing local and nat^al recruitment strategies whh specbl emphasis oo recruhlng qualified minority sulf members. February IS, I Ongoing 1989 Human Resources Director 3. Select principals and provide orientation and trafailng. 11 3.1 Mahiialn current flies on qualified prospective stolf members. Review criteria for principal selectloo based on successftil administrative eiqierience, record of commitment to quality desegregated education, and strong recommendations from a variety of sources (superlnlendcnts cablnel, asslslant superlnlendent, FTA board February 1989 February 8, 1989 OngohiK Human Resources Director Associate Superintendent Assistant Superintendent \u0026lt; and others). 31 Begin local and national recruitment/application proceas. February IS, 1989 Human Resources Director 3J Select racblly balanced Interview teams of S-7 members composed of the following: teachers, parents, principal and othef adininlitfatota as approprtaie. Eaperlence to Interview process Is preferable. 3,4 Preliminary screening/ Interviews. March I. 1989 March IS, 1989 March 31, 1989 Human Resources Director Associate Superintendent Interview Teams Human Resources DirectorLRSD desegregation PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA\nIncentive Schools - Stamng and Staff Development Goal I: (continued) Objectives Strategies/Activllles Beginning I Ending Responsibility Evaluation Date Date 3. (continued) 3 J Conduct final Interviews. March IS, 1989 March 31, 1989 Interview Teams Human Resources Director 4. Select staff. 3.6 3.7 4.1 *8 so Make recommendations to the School Board. Ptan and Implement orlentatloo arid irahihig hiservice to acquaint new principals of Inceotlve schools lo Job espectallons, procedures and timelines for suff Interviews and selection. Select racially bahnced Interview teams of 5-7 membeii composed of the following: teachers, patents, principal and other admlnbiratora as approprhie ftom Incentlw school communities. Esperlence hi the Interview process preferable. 42 Interview applicants. 4J 4.4 4J April 1.1989 Superintendent Make staff recommendatloos. Make staff recommendations for employment to the School Board. Issue and esptaln one-year special contracts. March I, 1989 March IS, 1989 Staff Development Committee Assoc and Asst Superintendents April 1.1989 AprU 1989 AprU 1989 May 1989 June 1989 June I, 1989 June 1989 May 31, 1989 Assoc Supt Human Resources Director Interview Teams Interview Teams Principal Human Resources Director Human Resources DirectorLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE ABRAi Incentive Schools - Staffing and Staff Development Goal I: (continued) esK Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending )ate Responsibility Evaluation 5. Review staFT member employment/commitment and eflectiwness on an ongoing basis. S.l Review staff commitment Informally on an ongoing bash vrtth seml-nnnnal formal review conferences. August 1989 June 1990 Principal Asst Sept \u0026lt; so oo 53 Monitor effectiveness based upon student academic achlewmenl as measured by formal test results and other taformal forms of measurement. August 1989 June 1990 Principal StairLRSD desegregation plan implementation timeline AREA: Incentive Schools - Stamng and Staff Development Goal II\nTo Involve principals and teachers In the development and Implementation of a quality academic program for Incentive Schools. Objectives StratcgIesZ Activllles Beginning Dale Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To promote/ enhance leadership and staff understanding of the Incentive school concept. 1.1 Establish In cooperatloo whh the principals a detailed process and fomat ftw develophig the Individual Incentive School Plan. Msrch 3, 1989 , March IS, 1989 Supts Cabinet Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools 2. To develop cunlcuhim specific to the Incenllve schools. 11 IJ 2.1 21 Aaslst each twIMhig principal In presenting an Indepth pre-orlenWlon for staff on each component. Assisi each principal and staff ^h orientation session ft\u0026gt;r parents m the bcenllve schools. Idenilfy each area In need of  curriculum developmenl. Identify tetcheri for cnrrlcnhim teams. 2J plan orleniallon and format for curricnium development. Msrch I, 1989 March I, 1989 June IS June 1,1989 June 1.1989 March IS, 1989 March IS, 1989 July 31 lune IS, 1989 lune IS, 1989 i 2.4 Review preliminary draft of revised curriculum for LRSD. lune 1,1989 lune 30, 1989 Supts Cabtaet Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Supts Cabinet Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Principals Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Curr Div Supvs Principals Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Curr Div Supvs Principals Asst Supt-lncentlve Schools Curr Div Supvs Curriculum TeamsLRSD desegregation plan implementation timeline AREA! Incentive Schools - Siamng and Staff Development Goal II: (continued) Objectives Strategies/Activities Beginning I Ending Responsibility Evaluation Date Date 2. (continued) 2J Develop addhlonal components for each currlctthiin area. June 1.1989 June 30, 1989 Cnniculuni Teams 2.6 Proof and type Incentim school cnrricuhim guides. July 1.1989 July 20. 1989 Curr Division Principals 2.7 Pftot cti1cnln guldei. July 20,1989 July 30, 1989 Cunicuhim DI* 2J Distribute and provide Inservice oo the tarptemenialloo of the cnrricuhim guides. August I, 1989 August 30, 1989 Curriculum and School Division \u0026lt;* LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Staffing and Staff Development Goal 111: To provide quaUty staff development experiences and curriculum. so that staff members are prepared to achiem Incentive School goals and to snccessfidly Implement propams Objectives Strategies/ Activities I Beginning Date Ending Responsibility I Evaluation )ate 1. Analyze staff developmeni needs for principal, certified staff, and non- cerllfled staff on an ongoing bash. 1.1 Establish a Staff Development Committee composed of teachers, IRC specbllst, parents, principab, and mher admtabtralors as approprhie lo pbn staff dcwlopmenl experiences necessary lo meet the needs and Interesis Identified through needs assessment. 1J Collect and review data on needs and hnerests ofiUndent popubllon. Urgeling Ulflsk- lewl, raceZg^r makeup, academic, KhleveTOni 0SVW ^9  ____________u^aiak mrlal needs/ Interests, dbdpMnaty needs, heahh needs, socbl Interaction needs, and attendance and Urdlnem records). 1J Conduct a survey to determine staff developmeni ^ds and tateresia (le. Staff Developmeni Survey) as retoted lo Incentive Schooh Program goals, cnrrlcolnm, and needs/ Inierests of student popubllon. 1.4 Identify staff members who have not participated In the _ a n a --------J AMumwInaaaMtm* following required Inservice experiences: a. PET b. TBSA c. Classroom Management d. Effcctlve Schooh Trabtag e. Cooperatlw Learntog/ Learntag Siyks f Human Effectiveness Trabtag (Elemenlary Curriculum) Parent/Educator Communication and Human Rebtlons g August 1989 August 1989 August 1989 AnnuaUy June 1990 Ongoing i Skllb IJ Assess staff members needs on an ongoing bash through clinical supervblon and monitoring of Individual Improvement Pbns. AnnuaUy Ongoing Incentive Schools Planning Committee Principal Staff Principal Staff Dev Planning Committee Principal PrincipalLRSD DtSECRECATION PLAN IMPLEMEOTATION TIMEUNE area\nIncentive School. - Sinning end SInH Development Goal III\n(comlnucd) Objectives StrategiesZActWlles Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 2. Plan naff development eiqieriencea on an ongoing basis. 21 Plan a minimum ot the following naff devetopment activities for Incentive achool naff memberr. a. PET (I cycle and a reftedter course every M years) 1 b. TESA (I cycle) ___ c Classroom Management (I cycle) i Effective Schoob Training e. Cooperative Learning and Learning Stylet________. . f Human Blfcctheness Training^ i. Parent/Educator CommunIcatton and Human Rehttons SUUs Annually Ongoing Staff Development Department Principal 22 2J h. Mentor Teacher Program The LRSD Staff Demtopmenl Department win conduct ongoing planning of staff **P^* esperlefKCS rehted to n^s of nudents who are achieving below acceptable levels of manery. The LRSD Staff Develop^nt Department wlU ptan naff ^velopmenl activhles on an ongoing bash as needs/taterens are Identllted thrmgh the use of clinical supervbloo and monhorlng of Individual Impromment Plans. AnnuaUy AnnuaUy Ongoing Ongoing Staff Devetopment Department Staff Developnienl DepattmenlLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Staffing and Staff Development Ooal lit: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning I Ending I Responsibility Evaluation Date Date 3. Implement staff dewlopmenl actlvltiet. 3,1 Implement Staff Developmenl Commhlee activhles in order to lacilhate staff developoMnl experleoces (In, arranging speakers, gathering materials). Annually Ongoing Staff Development Department tu 32 33 Staff dewelopment actlvhlea. Annually Ongoing Staff Dev Dept Preseniors Staff 4. Implement Teacher Demonstration Program. 4.1 evaluate staff developmenl espcriencei. (Panlclpanla win evalnaie). Use Informailoa for Arturo planning. establish a dlsirtelwlde commhlee to plan a Teacher Demonstration Program where leachera al the Incenllve schools will serve as models Aw teachers In non^ncenllm acfaools tiaievride. The commhlee wiU be composed of teachers, principals, and other adminlstralora. 41 implemenl the Teacher Demonstration Program. 43 The principal In each Incenllw school will monitor the Teacher Demonstration Program and identify areas of strengths and concerns. These shall be shared wlih the siaff In each Incentive school.________ Annually Ongoing Presenters Staff lune Ongoing Incentive School Coordinator Asst Supts Annually Ongoing Teacher Demonstration Program Committee Incenllve Schb Staff Visiting leachers/ administrators Annually Ongoing PrincipalLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Stamng and Staff Development Goal III: (continued) I Objectives Strategics/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date lesponsiblllty Evaluation 5. Implement a Mailer Teacher Program. 3 I Establish a dblrlctwide commhlee lo pbn a Master Tweher Program In which a concentration of student teachers from local and statewide colleges and nniveralltei will be asrfgned. The commhlee will be composed of teachers, p^lpab. mher admbbtraton and hcuhy representatives from local and state coUeges and unlvershlcs. Annually Ongoing Human Resources Dlr Master Teacher Program Committee SI Implement a Maaier Teacher Program In each Inceallm achool. Annually Ongoing Master Teacher Program Committee Incentive Schools Stairs 3 J Maintain a pool of prospective naff membem dtav, from the student teachers assigned to Incenllve schools through the Master Teacher Program. Annually Ongoing Faculty Reps from colleges and universities Principal Human Resources Dlr S  6. Provide assistance Ibr newly hired teachers or those esperlencing difficulty. 3 4 The principal and college hcuhy represeniallvea Mil monitor the Master Teacher Programs In each IncMilveachTOland Identify areas of strengths and concerns. These shall be shared with the sttff In each Incentive school. 61 Select an Instrucllonni Resource Center (IRC) Insiructlonal specialist who win provide needed assblance for the incentive ^oob. Specbl needs vrffl be Mentlfled and a Teacher Assistance Pbn (TAP) developed for teachers needed assblance In the ebssroom. Annually Ongoing Inly Ongoing Principal Faculty Reps from colleges and universities Principal Staff Dev Dept Human Resources DlrSection Four\nIncentive School Parent Involvement Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers consistently rank parent involvement Wgh among the components of effective schools. Research on family environments show children have an advantage in schools where their parents continuously support and encourage their school activities. Not all families know how to become involved in school-related activities and not all schools actively encourage and direct parent involvement. There have been many discussions on how to solve the problem of designing, implementing, and evaluating successful pwni involvement programs and thc most useful times of parent involvement. Surveys o teac ers, principals, parents and students, have identified five main types of parent involvement. The most basic involvement of parents is providing for their childrens food, clothing, shelter, safety, health and general well being. Parents teach their children basic cogmnvc ano * ...  _i___1 kAi* ^htldr^n social gViiit in their child rearing activities and prepare them for school. Once their chudren are in school, parents are expected to provide support by arranging family life, setting es or \u0026lt;UC AU BWUWX* poicuu OAV WA|/WfcWW *w |awvww - V V--- - . ond practices wdiich promote alermess in school, providing supplies and space for homewor getting them to school on time. Most parents meet their childrens basic needs independently, but when these obligations are not met, administrators and teachers may be obliged to assist the family. Because parents vary in their experiences and skills, some schools take active roles in helping parents to understand and to build positive home conditions for their children s school leanung m behavior. These activities can include publications, workshops, and programs on panting, child development, nutrition, discipline, attendance, homework, television viewing, e use o community resources and services and other topics related to home conditions and pracuces that affect student success in school. A second type of parent involvement common to all schools is communication from the SCCOuO lypc 01 poreui uatwat\u0026amp;aaaw*** ------------------ _ - school to the home. The school has an obligation to inform parents about schMl an ihcir childrens progress, and parents are expected to act on the information th^ schools send home memos, elendm. of . calendars ot tne scnooi yw -k dUtricu iso offer upi. lessees o. schoolss communication can be designed so school to home and from home to school. that useful messages, ideas and questions go from A third and most commonly known type school building, usually in connection with parent of parent involvement brings parents to the volunteer assistance, parent audiences, and parent attendance at workshops. involvement at the school that go beyond valuable nnrent involvemeut ai me scaum There are benefiu fromi p non^caching duties. Having parents in classroom manag . paints to conduct learning activities with assistance in---------- active at school encourages teachers to their children at home. Page 20sI  I I i I A fourth major type of parent involvement is assistance with learning activities at home. The loaming activities should be designed to build general skills and behavior, or spec Unming skills that are directly coordinated with the childrens class work. A fifth type of parent involvement includes parents in decision making and activist roles in governance and advocacy groups. Parents participate in PTA, PTO, or other formal and informal school committees, parent advisory councils, or other groups at the scnooi. district, and state levels. These groups maybe active as advocates for children\npamcipaw m school improvement plans\nhelp to formulate or revise school policies, program ^onnes, curricula, or budgets\nparticipate in the selection of new principals, teachers, or staff\npart in other school-related activities mandated by federal or state-funded program. decision-making bodies may meet and act autonomously, but they are part of the official Bnimrnine ctnirtiii* under the leadershio of school. district. Or state administrators. In a governing structure, under the leadership of school, district, or comprehensive program, however, aU five types will be effectively pracuced. All parents at im grade levels should be involved in purposeful communicatioo with the school, and in the education of their own children. We are only h^ginning to understand which types, formats, frequencies and locations of parent involvement lead to specific student, parent, and teacher achievements, attitudes u Principals can help teachers to successfully involve parents by coordinating. bChflVlOlS* L AaaaayBw  ------------------------------- J 1 flinP managing, supporting,funding,recognizing, and rewarding parent involvement, and by p E programs to strengthen that involvemenL We e^\u0026gt;ect the process of developing paren involvement activities to be on-going. Some suggested activities are listed below: 1. 2. Offer opportunities for adult community education. Establish a parent internship program in all incentive schools with the purpose of employing parents as teacher aides. 3. Recruit parents from the incentive neighborhoods for teacher aides and other positions for which they are qualified. 4. 5. Establish mentorships between leachers and parents in the incentive schools. Establish a Parent Center in each school. 6. Assume responsibilities for development and distributions of a monthly communications packet. 7. Prepare and distribute parent handbooks and monthly calendar of events. I I 8. Require at least two or more home visits. 9. Provide parenting education classes. I 1 Page 206LRSD desegregation PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Parent Involvement Goal I: Establish and Implement a program the school community. for parents of students ta the Incentive School to equip then, with Job skill, necesury for emplopblllt, at aU levels within Objectives Strategies/Activities Bfiglnniiig I Ending responsibility Evaluation 1. Design and administer a needs assessment to determine community Interest and need. 1.1 Oller opportunities for aduh community education. 12 tJ 1.4 Establish an locentlvewWe Parent Intemslilp Program with the purpose of employing parents as teacher aides. Recruit patents from the Incentive scboots neighborhoods for teacher aides and other positions Ibr which they are qualified. Establish mentonlilps between leachera and parents In the Incenllve schools. Date I Date FaU AnnuaUy Fall AnnuaUy FaU AnnuaUy Fan AnnuaUy Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Coordinator of Incentive Schools Counselors Principals Teachers S *8LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incenllve Schools - Parent Involvemeot . 1. relations through a partnership which promotes good, poslllve Inieracllons and reactions lo the education occurring Goal II: To Increase school, community and human relations inrougn a paromiwv k sr- In the buUdIng. Objectives Strategies/Activities Beginning I Ending Responsibility Dvaluatlon 1. Establish a Parent Center In each school. 1.1 Provide resources and staff to house/operate the center which wM loan matertab to parents. 12 IJ 1.4 Trata a parent la the community to operate the center. Formubte a committee composed of patents and other school personnel to make recommendations on matertab. Assume responsibilities (or developmenl and dhlrnmtlon of a monthly eommunicalloos packet. Date I Date Fan Fan Fan Fan Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Coordinator of Incentlw Schools Asst Supt Principals Counselors \u0026lt; gLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Parent Involvement Goal III: Increase parental Involvement and support bv devetoptog activhles and programs Io attract pirenn md ihe community Into the Khooh. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending responsibility i^valuatlon t. Develop a program that wiU assist parents to understand and carry out Ihe expeclailons of Ihe school. l.l 11 IJ 1.4 2. Use parent recognition as a tool for community and 2.1 parent Involvement. 21 Offer mini-workshops on topics such as: study sklUs, discipline, lime management, pre-reading skllh^ ftaanclal management, developmental learning sUUs. Request that parents come to Ihe school at least twice a year to pick up the report card. Provide and require opporlunHIes for counselors to have direct contact whh parents through scheduled meetings and home vishs. Bach school shaU demonstrate Ihe use of communhy resources In Ihe Insirncllonal program. Recognire parents monthly at PTA meetings for meeting Ihe schoora expeclailons.  Recognlte a communhy pet son monthly at PTA meetings for school Involremenl. Date FaU Fall Fall FaU FaU FaU Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Principal Teachers Principal Teachers Principals Principals S  2J Display parent/communhy recognition awards on a huUelln board In the entrance haU. FaU Ongoing Principals TeachersLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incenllve Schools - Parent Involvement Goal 111: (continued) Objectives Strategics/ Activities Beginning I Ending esponsibillty evaluation 2. (continued) 2.4 Provide school lunch vouchers and etc. for award winners. 3. CstabUsh a systematic spproach to ellecllm comrannicallon between the bone and school. 2J 3.1 32 3J 3.4 3J Involve students to the selectloo process of award winners. Identify at leasi three (3) key parent commnnicalors as a vital source for all to rely upon. Teach parents the system for advancing anpport and concern for the school. EstablMi a community resource Usl of role modeb and mentors. Invite community patrons of pre-school youngsters to PTA meetings and other parent tovolvemenl activities. Encourage parent attendance al PTA meeltags and other school related activhles. 3.6 Prepare and dbtrlbuie Parent Handbooks and monthly calendar of 3.7 emnts. Require parents to sign homework assignments, projects, etc. Dale Date Fan Fan Fan Fan Fan Fan August Augnst August Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing PrhKipals Teachers Communications Dept VIPS Principals Teachers Principals Teachers OLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Parent Involvement Goal III: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities leglnnlng Date Ending )a(e lesponsibllity Evaluation 3. (continued) 3A Require parents lo call the school lo report absences and require the school lo can Ihe home and document reasons for absences. 4. Require contractual commhinenl from parents. 35 4.1 Require al Icasi Iwo (2) or more home visits. Require ah parents to sign contracts by having patents sign contract prior to enrollment In Incentive Program. Fan Ongoing Principal r\u0026gt;AREA: Parent Involvement Goal IV LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE : To help milor enhancement schoob provide p.reni with new remarcei. opportunhles .nd atra\u0026gt;egte to enhance .he .cMevemcnt of chlMren. Objectives StratcgIesZ Activities Beginning Date Endbig Date lesponsiblllty evaluation I. Strengthen Unkages between the home and the school. l.l Parenting education cbsses for mothers. Fan Ongoing Principab Counselors 11 Evening and Saturday cbsses lo eapose chndreu lo the Importance of science/math as means lo a heller future. tJ Use school as community center al mtafanal cost to user. Fan Ongoing 1.4 Workshops to eapose students and parents lo the Importance of science/math as a means to a belter future (reguhr workshops for students and parents). s o MLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Parent Involvement Goal V\nTo strengthen the knowledge base of all teachera^ Afrlcan-Americaa hfatoty  tradhkwn, morab and wilue history. Objectives Strategies/ActWilM Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation I. Raise Ihe Iran level between the school and the community. l.l 11 IJ 1.4 Inservice coorses for teachers and school. Develop a speakers buresn for community groups In Ihe school \u0026gt;nes on educatloo bsues. Develop a calendar of events of uelghborhood actWiles and post ta the school. Develop an act that places high value on neighborhood pride - poster contest, talent dwws, participailoo In parades, cicm coordinaied by school staff. Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing \u0026lt; L4LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools - Parent Involvement Goal VI: Establish a shared novernance team to ereiy school. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Valuation E SB 1. Formuble a committee of administrators, parents, and teachers to develop the school Improrement pbn. 1.1 12 IJ Provide an atmosphere where parents are open, honest and trnstworthy. Obtain masfannm topnt prior to making decbtons by tovoivtog more peopte to decbion making. Create a sense of ownership to decbtons throngh tovohement. Fan Fan Fan Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing PrincipabSection Five: Incentive School Parent Recruitment Aggressive marketing and recruitment are essential to the overall school oroeram Careful marketing of the incentive school program is the first step propam, T^e phe of Uta focus on providing general information to the community. The black commumty wui targeted during thc initial phase of marketing activities. Recruitment wiU be an ongoing process at the incentive schools. The puipose of recruitment program is to encourage voluntary assignments that will enable the schools to comply with the desegregation requiremenu. I. To provide information to the community about the incentive school program. A. Mail final report on incentive school program to special interMt and coMiu^ groups (ix. PTA Coundl, Junior League, Greek organizations. Ministerial Alliance. Tri-bistrict Council, ACORN, etc.). B. Conduct information sessions at churches located near churches throughout the community with large memberships. incentive schools and C. Conduct information sessions with special audiences. D. Establish Saturday information booths at such places as UniversiQf Mall^qrk Pl^ Mall, Wal44art Stores, Safeway Stores, Krt^ Stores, etc. St. \" fjornwinnity will also be targeted for information booths.* Stores in the black E. Secure special media coverage from local newspapers and radio stations. F. Develop highlights sheet for distribution to all elementary parents (and new elementary parents). G. Use telephone hotline.* H. Place highlights sheet in local businesses.* I. Special media coverage from State Press and black radio stations. Note: 'Will be dOK is conjunction with promonon of etudeot assignment ptan. n. To implement a recruitment program with the desegregation requirements. that will enable the incentive schools to comply A. Brochures - for each incentive school. Brochures should Produce a brochure fm each incenuve scuou*. ----------------------- ^Xol ipectal resoorees. prognuos. theme taformeuon, p.^- 01 scnowi, ____ . - Tn.TnhT with hnef include: photo in-education information, grants received, honors, list of staff members with brief credentials. Page 215B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. PSAs - Produce generic public service announcements for all incentive schools. Billboards - Use billboards, bus benches, etc., to advertise generic information about incentive schools. Seek donated space. Billboards throughout Pulaski County should be used. Media Blitz - Conduct an ongoing media (radio, TV and newspaper) blitz to heighten public awareness regarding incentive schools. Pursue funding donations from community. Videocassette Recordings * Produce short (10-15 minutes) videocassette recordings to be used in public presentations (ix. PTA meetings, realtors, etc.) Flyers * Produce generic incentive school flyers to be distributed throughout Pulaski County. (Example: insert flyers in utility companies* bills\nmass mailings to targeted K-S white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD. Open House - Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools. Nei^dmrfaood Blitz - Target geographic areas/neighborhoods to receive informational blitz regarding a specific incentive school. Stress group preference as an assignment option. Mail individual school brochures to each elementary student in targeted area. Tours * Conduct small group Tor Your Information\" tours to acquaint parents, grandparents, businessmen, realtors, etc., with the incentive schools. State Department of Education - Request a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ix. \"Five Star Schools\", \"Model Schools\") to be used in marketing incentive schools. Celdirities - seek incenter- school endorsements from local celebrities. Arrange visits by celebrities, news events, special ceremonies, etc., to generate media coverage. Conduct meetings with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers to incentive schools. M. RprniityFB - Hire two parent recruiters to conduct recruitment activities. N Speakers Bureau - Establish a speakers bureau for each incentive school. The parents of white students enroUed in the incentive schools will be encouraged to serve on the bureau along with celebrities, teachers, etc. Page 216m. To monitor and schools. evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive will also serve as thc The Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee wilI se^ ____:____tnr incentive school recruitment program. Thc Little kock rnmniittee for thc school recruitment program steering committee tor me mceaurc on the District omce of Desegregation will be responsible for submitung bi-mo P implementation and effectiveness of various recruitment strategies. These reports shared with the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. The Biracial Advisory Committee will review each bi-monthly report and recomme^ w and/or Office of Desegregation any changes needed m recruitmM the Board of Directors and/or Office of Desegregauon any enanges strategies/activities. Thc Biracial Advisory Committee wiU also appomt with in marketing/ advertising to advise the Committee on rccruitmen s The Biracial Advisory Committee will evaluate thc recruitment The evaluation of the recruitment program will be addressed in the quarterly monitoring/evaluation report on the incentive school program. Page 217\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_540","title":"Little Rock Schools: Fair High","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","J. A. Fair High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School facilities","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Fair High"],"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/540"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["31 pages"],"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\nODM Visits to LRSD Schools, Opening Days 1994 Fair Park Elementary School We -were pleased to note that:  The building was spotless.  Corridors were clean and well-lit.  Restrooms were clean and well-supplied.  Classrooms were attractively decorated with bulletin boards welcoming students.  The playground contained some new equipment.  Students were friendly and well-behaved. We also noted some areas needing attention:  Monitors noticed several teachers who were gruff or testy in their dealings with students.  A third grade class walking down the hall was separated by gender.  The principal's office lacked a computer which could be used for all sorts of word processing, including contributions to the program budget document.  Eaves in one section of the exterior had been damaged by rain, and required repair, waterproofing, and repainting.  Trees at the rear of the building extended over the roof of the school.  A broken downspout was located at the rear of the building.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Division of Schooi Services Sadie Mitcheil, Associate Superintendent received SEP 1 3 2Q00 TO: Ice of Desegregation Monitoring OFFICE Of FROM: Carnine, Superintendent of Schools DESEGRESAliOii WOMHOWMQ DATE: September 7, 2000 SUBJECT: Magnet Schools Assistance Program Grant The Little Rock School District is in the process of developing a plan that will improve the educational offerings of four schools in Southwest Little Rock: Fair High School, McClellan High School, Mabelvale Middle School and Cloverdale Middle School. The schools have decided to adopt magnet-like school themes to focus on academic content and to increase student engagement in learning. The schools, along with the District's Director of Planning and Development, will aggressively seek resources to support the themes. The Magnet Schools Assistance Program provides grants to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs). Each eligible LEA that desires to receive assistance shall submit an application before December 22, 2000. The Little Rock School District is preparing to submit an application which will include the schools listed above. If you have questions, please call Sadie Mitchell at 501/324-2007. c: Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent - Student Registration Dr. Terrence Roberts, Desegregation Consultant Dr. Stephen Ross, Desegregation Consultantaecesved SEP 1 3 2000 OmCEOF desegregation monitoriwg J. A. Fair High School  Medical and Environmental Sciences  Systems Engineering  Information -Processes A Comprehensive Program Design for Accelerated StudiesJ. A. Fair High School Accelerated Studies in Medical and Environmental Sciences, Systems Engineering and Information Processes COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM DESIGN Overarching Theme: Accelerated Studies in Medical and Environmental Sciences, Systems Engineering and Information Processes Programmatic Strand: Systems Engineering - Pure Science Applications  Experience Base A first step in successful program design is to broaden the background knowledge of students so that they have common areas understanding upon which to build new levels of learning. At the beginning of the year, an initial field trip to sites that utilize specialized high tech engineenng   ' _____ ,1 f 1 1 _L  - J11 rvn 1 ohr\\rn+r(np5 This and subsequent field trips will focus on laboratories. systems technology will occur. UICU, --------------------------------------- , ,  J it, applications sci architectural, engineering and construction firms, as well as construction sites and large structures of note. Each of these will be viewed for their appEcations of mathematics and the pure sciences of physics and chemistry. Good examples of the various parts of complete systems willbe analyzed as to system design, networking, programming, communications and constructions. Analyzmg the different areas that make up a completely engineered system will enable students to see how any change in the parts wiE change the outcome of the whole system. Partnerships with the University of Arkansas, Little Rock and Autozone will open up a range of higher education and business exposure. The overall goal will be for students to develop an understanding of systems concepts and their applications. First there will be many opportunities to practice identifying the parts of a vamety of things how they connect and how parts affect other parts, in order to gam m appreciation for systems. After this, systems thinking can be made expEcit- suggesting analysis of parts, subsystems. Descriptions of parts and their interaction are important as students interactions, and matching. Descriptions of parts and their mteraction are unpuiLaxxu begin to analyze their observations in the field. Once a mindset for systems engmeenng evolves, students will be motivated to engage in the important curricular activities that wiU enable them to understand appEcations of mathematical and pure sciences and become student systems engineers. Curricular Activity Many well planned, related activities will add in-depth meaning to the students experience base and provide opportunities for higher level applications of learning. Student projects will involve designing, assembling, and trouble-shooting systems (mechanical, chemical, electrical) with easily discernible components, Project based learning will engage students in authentic problems, allow them to learn and practice inquiry and problem-solving skills, and acquire advanced academic content and SCANS skills in the project context. Activity driven student coursework will include Introduction to Networking, Introduction to Programming, Introduction to Systems Design, Technical Writing, Physics, and Computer Math Applications. CBL units and TI83 plus calculators will be used by students to collect and analyze data. Students will implement and maintain a new computerized sound system for the school and take part in the planning and project design for the system. They will judge how changing different components affects the systems output. Students will also follow larger projects funded by the city to see more networking, programming, and design in action to give them experience working alongside professionals in the field. Intensive practices involving aU forms and levels of networking, programmings design, construction, and maintenance of a complete system will ensure relevant, authentic learning in systems engineering. The most sophisticated activities will involve projects that make connections among systems, either internally or extemally-subsystems increasing the power of mega systems, or serial systems making each more effective. Small scale models will be compared with mathematical models displayed on computer to determine actual quality of design. The value of systems simplicity versus systems complexity will be assessed through modification of elements within the system. Computer technology will be invaluable due to the time consuming aspects of long, complicated, repetitive steps within systems. Also, computer testing of devices and structures parallels real life need for safety, durability, and longevity in systems support. Interactive Environments Specialized areas will be developed for students to engage in real world situations over time. Equipment is usually unique and too expensive or invasive to be used in regular classrooms. Simulated environments and learning centers, both inside and outside the classroom at Fair, assist students and their teachers in maintaining the mindset that is beneficial to systems engineering. An on-campus lab, Systems Engineering Control Center, will include 30 student computers and provide students with specialized tools and resources for the construction and maintenance of a high tech system that networks the schools computers. The mainframe for the schools networked computers and the sound system will be stationed in this lab and to be monitored and maintained by students. Students will also have access to a Robotic Systems Unit on campus which will include a laboratory equipped with techno logical tools, materials, and equipment for construction, discovery, and research of human prosthetics and other robotic entities that aid humans in their work (student- made computers that perform simple tasks or functions). A third lab area, Interactive Satellite Systems Lab, that includes video and audio equipment for transmission and reception will enable students to participate in distance learning with other high schools, universities, and the Corp of Engineers. This lab will supply digital equipment, earphones, microphones, video taping equipment, monitors and other telecommunication equipment for distant learning. In addition, the J. A. Fair school staff will apply for an EAST grant to establish an independent problem based studies technology center. This library media center based function will allow all students to pursue interests in specific areas while conducting long term research. This application will provide the next level of sophistication beyond the already strong academic comparative studies at Fair.  Curricular Content Advanced coursework will be available and within the reach of al students through affiliation with two outstanding nationally and internationally recognized programs. Strong primary sources that focus on design, formatting, networking, and trouble-shooting for a variety of system types will serve the students need for background knowledge. Extension into reference materials from professional and trade sources will round out curricular content, with the use of specialized textbooks for specific types of systems. Appropriate technology hardware and courseware that utilizes mathematical applications and related scientific concepts will be integrated throughout to emphasize how math and computer technology come together to produce systems engineering. Terminology relating to inputs, outputs, positive and negative feedback, systems properties, systems analysis, subsystems, and systems stability will be internalized as a result of constant, meaningful use.tilsoexV /M2^ r m/xit-slFJZAMCS iTrojceP *4 Aho Vic\u0026gt;ec\u0026gt; pi^aJetnor ^C\u0026gt;crr\\r\\ /  + pOSlTlOhU Cot^xPLrreTZ. iMoCULJt -----------\u0026lt;S.t2^pjC. ) Vzii^e^-cxz\u0026amp;p ir 5t\\jDV AIREA V/iT-rt ivjTetzACTr've eKrrp=v rvldim J. A. Fair High School - Systems Engineering Control Center Tliayer Design Inc. 1495 High Peak Road Monroe, VA 24574 804/929-6359  Best Instructional Practices A few selected practices that match techniques to content and that are employed consistently, are more effective than trying many different approaches simultaneously. The primary best practice that will be employed at Fair is the Project Based Learning approach. PBL is a strategy that draws on different learning styles and intelligences and incorporates experiential learning. A final product or presentation that demonstrates learning and incorporates instruction, reflection, and assessment will be essential. Project-based learning can be defined as follows: B learning experiences which engage students in complex, real world projects through which they develop and apply skills and knowledge B a strategy which recognizes that significant learning taps students inherent drive to learn,  Q  capability to do important work, and the need to be taken seriously learning in which the results are not predetermined or fuUy predictable learning which requires students to draw from many information sources and disciplines in order to solve problems learning which requires students to coordinate time, work schedules, and project outcomes in order to accomplish project goals on a predicted time schedule PBL Network, The Autodesk Foundation, 1998. Teachers will engage the students in guided practice and peer collaboration for the learning of new material and procedures. Teaching techniques/strategies will employ the cognitive-constructivist classroom approach shaped around systems engineering projects, research, testing, and presentation. Students will focus on problem-based learning and systems analysis activities to learn about networking and programming procedures and the basic principles of systems engineering. Simulations of systems design and development will combine the strong content base with skills applications in solving systems problems.  Formative and Summative Assessment Accelerated studies are based on high expectations which are made clear to students in carefully drawn rubrics prior to each unit of study. A variety of assessment formats will be employed throughout the various units of study and will serve as authentic measures for teachers to determine exactly what and how students learn about systems engineering. The assessments will include pre/post testing, matrices of skills, rubrics to evaluate projects and oral presentations, rubrics to evaluate communication and presentations, LRSD exit exams, traditional tests (multiple choice, short answer, and essay), and student selfevaluations. Arkansas Frameworks This section to be developed when the new standards and alignments are provided to staff members. The final draft of this program design will correlate benchmarks, standards, text and ancillary materials in order to ensure a tightly aligned curriculum document that is practical and user friendly within a creative and advanced content structure.  Staff Training and Curriculum Writing Programs are only successful if their staff members successfully complete appropriate training and apply what has been learned. School personnel will receive intensive training on skills that are pertinent to this systems engineering strand. This training will include Overview of Systems Engineering, Introduction to Prosthetics and Robotics, Distance Learning, Philosophy and Implementation' of Teaching throughaProject/Product-Based Approach, Formative and Summative Assessment approaches - How to effectively match curriculum to each one, Meeting the needs of all students through Multiple Intelligences, and Organizing and Managing a Classroom for Project-Oriented Learning. Diann Taylor and Jim Collins, field consultants with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will provide leadership in systems engineering lab development and curriculum writing. They will collaborate with the science department IRC and the staff at J. A. Fair in integrating specialized lab area functions with related thematic classroom activities and Arkansas Benchmarks and Standards. Anita Tanner, principal consultant with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will serve as program facilitator, coordinating the varied staff training activities from various sources, the leadership roles and responsibilities at the school, and authentic project design implementation.J.A. Fair Accelerated Studies High School ~ continued ~ Overarching Theme: Accelerated Studies in Medical and Environmental Sciences, Systems Engineering and Information Processes Programmatic Strand: Information Processes  Experience Base Students will participate in a series of field trips to sites that represent the importance of information processing through computer driven technology. Among these sites wiU be a visit to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and to large computerized businesses (such as the airport). Multimedia and related graphics wUl come alive with meaning as students are immersed in exciting uses in information sciences. Technologies integral to the manipulation of information sources will be seen in action including operating systems, visual imaging, computer-assisted drawing, computer composition, real-time movement segments, and text-image manipulation. Advanced data base manipulation and spread sheet applications wiU be observed with sophisticated charting and table Ulustrations as the necessary skeletal structure that strengthens the information science experience base.  Curricular Activity Many varied activities will motivate students and enable them to use a broad range of exploratory techniques. Through hands on experience, planning independent projects, and exploring appropriate software that pursue a variety of applications, students will acquire a wide variety of technical skills that are an integral part of the information sciences programmatic strand. Specific student activities will involve video conferencing, designing a school website, designing graphics, learning web page languages (HTML), utilizing web building tools with Internet technology (webbing), drafting, and the collection and manipulation of experimental data. Coursework will include studies of computer language skills and technical information relating to programming abilities. Student projects wiU include creation and design of programs that coUect, analyze, synthesize, and format information in unique ways. These pertinent student involvement-intensive practices, as weU as a wealth of authentic classroom projects, offer students opportunities to investigate, experiment, and construct relevant meaning within the overall framework of the area of information sciences. Interactive Environments Simulated environments and learning centers, both inside and outside the classroom, assist students and their teachers in maintaining the mindset that is beneficial to information processes thematic studies. Students will have access to an Information Processes Center on campus. This will contain various work areas to support sophisticated and distinct functions. Due to the size and desired capability to have multiple classes going on simultaneously there will be sound baffles that double as signs. Two different work areas will consist 20 computers each, for a total of 40 networked computers. Smart Boards will be available in four areas of the lab for use by both students and teachers. The laboratory will also be equipped with technological tools and computer driven applications for data and graphic manipulation and web-budding. Students will be able to participate in distance learning through the use of telecommunications and other equipment available in the Information Processes Center. Some video conferencing will take place from individual student desktop computers, while other large group video conferencing will occur from an arena seating arrangement. The school win have a networked computer system, with 10 computers per classroom, that will allow for school-wide communication between classrooms and between students and teachers. The school website will be expanded by students who work in a dedicated area of the lab. There will be multiple screens for viewing various websites simultaneously. There will be experimentation in developing user friendly means for communicating sophisticated projects and providing a place for sharing samples of original and creative approaches to information processing. This electronic collaboration facility will nurture information processes as students work together on intellectual, academic, or practical endeavors. People from different parts of a building, state, country, or continent will exchange information, collaborate on shared documents and ideas, study together, or reflect on their own practices. fElectronic Collaboration: A Practical Guide for Educators, LAB Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University, 1999 - a primary source used throughout this document.)'' i fVVA. tXT* O o V*4TU lWTUBACTI\u0026lt;a 7ouc\u0026gt;+ $MiteeM5 - A IT* o ODia ceti LAf^T^P- /^\u0026lt;WSTr'i I - ' it~\\\nipeo PfZxaJ. IB EO Blon aia n 0[a B t^r5\u0026gt; \"llo ____ 2*^3 .T:icrio\u0026gt;4^ ElO BlDD ora E) ]Q HEa B EQ- BOE Qlla B t-a.t3 o ____ 20 STAnciKt^ ^rotSA^-e E] EO oEa BOE oca 000 HE a BE a ]D B e ]0 j XJ J  o :t Gt VIPEO dJOMFei2eW\u0026lt;:'l46 AlzeA a TJ N\\OW jtor 0B! B] 1E BOB J NtUirriPCXi hAOMiTOH.'S^ KWi'TW ^i*.kApL-e \\vetfi-re J. A. Fair High School - Information Processes Center, Thayer Design (no. 1466 High Peak Road Monroe, VA 24574 804/^29-6359  Curricular Content Studies in the Information Processes strand wili be based upon electronic collaboration that takes many forms.  Discussion groups will be focused around a topic or a specific activity, goal, or project. Some groups will be open-ended and unmoderated, allowing users to solicit information from each other. Other, more structured groups may use a moderator to guide the discussion by filtering and posing questions and/or making comments.   suggestions, and connections. Data collection and organization activities will use databases and search engines to organize and retrieve data. Users will contribute data individually to a shared database and retrieve data from it as needed. Data will be in the form of references (such as pointers to related work and Web sites), information (such as weather conditions or whale sightings), curriculum projects, research papers, and contact information for fellow students. Some projects will involve sharing documents - from simply displaying them to having several people work on them simultaneously. Collaborators will display documents online and discuss the contents via email, video conference, or chat. ' They will use annotation systems to comment on shared documents and editing tools to co-edit documents online. Synchronous communication activities such as Internet chat and video conferencing differ from other types of activities in that they happen in real time, over a short period. In text based chat environments participants see what the other person is typing on the screen in real time. Video conferencing is like a conference call with pictures. These technologies wUl allow students to discuss ideas, debate problems, and share information electronically when face-to-face interaction is desired but not possible. This wiU occur in large group settings as well as through individual desktop video conferencing. Students will participate in online courses or workshops to gain dual credit at local specialized schools of study, junior colleges, and universities. These courses wUl be like traditional courses and workshops, but without face to face meetings. The instructor will distribute assignments, guide the conversation, and respond to students questions. The discussions will take place via discussion groups through integrated distance learning tools. Students will use a variety of techmeal manuals during their information processes studies. Appropriate technology hardware and courseware that focus on the manipulation of video, graphics, text, and programs will provide the tools to build web pages. Computer software featuring appropriate vocabulary related to web page building, as well as emphasizing writing and journalism skills, will help to integrate basic core subjects within the information processes theme. State-of-the-art industry standard equipment supporting high-level data collection, analysis and formatting of information, commumcation, groupware, shareware and graphic interaction software will be the necessary skeletal structure for advanced studies in information processes. Mini-conrses in computer languages and programming will provide the background needed by students who wish to explore the possibilities of program writing. Students will internalize technical terms and process sequences through many meaningfill repetitions in context. Best Instructional Practices Teaching techniques/strategies that employ the use of computer driven technologies will be the primary methods emphasized in this Strand. Peer collaboration, independent study, and teaming will be additional models used by teachers to fecilitate learning. Students wiU use their Information Processes Center to create web pages, school publications, and support classroom mvestigations and experiments. The best instructional practice in this strand of information processes will be the application of knowledge and skills across all subject areas. Manipulation and collaboration in the processing of information will become integral to all learning and will underscore the importance of information processes.  Formative and Summative Assessment Assessment formats that match each set of activities, such as computer portfolios, serve as authentic measures for teachers to determine exactly what and how students learn. Teachers will use objective and subjective criteria for assessment formats in the form of rubrics and matrices. The computer portfolio that includes the information processes learner products will be assessed with strict, precise controls as befitting the accuracy and quality desirable in information sources. The portfolio approach will help teachers to determine whether students are internalizing higher order thinking related to the information processing theme. It will be reviewed as a global evaluation measure, a summative assessment, concluding the unit of study. The portfolio will serve as a diagnostic/prescriptive tool for teachers to use to accurately modify their instruction during information processing studies.  Arkansas Frameworks This section to be developed when the new standards and alignments are provided to staff members. The final draft of this program design will correlate benchmarks, standards, text and ancillary materials in order to ensure a tightly aligned curriculum document that is practical and user friendly within a creative and advanced content structure. 1 Staff Training and Curriculum Writing School personnel will receive intensive training on various computer programs that include information sciences content and process. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock will partner with J.A. Fair through its school of Information Sciences. They will conduct a series of high involvement activities for LA. Fair High School students. Their expert staff will provide authentic training in all areas of information sciences. Sophisticated visual imaging and text programs will be basic to development of a curriculum document that appropriately reflects the best that an information science program should offer. School personnel will receive intensive training on skills that are pertinent to this information processes strand. This training will include Overview of Electronic Collaboration for Effective Information Processing, Distance Learning, Philosophy and Implementation of Teaching through a Project/Product-Based Approach, Tormative and Summative Assessment approaches - How to effectively match a curriculum to each one, and Organizing and Managing a Classroom for Electronic Collaboration and Information Pro cesses-based Learning. 5? Diann Taylor and Sheila Gragg, field consultants with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will provide leadership in information processes lab development and curriculum writing. They will collaborate with the science department IRC and the staff at J. A. Fair in integrating specialized lab area functions with related thematic classroom activities and Arkansas Benchmarks and Standards. Anita Tanner, principal consultant with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will serve as program facilitator, coordinating the varied, staff training activities from various sources, the leadership roles and responsibilities at the school, and authentic project design implementation.J. A. Fair Accelerated Studies High School ~ continued ~ Overarching Theme: Accelerated Studies in Medical and Environmental Sciences, Systems Engineering and Information Processes Programmatic Strand: Medical and Environmental Sciences  Experience Base Environmental science studies will bring coherence to the complex array of relationships among living things that students have learned about in earlier grades. Just as J. A. Fair students are learning about systems thinking in regard to information services and engineering, they will need to examine systems that exist within environmental sciences. Students will experience an overall immersion into major areas of environmental science through a series of field trips. These trips will include visits to a local nature center, fish hatchery, Arkansas State Plant Board, Arkansas Garrie and Fish - Aquaculture, Arkansas Highway Department, Arkansas Project Globe, EPA (Weyerhauser and recycling). Data Stream (NLR weather), and meteorology departments at television stations. These site visits will extend the knowledge base acquired at Mabelvale School of Advanced Studies during the middle school years. The in-depth experiences will provide students with a broad base for observing environmental aspects of fife systems and will prepare them for comparative studies within the programmatic strand of medical and environmental science. Field trips to high tech health institutions and agencies will occur also. Subsequent field trips will focus on local hospitals, laboratories, clinics, physicians offices and related health services. Each of these will be viewed for their applications of mathematics, earth and life sciences, areas such as nutritional science and biotechnology as well as their dependence upon knowledge of chemistry, biology, anatomy, and physiology. These trips will also include experiences relating to comparative studies in animal science and anatomy within the programmatic strand of environmental sciences.Experience Base (continued) Experiences provided through a variety of real, virtual, and imaginary field trips wUl\ndemonstrate what is meant by natural niches, habitats and biomes by observing plants and .animals in a variety of settings compare human environmental needs and functions to those of other living things review industrial processing relating to material and energy sources lead to an appreciation of how human activities, conscious or inadvertent, are seriously impacting pl^et Earth examine individual and collective roles in jobs and agencies that relate to the natural environment recognize how environmental factors meet needs assess common, everyday activities as appropriate use of resources, inappropriate acts resulting in abuse, or sensitive plan/schedule of resource use for conservation raise awareness as to how the development of scientific thinking and technology increases ability to utilize the environment wisely develop and understanding that aU environments, whether they are small communities, global areas, or part of the universe, are continually evolving Ip  Curricular Activity Project based learning wifi engage students in authentic problems, allow them to learn and practice inquiry and problem-solving skills, and acquire advanced academic content and SCANS skills in the contexts of environmental and medical studies. Student projects will emphasize the use of scientific technologies relating to ecosystems and in the medical field. Students will also study how the application of these technologies supports investigation and research of critical medical diseases of both plants and animals. Studies will also include discussion of medical ethics and government regulations on medical experimentation using animals Students wifi learn how scientists use labs to support their studies and experiments to find cures and solutions for medical problems and illnesses. Course appropriate hardware and software such as Body Works wifi be used to integrate technology throughout the accelerated anatomical and physiological studies. Mathematical and scientific applications wifi also be emphasized to complement the high tech approach to medical studies. These studies will focus on an experimental science approach to research and learning, with students acting as the facilitators and scientists leading the studies. Students will compare animal anatomy to human anatomy and discover the various physiologica designs of different animals systems and how they compare to human systems. Activities to be included during lab time will be physiological testing of nerves, training on patient techniques in medical situations, dissection, and learning universal precautions in lab and medical areas.Curricular Activity (continued) Student projects will emphasize the use of scientific technologies and how the application of these technologies supports investigation and experimentation of crucial environmental problems. Students will discover what variables lead to higher life expectancies and more productive environments with an emphasis on water, plants, and fish. They wifi participate in Arkansas Project WET and WILD Program for high school age students which will enable them to do a long-term study of a real environment. These programs require that students visit a sampling point once each month and conduct 26 different tests. The data is then compiled in a state-of-the-art computer that is provided -with the program. Students are scientists first hand. Overlapping areas of knowledge for these projects are chemistry, physics, and biology. Students will analyze the chemical, physical, and biological conditions of the land and body of water to be studied. Coursework wUl consist of learning how to -write creatively and descriptively while also paying attention to the technical aspects of writing lab reports and formal experiments. Students will also learn what factors influence the stability of an ecosystem and how different variables can impact this balance. And finally, students will implement safety features and other changes based on their research that will improve the conditions of the studied environments. A variety of activities will motivate students to use a broad range of exploratory techniques while learning about environmental science. Activities planned around outdoor and indoor water tanks win include maintenance of the fish and plants that inhabit them. These areas will also be used for research and data collection, as weU as for experimental purposes. The greenhouse and outdoor pond win provide active areas for students to help produce and maintain different plant species. Students will also take an active role in the planning and development of landscaping for each lab area by taking into account the environment, temperature, and available sunlight. Also, a schoolwide beautification project that incorporates landscaping and architecture with design, implementation, and maintenance 'wiU utilize what students have learned about growing plants and successful environments. Through these interactive experiences and involvement-intensive immersion experiences, students will be pro'vided the opportunities to investigate, analyze, experiment, and construct relevant meaning within the overall framework of environmental science. A ten hour internship, in specific environmental or medical professional roles, 'will involve students in a real life settings over the course of the semester. Through these interactive experiences and involvement-intensive immersion experiences, students wiU be pro'vided the opportunities to investigate, analyze, experiment, and construct relevant meaning -within the overall framework o: this accelerated learning strand. - Interactive Environments There will be a central area, the Ecosystem and Environmental Lab, that will support this accelerated curriculum of environmental studies. Included in this lab area wiU be specialized representations of a desert, a coastal region, river bank with subsidiaries, and rainforest environments. These interactive environments within high tech climatariums wUl have the capabilities ofmanipulationandexperimentationthroughthe change of existing variables. For each specialized environment and experiment, students will perform background research, hypothesize, coUect initial data, make predictions, manipulate the variables, coUect experimental data, record the data (by computer and on video), and then analyze their findings. A variety of advanced measurement devices will be employed at the lab area for experimental purposes and for high tech science support. Additional water labs will be available in the form of classroom aquariums and an outdoor pond so students may study the ecosystem of a real aquaculture in action. The outdoor pond wUl also consist of a variety of plant species with a connected greenhouse and lab to assist with the growing, maintenance, and manipulation of plant environments for the purpose of experimentation and study of botany. Miniature aquatic stations can be placed in each classroom as sub-studies of the larger picture of environmental science. Mathematical and scientific appEcations will be emphasized to complement the high tech approach to environmental studies. An agri-science lab wiE be included in the greenhouse to learn about how food sources can be affected by changes in the environment. An outdoor classroom for students wiU complement the other lab areas and wiE feature a nature traE to be designed and maintained by students. The pond, greenhouse, and nature traE wiE be enhanced by landscaping that is designed by students annuaEy with special attention to architectural design of planters, flower beds, and the waters edge to avoid erosion and the loss of plant life. These lab areas wiE also include pumps for water treatment (water purification), proper heat/air/water necessities for aE lab areas and fish, microscopes, and projection systems. The progress and growth of the pond, greenhouse, and nature traE wEl be documented using video equipment and digital cameras for further study. Students wiE have access to an on campus lab center that is buEt for specified research and experimentation in the human systems of biotechnology, anatomy, physiology, and nutritional science. This sophisticated center, created by Scientific Innovations, Inc., will contain sixteen activity modules containing specific tools and technology. Technological equipment avaEable in these modifies wEl include tools for organ dissection, animal dissection, computerized microscopes, high resolution/computerized graphics for pictures of tissue samples, computers for compEing scientific data, EKG equipment, CPR learning tools, mannequins of human torsos, electrophoresis equipment, histology slides, and a lab area designed for special use with identifying strands of DNA. Curricular Content Teachers will use desk references on environmental and medical sciences as primary sources to support daily planning. Teachers will utilize a wealth of reference books and materials that include National Geographic Pubheations, National Science Magazine, Field Study Guides, and the Arkansas Governmental Agencies Pubheations (Game, Fish, and Forestry). By searching the Internet, teachers and students will find authentic and up-to-date related maps and models. Course material to be included in the study of plants will be pollination, genetics, gardening, hydroponics, cloning, climate, and adaptation. These will naturally overlap with the subjects of entomology, pesticides, and agriculture. Knowledge to be learned about fish will include information about hatcheries, water purification, life cycles, water pollution, fishing culture, and economics. Knowledge about ecosystems will include learning about balance, adaptation, biomes, geography, human body system, and weather/climate. A series of visits from local professionals in the areas of horticulture, botany, biology, marine biology, and landscape architecture will provide key insight to the new developments in the high tech world and how those contributions have affected society. Course appropriate hardware and software such as Body Works will be used to integrate technology throughout the accelerated medical studies program. Mathematical and scientific applications will also be emphasized to complement the high tech approach to medical studies. Handbooks on medical technology and the human anatomy will serve as primary sources for all teachers to support daily planning. Course material and training to be included in medical studies wfil cover nerve and muscle analysis, CNA program, CPR training, EKG training, shde, preparation, BIP analysis, DNA assessment, and electrophoresis sampling and sequencing. Animal science and anatomy course content will overlap with human studies where appropriate including dietary needs, vaccinations, behavioral science, and habitats. Curriculum content wfil also focus on the training for specialized lab equipment in each area, including safety training. A series of visits from local professionals in the areas of veterinary, biology, nutrition, and other health professionals will provide key insight to the new developments in the high tech world and how those contributions have affected society and medical research Best Instructional Practices Teaching techniques/strategies at Fair High School will be based on problem-based learning Blooms Taxonomy, and scientific inquiry. Techniques for student learning wiU include self- discovery, peer coUaboration, independent study, open-ended lab activities, and expository reportmg Through scientific research. The schoolreform model. High Schools that Work (HSTW), the SECME consortia (Science, Engineering, Communication, Math, Enrichment), Coordinated Career Education organization (CCE), and Cooperative Office Education group (COE) will be used as sources of matching philosophy and procedures to strengthen practices within this strand. The p^ary best practice that will be employed at Fair is the Project Based Learning approach. PBL is a strategy that draws on different learning styles and intelligences and incorporates experiential learning. A final product or presentation that demonstrates learning and incorporates instruction, reflection, and assessment wiU be essential. Project-based learning can be defined as foUows: D   a  learning experiences which engage students in complex, real world projects through which they develop and apply skiUs and knowledge a strategy which recognizes that significant learning taps students inherent drive to learn, capability to do important work, and the need to be taken seriously learning in which the results are not predetermined or fully predictable learning which requires students to draw from many information sources and disciplines in order to solve problems learning which requires students to coordinate time, work schedules, and project outcomes in order to accomplish project goals on a predicted time schedule PBL Network, The Autodesk Foundation, 1998. Teachers will engage the students in guided practice and peer collaboration for the learning of new material and procedures. Teaching techniques/strategies will employ the cognitive-constructivist classroom approach shaped around medical and environmental projects, research, testing, and presentation. The greater number of activities wiU use the higher order thinking areas at the top of Blooms Taxonomy. Students wiU focus on problem-based learning and scientific analysis in combining strong content knowledge base with skills applications. The accelerated studies associated with this program strand requires that a number of best practices be melded for optimal results.  Formative and Summative Assessment Assessment formats that match each set of activities, such as a rubric assessment for evaluating projects based on the productivity of a lab environment, serve as authentic measures for teachers to determine exactly what and how students learn. Such formats will allow a teacher to evaluate, for example, whether students have produced harmonious ecosystems (balanced systems with little decay and loss of life) while also serving as a diagnostic/prescriptive tool for teachers to use to accurately modify their instruction during environmental studies. Performance assessments, such as in student planned projects, oral presentations, daily journals, planned experiments, and portfolios (on disk or video) will also help teachers to determine whether students are internalizing higher order thinking related to environmental principles. These performance assessments will be graded by rubric and matrix evaluation techniques. A portfolio assessment, using digital pictures to represent the stages of progress and growth, will serve as a global evaluation measure, a summative assessment, for each student.  J Arkansas Frameworks This section to be developed when the new standards and alignments are provided to staff members. The find draft of this program design wffl correlate benchmarks, standards, text and ancUlary materials in order to ensure a tightly aligned curriculum document that is practical and user friendlv within a creative and advanced content structure.  Staff Training and Curriculum Writing School personnel will receive intensive training in a series of mini-workshops that consist of trammg by local professionals in the areas of horticulture, botany, biology, marine biology and landscape architecture. Some of this training will be in the field and will include visits tosites outside of the school. Teachers wUl also participate in AP training, mini courses, team building and brief training on multiple inteUigence and implementation. Staff wifi also be trained in how to use specialized equipment/tools and application software to integrate this new technology and information into the students working framework of knowledge. In the Ecosystem and Environmental Lab, this training wUl include the use of machinery, tools, and heat/water/air systems. Teachers wiU be able to see the total picture of the schools program through a curricular outline that shows the programmatic flow of the medical and environmental sciences. In the Ecosystem and Janice Meyer, field consultant wkh Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will provide leadership in the Ecosystem and Environmental Lab development and curriculum writing. She wiU coUaborate with the science department IRC and the staff at J. A. Fair in integrating specialized lab area functions with related thematic classroom activities and Arkansas Benchmarks and Standards. Anita Tanner, principal consultant with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will serve as program facilitator, coordinating the varied staff training activities from various sources t n d 11 1  * -  T 1 installation of the Innovative Sciences Lab, the leadership roles and responsibilities at the school. and authentic project design implementation.1 LRS - Little Rock School District School: Term: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suaaary Haster/Teacher Schedule/Race \u0026amp; Sex SUMMAS Page: I Teacher BAILEY Per Iod 00 Per i od 01 e. X F T B W 0 T B W 0 T Period 02 M04021-i02 BIOLOGY B U 0 T B 1 1 10 Period 03 M06001-104 Teacher Period 00 BARNHI M F T B U 0 T Period 01 814001-108 EW6 RRIQ.11 B U 2 2 5 7 2 0 T 4 5 9 8 1 16 2 9 1 19 PHYSICS B U E 12 4 4 16 5 0 T ib 5 21 Period 04 M0402i-i01 BIOLOGY B W 0 T 10 s 1 16 Period 05 M06001-103 PHYSICS B U 0 T Period 02 815001-101 Period 03 S20501-101 9 2 19 1 11 1 27 2 6 3 1 5 7 4 12 Period 04 816001-108 CQVERMMMT RR E SCIEHCE RR MATH RRIQ B U 3 3 4 0 T 6 2 8 B 5 1 6 U 0 i 5 2 7 B 4 2 b U 0 T 4 3 1 Period 05 814001-112 EMC RRIQ.11 B U 2 1 3 5 1 0 T 3 3 6 Teacher Period 00 BARNHO Period 01 KllOOl-101 Perifld 02 K1100i-i02 JPsrlfld_fi3_ K09001-101 Periad Q4 K09001-102 .Periad 05 K09O01-105 M F T B U  T TRIG/ADV ALC TRIG/ADV ALG ALGEBRA II R ALGEBRA II R ALGEBRA II R B U S 6 5 4 0 11 9 20 B U 6 10 8 4 16 12 0 T 14 14 28 B U 3 5 4 i 7 6 0 T 8 5 13 B U 0 T 8 4 4 3 12 7 12 7 19 B U 0 T 6 7 5 3 11 10 13 8 Teacher Period 00 Period 01 Per i od 02 Period 03 X F Teacher BEYAH M F T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B H 0 T Per i od 04 P24301-1Q2 TV PROD I B U 0 T X 2 1 2 Period 00 B U 0 T Period 01 P2900i-10i MflRP PROC 1 B U 0 X 1 T Period 02 P29O01-101 HORD PROC 1 6 U 0 T Period 03 P2900i-l0l MORP PROC I B U 0 T Period 04 P29001-i02 MORP PROC I 6 U 0 T 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 Teacher -arlfld. J0. BLACKN Period 01 P0550i-101 Period 02 P05501-101 Period 03 P05501-10i Period 04 P0S50ii02 M F B M 0 T COMPUTER GPI COMPUTER CPI COMPUTER GPI COMPUTER GPI B M 0 T 1 X 1 X 1 X Teacher Period 00 Period 01 B M 0 T 1 1 1 X SHOT 1 X 1 X 1 X Period 02 Period 03 B W 0 T 1 3 2 J__a. 4 2 X Period 04 Period 06 M04021-114 BIOLOGY B U 0 T Per i od 07 Per Iod 08 Period 09 10 4 5 5 15 9 XX 10 24 Period 06 B U 0 T Period 06. B W 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 U 0 T 6 U 0 T B U 0 Periflii 08 Period oy B U 0 T B U 0 T 6 HOT Period 05 P24301-102 JV PROD I B W 0 T 2 2 Per Iod 05 P29001-102 WORD PROC 1 B U 0 T 3 3 1 4 4 Period \u0026lt;g P05501-102 Per i od 06 P24301-102 TV PROD 1 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T X 1 2 X B U 0 T B U  T B W 0 T ss. 30 u. 93 2 Period 06 P29001-102 WORD PROC I B U 0 T Period 07 Per i od 08 Per i od 09 3 i 3 1 Period 06 P0550i-102 COMPUTER GPI COMPUTER CPI B W 0 T 1 3 4 B W 0 T B  0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T Period 07 ferijQdJffi. Period OT 2 J__5. 2 X 1 3 2 1 S 4 2 X B W Q T B W 0 T P . W.. ..Q. .T Period 05 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 sa *0 ai 71 72 7JCn 'IS School: Terra: -=- J. 111 le.Kock- Brhnnl ftietrtrt CALLAU M X T CARTER M 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL B U 0 T B U 0 T 108101-101 INP. LIVING B U 0 T 14 5 -6- 3 20 8 19 SL 28 Parinrt M -BN 0 T Per I nd 01 P02001-10i AUTO BODY II B W 0 T 2 2 A 2 -SuMB^ry Mjit\u0026gt;r/T\u0026lt;rhr Scharfu Io/RAf A S BUMMflfi Pa^e\n\"IO * Teacher Period 00 CASTEE 3.7 X F T Teacher CHRIST M 2- B U 0 T Period 01 TO2001-102 LIBRARY SCI B 1 WOT 2______3. 2 2 4 Period 00 B U 0 T Period 01 H0402i-103 RTOinGY_____ SHOT 9 4 U 3 2B 0 = Teerher Per I nd 00 CLEVEL 18 7 13 42. 25 IiOOOl-102 PARENTING K 090700-101 090700-102 109001-101 T N F X B W 0 T farind Ql 080920-101 HEALTH B M 0 T 7 7 11 4fl 5 14 16 20. Teacher - COOPER Per i od 00 B W 0 T Period 01 204001-101 INTRO TO ART (0- T B W 7 5 8 S 15 10 0 T 1 13 13 1 26 O 80 Cr Teacher COX Per i od 00 H X T Ta^rhor B W 0 Period 00 Per i od 01 314001-101 -ENG PP\u0026lt;0,0 B U 0 4 2. 6 1 T 5 2- 7 Peri nd 01 Peri nd 0? P02001-10i AUTO BODY II PHOT 2 2 2__2. 4 Period 02 .102001-103 LIBRARY SCI B W 0 T 1 1 1 1 Period 02 B U 0 Per I nd 09 080920-103 HEALTH ..R HOT 11 5 9 2 20 7 16 11 22. Per i od 02 B W 0 T Period 02 B W 0 Par I nd 07 B 1 X 5 w 1 D T 2 ------4. 6 2erlod 03 PO2001-101 XLOTH \u0026amp; TEXT CLOTH \u0026amp; TEXT PARENTING RL B U 0 6 1 10 1____ 16 2 T 41- 18 B W 0 6 10 1 16 1 T 6 44- 17 B 6, U 0 43....1 19 1 T 6 44. 20 B U 0 T B U 0 T B W 0 T e Period 04 P0i00i-i03 AUTO BODY II AUTO BODY I B HOT 2 2 2 ? 4 -A- Period 03 T0200i-104 LIBRARY SCI B U 1 1 0 T 1 2 Period 03 M04021-105 RTni nr.Y____ B W 7 4 4-..1. 11 5 0 T 11 ------5- 16 Per I nd OX 080920-105 HEALTH R HOT 8 5 5 43 5 8 10 48. Period 03 204001-102__ INTRO TO ART B U 0 T 15 S 4 2 2L -1__U__0__T 2 3 Per I nd 05 POlOOl-103 AUTO BODY I -B- W n T 2 1 3 Period 06 POiOOl-103 AUTO BODY I R H n T 2 3 2. 4. JL 2 1 JL 21 -PerJod 07 Per i od Oa. Period 09 ,B W n T B MOT -B- H n T to ti \u0026lt;)  I i9 1 7 1 27 Period 03 S14001-102 EWG B U 0 2 2 X 5 4 3 T 4 -4- 8 Period ftX Period 04 T07001-105 LIBRARY SCI B W 0 T Per i od 05 402004=406- LIBRARY SCI B W 0 T 1 1 1 2 Period 04 M0402i-106 BTOt nr.Y a Q 10 5 7 3___ 17 8 T 15 4X 25 Period 04 B- .N. 0 T Period 04 B W 0 T Per i od 04 514001-103 FNC BBlO.n B U 0 4 4 4 X 5 Period Q4 -t 1 2 1 X 2 3 Period 06 J02001-107 LIBRARY SCI B W 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 M 1 B U 0 T B U 0 T B W 0 T Period 05 M0402i-107 . BIOIjr.Y B W 0 T 6 5 -7__1- 13 6 11 -8. 19 Per I nd 05 080920-107 HEALTH PHOT 9 4 13 10 3 1 14 19 7 A 77 Period OS 204001-103 INTRO TO ART B U 0 10 4 3 2 13 6 T 44. 5 19 Period 05 S16001-105 NATH RRIQ B U 0 1 4 7 T 4 X 1 Period OB Period 06 HO4021-104 PTOi nr.Y B W 0 T Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 11 3 5 3 16 6 14 -8. 22 B U 0 T B WOT B U 0 T 90 li. 98 H Period .06. Period 07 Period 08 Period. 02. * i -B u ft T BM...n T 2__U ft T 2 M .0__r Period 06 Bfl40A1-1fl4__ INTRO TO ART B W 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Per Iod 09 1 42 5 7 2 19 7 42. 9 26 B WOT B W 0 B U 0 T s * Period 06 314001-105 ZNC RRiO,ll, SHOT Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 5 X 6 1 1 6 X 1 B U 0 T B WOT B U 0 T Period OA PerQd 07 Period Oft iod 09 lySchool: Tern: -=-Li11Ut-Rock School District DECKAR M -E- T 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL B U 0 T Teacher Period 00 DELAMA M F i Teacher FNDEBI H Teacher ESKOLA M A_ a u Q T Per i od 00 B U 0 T Period 00 B U 0 Teacher Period 00 FARRAR M F i B U n T Teacher Period 00 FINCH--------------------------- -M- F B U 0 T ____Sumry /Teacher Schedule/R\u0026lt;c \u0026amp; S\u0026gt; J____3 L31001-101 CHOIR III B 13 -15- 28 U 0 T 2 8 15 -21- 36 L29001-101 MADRIGALS__ B U 0 T 021101-103 L33001-101 FWE ARTS HUS CHOIR 1 Teacher FLINN Per i od 00 06151-101 1 3 4 7 S 10 -H 15 6 10 W 3 -51. 15 6 0 T 13 -------8- 21 B U 0 1 10 5------- B U 0 T 110001-108 PARENTING K B 11 S -15. 16 U 1 1 0 T S 1 U 0 T 3 U 0 T B U 0 T M r T Pariod 01___ 080520-101 PE 9-12 B M 0 T 7 3 4 2 Al i 1 11 6 1 17 Period 01 K05011-107 ALGEBRA I R B U 8 1 6 1 14 2 0 T ____9. 7 16 Period 01 K10041-101 CEQHETRY GT B M 0 T 3 6 4 9 7 15 1 10 __11 1 23 Period 01 B M 0 T Period 01 S4ft351\u0026gt;riQ?,. V DOMAIN SC B U 4 2 2 6 7 0 T ____h. 2 8 Per Iod 01 E06021-102 ENGLISH g-EA ENGLISH R 12 B U 0 T 3 10 ,5....5. 8 15 13 -liL 23 B U 10 6 7 A 17 12 0 T 16 ___11 29 Teacher Period 00 Per i od 01 Period Q2 080520-103 PE 9-12 8 U a T Period 03 11 5 8 3 19 8. 16 11 22. Period 02 U 0 T Period 02 KlOOOl-101 GEOMETRY R B U Q T 6 10 ....7.....4.. 13 14 16 -U_ 27 Period 02 FllOOi-101 FRENCH I R U 0 T 5 3 8 4 6 1 11 9 g__1-19. Period 02 MB301-103 B U n T Period 03 K05011-108 ALGEBRA I R B U 0 T AQ____ 5 4 15 4 Afl. 9 19 Per i od 03 KlOOOi-102 -GEQMEIRY^ B U 8 9 ft 2 16 11 0 T i7 1 11 1 28 Period 03__ F1300i-i02 FRENCH III B N fl....I 3 6 3 12 h 9 -15- Period 03 .348251=102. D DOMAIN SC C DOMAIN SC B U 0 T 4 2 2 6 2 A- 2 8 B U 4 2 2 6 2 0 T ____6. 2 8 Period 02 Period 03 E06021-103 B U 0 T Period 02 -EeE-Lui_Q4__ IlOOOl-iOl PARENTING K B N n T 1 A. Period 04 K10401-101 Period 05 080520-105 PE 9-12 B U n T 11 5 7 1 a -4- 16 8 Period 05 K10101-iO2 f.er I nd 06__ H0800i-i02 PE B U n T. Period 07 Period OS far i nd. 0.9. 5 5 2 7 5 10 2 -12- Period 06 K05011-109 GEOMETRY CPT GEOMETRY CPT ALGEBRA I R B U 7 2 6 1 13 3 0 T ____9. 7 16 B U 2 3 3 5 3 0 T 3 8 B U 3. 4.. 8 11 4 0 T 8 IS B U n T B -M 0 T B M 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T Per i od 04 B W 0 T Period 04 VOlOOl-104 STUDY HALL B N 0 T 5 5 3 1 11 3 s 5 11-4- Period 04 S4fl?51-103 C DOMAIN SC B U 4  Z 2 6 2 D T ____6. 2 8 Period 04 E05021-112 EMCLISH B \u0026lt;9 FMCLTfiH R 11 B U 0 T 5 3 13 4 18 7 8 AZ 25 B U 10 3 14 7  T 13 J__2. 1 22 Period 03 Period 04 Period 05 K1004i-i02 GEOMETRY CT B U 0 T Per i od 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 5 6 11 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 u. it 30 I , 3 91-13. 8 15 1 24 Per i nd 05 FliOOl-103 FRENCH I B M n T 4 4 8 Period 06 Fi200i-i04 FRENCH II B M 0 T Eflr.j.Qd.. 07 Period OB Pariod 09 3 4 7 a 7 -15. 10 5 11 -21- 2 15 1 14 7 A.2g- B M 0 T B M....a-.3.. -BU0I- Period 05 348401.-152 R/LEISURE SC B W 0 T Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 4 2 2 6 2 -6. 2 8 B U 0 T B U 0 B W 0 T B U 0 T Period 05 06021-104 ENGLISH B 12 Per i od 06 Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 B 6 2 t 1 13 3 U 0 T e -8- 16 B W 0 B W 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T EeriQd 05 Per i od 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09- e 21I LRS - Litt_L_ Rock School District School: Tera = 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suaaary Motar/Teichcr Schdu L\u0026lt;/ft\u0026lt;ce \u0026amp; Sex SUMMAS Piqe: FORMER P15001-101 P15001-101 M F T 6 U 0 T COMPUTER P I COMPUTER P I B u 1 0 1 B U 0 1 T. \u0026lt;Cu Stu I .2. 40 2a I K O tr I Pi5001-10i COMPUTER P 1 163800-101 163800-101 B U 1 0 1 B U 0 T B U 0 B U 0 T B WOT COMPUTER PCX COMPUTER PCX B X 1 U 1 0 T 1 1 2 B U 1 0 T i 1 1 1 2  Teacher Per Iod 00 FORTSO Period 01 Period 02 Period 03 M F T Teacher W_____ B M 0 T- B U 0 T B U 0 T B W 0 r Period 04 P2700i-102 MELDING I B H 0 T 1 X Period 00 Per i od 01 Per i od 02 Period 03 M F T B U 0 T 6 U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T Period 04 P23001-iQ2 RADIO BRD I B U 0 T Teacher GLASSC Period 00 Period 01 1 2 2 M F T B W 0 T B W 0 T Per i od 02 816001-101 MATH RRIQ SHOT Per i od 03 816001-102 HATH RRIQ B M 0 T Period 04 S16001-103 MATH RRIQ Teacher Period 00 GRAHAM Period 01 4 1 3 1 7 2 5 4 4 2 X____ \u0026amp; 2 6 X. 8 B U 3 X- s 1 0 T 4 ____2. 6 Period 02 Period 03 090600-101 Period 04 090600-102 M F JL Teacher GRAY JL F T Teacher GRUHME M B H 0 T B M 0 T B M 0_T Period 00 B U 0 T Period 00 B W 0 T Teacher Period 00 Period 01 FOaO?l-tO4 ENGLISH R 10 B U 7__X 6 3 13 7 0 T 11 9 20 Period 01 030500-101 KEYBOARDING B H 7 5 X__2. 8 0 T 12 ____i 15 Period 91 Period 02 EQBQ21-1Q1 ENGLISH R 11 B .,,.7.6. 9 2 16 8 MOT Xi 11 24 Period 02 030500-103 KEYBOARDING B U 4 2 X_L 5 6 0 T 6 ____5. 11 Period 02 Per i od 05 P27001-102 MELDING I SHOT 1 X Period 05 P23Q01-102 RADIO BRD I 6 U 0 T 1 1 2 X 2 Period 05 316001-104 MATH RRIQ B U 0 ' 6 i 9 1 T _3. 10 Per i od OS 090600-103 FOODS \u0026amp; NUTR FOODS \u0026amp; NUTR FOODS \u0026amp; NUTR BMP T 14 2 10 1 2.4 _3. 16 11 XL Period 03 6 U 0 T Period 03 C16001-101 B W 0 T 13 1 10 1 14 1 12 g M 0 T 23 2 1 26 Period 04 E05Q21-103 10 2 10 20 2 12 10 22. Period 05 FQSO71-1O4 ENGLISH R 11 ENGLISH R 11 B 12 5 6 MOT 17 1 11 IB 9 1 28 Per i od 04 Ci650i-102 COE - RELATE CQE - COOP- B U 0 T 12 6 14 6 2 XB. 20 Period 93 B M 0 T J_2. 4 3 7 7 Period 04 B U 7-^ 5 1 12 5 0 T IL 6 17 Period 05 C16501-i03 COE - CQQP- B H 4 2 4 2 0 J. 6 Period 05 Period 06 P27001-102 MELDING I ,B.,  .P-L. 1 X Period 06 P230Q1-1Q2 RADIO BRD I B U 0 T I 2 1 2 Per Iod 06 517751-101 LEARNING RR B U 1 X- 3 1 0 T 2 ____2. 4 Period 06 B W 0 T Period 06 EQ4Q21-102 ENGLISH R 10 B U 0 T ? X 1 2 16 S 12 1 10 1 22 Period 06 Cl6501-104 CQE - CQQPl B M 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 B  0 T B W 0 T B W 0 T  Period 07 B U 0 T Period 07 B M 0 T Period 07 B M 0 T Period 07 B M 0 T Period 07 Cl650i-i05 CQE - COOP 2 1 3 1 1 B U 0 T X. 2 X. 2 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 163900-101_ TV PRODCT EX B U 1 2 0 2 Period 08 6 MOT Period 08 B U 0 T Period OS B U 0 Period 08 B U D T Per Iod 08 Period 09 163900-101 TV PRODCT EX B U 1 0 T 2 2 Period 09 I B WOT Period 09 B M 0 T Period 09 B U 0 T Per i od 09 B U 0 T Period 09 \u0026lt;  9 c M ( 0 cr~' 7'  I XRS - X School: Term: i tile Rock .School Diatr-ieX 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Sii*ry \u0026gt;Uter/Teacher Schdulg/Rjce A San .\u0026amp;UHMA\u0026amp; Pi^e\n5 GRUHKX 163700-101 163700-101 M X- B U 0 T B U 0 T 3 U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 B W 0 T B U 0 T COMPUTER DEX COMPUTER DEX B U  T B U 0 2 J** Teacher. Period 00. HAAS M F i B H 0 T Period 01___ P0?00i-101 COM FOODS I B H 0 T 3 -X 2 3 Period 02__ P07001-101 COM FOODS I B H__0__I- 1 3 X- 1 2 3 Per i ad Q3 P07001-i0i COM FOODS I BHAT 3 X- i 2 3 Period 04 P0700i-102 COM FOODS I BHAT 3 4 -2- 3 2. Period 05. . P07001-102 COM FOODS I B H fl T 3 4 1 3 4 2. Period 06 P0700i-102 COM FOODS I R H 0 T Period 07 160705-101 Teacher Period 00 4\u0026lt;AU.----------------------------- Period 01 E0402t105 Per i od 02 EO4021-1O6 Period 03 JL B U 0 T ENGLISH R 12 ENGLISH R 12 Period 04 EO6021-107 Period 05 05021-114 T B U a B 10 2 18 10 0 T ___iX 12 28 B U IQ 5 8 4 18 9 0 T ___15. 1 13 1 28 B W 0 T ENGLISH R 12 ENGLISH R 11 B U 0 T 14 7 3 3 17 10 JX i, 21 B U 10 5 7 1 17 6  T __15, 1 9 1 24 Teacher HARTNE Per i od 00 Period 01 Per i od 02 008021-101 Period 03 008021-102 Period 04 M B U 0 T B W 0 T AM GnVFRHMFH AM CnVERNMEW B U 0 T 12 8 16 12 20 -8- 26 BHD 17 8 5..1____ 22 9 25 -X 31 B W 0 T Period OS VOiOOi-lOi STUDY HALL SHOT 8 1 4 2 12 3 9 _X 15 TearherParixul 00 HAVENS Period 01 Period 09 Per 1 ad 03 X 1 d. Period 08 160705-101 Period 09 COMM FOOD EX COMM FOOD EX 3 4 3 4 B U n T B M 0 T J....M....0 T 1 X 1 M F 4L Teacher HICTT JL F T Teacher HOBBS M XL T B . H .0 T -BU0X. B H 0 T B M 0 T Pari ad 04 P0050i-i02 AIR\u0026amp;HEAT TCI B H 0 T Per i ad 05 P00501-102 1 X Period 00 Period 01 B H 0 T B U 0 T Period 02 004111^101 AP.AMaHIST. 6 6 3 9 5 15 8 U 0 S. 14 23 Period 00 B W 0 T Period 01 40001-101 JflURHAI ISM I B W 0 T Period 02 6 3 -3.__B- 13 11 9 X5- 24 B U 0 Xaechac__Period 00 Period 01 Period 02 Period 03 004021-102 AM HISTORY 6 U X2__Z 1 4 19 6 0 T __iX 1 12 1 26 Per i od 03 E42501-i02 jnilBNAI RM RP B U 4 XX 15 4 J. 7 0 8 XX 22 Per I nd 03 Period 04 004021-103 AM HISTORY B U 7 R 0 7 6 14 14 T X5. 13 28 Per i od 04 40001-103  iniIBNAi TRM T B W 0 T 7 9 11 13 8 XX 24 Per i nd 04 Period 06 xomi=xo8_ ENGLISH R 12 B U 0 T 4 3 t B 3 3 7 6 6 1 14 Period 06 B U 0 T Pari ad 06 P0050i-i02 AIR4HEAT TCI AIRiHEAT TCI B U 0 T X Period 05 B U 0 Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 1 X T Period OS 42001-104 .milBNAI RM YB B U 6 4 3 12 9 16 0 T 10 ___15. 25 Period 05 SHOT X 1 X Period 06 004021-104 AM HISTORY B U fl 6 8 1 16 7 0 T ___tx 9 23 Period 06 B U 0 T Period 06 B W 0 T B U D T B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 B U 0 T 2 2S 27 u. 2S 31 az. 3B aa. 37 Period 07 Period QB Period 09 SHOT SHOT SHOT Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B HOT Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 Period 07 Period OB Period 09 0L* - I ft? - f SchM Tern: School: Roch School Diatrtct OOe FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suary MBT/.Te^hT Schadulo/ftaci \u0026lt; Sni fiUMMAS Pt9- I HULLUH O M X- T B U 0 T K0B501-i01 IMT AL\u0026amp;eBRA B W 0 10 3 13 a 3 1 12 18 6 1 25 K050it-103 ALGgBRA 1 R B U 6 2 0 Jeachai:,, far tod oo. INMAN Par Iod 01 Ki -101 10- M F B U 0 T KND A.H. B H 0 T 5 1 11 2 46 3 6 13 -12- O  Teacher JEUUIK Period 00 -t F T Teacher JOHNSM M -E- T Teacher JONES H F Teacher JQMESA __________1 F Teacher JONESJ B U 0 T Period 01 M04021-108 BIOLOGY B U .11. 11 4 22 7 0 T 44- 15 29 Period 00 B U 0 T Per i od 01 004021-105 -AM_HtaTORY B U 9 8 -4__1- 13 9 0 T 17 ------5- 22 Per i cid QQ Period 00 B U 0 T Period 00 'i w M -E- T B U 0 Teacher Period QQ 'U IP c* la 2 16 4 T 8 -12- 20 Period Qg Ki -101 KND A.M* -BU0I. 4 1 13 1 -12__2- 5 14 X2- Period 02 M04021-109 BIOLOGY B U 1 k 5 2 12 8 0 T X3- 1 2Q Period 02 004021-106 AM HISTORY B U 0 ' 11 6 ...9.... 3 20 9 T 17 -12- 29 K08501-102 IMT ALCEBRft B U D T K05011-104 ALCFBRA 1 R 9 2 -93- 18 5 11 -12- 23 B U 8 6 2 1 10 7 0 T 14 ------3. 17 B U 0 K0850i-103 IMT ALGEBRA B 8 WOT 2 3...5 1. 10 B U 0 T B U 0 T 6 U  T 11 7 1 19 Par Ind, Q3 Ki -101 KND A.M. B H 0 T Period 04 IiOOOl-105 PARENTING K B H 0 T 3 1 -11 X 10 44. 2 1 -3- 2 J. c Period 03 MO4O21-110 BIOLOGY B U 7 2 8 2 15 4 0 T ____9. 10 19 Period 04 M04021-lli BIOLOGY B H a 5 5 2 13 7  i T 43- 8 i 21 Period 03 004021-107 HTgTORY Period 04 B W 0 T 1 BUG 1 1 Period 01 P31001-101 HEALTH OC I B H n T 1 1 1 2 1 2 1- Period 01 I 24001-105 FIRST BAND B U 0 T IQ 3 7 2 17 5 43. 9 22 Period 01 E05021-105 Period 02 P31001-101 HEALTH OC I BHAT Period 03 P3i00i-101 HEALTH OC I BHAT Period 04 1 .2__L 2 -3- 1 1 2 1 1 2 -3- B H__0__I- Period 02 Period 03 Period 04 B U 0 T Period 02 04051-102 EHGLISH R 11__ewCLISH CT/H B 11 W 8 ..4.. 4 IS 12 0 T 19 ____B- 21 Period Ql B U 0 T 4 1 1 h 11 13 11 Ji 24 Period 02 BUD T B U 0 T Period 03 Period 04 04051-103 B U 0 T Period Q-T Period 05 110001-106 PARENTING K B H 0 T Period QA Period 07 J?e,r.iod QB Period OP 2 2 X 3 2 SWOT B M 0 T B HOT B HOT Period 05 Period 06 Period 07 Per i od 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B HOT 20 21 C Per i od 05 004021-108 AM HISTORY B U 0 T Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 10 5 -25- 12 10 15 -2- 22 Period 03 B U n T Per i od 05 B U 0 T Period 05 E04051-104 B U 0 T B W D T B U 0 T B W 0 T . u. 2S u. zs w 11 HL S3 34 at. 37 C c c Period Q6 Per Iod 07 Period Qfl Period 09 SHOT B H 0 T B H 0 T SHOT Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B W 0 B U  T Period 06 E0502i-106 Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 EMCLI8H CT/H FMCI TRH r.T/H FMOLTSH P H B W 0 T 5 7 5 11 1 13 1 17 SHOT 10 18 2 30 Period 04 2 5 2 a 9 13 7 4i 22 B U 0 10 2 5 ?___ 15 4 T 12 2. 19 Period 03 Period QA B U 0 T B W 0 T B W 0 T 87 Period 07 Per I nd OP Per I nd 09 1 71  7. Izy 1 1LRS - LIttte Rock School District School: Tern: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suaaary Waster/Teacher ScheduLe/Race \u0026amp; Sex SUMMAS Paae: *1 KHARRI M F T B U 0 T K05011-111 ALGEBRA I R B U 0 T 1 4 1 11 2 8 J. 13  28 34 M Bl ^se Teacher LOGAN Period 00 K05011-li2 ALGEBRA I R B W 0 T 3 3 1 1 3 7 A 4 6 i 11 B U 0 T K05011-113 ALGEBRA 1 R B U 0 T 8 2 _2____ 10 2 10 -2. 12 B U 0 T K05011-li4 ALGEBRA I R B U 0 9 1 5 2 14 3 T 10 _L 17 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T M F J. g W 0 T Period 01 130825-101 PHYSIOLOGY B M 0 T 2 5 7 4 9 9 1 8 11 1 19 Period 02 M0B75i-101 BIOLAB HONi B W Q T. Period 03 M0875i-102 BIOLAB HON. Per i od 04 B U 0 U Q Teacher Period 00 LOONEY______________ Period 01 M F B U 0 T B U 0 T Teacher LUCAS Period 00 M F Teacher MAGEE M F i Teacher HCDANI JL Teacher MCGflVE M F T B W 0 T Period 01 024001-101 DRAFTING B 12 10 U 0 T 22 13 10 23 Period 00 B U fl T Period 01 F05001-i01 SPANISH II B M Q T 7 3 9 10 7 1 17 16 10 1 21 4 5 6 10 10 15 9 16 25 2 7 9 7 7 1 15 9 14 1 24 Period 05 M04021-li2 BIOLOGY B 8 Q 1 6 \u0026lt; Perlod 06 M04021-113 BIOLOGY B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 7 13 2 2 (, 9 15 11 3 3 2 14 5 14 5 19 SHOT B W 0 T B tf 0 T Period 00 gQAtSl-140 ENGLISH R EA B U 1 1 8 4 9 11 0 T _ja. 12 20 Period 00 B W 0 T Teacher Period 00 Period 01 EQSfl41-tQ7 ENGLISH GT B U .,4 7. 9 8 13 IS 0 T 11 17 28 Period 01 B U  T Period 01 Period 02 KQ5Q11-1Q2 ALGEBRA I R B U 0 T Period 03 K11O41-1O1 AD/HON TRIG B W 0 T Period 04 K1Q0Q1-1Q3 GEOMETRY R B U 0 T Period 05 K10Q01-1Q5 GEOMETRY R B U 0 T 10 6 16 11 6 17 6__ 4 5 10 11 12 9 21 4 10 14 4 2 6 8 12 20 3 5 8 9 2 1 12 12 7 I 20 Period 02 B W 0 T Period 03 826001-102 ICT RELel B 3 15 ____L 3 22 WOT 18 25 Period 02 B H 0 T Period 03 F0500i-102 SPANISH II B . iL-n I. 1 2 10 b 1 10 16 17 8 1 26 Period 04 028001-103 Period 05 028001-103 IND COOP C I IND COOP C I B 1 U h JL 1 9 0 T 7 -J. 10 B W 0 T 1 14 ___7- 1 21 15 22 Period 02 05021-108 ENGLISH R 11 B 5 6 U 5 2 0 T 1 11 8 Period 03 EQSQ41-109 ENGLISH CT 11 7 1 19 Per i od 02 K08501-104 INT ALGEBRA B W 7 4 Alls JL 5 0 T 11 12 23 Period 02 Period 06 KlQQOl-104 GEOMETRY R B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 7 4 11 B H 0 T B WOT B U 0 T 6 5 1 12 13 9 1 23 Period 06 028001-103 IND COOP C I B U 1 16 ____2. 1 23  T 17 ____L 24 Period 07 028001-103 IND COOP C 1 Period 08 Period 09 B U 3 16 ____1 3 23 0 T 19 ____1. 2b 6 U 0 T B U 0 27 u. 0 u. 3S afi. 37 B U 4__2. 10 7 14 10 0 T _-Z- 17 24 Period 03 K05011-105 \u0026lt;M.6EBRA 1 R B U 0 11 2 7 3 18 5 T 13 -111. 23 Period 03 Period 04 F0500i-103 SPANISH II B M 0 T 5 6 11 9 5 1 15 14 11 1 2b Period 04 TQtOQt-lQl___ STUDENT CNCL B U 5 5 14 4 19 9 0 T ___ifi. 18 28 Period 04 K08501-105 INT ALGEBRA B 13 _2. 22 W 5 5 0 T 1 19 ____2. 1 28 Period 04 Period 05 F06001-106 SPANISH III B M -tl-T- 3 5 7 2 9 9 10 7 1 la Period 05 B W 0 T Period 05 K08501-106 IHT ALGEBRA B H 0 T 12 3 15 8 1 1 10 20 4 1 25 Period 05 Period 06 F07O11-101 SPANISH IVAP B W 0 T 3 1 9 5 12 A 14 la. Period 06 B U 0 T Per Iod 06 K05011-106 ftUSEBRA 1 R B 6 U 2 0 A 3 12 5 T 8 -2. 17 Per lftd-Q6. Per i od 07 Period OB Period 09 B M 0 T B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Per Iod 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T 6 U 0 Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B W 0 B U 0 T Perlptl oy Period 08 Period 09LRB.-.Xittle Rnck-SctuMUJU\u0026lt;lrJx.t- School: Term: 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suaoi HJ0HN3 F04001-111 RPAMTSH T K X T B WOT 8 9 U 9 3 18 9 0 T 15 12. 27 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T 8 U 0 T BUG T 8 U 0 T B W 0 T B U 0 T -\u0026lt; 0 Teerher__Raclod-QIL MOREY Period 01 Period 02 M0850i-i01 Peri ad Q3 M08S0i-i02 Period 04 M08501-103 Period 05 M08501-i04 Per lad 06 848401-110 PBriod 07 Parlpd 08 Period 09 M F B W 0 T B W 0 T SCIENCE/TECH SCIENCE/TECH SCIENCE/TECH SCIENCE/TECH R/LEISURE SC B M n T 12 4 7 7 19 11 16 1 IS 1 31 B M n T 8 5 9 3 17 a 13 12 J25. 8 U 0 T 8 12 3 1 12 12 B M n T 20 3__1-24. 6 4 8 2 JJ. X. 10 10 .20. J__U__n T 8 6 8 2 16 B 14 10 B M n T B M n T B JL..-0- T o- o Teacher Period 00 HAHIiga------------------------- X B W 0 T Period 01 CO4501101 KEYBOARD A I 20 T 8 U 7 3 7 2 14 5 0 T XL 9 19 Period 02 C11501-.i01. COMP.TECHBS B U 0 T 4 4 7 1 13 5 J8. 8 18 Teacher NORTH Period 00 Period 03 Period 04 Period OS 011175-101 Period 06 XSOASS\u0026amp;iXU. Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 B W 0 T B WOT COMPUTER APL WORD PRS I S B U 0 A. 1. 14 1 J__a. IS 8 W 0 T 20 2 1 23 9 2 18 3 IQ 11 21 6 W 0 T B W 0 T B W 0 T C 2t 2* M X T B W 0 T Period 01 R04101-10i REAPTMC/EMG 8 U 0 T Per i od 02 R04101-102 READIMC/EHC 5 1 6 9 1 10 8 5 J. 8 U 0 T 5 -------3. 8 Period 03 R04101-103 READIWC/EMC B W 3 1 4 0 T 4 -------1_ 5 Period 04 R04101-104 REAPINC/EMC Period 05  PALMER Period 00 .Earod_0i Peri ad 02 006001-101 Pgr.iQd.,Q3,, 006001-102 M F X B a 0 T Teacher -RGRRY Per i od 00 Period 01 paisouioi O-' E i\" X F T 8 W 0 T (p 8 W 0 4 8 4 8 Perlod,,0.4 ,. 006001-103 B U 0 T Period 05 006001-104 Teacher Period 00 PEYTON M JE. T 8 W 0 Tearher Per iod, 00 Period 06 R04101-105 READINC/ENG B W 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 27 1. c A X 7 h 7 8 WOT B U 0 T 8 U 0 T Pur, Iod .06 006001-105 Parinil Q7 Period 08 Period 09 ULD GEOGRAPH WLD GEOGRAPH ULD GEOGRAPH WLB GEOGRAPH ULB CEOGRAPH B a 0 T 8 4 12 2 20 6 12 14 .26. Period 02 pai5Oi-ioi COMPUTER PTI COMPUTER PTI B W 0 T j- 3 3 Period 01 C0800i-10i ACCOUaT I B W 8 2 0 T 10 1 12 IS 6 1 22 Period,,01 8 W 0 T 3 Period 02 8 W i 3 D T Period 02 .Ba0r 8 9 6 3 17 9 14 12 .26. B a 0 T 13 3 7 4 2Q 1 16 11 B W n T 8 8 1 lA 2 9 9 .18. B a 0 T 8 3 8 3 16__6. 11 11 B a n T B M n T B a__0__r Period 03 P21501-101 COMPUTER PTI Period 04 Period OS Period 06 Period 07 Period 09 163650-101 Period 09 163650-101 B J. 3 W 0 T 3 Period 03 C045O1-102 8 W 0 T B U 0 T 8 U 0 T B W 0 T COMPUTER PEX COMPUTER PEX 8 U 0 B W 0 T 1 1 1 1 1 Period 04 C04501-103 KEYBOABD A TKEYBOARP A I B U 1 2 0 T B W fl ? 1 11 15 4 1 20 1 5 7..4 14 9 0 T 12 __il_ 23 Period 05 C02501-101 IWI.OWe-JEC 8 U 0 T 13 2 1 16 5..1., 18 3 ____6. 1 22 Per i od 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 8 W 0 T 8 U 0 T 8 U 0 T B U 0 T Period 03 Period 04 Period Q5 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 lx c c W * cJ-RS- School: Tere: Llttla-Rock 3chooX-l\u0026gt;4fttr ic- 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL -5- PICKER 9 M X T B WOT 05021-110 EMCLISH R 11 B W 5 4 _2__4- 12 8 0 T 1 10 __IX 1 21 B WOT 05021-111 ENGLISH R 11 B U 0 T 7 4 S 1 12 5 11 -6- 17 B U 0 T E06101-109 ENGLISH AP B U 0 T E0502i-113 FMCLISH B 11 S *7 *0 Teacher__Period QQ PURDY Per I nd O1 P17001-10i Per I nd 02 P17001-101 M X Teacher RIVER .... X F T Teacher RMRUTH M X T B W n T Per i od 00 B W 0 T Period 00 B W 0 T ELECTRONCS I ELECTRONCS I -B80X 1 1 B M 0 T Periad 03___ P17001-10i ELECTRONCS I B .. R-.-q....T- Period Q4 Pi8001-102 1 X X Teacher Period 00 ROBERT M i Teacher RUTHER M F T Teacher SHEHAN M F J__U. JI__T Per i od 00 B W 0 T Per i od 00 B W 0 T Teacher__Period 00 4 2 9 8 13 10 6 XX 23 B U 8 3 7 3 15 6 0 T 11 XXl- 1 22 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T -5 Period 05 P18001-i02 Per i od 06 P18001-102 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 ELECTRONC 11 ELECTRONC II ELECTRONC II -B80X 1 1 2 B W 0 T 10 1 3. X i X 1 1 1 2 8. ..0..T- 1 2 SHOT B W 0 T B W 0 T __t 3^ ? 1 1 X Period 01 DOlOOi-101- MQNITOR 1 B W 0 T ____X 2 3 2 5 X 5 7 Period 02 001001-102 MONITOR 1 B W 0 T Period 03 MiOOt-103 MONITOR 1 X X 4 3 5 4 1_1 7 1 10 B U 4 1 5 1 0 5 6 Period 01 Per Iod 02 04021-105 Period 03 E04021-106 B W 0 T Period 01 P03001-10t AUTO TECH I R M n T 3 4 3 1 Per i od 01 vol 001-106 STUDY HALL B W 0 1 8 3 14 9 XX 11 23 Period 01 B W 0 T Period QI Period 04 001001^104 MONITOR 1 B W 0 T 2 2 1 5 9 7 _X 12 16 Period 04 04021-107 Period 05 POtOOl-105 MONITOR 1 B X-X 2 3 3 WOT X 2 6 Period 05 E04021-108 Period 06 B01001406 MONITOR 1 B W 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 6 3 6 5 12 8 -2- 11 20 B W 0 T B W 0 T B WOT Per Iod 06 04021-109 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 FNGLTRH R 10 FHCLISH R 10 EM61TSH R 10 EHGiISH R 10 FMCI ISH R 10 B 9 W 1 0 5 4 14 5 10 S- 19 6 U 0 6 3 -8- 14 3 T 9 -8- 17 B W 0 12 4 6 3----- 18 7 16 25 6 W 0 8 4 -71------- 15 5 T 12 -8- 20 3 U 0 T 8 5 1 14 B U 0 T B WOT B W 0 T 30 2. -\u0026gt;------- 18 5 IX 1 24 Period 02 . P03001-101 AUTO TECH I B R Q T 3 1 4 Period 03 P03001-i0i AUTO TECH I BM__0__X 3 1 Period 04 P03001-102 AUTO TECH I R 8 n...T... 4 5 Period 05__ P03001-1O2 AUTO TECH I B W n T 4 5 Period 06 P03001-102 AUTO TECH I B 8 n T Period 07 Per i od QB 163550-101 Period 09 163550-101 1 5 ,B. M...a, I AUTO TECH EX AUTO TECH EX B W D T 2 3 B W 0 T 1 2 3 X X X 3 X X X A X X X X X Period 02 B W  Period 02 30001-101 COHMUNICTN I B W 7 3 XX 18 X 5 0 T 10 ___13. 23 Period Q2 Period 03 cn7.oot.Tjoi BUSINESS LAW B U 0 T Period 04 \u0026amp; 3 13 8 1 13 9 1 22 B U 0 T Period 05 C0700t-102 BUSINESS LAW B W 0 T Period 06 H08O01-101 Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 Per i od 03 E30001-i02 Period 04 30001-103 COMMUWICTW T nOMHUWlCTW 1 B 3 W 0 T _2__5. 10 11 6 1 10 __iX 1 22 BUG 9 4 6 S _ 15 9 13 XX 24 Per IOd 03 Period Q4 11 5 3 14 14 1 21 8 1 29 PE B W 31 24 3 1 34 21 0 T __5X 4 61 B W 0 B W 0 T B WOT Period 05 period 06 35001-101 Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 B U 0 T B W 2 1 .a__2- 10 8 0 T 3 ___iX 18 B W 0 T B W 0 B W 0 T Period 05 Period OA XexXod-XX Per Iod 08 Per I nd 09 S'LR8 ~ L i 111e_Rqck School.District School: Term: 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL SuoBary MastT/Teachor Schedule/Rice \u0026amp; Son 3UHMAS Page: 10 SHELLS Ca M -L T B U  T 004021-109 AM HISTORY B U 9 4 0 T 13 V01001-i02 STUDY HALL 2 2 15 11 6 i 18 B U 0 8 5 5 1 13 6 13 -4. 19 B U 0 T B U 0 T 005021-101 ULD HISTORY BUG 7 5 6 4 13 9 T 12 22 004021-110 AM HISTORY SHOT 4 4 2 10 10- 1 1 12 14 5 3 22 B U 0 T B W 0 B U 0 T c Teacher Period 00 SKIPPE M F T B M 0 T Period 01 POiOOl-106 AUTO BODY I SHOT 5 5 Period 02 POlOOl-106 AUTO BODY I B HOT 5 5 Period 03 POiOOl-106 AUTO BODY I B H 0 T 5 5 Period 04 POlOOl-107 AUTO BODY I SHOT 2 1 3 Period 05 POlOOl-107 AUTO BODY I B H 0 T 2 3 Period 06 P0i001-t07 AUTO BODY I B U 0 T 2 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B HOT -B - -H 0 T SHOT H 13  t Teacher Period 00 BMmmE H B H 0 T Period 01 BlQOQl-101 CCE REL.I B U 0 T Period 02 T 7 5 4 3 12 B U 0 T Period 03 VOlOOl-105 STUDY HALL B U 0 1 Period 04 612001-103 CAREER ECOPl 11 8 7 19 2 2 3 4 2 14 B WOT Per Iod 05 612001-103 CAREER ECOPl 1 8 1 2 1 3 2 2 4 B U 5 2 3 2 8 4 0 T 7 S 12 i Teacher i SODERL Per i od 00 Period 01 P13001-101 Period 02 P1300i-t01 Period 03 P13001-i01 Per Iod 04 P13001-102 Period 05 Pi3001-102 M -E. T 6 W 0 T Teacher Period 00 STEELE M F J. B H 0 T Teacher Period 00 BTFFLM______________ JL F T B U 0 T Teacher STROUD Period 00 K B U 0 T JBiCDAI__Period QQ o. r Period 06 aUOQl-lQS CAREER ECOPl B U 7 2 3 2 10 4 0 T ____9 5 14 Per i od Q6 P13001-102 C08M0T0LCY I COSMOTOLGY I C08M0T0LCY I COSMOTQLGY I CQBHOTOLCY I COSHOTOLCY 1 B U 0 1 T 1 4 2 17 S 2 1 8 Per i od 01 -B H 0 T Period 01 648301-101 D DOMAIN SC SHOT -1 2 5 3 JL 5 8 Period 01 B U 0 Period 01 B U i  T 1 ^-2 1 7 5 2 8 Period 02 617501-101 MKT.REL.I B H 0 T 15 5 6 S 21 10 20 11 -2k Period 02 646351-101 V DOMAIN SC BUG 1 2 4 1 5 3 T J. 5 8 Period 02 B U 0 T Period 02 B 1 W 0 T 1 4 2 17 5 2 8 Period 03 -B- H 0 T Period 03 646251-101 C DOMAIN SC B W 1 2 4 1 5 3 0 5 8 Period 03 B U 0 -Period 03 B U 0 T SHOT B U 0 T 1 1 J. 7 1 7 7 1 7 1 Period 07 612001-106 CAREER ECOPl Period 06 Per i od 09 B W 0 8 3 4 3 12 6 T 11 1 18 B U 0 T B U 0 T Per Iod 07 Period 08 Period 09 .iS. SI 2S . 21. 7 . aa. s t \u0026lt;L 11 B U 0 T B MOT B W 0 Period 04 617001-102 MKT.COOP I B H 0 T Period 05 017001-103 MKT.COOP I B W 0 T 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 5 . 7 4 8 12- Per Iod 06 617001-104 MKT.COOP I ....g....H Q T 4 4 4 5 8 9 8 9 17 Per i od 07 617001-104 MKT.COOP I B H 0 T 8 5 4 5 12 to 13 9 22 Period 08 Per i od 09 32. 33 34 Ji M 3 (I 1, B HOT SHOT Period 04 546401-111 Period 05 S48301-102 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 a R/LEISURE SC 0 DOMAIN B U 1 2 4 1 5 3 0 T ___1 5 8 SC B W 0 T t 2 1 5 3 3 5 8 B U 0 B M 0 T B U 0 T 6 W 0 '1 33 Pl Period 04 P25001-102 Period 05 P25001-102 Per Iod 06 P25001-102 Period 07 Per Iod 08 Period 09 CONSTRUCTS I CDHSTRUCTN I C0N8TRUCTN I B U 0 T 1 1 1 Period 04 2 2 B U 0 1 1 1 2 2 BUG 1 1 1 T 2 2 B U 0 B U  T B U 0 T -Period 05 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 91 \"I l 01School: Term\n- ) jnI Rock School Diitf'ct_____ 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL guaaary /TftAchBr Rrhxlulw/R*rg t San -SUMMAS- It 0 THOMPS la I |. |m 1 ao 3J 39 t' 1 M T B u 0 E0402t-il0 ENGLISH R 10 E0402l-ili E0402i-ii2 E0402i-il3 E04021-U4 B 9 y 1 7 .2 16 3 0 T 10 -------a. 19 B y 0 T EMCLISH R to ENGLISH R 10 ENGLISH R 10 ENO-ISH R 10. B W 6 2 -51- 11 3 0 T 8 A. 14 B y 0 9 4 A 2------- 15 6 T 13 -8. 21 B 8 3 7 2 15 WOT 5 11 9. 20 B y 0 8 2 A ?------- 14 4 T 10 -8. 18 B U 0 T B H 0 T B U 0 T Teacher__Period 00 VERTIN M F B B q-X .Pariod 01____ M0512i-101 CHEMISTRY AP B W 0 T Perind 02 Teacher -WAGE------ Period 00 1 3 8 5 9 a 13 IX Period 01 B H 0 T. Period 03 M0500i-102 CHEMISTRY B W 0 T Per Iod 04__ M05001-i03 CHEMISTRY B N 0. .T 5 4 4 1 9 11 9 11 XO- 3 6 12 2 15 R 3 14 XX JL F T B U 0 T B U 0 T Period 02 F040O1W1O7 SPANISH I B W 0 ' 10. 1. T Period 03 X04001108- SPANISH I Teacher WALKER Period 00 Period 01 S48301-104 8 5 18 12 XX 13 30 B U 9 4 17 12 0 T ___16. 13 29 Period 04 FQ400i-109 SPANISH I B U 0 T 1 2 9 i 16 e _2. 15 24 Period 02 848301-105 Period 03 S48251-104 M -F- T Teacher WILDER M F X B W 0 Period 00 B H 0 T Teacher Period 00 -UIUJA------------------------- JL F T B WOT D DOHAIN 8C D DOHAIN ST. C DOHAIN SC SHOT 3 2 -2l- 5 3 5 -X 8 B y 0 T 3 2 -2- 5 3 5 -X 8 6 U 0 T 3 2 X1- 5 3 5 X 8 Teacher WILLIS Period 00 M X B W 0 Teacher__Period 00 Period 01- K09001-i03 Period 02 K09001-i04 Per.j.Qd. 03 Ki3011-101 ALGEBRA HR ALGEBRA HR CALCULUS AAP B y 0 T 5 8 7 5 12 13 13 12 Xi- .BU0X 9 5 5 7 14 1? 14 12 X6. i M ti. T. 3 3 6 JL 1 5 9 1 14. Per i od 04 S4B401-103 Period 05 M05001-i05 CHEMISTRY SHOT 5 2 1 8 14 16 6 6 2 14 Period 05 F04001-1Q6- SPANISH I B W 0 T 9 5 8 4 il 9 XA. 12 26 Period 05 348351-103 B/i FISiJRF SC V DONAIN SC B y 3 2 Xx 5 3 0 T 5 ------3. 8 B U 3 2 -2i- 5 3 0 T 5 -------X 8 Period 04 -BU0X Per. Lod ,05,, K050il-li0 ALGEBRA I R B N n T 10 8 xa. 3 1 13 9 XX EarJ ad, .0.6 , H05001-104 CHEMISTRY B H 0 T Pgriod 07 Per IPd 08 Pgr iod 09 IO 4 5 7 10 11 15 9 17 JL u n__r B M. 0 T R M n T Period 06 F0400t-ti0 SPANISH I Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 7 S B (\u0026gt; 15 11 0 T JX 14 26 B H 0 6 W 0 T B U 0 T Period 06 Per i od 07 Period 06 Period 09 B H 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B WOT 20 za. 30 32. 33 33 3fi. 5 Period 06__ VOlOOi-107 STUDY HALL ...B....W . IL...X Period 07 Period .OS Period 0? 6 7 1 13 5 10 8 IS. B H 0 T R H 0 T JB__y__0__x Period 01 -005051-44- INDEP STUDY B y 0 T -IX 11 23 XX 11 23 Period 01 B U 0 T Period 01 Period 02 0Q4021n-llt AM HISTORY B y 0 T Period 03 -J.6- 13 4 20 10 XX 17 30 6 W D T Period 04 004021-112 AM HISTORY Period 03 004021-113 AM HISTORY B W 0 9 10------- 6 5 1 12 B y 0 8-4------- Period 06 D04021-114 AM HISTORY Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 15 15 1 31 4 3 12 7 T -IX 7 19 B y -6L 10 5 16 6 0 T -------X 15 22 B U 0 T WOT B U 0 T Period 02 B04001-105 Period 03 021100-101 Period 04 804001-106 TMTPn rn apt fmf abtr art__INTRO TO ABT__ARX Period 05 BOSOOi-lOl B 14 y 2 0 T 16 A 4 2 12 20 6 2 28 B W 12 7 A 2 18 9 0 T 19 ____8. 27 B y 12 5 6 2 18 7 0 T 17 __a. 25 DESIGN__ASX B U 0 T 4 4 X 5 7 3 1 8 1 13 Period 02 Jariod 03 Jeriod 04 Par I art 05 Per i od 06 B05001-102 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 DESIGN B W 0 T 6 4 5 3 1 1 11 B W 0 T B y D T fi w 0 T 11 7 JL 2 2Q Par ijid 06 Pari nd 07 .EflXlQxi-OS. Period 09 12D I RS School: Tern: UOOO Littla Rock School Dlstrici. 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL flMMJirv-Mfar/Tajrhar I  \u0026gt;. - SUHHA8 42- 1 1 ( ( \u0026lt; 17 S1 82 38 \u0026lt; \u0026lt;  I 1 1 \u0026lt; H -X SHOT 005021-102 ULP HTaTflPY B 5 6 U 0 T ii -St..3 1 13 i4 9 i 24 003021-103 -ULP HISTORY B U 0 T 005021-104 ULB HTSTOPY 4 10 9 5 12 15 1 15 IX 1 28 B U 5 5 B 3 13 8 0 T 10 W- 21 005021-105 ULP HTBTQPY B U 0 T 6 8 12 14 14 -13- 26 B U 0 T 005021-106 kU n HISTORY B U 3 6 9 13 0 T 9 i9- 22 B U 0 B U 0 B U 0 T u. 81 IL U. 97 I\"' I 1\" S' 1  \u0026lt; K 1'I Records seLected Records written : 1 : 1  I*. 1  1 1 ! 1 1 io 2S 1 1 2e ao *0 1 1 sc If co SI Records selected Records sorted Records written : S495\n5495 : 364  Can't ghayiaa gOQotBd file attr ibu-tett. Records selected Lines printed____ Pages printed : 364  575 : 12 24 u. za SI IS. ssREF: sen.560 PATE: 10/15/92 TIME\n12:15:11 000 LITTLE RUCK SCHOOL TISTRICT FMR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE master schedule PAGE 1 \u0026gt; COURSE------TTTCT CLASS sex MAI CH TFKTUT GROUP SEC TERM MAMES JAYS LUOM TfACH^R jAMr. MAX CAP MALE ENKULLHfcNl SbAIS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 ADMIN AOIOOI A01003 A02001 A02003 A030'\u0026gt;i A03003 l?C4001 P.04003 B05001 B050n3 B06O01 ADH-CONDUCT 1 1 1 102 10? 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 HOMEROOH-IO HOMEr.noM-ii H0MER03*-!! HOMEROOM-IZ HOHEROO.M-IZ I T 3 09 W 09 09 MTWRF MTW'RF KTWRF MTWRF NIVbN NIVEN NIVEH y Te quests NI 71N 'ilVtf'l NIVtL  TJTAL 100 Txnr 100 100 400 100 TOIT 100 100 rOU T Y ** NO SECTIONS DEFINE SECTIONS OEFINEO * ** NO SeCTIQ.MS DEFlNfO ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** INTRO TO ARI----------- lOl 101 101 192 102 102 10^ 105 1J3 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 1'06 106 INTRO TO ART 101 101 101 -------------102 102 102 103 103 133 104 IDA 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 ART - OeSIGK 101 101 IJl 102 102 102 ART_DESI6N 101 101 lol 102 102 102 WATERCOLOR -------------101 lOTTIl 102 102 102 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 1-2 01 03 06 02 01 173 05 06 92 04 05 06 3-4 3-4 05 06 1-2 06 1 REQUESTS 1 Re^USSTS 0 REQUFSTS ? REQUESTS 9 RFrVJSSTS 0 REQUESTS MTWRF .MTWRF MTWKF MTWRF .TWRF HTWft'F .MTWRF MTwRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWPF MTHRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 140 140 140 141 \"FTT CnOPFR COOPER C'^Of^ER COOPER WILLIS '-IILL-I5 149 RFJJESTS CDUPEP. J CQ JPfR J CrriPFK J COOPEP J WILLIS L WlLLtS I * T'lTAL 30 30 30 30 30 TT 160 13 20 14 17 16 TT 97 13 6 12 S 51 26 26 TT 24 28 \"TT 148 4 TT b 2 T 32 T Y T 10 6 6 -H' 42 15 19 TT 18 20 TT 103 iS. 22 u. 28 *0 2L n SA. 140 w 140 140 141 141 COOPFR C('5Pf.R cnopr.r CPQPFR- WILLIS WILLIS 150 REQUESTS CUOPPp J CO'TPf.ll J COOPER J COOPER J WILLIS L WILLIS L * TOTAL 30 30 3Q 30 30 180 14 TT 13 17 17 17 97 14 6 5 7 12 8 52 28 TT 18 24 29 25 149 2 T 12 6 1 5 31 Y Y Y 12 T 5 6 T 42 15 XT 13 18 18 104 141 141 1,'ILLIS WILLIS 33 REQUESTS WILLIS L WILLIS L * TUTaL 30 30 60 8 11 19 5 9 14 13 20 33 17 10 27 7 1 5 11 16 \"TaT 141 WILLIS WILLIT 33 REQUESTS WILLIS L WILLIS L * TOTAL 30 30 60 8 11 19 5 9 14 13 20 33 17 10 27 T 7 14 S 11 16 PTT 140 errPTT CCGPtfP 3 REQUESTS COllPLi* * TOTAL J 35 70 T 2 3 T Z 3 34 33 67 1 1 1 1 5c* PEFs SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 COURSE title hatch CLASS SEX GROUP SEC TERM 'MMES 806003 PllOOl C02001 C02O03 COIOOI C01003 C01501 C01503 C02001 C02003 C02501 C02503 C04251 009 OAYS WATERCOLOR 101 101 101 102 102 102 FINE ART HU INTR.COH/TEH INTR.COHP/TE CLERICAL RFC CLFPICAL REC COMP.TECH BS COMP.TECH 9S INT COMP.TEH INT.COMP.TEH INT.COMP TEC 3-^ 03 06 MTWRF MTWRF LITTLE ROCK SCHGUL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE ROOM 140 PAGE 2 * TEACHER NAME COOPER COOPER J 3 RE-3UESTS ccom j * TOTAL\nENftGLtMS.MTSSATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE CAP HALE 35 IT 7Q FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 7^ * NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** LINK DEFINITION ( } ** ** LINK DEFINITION ( ) ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ** LINK DEFINITION (M) ** ** LINK DEFINITION (M) ** 101 101 101 INT.COMP.TEC 101 101 101 KEY90ARDI/II C04253 KEYOOARn/lI 1-2 3-4 05 05 MTWRF mTWRF 146 TERM 1 TERM 1 TERM 3 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS C02G0X C02301 C02003 PEYTON 22 REQUESTS PEYTON E * TOTAL 30 30 16 16 146 PEYTON 21 REQUESTS PEYTON E * TOTAL JO. 30 IS. 15 ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** * ND SECTIONS OEFINEO ** C04501 KEYBOARD A I 101 101 101 102 102 102 ___________________103 103 103 C04503 C04751 C04753 C07001 0 REQUESTS 3 REQUESTS 1 T 3 1 T 3 34 bl T T 1 T 1 4 6 6 A 6 ZZ ZZ 8 8 3 3 18 18 \u0026gt;s as. 7 21 21 9 9 3. 3 17 17 1-2 1-2 1-2 01 03 04 HTWRF MTWRF MTQRF 143 148 146 NAHLEN PEYTON PEYTON 63 REQUESTS NAHLEN M PEYTON e PEYTON E # TOTAL\" 30 30 30 90 10 9 12 31 9 11 11 31 19 20 23 62 11 10 7 28 5 9 13 14 15 14 43 KEYBOARD A I 101 101 101 _______102 102 102 133 103 103 WORD PRSI/II HORD PRSI/ir BUSINESS LAW 3-4 3-4 3-4 01 03 04 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 143 146 146 NAHLEN PEYTON PEYTON 62 REQUESTS NAHLEN M PEYTON E PEYTON E * TOTAL 30 30 30 90 9 9 12 30 9 11 11 31 18 20 23 61 12 10 7 29 Y 5 4 9 13 13 15 14 42 ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED * ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS lyREF\nSCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12J15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 3 COURSETTTTEMATCH CLASS sex PERIOO GROUP SEC TERM '4AMPS DAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME MAX CAP HALE EURULLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 C07Q03 to 21 W -K 101 101 101 102 102 102 BUSINESS LAW 101 101 101 102 102 102 G08001 ACCOUNT I__________ 101 101 101 C08003 ACCOUNT.I ________101 101 101 C10501 C105Q3 C11501 C11503 C145O1 C14503 C16001 C16003 C16501 OFC TECH LAB OFC TECH LAS 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 1~2 3~4 03 05 03 05 01 01 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF HTWRF 400 107 RUTHER RUTHFR 52 REQUESTS RUTHERFOR P RUTHERFOR P * TOTAL 30 30 60 14 21 35 9 8 17 23 29 52 7 1 8 Y 9 14 23 13 14 27 400 107 RUTHER RUTHER 51 REQUESTS RUTHERFOR P RUTHERFOR P * TOTAL 30 30 60 14 20 34 9 8 17 23 28 51 7 2 9 9 14 23 13 13 26 14o PEYTON 22 REQUESTS PEYTON E * TOTAL 25 25 10 10 12 12 22 22 3 3 6 6 15 15 22 REQUESTS PEYTON PEYTON E * TOTAL 25 25 10 10 12 12 2^ 22 3 3 Y 6 b 15 15 *# LINK OEFINITION ( ) * * COMP.TECHBS 101 101 101 COMP.TECHBS. 301 101 101 JUNIOR EXEC JUNIOR EXEC COE COE COE LP4X DEFINITION ( \u0026gt; * 1-2 3-4 02 02 MTWRF MTWRF 1A3 NAHLEN 18 REQUESTS NAHLEN M * TOTAL 30 30 10 10 3 a 16 13 12 12 5 5 13 13 143 NAHLEN 19 REQUESTS NAHLEN M * TOTAL 30 30 11 11 3 3 19 19 11 11 5 S 14 14 * LINK DEFINITION I ) ** ** LINK DEFINITION ( ) **  RELATE 101 101 101 RELATE 101 101 101 COOP 102 102 102 1-2 3-4 1-2 03 03 04 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 14 GRUMME 20 REQUESTS GRUMHLR W * TOTAL 30 30 2 18 AS 20 10 AS. 6 6 14 14 148 GRUHE 20 REQUESTS GRUMMER W * riTAL 30 30 2 Z 18 18 20 20 10 10 Y 6 6 14 14 148 GRUHME GRUMMER H 30 7 7 23 Y 3 4 zo 21 27 u. t l 32. SB aa as. ss 40 B8RFF: SCM*560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SC IDOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 4 Ik CDURS'E nTTF CLASS sex HAILH PfcRlUU GROUP sec TERM NAMES DAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME TWT CAP MALE ENKULLNENI SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALAHC6 FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 % 21 aa to 1^3 103 103 104 104 104 IOS 105 105 1-2 1-2 oF 06 07 mTkrf MTWRF MTWRF Trnn- 0000 0000 CRUMHf GRUKME GRUMME IV HE^SUfcSI^ Gft'.r:4fR ti GRUMMER W GRUMMER W  lUIAL----- jy 30 30 Tzir 1 T 6 3 2 ry \"S' 2 TT Z4- 26 26 Txrr y Y y I F ZT 3 2 TT 10 C1A?O3COE - C'6'o\u0026amp;---------------- 102 102 102 103 103 103 ---------------------------------104 132\n10^ 105 105 105 001001 P01003 E04021 F04023 3-4 3-4 yy 3-4 04 05 TF 07 MTWRF MTWRF HI'WRF MTWRF 143 0000 wnir 0000 GRUMME GRUMME SRUHMt GRUMME 19 REQUESTS GRUMME-\u0026lt; W GRUMMER GRUMMER W GRUMMER  * TOTAL 30 30 \"nr 30 120 T 1 7 6 \"n 2 18 7 6 V 2 19 23 24 ~zy 28 101 Y y 3 2 T 6 4 4 y 2 13 MONITOR 1 -------------101 101 101 132 102 102 103 103 103 -------------104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 MONITOR 2 101 101 101 102 102 102 -------------103 103 133 104 104 104 105 105 135 106 136 106 ENGLISH R 10 101 ini 131 102 me 102 105 105 105 106 106 106 -------------107 107 ICT 108 103 108 lOP 109 139 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 \"m 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 T=y 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 ry 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1X3 113 113r=r 114 114 114 ENGLISH R 10 1-2 irr 02 03 yy 05 06 01 02 TT 04 05 C6 01 C6 02 03 TF 05 06 01 03 04 TV 06 wmF MTWRF MTWRF MTWr.C' HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF TCrWAF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF naRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF --------------------rrvnr RIVER RIVER --------------------rpTTT RIVER RIVER RIVER RIVER --------------------rrrvFTT RIVER RIVFR RIVER 65 REQUESTS 125 125 102 102 Tuy 102 102 142 142 142 Try 142 GRAY GRAY PMRUTH RHPxUTH HlVcKS 5. RIVERS S, RIVERS S, \u0026lt;lvF{k5 5. RIVERS S. RIVERS S. * r/XTAL RIVERS S. RIVERS S. RXVERS S. RIVERS S. RIVERS S. RIVERS 3. * TOTAL GRAY V GRAY y RUTHERFORD .M RUTHERFORD,RM SMRUrH 1UJMVRFBRb,RM RMRUTH Rutherford,RM RMRUTH THOMPS THOMPS THOMPS I HUMPS THOMPS 242 REQUESTS RUTHERFORD,RM THOMPS IH P THOMPSON P THOMPSON P TH-JMPS'JN P THOMPSON P * TOTAL \"nr 30 30 yy 30 30 Tnr 30 30 3Tr 30 30 40 190 30 3y 30 30 TT 30 30 30 30 30 jy 30 360 y 1 y 4 8 zr 4 n 3 6 9 26 11 yr 10 9 yy 12 14 10 8 13 yr 10 136 1 5 yy 2 11 ^z\" -~r 10 6 ly 6 19 yy ~Z3' 20 24 TV 24 11 TTF y Y y y Y S 4 1 y 3 7 yr y 5 5 y 3 12 35- as. ai it i? IL i9 31 IL  % % 1 4 7 11 2 11 39 5 T 14 8 7y 65 25 19 ZT 16 22 125 y Y y 4 5 ~r 6 3 T 23 1 5 y 8 5 TT 35 % 9 10 8 -----T 8 10 6 8 -----T S 103 20 2y 19 17 yr 20 24 ~TT 14 21 \"nr 18 239 10 y 11 13 r 10 6 \"TT 16 9 nr 12 121 y T y y 7 T 5 3 y 5 5 T 3 6 y 4 13 TT 14 14 TT 15 18 yy 11 15 IT 14 53 . 179 % Aref: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIMES 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 5 COURSE TITL5 CLASS SFX MATCH PERIOD GROUP SEC TERM NA-'\u0026lt;eS DAVS ROOM TEACM'ER .MAME CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 -k E04051 101 101 101 102 102 102 105 105 105 106 106 16^ 107 107 107 103 108 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 ENGLISH rrT/H 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 3-^ 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2 01 06 02 04 0 5 06 01 03 04 05 06 02 04 05 w 2 27 E04053 ENGLISH GT/H 1-02 10^ 103 103 103 104 104 104 3-4 3-4 04 05 04061 ENGLISH HOUR F04063 -ENGLI-SH BONR E04071 E04073 ENGLISH GT ENGLISH GT EO5O21 E05023 l\u0026gt; B MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF ' \"mTTpT' MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRP MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF. 125 125 102 ------PTT 102 102 102 142 142 142 142 GRAY GRAY R.MRUTH GRAY V GRAY V RUTHERFORD,RM RMRUTT RMTTERFQROtRM RMRUTH RUTHERFORO.RM RMRUTH THOMPS THUMPS THOMPS THORPS 241 REQUESTS MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 115 115 115 -MTWSE MTWRF MTWRF RUTHERFORD,KM THOMPSON P Tf'UMPSON P THOMPSON P T.HDMPSCN P THUMPS THJMPSON P * TOTAL 30 30 30 TT 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 360 11 13 11 9- 14 12 15 10 8 12 11 _iS. 136 9 10 9 ___ 10 9 6 8 9 _S. 103 20 23 20 23 20 25 19 14 20 20 18 239 10 7 10 TT 7 10 5 11 16 10 10 12 121 Y V 7 7 5 6 T (\u0026gt; 5 h 3 3 5 5 53 13 17 14 I 17 15 18 16 11 15 15 14 179 JONESJ JONESJ 76 REQUESTS JONES J JONES J JONES J * TOTAL 30 30 30 90 11 13 7 31 13 17 15 45 24 30 22 76 6 8 14 Y 13 18 13 44 11 10 9 30 115. 115 115 jaNt.--SJ- J JONESJ JONF.SJ le, REQUESTS JOMuS J JONES J * TOTAL 30 30 30 90 11 13 7 31 13 17 15 45 24 30 22 76 6 Y * NO SECTIONS DEFINcO ** ** NO SECTIUN5 D^FINEO * 0 REQUESTS 8 14 13 18 13 44 11 10 9 30 20 21 22 ii. 2S 27 20. 31 BO. 87 ** NO SECTIINS DEFINED ** * NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ENGLISH R 11 101 101 101 103 AQ3 -103 104 104 104 IOS 105 105 106 106 106 108 103 lOR 110 110 110 111 1X1 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 ENGLISH R 11 101 101 lOl 103 103 103 0 ^U^STS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 1-2 Ari. 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 02 04 05 01 06 02 01 03 04 06 05 02 04 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 125 125 125 115 115 106 123 W. 122 123 124 GRAY GRAY GRAY JONESJ JONESJ MCOANI PICKER PICKER FLINN PICKER MALL REQUESTS GRAY V GRAY V GRAY V JONES J JONE? J MC0AT31EL 8 PICKERING J PICKER IfiO J FLINN T PICKERING J HALL L * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 330 13 17 12 20 12 11 10 13 11 15 145 11 JX 6 a 7 8 11 _k 9 11 9 97 24 18 28 19 19 21 -JJ- 22 22 24 242 6 2 12 2 11 11 9 13 8 8 6 38 Y Y Y 8 9 6 13 4 7 3 5 7 6 6 79 16 18 12 15 15 11 12 12 14 15 157 125 125 GRAY GRAY GRAY V GRAY V 30 30 14 16 11 II 25 27 5 3 9 3 16 13 70 71 nREF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 6 % COURSE TTTlF CLASS SEX MATCH PERIOO GROUP SEC TERM NAMES OAYS ROOM TEACHER -JANE MAX CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FeMAtS TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 3-4 3-4 3-4 05 01 06 108 108 103 ST 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 01 03 04 06 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 125 115 115 106 123 12 3 122 123 124 GRAY JONESJ JONESJ GRAY V JONES J JONES J MCDaNI ^iSANIEL 8 PICKER PICKER FLINN PICKER HALL 2A.it- REQUESTS PICKERING J PICKERING J FLINN T PICKERING J HALL L_______ * TOTAL IB IB 05041 ENGLISH GT 107 107 107 _______109 109 109 1-2 1-2 01 03 NT4RF MTWRF 106 106 HCDANI MCOA-NI 20 21 52 REQUESTS MCDANIEL 6 MCDANIEL 9 * t^AL F05043 ENGLISH GT 107 107 107 _______109 109 109 3-4 3-4 01 03 MTWRF MTWRF 106 106 HCOANI HCDANI 32 REQUESTS MCDANIEL B MCDANIEL B TOTAL ae  E05051 E05053 E05061 E05063 F06021 E06023 E06031 06033 30 30 30 12 20 12 30 11 30 30 30 30 30 330 10 11 13 11 IS 145 6 8 8 3 11 6 9 10 9 97 18 26 20 19 21 17 22 21 24 242 12 2 10 11 9 13 8 9 6 88 Y Y Y 'f 30 30 60 30 30 60 11 7 18 17 17 34 28 24 52 2 6 8 Y 11 7 18 17 17 34 28 24 52 2 6 a E?jGLISH HHRS ENGLISH HNRS ENGLISH GT ENGLISH GT ** NO SECTIHHS \u0026amp;FI?jS ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** * NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ENGLISH R 12 _______102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 _______105 105 135 106 106 106 107 107 107 103 108 103 ENGLISH R 12 102 102 102 0 RFgUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 6 13 5 7 3 5 7 5 6 79 15 10 25 15 10 25 1-2. 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 3-4 103 103 103 3\u0026gt;4l 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 107 107 108 lOa 108 ENGLISH IS R ENGLISH IS R 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 01 03 05 01 02 04 06 01 03 05 01 02 04 06 HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTwat MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 122 122 122 124 124 124 Aik -FLI^ FLINN FLINN HALL HALL HALL HAVL.... 170 REQUESTS FLINN.T FLINN T FLINN T HALL L HALL L HALL L HALL L * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 210 16 6 9 15 15 21 32 13 17 8 12 13 h 7 76 29 25 17 27 28 27 15 168 1 5 13 3 2 3 15 42 Y Y Y 12 7 3 10 9 10 6 57 122 122 124 124 124 124 FLINN FLINN FLINN HALL HALL HALL HALL 16^ RSQUeSTS FLINN T 1 FLINN T HALL L HALL L HALL L HALL L * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 210 16 _a. 9 15 15 21 8 92 13 JJ. 8 12 13 6 7 76 29 25 17 27 28 27 15 168 1 -_s. 13 3 2 3 15 42 12 7 3 10 9 10 6 57 ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 12 15 15 11 12 12 14 15 17 157 H * 13 14 27 13 14 27 20 21 27 za. 29 i 17 18 14 17 18 17 ___a. 109 rA 49 BO SI C 17 18 14 18 17 8 109  C \u0026lt;REF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 7 COUffSF I IJLt CLASS SEX HMtH' PFRIUU GROUP SEC TERM NAMES OAVS ROOH TEACHER NAME IVJiT CAP HALE ENRULLHcNl StAIS AVAIL ttASS eTHNIC\"B7n\nJ5NCF FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 as *0 M to I* E06053 fcOfclUl E06103 e06151 E06153 E30001 E30003 E31001 E3i003 E33Q01 F33003 E35001 F35OO3 ENGLISH GT ENGLISH GT ** ND SECTIONS JEfl..-O * ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** EMCLTSH RP---------------- 109 109 109 ENGLISH AP -------------10 109 104 ENGLISH R EA 101 101 101 -------------liU lie iiO ENGLISH R EA 101 101 101 -------------no 110 115 COMMUNICTN I 101 101 101 -------------102 1U2 lUa 103 103 103 COMMUNICTN I -------------101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 COMMUNCTN II COKHUNCTN II I COMMUNICTN I communictn RAMA 1-2 1-2 T=T 3-4 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 05 ITT 00 TT 00 00 02 TT 04 or 03 04 HTHRF HTMRF MTWRF Hiwirr MTWRF MTWR\" MTWRF TTTWr MTWRF Tmnrr MTWRF MTWRF 123 0 Requests 0 REQUESTS PICKER 23 REQUESTS PICKERINS J * TOTAL 30 30 6 6 17 17 23 23 1 1 Y 10 10 13 13 T to TTT ZU REQUESTS 122 nrr PICKESPICKtRIMC J * TOTAL Tir 30 b TT 17 TT 23 1 T nr 10 TT 13 FLINN HCDANl 44 REQUESTS FLINN T xcuznrmr * TOTAL 30 XT 60 13 T 21 10 TT ZZ 23 ZT 43 nr 17 x 15 TT 26 8 17 122 TUT FLINN FLTNN T 42 REQUESTS mcoamiMcwncL n * TOTAL 30 XT bQ 12 20 10 TT 22 22 TT 8 TT 18 Y X 16 TT 26 6 TT 16 S2. 126 TXT 126 SHEHAN S'HtHAN' SHEHAN 7Q REQUESTS SHEHANE M SHgHANg SHEHANE H * TOTAL 30 XT 30 90 10 TT 13 33 13 TT 11 35 Z3 TT 24 69 F b 21 X Y 5 TT 9 25 18 TOIS 43 TIT 126 126 SH5HAN SHEHAN SHEHAN 69 REQUESIS SHSHANg M SHEHANE M SHEHANE M  T3TAL TT 30 30 90 TT 10 12 32 TT 12 11 36 TS zz 23 68 b 1 22 X y Y T 11 9 TT TT 10 14 5T ** NO sections defined ** ** NO ggCTlBHS DLFUJLiJ \u0026gt;* * NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** 101 101 101 ORAMA\" 101 101 101 1-2 3-4 06 06 MTWRF MTWRF 126 0 REQUESTS 0 RgQJSSTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS SHEHAN 18 RSQiJkSIS SHEHANE m * THTAt 30 TT 3 15 TT 18 TT 12 TT Y 8 T 10 TT 126 SHEHAN 18 REQUESTS SHcHANE M * TOTAL 30 30 3 3 15 15 18 18 12 12 8 3 10 10REF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 time: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 8 Tnrr CLASS sex MATCH PEftlOO' GROUP sec TERM NAMES DAYS ROOM TEACHEft *iAM sat CAP MALE EHRCitLHENTSEATS AVAIL CLASii fclHNit BALANtfc FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 l\u0026gt; E* eisioi E35103 35251 DRAMA IS DRAMA IS RAMA 11 635253 DRAMA II ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** * flO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SeCTIOUS OEFINEO ** 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS : 6 E40Q01 JOURNALISM I 101 101 101 103 103 103 40003 JOURNALISM T 101 101 101 103 103 103 E42001 J0URMAL5M YB 104 104 104 E42003 642501 E42503 F04001 F04003 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 1-2 01 04 01 04 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTHRF 117 117 HOBBS HOBBS 49 REQUESTS HOBBS P  HOBBS P * TOTAL 30 30 60 9 6 17 15 16 31 24 24 48 6 6 12 Y 11 13 24 13 11 24 117 117 HOBBS HOBBS REQUESTS HOBBS P H0B8S P  TOTAL 30 30 60 9 8 17 15 16 31 24 24 48 6 6 12 11 13 24 13 11 24 117 HOBBS 25 REQUESTS HOBBS P * TOTAL 30 30 10 10 15 15 25 25 5 5 16 16 9 9 JOURNALSM YB _______104 104 104 JOURNALSM SP 102 102 lOZ JOURNALSM SP 102 102 102 SPANISH I 106 106 106 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 107 107 107 1^2 108 10\u0026amp; 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 SPANISH I 106 106 106 107 107 107 _______108 109 109 1-2 05 03 03 05 03 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 MTWRF HTwRF MTWRF 117 HOBBS 25 REQUESTS HObBS P * TOTAL 30 30 10 10 15 15 25 25 5 5 16 16 9 9 27 zi. 20 a. 27 117 M08SS 23 REQUESTS H038S P * T3TAL 30 30 8 8 14 14 22 22 8 8 'f 7 7 15 15 % 117 H0B3S 23 REQUESTS HOBBS P * TOTAL 30 30 8 8 14 14 22 22 a a Y 1 1 15 15  06 01 05 02 03 MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF 118 118 119 JJJ. 118 118 WAGE WAGE WAGE WAGE WAGE MJOHNS 162 REQUESTS 118 118 118 WAGE WAGE WAGE WAGE M WAGE M WAGE- * WAGE M \u0026lt;\nWAGE M MARY JOHNSON * TOTAL WAGE H WAGE M WAGE M 30 30 30 30 30 30 ISO 14 17 16 9 12 15 83 12 13 13 15 14 12 79 26 30 29 24 26 27 162 Y 30 30 30 15 17 16 12 12 13 27 29 29 1 6 4 3 18 Y Y 9 12 12 8 11 9 61 17 18 17 16 15 18 101 3 1 Y 9 11 12 18 18 17REF\nSCH.560 date\n10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 9 CQOR^?rnrrssto\" class sex PERf^O GROUP SEC TERM NAMES GAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME MAX CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE female taken seats rolls 01 02 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 3-4 3-4 3-4 04 06 01 MTWRP HTWRF MTWRF 118 II8 111 WAGE WAGE MJQHNS 162 REQUESTS WAGE M WAGE M MARY JOHNSON * TOTAL 30 30 30 130 9 12 14 83 16 14 12 79 25 26 26 162 5 4 4 18 9 11 9 16 15 17 loT F05001 F05003 F06001 F06003 F07011 F07013 F08011 F08013 FllOCl SPANISH ri 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 01 01 04 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF 119 119 119 119 MAGEE MAGEE MAGEE MAGEE 76 REQUESTS MA3EE Q MAGEE S MAGEF 5 MAGEE 8 * TOTAL 34 34 34 30 10 10 11 9 40 17 16 15 8 27 26 26 17 96. 1 8 8 13 Y Y Y 10 8 11 6 16 17 14 10 57 SPANISH II 101 101 101 102 102 102 _______103 in? 103 104 104 104 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 01 03 04 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF 119 119 119 119 MAGEE MAGEE MACEE MAGEE 96 REQUESTS MAGEE 6 MAGEE 8 MAGEE 6 MAGEE B * TOTAL 34 34 34 30 132 10 10 11 9 40 17 17 14 8 56 27 27 25 17 96 7 7 9 13 36 Y 10 9 10 6 35 16 17 14 10 57 SPANISH III _______105 105 105 106 106 106 SPANISH III 105 105 105 106 106 106 SPANISH IVAP _______101 101 101 SPANISH rVAP 101 101 101 SPANISH V SPANISH V 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 i~2 3-4 06 05 06 05 06 06 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 119 119 MAGEE MAGEF 11 REQUESTS MAGEE 8 MAGEE S * TOTAL 30 35 65 1 1 9 1 10 10 1 11 20 34 54 Y 3 4 1 7 iS. 7 u. 39 91 u. S 99 SL 97 112. 119 MAGEE MAGEE 11 REQUESTS WA S MAGEE 3 * TOTAL XS. 35 65 1 9 1 1 10 10 1 11 20 54 X 3 1 4 7 ii2. MASEE 10 REQUESTS MAGEE 3 * TOTAL 2^ Z5 X 3 X 5 J. 8 JX 17 X 3 3 5 5 119 MAGEE a REQUESTS MAGEE 3 * TOTAL Z5 25 3 3 5 5 3 8 17 17 Y 3 3 5 X * NQ SECTIONS DEFINED **  NO SECTIONS DEFINEO * FRENCH I 101 101 101 103 103 103 1-2 1-2 02 05 MTWRF MTWRF 116 116 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS FARRAR FARRAR 34 REQUESTS FARRAR E FARRAR E * TOTAL 30 30 60 8 8 16 11 18 19 15 34 11 IS 26 V 9 8 17 9 7 16P.EF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR TIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 10 Luuk^E TITLE' % CLASS sex hailh PfcKlUU GROUP SEC TERM NAMES DATS ROOM TEACHER .'iAME TWC CAP MALE tNHOLLHENT stAl6 avail CLAb:\u0026gt; ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 20 21 e F11003 F12001 F1P003 F13001 F13003 F14011 TIAOIST F15C11 F15013 H08001 H08003 106501 mSSTJT 108101 FRENCH I 101 101 101 -------------103 103 1U3 FRENCH II 104 104 104 FRENCH II 104 104 104 FRENCH III 102 102 IJ^ FRENCH III 102 102 102 FRENCH IV AP FRENCH IV AK FRENCH V AP FRENCH V AP PE PE 3-4 1-2 3-4 T=T 3-4 02 W 06 06 03 MTWRF MIWRF MTWRF HTWRF HT'Jft'P MTWRF 116 Trr FARRAR FARRAR 34 REQUESTS FARRAR E FARRAR e * TOTAL 30 Ttr 60 8 16 11 T 13 19 TT 34 11 TT 26 9 T 17 9 -y 16 116 FARRAR 29 RfcflUtSTS FARRAR 6 * U1AL 40 w 15 TT 14 TT 29 W 11 TT 7 y 21 TT 116 FARRAR 29 REQUESTS FARRAR E * TOTAL 40 40 15 15 14 14 29 29 11 11 7 1 21 21 Try FARRAk 16 REQUESTS FARRAR E * TOTAL Tq 30 b 6 10 16 TT 14 y TT 12 116 FARRAR 15 RF3UESTS FARRAR E  r:TAL 30 3 0 6 6 9 V 15 TT 15 TT Y 11 TT 4 V 70 SI SB. SO 91 is. 5B Bfi. S7 4k % ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED * * NU SFCIIdNS OFFIMEP ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFTNED ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 101 101 iur 102 102 102 103 103 103 FOODSCNUTR. FUUUSHNUrR. INO. LTV TNG 1-2 y=y 1-2 06 IFF 06 3-4 06 3-4 06 MTWRF MTWF MTWRF HrWRF HTWRF MTWRF 200 TTCr 200 0 REQUESTS 0 RLUUfcSlS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS RUTHER RUTHERFOR P OFLAMA iirLAMAR\"t' JOHNSM 74 REQUESTS JOHNSON M A TOTAL 150 40 230 58 nr 68 y 6 4 62 TT 74 88 ZF 40 156 Y y 28 T 34 -y 33 41 20Q 2Q0 RUTHER OeUMA JOHNSM 74 REOUeSTS RUTHl-ftFQR P DtLAMAR C JOHNSON M * TOTAL TST 150 40 340 5F 12 63 V 2 6 W 14 74 9tr 136 40 y^ yr \u0026gt; JF 8 33 ^r ** NO SECTI3NS DEFINED * ** HU SfcCnU^'S OfFINbU * 0 REQUESTS 3 RLUJfcSTS 101 ini HI yy T7T wr c'xmy\n? 28 REQUESTS CALlaUA'Y\" L' * TOTAL TT 30 pT 19 T 9 ?F 23 T 2 y T 8 20 t 4 tREF: SCH.560 date: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 11 0 TTTUT CLASS sex MATCH PF.ftlOa GROUP SEC TERM NAMES DAYS ROOM TtACHER -lAH-J HAiT CAP MALE NftOLLHENT SCATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 2\u0026lt; it 2* 2S *0 0 r* IORIOS 109001 109003 IlOOOl 110003 IND. LIVING 101 101 101 PARENTING RL 101 101 101 PARENTING HL 101 101 101 PARENTING K 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 197 107 108 108 108 PARENTING K 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 135 106 106 106 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 02 06 06 C4 03 01 02 04 05 1-2 06 1-2 06 3-4 04 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 107 107 107 3-4 IOS 108 108 03 01 02 04 05 06 06 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 144 CALLAW ZirX: quests CALLAWAY 6 TcTal  30 19 9 26 T Y 8 T 20 TIT 144 CALLAW 20 REQUESTS CALLAWAY E * TOTAL 30 30 6 6 14 20 20 10 10 Y 1 19 19 144 CALLAW 20 REQUESTS CALLAWAY E  TOTAL 30 30 6 6 14 14 20 20 10 10 1 19 19 K09041 HON/GT ALGII K09043 HON/CT ALGIT K05011 200 144 105 105 105 105 105 136 DELAMA CALLAW INMAN INMAN INMAN IN'^AN INMAN DECKAR 26 REQUESTS DELAMAR C CALLAWAY E INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A DECKARD K * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 240 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 1 6 5 5 3 5 1 12 14 1 Zb 29 24 25 25 27 25 30 29 214 Y Y Y 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 5 3 4 3 4 19 H. n UL js \u0026gt;0 at. a SB at 97 200 144 105 105 105 105 10? 136 PELAMA QgLAMAR C CALLAW IN^AN INMAM INMAH INMAN INMAN DECKAR 26 REQUESTS CALLAWAY E INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A DECKARD K * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 _20 30 240 2 Z 1 2 3 3 h 1 2 1 6 5 5 3 5 1 12 14 26 29 24 25 25 27 25 30 29 214 Y Y X ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ALGEBRA I R 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 109 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 02 02 04 03 06 01 03 06 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 112 113 113 114 114 112 115 111 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS LOONEY HULLUM KULLUW MCCOVE M. LOONEY HULLUM B HULLUM R MCGOVeRN U MCGOVe MCGOVERN U ENDERL ENOERL ENOERL ENDERLIN E. ENDERLIN E. ENDERLIN E. 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 11 6 14 13 9 10 7 b 12 3 10 9 7 8 17 20 17 23 17 16 19 15 13 10 13 7 13 14 11 15 1 Z 1 5 3 1 1 7 1 5 5 2 4 4 3 4 19 16 16 10 18 12 14 15 11 e. 79 7tref: SCH.560 OATF: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 12 G0URS6riTie MATCH CLASS SEX GROUP SEC TERM NAMES 110 110 110 111 Ill 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1*2 05 01 02 04 06 K05013 K08501 K08503 K09001 OAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME haT CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE n FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 110 116 117 108 108 WILDER KHARRI KHARRI KHARRI KHARRI 224 REQUESTS WILDER R HARRISON K. HARRISON K. HARRISON K. HARRISON K. * TOTAL 25 35 35 35 35 13 9 10 10 405 -129_ 9 5 2 7 91 22 14 11 12 17 220 3 21 24 23 18 4 3 6 2 3 13 11 4 10 14 50 169 ALGEBRA I R_______ 102 102 102 103 103 103 _______104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 _______107 107 107 108 108 loe 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 ill 111 112 112 112 _______113 113 113 114 114 114 INT ALGEBRA 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 i-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2 104 104 104 1-2 105 105 105 106 106 106 INT ALGEBRA 101 101 101 102 102 102 _______103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 _______106 106 106 ALGEBRA II ft 101 101 101 _______102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 _______105 105 105 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 34 3-4 3-4 02 02 04 03 06 01 03 06 05 01 02 04 06 01 03 06 02 04 05 01 03 06 02 04 3-4 05 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 03 04 01 02 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 112 113 113 114 114 112 115 111 JAS. 116 117 108 108 LQQMEY RLLtJM H- LOONEY NULLUM 8 HULLUM HULLUM S MCGOVE MCGOVe ENPERL MCGOVERN b MCGOVERN 6 ENDERLIN E, EMOERL EfDERLIN . ENOERL ENOERLIN E. WTLOER W1L3CR R KHARRI KHARRI KHARRI KHARRI 225 RSWESTS HARRISON K. HARRISON K. HARRISON K. HARRISON K. * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 35 35 35 35 405 10 8 14 13 7 11 10 7 13 9 7 10 10 129 6 12 3 10 9 10 3 9 5 4 2 7 92 16 20 _AI. 23 16 18 20 15 22 14 11 12 17 221 14 10 -AA 1 14 12 10 15 ___3 21 24 23 18 184 Y Y y Y Y 1 4 7 5 5 2 4 4 4 3 6 2 3 50 15 16 AS. 18 11 16 16 11 18 4 10 14 170 go 29 S 2S 27 u. 2B u. 113 113 113 11^ 114 114 HULLUM HULLUM HULLUM HULLUM 8 HULLUM 8 UULLUH 8 MCGOVE MCGOVERN 0 MCGOVE MCGOVE 143 REQUESTS MCGOVERN 8 MCGOVERN 3 * TOTAL 30 30 30 __ao 30 30 160 13 10 10 AX 19 15 76 12 12 9 12 9 10 64 25 22 19 23 28 25 142 5 8 11 7 2 5 38 Y y Y Y 6 5 7 5 5 4 32 18 17 11 18 22 20 106 113 113 113 114 114 114 HULLUM NULLUM HULLUM MCGOVE MCGOVE HULLUM B HULLUM B HULLUM 3 MCGOVERN 8 MCGOVERN fi 141 REQUESTS MCGOVE MCGOVERN H * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 _20 180 13 10 10 11 19 15 78 12 11 10 11 9 10 63 25 21 20 22 28 25 141 5 9 10 8 2 5 39 Y Y Y Y Y 6 4 8 5 5 4 32 18 17 11 17 22 _AS. 105 111 111 110 110 111 BARNHO BARNHOUSe C BARNHO 8ARNHQ.US.e C WILDER WILDER BARNHO in? REQUESTS WILDER R WILDER R 8ARNHQUSe C * toIal 30 30 30 30 30 150 8 12 13 14 13 60 5 7 12 12 8 44 13 19 25 26 21 134 17 11 5 4 9 46 Y Y Y Y 6 7 13 12 10 48 7 12 12 14 11 56 c    nREF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 ooa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 13 L'JURSt I HLL CLASS SEX 'lAtCN' PtKI MU GROUP sec T?RM NAMES DAYS ROOM TEACH!} MAMc CAP MALE bNKULLHbNt StAIS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 -7\u0026lt; to M 27  2* ao I .0 SI K09003 R09041 K09043 KI KlOOQl K10003 K10C41 K10043 KIOIOI ALGEBRA II R 101 101 101 -------------102 101' IU2 103 103 103 104 104 104 IPS 105 ALC II/HON ALC II HON KNO A.M. 3-4 YY 3-4 03 01 3-4 C2 HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 111 TTT 110 110 111 105 REQUESTS BARNHO lARMUO WILDER WILDER barnhD' QARNHOUSE C nARIHnJST WILDER R WiLOCi R 'r-AR'\nH'^'iJSEC * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 150 8 TT 13 14 TT 60 5 12 12 Y 13 19 25 26 YT 104 17 TT 5 Y 46 y Y Y 6 ~r 13 12 TT 48 7 TT 12 14 TT 56 10 9 A* FK3 SeCTfONS OEFINFb * ** NO SECTIONS DEFINEO 101 101 101 1-2 01-03 MTWRF 105 INM, 16 REQUESTS GEOMETRY R T\u0026amp;riynT 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 IHA 105 105 105 1-2 1-2 \"T^ 1-2 03 06 TT 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF TTY 137 112 TTY 112 0 RSQUeSTS INMAN A * TOTAL 35 35 4 12 12 16 16 19 19 1 1 15 15 fe'skoLA 0 ESKOLA LOONEY ESKOLA G M. LOONEY LflfiMey II. LO'.'SCV LOONEY 117 REiUESTS M. LOO MEY * TOTAL YT 30 30 \"YT 30 151 TT 17 8 TT 8 bO TT 11 12 TT 12 58 2T 28 20 ZT 20 118 T 2 10 \"Y 10 33 T T TY 11 6 \"Y 7 47 TT 16 14 TT 12 68 21 22 21 26 26 21 2S 22. 21 S7 GFOMETRY R -------------101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 GEOMETRY GT 101 ici 101 102 102 102 GEOMETRY GT 101 101 101 102 102 102 GEOMf-TRY CPT 101 101 ini 102 102 102 T=T 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 GT 03 04 06 05 01 05  1 05 TIT 05 MJWKF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF nwKF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF TJT 137 112 112 112 eSRULA ESKOLA LOONEY LGHNEY LOONEY 113 REOUeSTS tSKULA G FSKOLA G L3'.M5Y 1. LOS^EY M. LOONEY * TOTAL YIT 30 30 31 30 151 TY n 8 12 9 60 TT 11 12 TT 12 58 29 20 2Y 21 118 T Z 10 \"Y 9 33 Y y Y TT 11 6 TT 3 47 TT 16 14 TT 12 68 137 137 ESKOLA ESKOLA 47 RC1J6STS ESKOLA G ESKOLA G * TOTAL 30 30 60 10 11 21 13 13 26 23 24 7 6 13 15 15 30 7 8 15 137 137 ESKjjLA ESKOLA 4 7 RC-qUESTS eskuLa 'g ESKOLA G * TjTAL 30 30 60 10 11 21 13 13 26 23 24 47 Y b 13 Y Y TT 15 30 Y 8 15 SI a 61 BS SO TT7T 113 ENOERL ?4 REQUESTS e. ENDERLIN E. * TOTAL TT 30 60 Y 5 14 Y 3 10 TT 8 24 TY 22 36 Y T 3 b TT 5 18 71 72 73REF: SCH.560 date: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 14 \u0026gt;7 COURSErnrr CLASS sex HATCH PERIOD GROUP sec TERM NAMES OAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME TOT CAP MALE EHROLLHENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 SI 02 K10103 KllOOl K11003 K11041 K11043 GEOMETRY CPT 101 101 101 04 102 102 102S-4 '03 TRIG/ADV ALG 101 101 101 102 102 102 TP.IG/AOV ALG _______101 101 101 102 102 102 AD/HON trig _______101 101 101 AD/HQN TRIG 101 101 101 K13011 CALCULUS AAP 101 101 101 K13Q13 K13511 K135I3 K2 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 CALCULUS AAP 101 101 101 CALCULUS BAP 101 101 101 CALCULUS BAP 101 101 101 KND. P.M. 102 10? 102 3-4 1-2 3-4 3-4 01 02 01 02 03 03 03 03 03 03 04-06 MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTHRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 110 TTT\" ENOERL REQUESTS 111 TIT ENOERLIN E. ^NflgRL...g.  TOTAL 30 TT 60 9 F 14 7 \"T 10 16 T 24 14 TT 36 Y T 3 T 6 13 13 EARNHO BARNHOUSE C 50 REQUESTS BARNHO ?ARNHOUSE C * TOTAL 30 W bQ 11 14 25 9 TF 24 20 \u0026lt;^9 10 T 11 Y 10 TT 22 10 TT 27 IS * 111 111 BARNHO BARNHOUSE C 50 REQUESTS BARNHO 3ARNHOUSE C * TOTAL 3^ so 11 14 25 10 14 24 21 28 ^9 9 2 11 Y Y 10 TT 21 11 TT 27 112 LOONEY 21 REQUESTS M. LODNL\u0026lt; * TOTAL 30 30 12 12 9 9 21 21 9 9 Y 11 H 10 10 37 u. 29 31 22. 33 112 LOONEY 21 REQUESTS M. LOONEY * TOTAL 30 30 10 10 6 6 16 16 14 14 9 9 7 1 SB 2a. 37 A C 110 WILDER 14 REQUESTS WILDER R * TOTAL 30 30 5 5 9 9 14 14 16 16 Y 9 9 4 14 REQUESTS wiLstn HiLoeS-R- * TOTAL 30 5 9 9 14 14 16 16 y 9 9 4 4 S3 S4 ss  110 WILDER 0 REQUESTS WILDER R  TOTAL 30 30 30 30 Y 110 WILDER 0 REQUESTS WILDER R  TOTAL 30 30 30 30 Y 105 INMAN 16 REQUESTS INMAN A *'TnTCL 35 3T 4 4 12 IT 16 TT 19 TT 1 T 15 T?\"REF: SCH.560 ATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 15 I* to 21 7 to it 7 22 to COURsS TITLE CLASS SEX LUNCHl L21001 L21003 MATCH PERXOO GROUP SEC TERM NAMES LUNCH 1 FANO III BAND III L22661iiee SaHo L22003 L24001 L24003 L29001 L29003 L310Q1 L31003 L33001 3EG BAVD DAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME MAX CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO * ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED * * NO SECTIONS DEflNETT** ** NO SECTIONS OEFTNEO ** FIRST BAND 105 105 105 FIRST BAND_________ 105 105 105 MADRIGALS _______101 101 101 MADRIGALS 101 101 101 CHOIR III 101 101 101 CHOIR ITI _______101 IQl 101 CHOIR I 101 101 101 L33Q03 CHOIR 1_____________ 101 101 101 M04C21 BIOLOGY _______101 101 101 102 102 lOZ 103 103 103 104 104 104 1-2 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 01 01 02 02 01 01 04 04 04 02 01 06 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 1 34 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS JONESA 23 REQUESTS JONESA * TOTAL 60 60 13 13 9 9 22 22 38 38 5 5 17 134 JONESA 23 REQUESTS JONESA * TOTAL 60 60 13 13 9 9 22 22 38 38 5 5 17 17 136 15 REQUESTS DECKAR DECKARD K * TOTAL Jfi. 30 4 4 JLl 11 15 15 15 15 Y 10 10 5 5 136 DECKAR 15 REQUESTS OECKARO K * total -- 30 4 4 11 Ji 15 15. 15 25. 10 5 5 136 OECKAR 35 REQUESTS OECKARO K * TOTAL 45 45 15 15 21 21 36 36 9 9 Y 8 8 28 28 to 21 27 U. 22 90 12. 39 8. Sfi. 92 40 41 136 OECKAR 36 REQUESTS DECKARD K  TOTAL 45 45 15 15 21 21 36 36 9 9 8 8 28 28 136 OECKAR 16 REQUESTS OECKARO K * TOTAL 30 30 1 1 15 15 16 16 14 14 5 5 11 11 136 OFCKAR 16 REQUFSTS OECKARO K * TOTAL 30 30 1 15 15 16 16 14 14 Y 5 5 11 11 131 131 129 129 BAILEY PAILEY CHRIST CHRIST BAILEY M BAILEY M CHRISTENS R CHRISTENS R 30 30 30 30 16 10 13 14 11 9 12 8 27 19 25 22 3 11 5 8 Y 7 2 1 6 19 16 18 1620 31 3? REF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 COURSE TITLE CLASS SEX .M04023 M05001 HO5OO3 M05121 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 16 TTTrmr HfcHIUU GROUP SEC TERM NAMES 16^ 105 IOS\" 106 106 106 107 107 107 108 1U8 iO'J 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 BIOLOGY 101 101 101 -------------102 10? iUZ 103 103 103 104 104 104 -------------105 TOTTYT 106 106 106 107 107 107 * * OATS ROOM reACHER NAME CAP MALE LNKULLNbNI SkAIS AVAIL CLASS E1HN1C BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 1-2 1-2 1-2 \"r=Y 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 qT 04 05 YT 02 03 04 05 06 T=2SF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF YTWF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF 129 129 129 TW 130 130 130 128 128 TJT CHRIST christens H CHRIST CHRIST JliNNlN JENNIN JENNIN .jr-.NNIN LOGAN LOGAN OAIL\u0026amp;V 301 REQUESTS CHRISTENS R CHRISTENS R JENNINGS C JENNINGS C JENNINGS C JcTunk^Gsc' LOGAN V LOGAN V sATtrv H * TOTAL To\" 30 30 YF 30 30 30 30 30 YT ^20 11 15 TY 13 9 TT 6 14 TY 173 ------5- 10 8 TY 7 10 9 5 TY 127 TY 25 19 TT 20 19 TT 15 19 TY 300 TY 5 11 r 10 11 T 15 11 Y 120 Y y Y Y y T 8 b lOfl 103 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 ill 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 rrg CHEMISTRY 102 102 102 -------------lOJ 103 lOJ 104 104 104 105 105 iOS CHEMISTRY------------------ 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 CHEMISTRY AP 101 101 101 Y y a 4 T 2 5 Y 83 TT 17 13 ZZ 12 15 IT 13 14 TY 214 ss. 3-4 T=Y 3-4 3-4 -3Z5- 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 TY 1-2 T=T 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 TYT 04 YT 01 06 YT 04 05 02 03 04 05 06 W 03 OY 06 05 03 04 06 05 TTT MTWRF HJWHF MTWRF MTWRF MTkftF MTWRF MTWRF RTWir MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MIWHF MTWRF MIURF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTvJRF 131 TTT 129 129 T?Y 129 129 T3Y 130 130 130 128 128 TTT BAILEY TA ILEY BAILEY M SAItEY H CHRIST CHRISTENS R CHRIST CHRISTENS R TkTYT CHRIST CHRIST JENNIN JENNIN JENNIN LOGAN LOGAN BAILtV 302 REQUESTS CHRISTENS R CHRISTENS R CHRISTENS R JCNNINY5 r\" JENNINGS C JENNINGS C J( c LOGAN V LOGAN V UAlLbY H-------- * TOTAL 30 TY 30 30 TY 30 30 TY 30 30 30 30 30 \"TY 420 17 TT 13 14 9\" 15 11 TY 13 9 14 6 13 TY 174 11 ----- 12 8 ------Y 10 8 TY 6 10 Y 9 125 28 ZT 25 22 TY 25 19 ~ZF 19 19 jy 15 17 ~ZT 299 2 T 5 8 TY 5 11 T 11 11 T 15 13 T 121 T Y Y Y y Y T 127 TTT 127 127 VERTIN VERTINO fi, VERTTMVbRIlNU H VERTIN VERTIN 34 REQUESTS VERTINO A VERTINO A  TOTAL 30 YTT 30 30 TIo 9 Y 8 TT 11 TY 17 6 48 20 TT 26 14 TT 10 T 4 16 TT T Y 127 127 127 127 VERTIN VERTING A VERTIN VERTtN VERTIN 84 REQUESTS VERTINO A VLRTIf.'O A VERTINO A  TOTAL 30 30 30 30 120 9 9 9 6 35 11 14 TT 6 43 20 23 IF 14 83 10 7 16 37 Y Trr 17 REQUESTS VcRTIH ThRTPinr * TOTAL TT 30 4 TV 13 TT n TT 13 Y 3 Y 7 6 T 9 6 7 5 T 2 3 T 84 11 Y 15 6 YY 11 a 6 40 Y 8 19 rr 18 16 r 16 13 Z1 12 14 TT 13 14 TY 212 9 TT 11 6 YT 9 15 TT 6 41 Y 9 * 27 Zfi. 2 SB afi. ST % 4 \u0026lt; cref: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 time: 12:15:11 003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 17 \u0026gt;.] COURSETTTCT CLASS sex MATCH RERfOft G^OUP SEC TERM MAMES DAYS ROO** teacher name RaXENROtLHeNTSEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE CAP HALE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02  M05123 CHEMISTRY AP 101 101 101 3-4 01 MTWRF 127 VERTIN 17 RfiQU5T5 VERTINO A 30 tt 4 13 TT 17 TT 13 TT 8 'W 9 T 10 to M06001 IS PHYSICS 103 103 103 104 104 104 1-2 1-2 05 C3 MTWRF MTWRF 131 131 BAILEY 3AILEY 33 REQUESTS PAILEY M SAILEY M TOTAL 30 30 60 8 16 24 5 9 12 21 33 18 9 27 Y 7 5 12 5 16 21 M06003 PHYSICS 103 103 103 104 104 104 3-4 3-4 05 03 MTWRF MTWRF 131 131 3AILEY BAILEY 33 REOUE'STS BAILEY M BAILEY M TOTAL 30 30 60 8 16 24 4 5 9 12 21 TT 18 9 27 7 5 TT 5 16 TT M0Q501 SCIENCE/TECH 101 101 101 10? 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 02 03 04 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 133 133 133 133 MOREY MOREY MOREY MOREY 101 REQUESTS MOREY D MOREY D MOREY 0 MOREY 0 * TOTAL 30 30 30 30\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_753","title":"Unitary status: ''Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"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 management and organization","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Unitary status: ''Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/753"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["431 pages"],"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\nUnited States District Court, Eastern Arkansas District of Arkansas, Western Division\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROC SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ET AL RECEIVED MRS. LORE,NE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 DEFENDANTS KATHERDJT KNIGHT, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MCl'ION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for an Immediate Declaration g. Unitary Status states: 1. Che LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court superx uion based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with ' Revised Plan 11, which provides: At th'^ conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order relf-a.\".ng LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied witli Its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSC shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above- descnbed order shall be entered without further proceedings. 2. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revises! Pisa. See Docket No. 3410. 3. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. 4. In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one-halt days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and.student discipline ( 2.5 -2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. 5. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. 6. Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan  11. 7. The accompanying brief and the attached exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) BVi Christopher Heller 2 ACERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 stopher Heller 3 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute Submitted in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status states: 1. 2. The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. There is no reason to doubt the LRSD Board of Directors' intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37^,2\u0026amp;tt--~\\ BY:, istopher Heller 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hei 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 office OF desegregation monitoring DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31,2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan  9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15,2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard. 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8* Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one- half days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and student discipline ( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody, 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree.... At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2t I : f' r-' n. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. I (  r (' On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220,222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v, Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not I been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded. (I 1 In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430,439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the V. 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 426 F.2d 1035 (Sth Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Cl^, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. Clark v. Little Rock School District. 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 465 F.2d. 1044,1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. S^ Exhibit 1 attached. Memorandum and Order filed July 9,1982, p. 16. 1. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 584 F. Supp. 328, 335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19\nalso LRSD v. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I i r\n( -  1 In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, [t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city.... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated a equally. Sgg Clark v. Little Rock School District. 705 F.2d 265 (Sth Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark. 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13,1984, the Honorable Henry Woods foimd the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19,1984. LRSD v. PCSSD. 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district II. 'revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD. 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD V. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD. 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8^ Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").' The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, imitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving Afiican-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28,1989. 7in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD. 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD. 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal of LRSD. 949 F.2d 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). On May 1,1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.^ The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its comrnitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8f f i t 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. ( Without a hearing. Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary. Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821, p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion. Judge Wright invited the parties to modify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. t f Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21,1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies 9r- f r described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan  2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD s Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year. See Revised Plan,  9, The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided\nAt the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in tliis Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without fiirther proceedings. See Revised Plan, 11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. 10r  f ( f  The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Comphance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15,2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. ( I On Jime 25,2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and discipline ( 2.5 - 2.5.4). B. Substantial Compliance. I I The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra. the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and temunation of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion t Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20,2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found It a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings stating: We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald Iv. Carnahan], 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8 Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell. 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927,946 (11* Cir. 2001 )(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11* Cir. 1997)). 12Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Exhibit 1. p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procediues for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.\"* Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4' 'The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, JBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, JI, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See CX719. 13To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.. 269 F.3d 305,335 (4* Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system - it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. c. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan $ 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with  2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between Afiican-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed io improve Afiican-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2.7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. S^ Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96-101 (primary language arts), 105-107 (intermediate grades language arts), 109-161 (secondary language arts)\n117-118 (K-12 mathematics)\nand Final Report pp. 51- 54, 57-59 and 62-65 (generally), 72-73 (early childhood), 75-79 (primary language arts), 93-95 (intermediate language arts), 105-109 (secondary language arts) and 115- 117 and 126-131 (math and science). See also CXs 696, 697, 699 and 714. The District rewrote and began implementation of an instructional technology plan (see Interim Report, pp. 122-126 and Final Report, pp. 136-38 and CX 705, tabs 19 and 20)\nrestructured its parent involvement program (see Interim Report, pp. 69-77 and Final Report pp. 149-157)\nrevised the Districts policies and procedures related to teaching and learning (see Interim Report, pp. 17-20 and 93 and Final Report, pp. 51-55). Among the policy changes have been enhanced graduation standards, the design of a recommended curriculum and higher standards for the honors diploma (see Interim Report, pp. 17-20 and Final Report, p. 30), and an emphasis on the improved access to and success in advanced courses by Afiican-American students. See Interim Report, pp. 17-41 and Final Report, pp. 30-50. It is too early to make a final judgment about the success of the LRSD's efforts to improve African-American achievement given the implementation status of the District's reform efforts. Dr. Steven Ross, one of two desegregation experts retained by the LRSD with approval from Joshua, wrote in a September 8,2000, memo: There is substantial rationale, both logical and empirical, for giving programs time to impact student achievement. The first stage of impact is program implementation, the next is changing instruction and/or conditions for learning, and after these effects occur, achievement may be impacted. In our Memphis 15r i f study, it took at least two years for school reform programs to show positive results. In fact, after the first year, achievement went down! This same pattern was replicated with three different cohorts of schools. f ex 702, tab 15. While the LRSD remains in the process of changing conditions for learning, early indications are that the LRSD's reform efforts are working. These include: Improvements in reading achievement at the K-2 level, especially in schools implementing the District literacy model, including Reading Recovery, s^ Interim Report, pp. 90-93, CX 703, tabs 1-27, and Exhibit 4 attached. Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001', r Advances in closing the achievement gap in all areas of early literacy in grades K- 2, see Exhibit 4, pp. 81-100\nI Improvements in the percent scoring at the proficient/advanced level on both the grade 4 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see Final Report, pp. 102-104 (language arts), 131-32 (math), CX 704, tabs 7, 12, 13, 15,18, and 19 and CX740\nDecreased numbers and percentages of students performing in the below basic level of both the grade 4 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see Final Report, pp. 102-104 and 131-132 and CX 740\nImprovements in the percent scoring at the proficient/advanced level on both the grade 8 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, s^ CX 740\ni . Decreased numbers and percentages of students performing in the below basic level of both the grade 8 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see CX 740\nt Tremendous increases in the enrollment of students, including African-American students, in upper-level science and mathematics courses, see Final Report, pp. 126-129 and Exhibit 5 attached, 2000-2001 CPMSA Annual Report-, More than 100 percent increase of Afiican-American students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses at the high school level, see Final Report, pp. 37-39, Exhibit 5 and CX 705, tab 15. Significant increases in the enrollment of Afiican-American students enrolled in Pre-Advanced Placement courses in English, mathematics, science, and social studies at the middle and high school levels, see Final Report, pp. 39-43, Exhibit 5 and CX 705, tab 15\n( Significantly more Afiican-American students taking the ACT for college admission, see Final Report, pp. 47-49\nSignificantly more Afiican-American students taking the Advanced Placement examinations, Final Report, pp. 43-44 and CX 705, tab 15\nand 16Increases in the number of volunteer hours recorded by Volunteers in Public Schools, see Final Report, p. 157. While the LRSD believes these indicators portend improving Afiican-American achievement, factors beyond the LRSD's control make it unlikely that the achievement gap will be eliminated in the near future. In 1996, Judge Wright called Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg as court-appointed experts. Both testified that, given the current socioeconomic differences between Afiican-Americans and whites, it is impossible to eliminate the achievement gap. Dr. Armor testified: Q Doctor Armor, if I understood correctly yesterday, did you testify that, to your knowledge, there's no desegregation plan that has ever overcome the achievement gap between black and white students, that you're aware of? A That I'm aware of, yes. Q And I think you also testified that making the achievement gap zero is virtually impossible? A Well, impossible as long as there are socioeconomic differences between black and white families that exist today in this country. Tr. May 15,1996, p. 152-53. Dr. Walberg explained: Well, as an educational psychologist, I would like to have all students learn as much as they possibly can. But given the fact that students spend only about ten percent of their time in school, to say that a school district can remove the achievement gap between blacks and whites, I think, is too much. I think it's making a promise that can't be kept. If 90 percent of the students' time is outside of the school, where there are many other factors that affect the students' learning and capacity to learn, I think that it's an impossible promise to keep. Tr. May 13,1996, p. 33. Joshua may argue that the Eighth Circuit's decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8^ Cir. 1991), requires the LRSD to eliminate the achievement gap The LRSD introduced evidence fiom the Arkansas Department of Health and U.S. Census documenting the socioeconomic differences between Afiican-Americans and whites in the City of Little Rock, State of Arkansas and throughout the country. See CX 716 and 717. 17 before it may be released from court supervision. In that decision, the Eighth Circuit reviewed Judge Wright's decision prohibiting the parties from making modifications to their desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8* Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit identified seven \"crucial\" elements of the 1989 plans \"with respect to which no retreat should be approved.\" Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d at 256. One of those crucial elements was the agreed \"effort\" to eliminate the achievement gap. Id. (emphasis supplied). Even so, nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion suggested that the \"effort\" to eliminate the achievement gap must be successful in order for the LRSD to be released from court supervision. Moreover, no court has held that elimination of the achievement gap is a necessary prerequisite to being released from court supervision. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has cautioned against reliance on African-American achievement as a basis for continued judicial supervision. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 101-02,115 S.Ct. 2038, 2055-56 (1995). As the Supreme Court explained: Just as demographic changes independent of de jure segregation will affect the racial composition of student assignments. Freeman fv. Pittsl. 503 U.S. [467], at 494-95, 112 S.Ct. [1430], 1447-48 [(1992)], so too will numerous external factors beyond the control of the KCMSD and the State affect minority student achievement. So long as these external factors are not the result of segregation, they do not figure in the remedial calculus. See [Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v.1 Spangler, 427 U.S. [424], at 434, 96 S.Ct. [2697], at 2703-2704 [(1976)]\nSwann [v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.1.402 U.S. [1], at 22, 91 S.Ct. [1267], at 1279 [(1971)]. Insistence upon academic goals unrelated to the effects of legal segregation unwarrantably postpones the day when the KCMSD will be able to operate on its own. Id. Accordingly, the achievement gap has not prevented other school districts around the country from being declared unitary. See, e.g.. Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ.. 901 F.Supp 784, 819 (D. Del. 1995) (\"Because the environment outside school is so strong, cumulative, and varied, schools cannot overcome such environmental differences among children.\"), affd 90 F.3d 752 (3\" Cir. 1996)\nKeves v. School District No. 1. 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1300 (D. Colo. 1995)(\"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic 18 factors, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\")\nTasbv v. Woolerv. 869 F. Supp. 454, Aril (N.D. Tex. 1994) (\"The Court is unable to find that the achievement gap in DISD is a vestige of the prior segregated school system.\"). Finally, Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, 11. To meet that burden, Joshua would have been required to come forward with evidence that the achievement gap resulted from the LRSD's noncompliance. rather than other factors. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076- 77 (7* Cir. 2001). As the Com! of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has recognized: The reality is that imtil minority students achieve parity of educational achievement with the white students in the Rockford public schools, the plaintiffs will contend that the minority students are victims of the unlawful discrimination of an earlier period in Rockford's history. Yet it is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture. Some of these factors may themselves be due to or exacerbated by discrimination, but not to discrimination by the Rockford school board. The board has no legal duty to remove those vestiges of societal discrimination for which it is not responsible. Insofar as the factors that we have mentioned, rather than unlawful conduct by the Rockford school board in years past, are responsible for lags in educational achievement by minority students, the board has no duty that a federal court can enforce to help those students catch up. It may have a moral duty\nit has no federal constitutional duty. Id. Joshua made no effort to prove that the LRSD's alleged noncompliance caused or contributed to the current achievement gap. Therefore, Joshua failed to meet their burden to prove the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7. The LRSD agreed to implement programs, policies and procedures designed to improve African-American achievement, and it has done so. Early indicators suggest that the programs, policies and procedures being implemented are improving African-American achievement. While it is unlikely that these efforts will completely eliminate the achievement gap anytime soon, neither the Revised Plan nor the Constitution requires elimination of the achievement gap as a prerequisite to ending court supervision. The LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision in the area of student achievement. See Freeman v, 19Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,489, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)(\"Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the case, can be an important step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities.\"). 2. Revised Plan  2.7.1: Program Assessment. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African- American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Joshua alleges that the LRSD had done \"no assessment of the academic programs for each of the three years following the court's approval of the modified desegregation plan.\" See Docket No. 3447, p. 27. At the hearing, Joshua focused on the program evaluations prepared by the District's Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (\"PRE\"), and in particular, the program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Report. On the bottom of page 148, the Final Report states: In addition to the three programs on the Board-i evaluated the following programs\nadopted research agenda, PRE Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Pro^am at Philander Smith College Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital Link While the term of the plan was three years beginning with the 1998-99 school year, the first semester of the 1998-99 school year was a transition period in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan,  9 and 10. 20Joshua's focus on the evaluations listed on the bottom of page 148 resulted, at least in part, from comments made by Judge Wright. Judge Wright had expressed concern that \"the District has not accomplished what it set out with respect to monitoring programs that were geared toward raising the achievement level of African-American students.\" Tr. July 9,2001, p. 31. The LRSD later learned that this concern likely had sprung from the Court's ex parte commumcations with Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Marshall informed Judge Wright that the District had not performed certain program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Report after the District failed to provide the reports to her office. See Exhibit 6 attached, Marshall, pp. 59-60. In fact, PRE had either provided data for an evaluation or had evaluated each program identified on bottom of page 148 of the Final Report. See CX 720-730. The failure of PRE to provide the evaluations to ODM resulted from the departure from the District of the Assistant Superintendent for PRE, Dr. Kathy Lease, in June of 2001. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, p. 369. As a result of Dr. Lease's departure, the task fell on Dr. Lesley to locate the evaluations. Dr. Lesley candidly admitted that her initial search failed to reveal all of the evaluations, but eventually they were all located. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 356-369\nsee also CX 616. The evaluations were introduced as Court's Exhibits 720-730. Joshua's focus on the evaluations listed on the bottom of page 148 reflects an effort to distort the meaning of Revised Plan  2.7.1 to suit their case. Revised Plan  2.7.1 required the administration of an assessment each year, not formal program evaluations. The LRSD continuously used available assessment data \"to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement.\" See Revised Plan,  2.7.1, See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 246. Dr. Lesley provided several examples of how the District used assessment data to make program decisions\nidentifying implementation problems with the Success for All program (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 247-264), refusing to extend for another year a curriculum waiver to Mann Magnet Middle School (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 264-267)\nmodifying the pre-kindergarten curriculum (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 269-271)\ndeveloping pacing guides for 21 i middle school math teachers (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 271-273)\nand revising the class schedule for ninth grade English students (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 273-75). While no formal program evaluations were required, the LRSD evaluated some programs as a part of its efforts to comply with Revised Plan  2.7.1. Those programs were part of the Board-adopted research agenda also discussed on page 148 of the Final Report. See also Interim Report, p. 53. Additional evaluations performed by PRE were included on the bottom of page 148 so the Final Report would not be misleading. The District did not want to leave the impression that PRE had done nothing more than the three evaluations from the Board-adopted research agenda. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 354-56. The evaluations on the bottom of page 148 would be relevant only if Revised Plan  2.7.1 required a formal program evaluation every year of every program affecting African-American achievement. To impose such a requirement would blur the distinction between an \"assessment' and an \"evaluation.\" While these words might be interchangeable in some contexts, they have separate and distinct meanings in the field of education. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 242-43. S^ .11 AMI Civil 4 3014 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should interpret words or phrases associated with particular trade or occupation as experienced and knowledgeable members of that trade or a occupation use them, unless evidence discloses that the parties used them in a different sense.\"). An assessment is a norm-referenced or criterion-referenced test administered to students. Norm- referenced assessments compare a student's achievement to that of a sample of students known the norming group. Criterion-referenced assessments seek to determine the level of student achievement of specific academic standards. See Exhibit 9 attached, Arkansas Comprehensive as Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program, p. 4 and Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 242-43. Assessments may be one component of a formal program evaluation. See CX 586. Formal program evaluations are typically long-term, time consuming and very expensive. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, p. 339. Dr. Lesley testified that she was not aware of any school district that formally 22 evaluates all of its programs and that, in her opinion, it would be impossible to do so given the District's limited resources. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 339-40. From the very beginning, Joshua and ODM knew that the LRSD did not intend to prepare a formal program evaluation every year for every program in the District affecting African- American achievement, yet Joshua raised no objection during the term of the Revised Plan. S^ Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 370-71. See AMI Civil 4\"' 3015 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should give weight to the meaning placed on the language by the parties themselves, as shown by their statements, acts, or conduct after the contract was made.\"). ODM issued a monitoring report on August 11, 1999, on the LRSD's \"Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" With regard to program assessment, ODM reported, \"According to the Assistant Superintendent [Dr. Lease], the PRE staff will select programs to be evaluated each year rather than attempting to evaluate the district's entire instructional program at any one time.\" See Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11,1999, p. 42. ODM offered no recommendations in the area of program assessment and did not suggest that the Revised Plan required that every program affecting African-American achievement be evaluated every year. See Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11, 1999, p. 43. On August 26, 1999, the Board voted to formally evaluate three programs being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan: the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 (\"preK-3\") literacy program, the transition to middle schools and the math and science project funded by the National Science Foundation. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 319-321 and CXs 718 and 739. These three formal program evaluations became known as the Board-adopted research agenda. At the same Board meeting, the Board separately approved an \"assessment\" plan. The assessment plan included not only the state-mandated benchmark examinations, but also locally adopted criterion- 7' t The evaluation of the English as a Second Language program was also part of the Board- adopted research agenda. Obviously unrelated to the District's Revised Plan obligations, a memorandum agreement between the District and OCR required this evaluation. See Tr. Nov 20, 2001, p. 354. 23 referenced tests for grades K-2 reading and for grades 2-9 in English, language arts, mathematics, and science. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 216. Both the Board-adopted research agenda and the assessment plan were explained in the Interim Report. See Interim Report, pp. 53 (Board research agenda), 56-57 (assessment plan), 101 (primary grade language arts), 107 (intermediate grade language arts), 113 (secondary language arts), and 118 (math). Even after publication of the Interim Report, Joshua raised no objection to the Board-adopted research agenda or the assessment plan. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 370-71. The District's evaluations made pursuant to the Board-adopted research agenda were admitted into evidence as a part of Court's Exhibits 703 (literacy), 705 (math and science) and 711 (middle schools). Joshua will likely argue that these evaluations were poorly written and never approved by the Board. While it is true that the Board never approved the evaluations, nothing required the Board to approve them. When presented to the Board in August of 2000, the Board voted to table consideration of the evaluations until additional assessment data were available. See CX 739, Minutes of August 24, 2000, meeting, p. 5. If anything, the Board's tabling of the evaluations demonstrates its good faith commitment to having quality evaluations. It is also true that Dr. Lesley was not satisfied with the quality of the evaluations. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 329-330. Dr. Lesley discussed her concerns with Dr. Les Camine, then the The District paid particular attention to alignment between the District's curriculum and the assessments in order to better gauge the achievement of Afiican-American students. Dr. Bonme Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, explained: Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that everything you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to leam that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so, without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge or skill anywhere else. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 199-200. Results of the assessments were included in the final report. See Final Report, pp. 55-56 (assessments generally), 79 (early literacy), 90-93 (primary grade language arts), 102-105 (intermediate grade language arts), 111-114 (secondary language arts), 125-129 (math and science), and 131-135 (math). See also CXs 699, 700 and 701. 24 1.i District's Superintendent. Dr. Gamine sent the evaluations for review by Dr. Ross, one of the desegregation consultants approved by Joshua. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, p. 330. After reviewing the evaluations. Dr. Ross e-mailed Dr. Gamine stating, \"I have read three of the recent program evaluation reports completed by your research department. They appear to be of very good quality - well-written, clear and comprehensive.\" GX 702, tab 15. Not surprisingly, Dr. Lesley's dissatisfaction with PRE's evaluations created a rift between Dr. Lesley and Dr. Lease. Joshua sought to capitalize on this rift by offering numerous District e-mails as exhibits. As a whole, these prove nothing more than the fact that Dr. Lesley was willing to fight for better program evaluations, even if Dr. Ross found them to be \"of very good quality.\" Therefore, notwithstanding questions about the quality of PRE's formal program evaluations, Joshua failed to meet their burden in establishing noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7.1. Revised Plan  2.7.1 required annual assessments, not annual program evaluations. The District administered assessments at least annually at each grade level. The District continuously used available assessment data to make program decisions. The Board and Dr. Lesley's concerns about the quality of PRE's program evaluations evidence their good faith commitment to improving Afiican-American achievement. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan  2.7.1. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. 3. 2.5. Revised Plan 2.5 - 2.5.4: Student Discipline. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 252.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman \" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, led the District's effort to ensure no racial discrimination in student discipline by strict adherence to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook (the \"Handbook\"). See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 24-25: see also Interim Report, pp. 13-16. Dr. Watson testified that the her goal was to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions while at the same time strictly adhering to the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 45 and 55. Dr. Watson achieved her goal. The number of suspensions decreased 21 percent from the 1997-98 school year through the 1999-2000 school year - a decrease of over 1,100 suspensions. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 72-73. Expulsions dropped from 109 during the 1997-98 school year to 3 in 1999-2000. See Final Report, p. 24. The improved learning environment was obvious to both teachers and students. In 1999-2000, 94 percent of teachers indicated they felt safe at school, compared to only 42% in 1997-98. See Interim Report, p. 14. Also in 1999-2000, 93 percent of parents that expressed an opinion felt that their child was safe at school. See Final Report, pp. 24-25. Dr. Watson explained a number of strategies implemented by the District to ensure strict adherence to the Handbook. First, each year the District involved all stakeholders (students, parents, teachers and administrators), including Joshua, in the process of revising the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 33-34. Second, the District provided training to students, teachers and administrators on the provisions of the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 33 and 38-44 and CXs 672-675. Third, the District asked all parents to sign a \"parent contract\" by which a parent stated that he or she had read the Handbook and agreed to ensure his or her child's 26 compliance with the Handbook. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 33 and CXs 661-670 (back cover). Fourth, the District created the Ombudsman position to investigate student complaints of racebased mistreatment in student discipline. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 16-17. Finally^ Dr. Watson monitored schools' compliance with the Handbook in two ways. Dr. Watson (or another hearing officer working under her supervision) reviewed every long-term suspension and expulsion and those short-term suspensions that were appealed. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 35-37 and 54. Dr. Watson testified that any failure by the school to follow the Handbook resulted in the suspension or expulsion being expunged from the student's record and the student being returned to school. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 26-27 and 35-37. Dr. Watson also prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports cataloging the number of suspensions and expulsions at each school. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 55-56 and CXs 678-681 (annual reports). Dr. Watson provided these reports to Joshua on a regular, ongoing basis. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 62-63 and CX 682. She used these reports to identify schools having discipline problems and would conference with the school's administrators to work out solutions. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 64-71 and CXs 684 and 685. The District also engaged in a number of activities designed to decrease the number of suspensions and expulsions. First, the District revised the curriculum in an effort to make it more engaging. Students engaged in learning are less likely to misbehave. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 45. Second, the District established a number of new alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in an educational setting. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 49-55. Third, each year schools were asked to develop strategies for reducing the number of suspensions and expulsions. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 48 and CX 677. Fourth, the District offered traimng for teachers and other personnel in classroom management and effective discipline. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 45-46 and CX 676. Fifth, the District provided training to students in conflict resolution and peer mediation and provided group counseling and case managers. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 46. Finally, for those students who violated the Handbook's 27 !code of conduct, the District followed progressive discipline imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. Behavior modification plans were used as a part of the progressive discipline process. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 46. Despite the substantial decrease in the number of suspensions and expulsions, there was no decrease in the percentage of suspensions going to Afiican-American students. Courts have used a statistic called the total suspension index to measure the extent to which Afiican- American students are disproportionately suspended, often referred to as the \"discipline disparity.\" The total suspension index is calculated by dividing the percentage of Afiican- American students suspended and expelled by the percentage of Afiican-American students in the total student population. Thus, proportional discipline of Afiican-American students would yield a total suspension index of 1.00. SSS Hoots v. Pennsylvania. 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The LRSD's total suspension index has ranged from 1.31 to 1.25 from the 1992-93 school year through the 2000-01 school year. See Exhibit 743 and Docket No. 2226, Exhibit 17. According to 1998' data from the Office of Civil Rights, the total suspension index for all of Arkansas was 2.16. The national total suspension index was 2.24. Other school districts around the country have been declared umtary despite a total suspension index greater than that of the LRSD. See Coalition of Save Our Children. 901 F.Supp. at 817 (total suspension index of 1.81) and Hoots. 118 F.Supp.2d at 608 (total suspension index of 1.50). Joshua will likely argue that the District should have done more to try to reduce the discipline disparity. However, the Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity. The Revised Plan required strict adherence with the Handbook, irrespective of whether strict adherence to the Handbook resulted in a discipline disparity. The only way to ensure proportional discipline is racial disciplinary quotas. In reversing a remedial decree requiring proportional discipline, the Seventh Circuit noted\n^This was the most recent data available at the time of the hearings. 28( . r' Racial disciplinary quotas violate equity in its root sense. They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically imderpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. They teach schoolchildren an unedifying lesson of racial entitlements. And they incidentally are inconsistent with another provision of the decree, which requires that discipline be administered without regard to race or ethnicity. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.. Ill F.3d 528, 538 (7** Cir. 1997). See Keyes. 902 1  F.Supp. at 1304 (\"If a student's conduct violates the discipline policy, it is expected that he or she will be disciplined regardless of the potential disparate effect on racial/ethnic statistics.\"). See also Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-506(c) (\"Every school district board of directors in this state shall hold its pupils strictly accountable for any disorderly conduct in school, on the school grounds, in r a school bus, or at any school function.\"). Similarly in the present case, mandating proportional discipline would violate the Revised Plan's promise of \"no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan  2.5. ( Joshua came forward with no evidence that the current racial disparity resulted from systematic discrimination by the LRSD. Not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against by the LRSD in the imposition of discipline. Dr. Watson, an Afiican- American, testified that, based on her experience as a hearing officer, Afiican-American students were being suspended more because they were engaging in behavior requiring suspension imder the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 83-84. Dr. Watson stated that socioeconomic factors likely explain the current disparity. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 84. The District's Ombudsman, ^^Similarly, Dr. Walberg testified: Q I asked you about whether or not socioeconomic status was related, or bore a relationship to disparity in Special Education, you indicated that it was. I think you mentioned also gifted and talented as another area that would be impacted in the same manner. What about discipline, suspensions, expulsions, that type of activity? Are you familiar with the relationship between socioeconomic status and school discipline? A It's not my primary area of interest, but I am somewhat familiar, and the relation is what you would expect from the other research that poor children more often get into difficulties of various kinds of indiscipline and so on, and are suspended from school. Tr. May 13, 1996, p. 183. See also Tr. May 13, 1996, p. 189. 29 {-  iJames Washington, an African-American, investigated student claims of race-based mistreatment with regard to discipline. Washington testified: Q. A. Finally, Mr. Walker asked you about the over representation of black students among students suspended and expelled. Based on your experience as Ombudsman and your experience in the District, do you have any reason to believe that the over-representation of African-Americans in discipline has resulted from any systematic discrimination by the Little Rock School District? No, sir, I have no reason to believe that that is true. S^Tr.Nov. 19,2001, p. 21. Therefore, the LRSD successfully endeavored to reduce the number of suspensions while at the same time strictly adhering to the Handbook. The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate the discipline disparity. To the contrary, the Revised Plan required \"no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan  2.5. Joshua failed to meet their burden in establishing that the current racial disparity was caused by systematic racial discrimination by the LRSD. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan  2.5 - 2.5.4. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. D. Siunmary Judgment. For purposes of summary judgment, the Revised Plan sections can be divided into two categories: sections timely challenged by Joshua and those that were not. With regard to those Revised Plan sections not timely challenged by Joshua, the Revised Plan requires that the LRSD be immediately granted unitary status and released from court supervision. See Revised Plan  11. With regard to sections timely challenged by Joshua but not yet litigated, the LRSD moves for summary judgment. Discovery has revealed no evidence that the Board cannot be trusted to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. Consequently, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the LRSD should be granted judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)\nCelotex Corp, v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200. 30I i There will hkely be a dispute as to what Revised Plan sections were timely challenged by Joshua. On April 4, 2001, Judge Wright issued a scheduling order pertaining to challenges to the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The order stated, \"Any challenges to the LRSD's compliance must be filed on or before May 18, 2001.\" See Docket No. 3414, p. 2. Following two extensions of time, Joshua's challenges to the LRSD's compliance were due June 25,2001. See Docket Nos. 3434 and 3445. On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with following sections of the Revised Plan: 2.1, 2.1.1,2.2,2.2.1,2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.3, 3.6, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.8, 2.9,2.11.1, 3.4, 3.6, 5.4 and 5.6. Docket No. 3447. Joshua's June 25, 2001, pleading included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. As Judge Wright recognized at the June 29, 2001, pretrial hearing, \"His objections are very general I might add.\" Tr. June 29,2001, p. 49. In preparation for hearings scheduled for July 5-6, 2001, and August 1-2,2001, Judge Wright admonished Joshua: THE COURT: ... Try to tailor your evidence, so that the Court hears the strongest evidence you have against these people. MR. WALKER: Yes. Your Honor, we would ask - THE COURT: I mean, I am not saying that you have any evidence against them, but don't fritter away your time with - MR. WALKER: I understand. THE COURT:  with trivial matters, you know. And I am not like some judges, but I do get, you know, and all of us get tired of hearing just, you know, the trivial things. We want to hear the, you know, we want to hear the strongest evidence you have got. Tr. Jxme 29, 2001, pp. 54-55. On July 5-6, 2001, Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the LRSD's Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services, and Dr. Gamine, the LRSD's Superintendent during the term of the Revised Plan.'^ Joshua wasted almost an entire day ^^At the conclusion of these hearings. Judge Wright observed, \"[I]t has occurred to me that more likely than not, just more likely than not, if all we were looking at were the constitution, that is the FGreen v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430(1968)] factors. Little Rock is probably unitary.\" Tr. July 6,2001, p. 553. The Green factors are: (1) 31 Iquestioning Babbs about Revised Plan sections for which he was not directly responsible. See, e^, Tr. July 5,2001, pp. 249-250 . As a result, it became obvious that additional time would be needed beyond the August 1-2, 2001 hearing dates, and that time limits would be necessary. On July 9,2001, Judge Wright scheduled two additional hearing days on Revised Plan  2.7, 2.7.1 and 2.5 - 2.5.4 for November 19-20, 2001, and advised the parties that all remaining hearing time would be split evenly between the LRSD and Joshua. Tr. July 9,2001, p. 64. In addition. Judge Wright set aside the week of January 28,2002, for a hearing on the LRSD's compliance with other Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua. In preparation for the January 28, 2002, hearing. Judge Wright directed Joshua to narrow the issues by specifically identifying how the LRSD had failed to comply with the Revised Plan sections identified in Joshua's general objections filed June 25,2001. Judge Wright stated: I want you, Mr. Walker, to decide between now and, I will give you a date, but sometime in December, what other issues you want to bring to the Court's attention, and what other issues you object to, and want to carry a burden of proving that the District is not in compliance on. And I want you to be very specific about these in terms of what parts of the Compliance Report you are objecting to, so that we can once again, beginning January 28th, have a hearing a discrete part of this plan, if that is what you want to do. I don't want just general objections. I want it to be, you know, very explicit, as to why you think this District has not complied. If you have just a more general objection, such as the one you filed initially, that still stands of record. on Tr. 536 (11/20/01) (emphasis supplied). In response to Judge Wright's directive, however, Joshua simply identified additional sections of the Revised Plan that it \"intend[ed] to show noncompliance by the [LRSD].\" See Docket No. 3557. More disturbing to the LRSD than the lack of specifics was the fact that Joshua for the first time challenged the LRSD's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9,4.0, 5.5,6.0, 7.0 and 8.3. Compare Docket No. 3447 with 3557. Joshua's challenge to these Revised Plan sections was untimely pursuant to Judge Wright's order of April 4, 2001, and the LRSD should be granted immediate unitary status with student assignment, (2) facilities, (3) faculty, (4) staff, (5) transportation and (6) extracurricular activities. Id. at 435. 32 regard to Revised Plan  2.11, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 5.5, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.3. as required by Revised Plan  11. See Freeman. 503 U.S. at 489. in. Conclusion. This Court has a \"duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities' ,11 at the earliest practicable date. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. The Supreme Court explained: As we have long observed, 'local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition.' Dayton Bd. of Education v, Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406,410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) (Dayton I). Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system. When the school district and all state entities participating with it in operating the schools make decisions in the absence of judicial supervision, they can be held accountable to the citizenry, to the political process, and to the courts in the ordinary course. Id. at 490 (emphasis supplied). See also Missouri v. Jenkins. 515 U.S. 70,138 (1995) (\"Usurpation of the traditionally local control over education not only takes the judiciary beyond its proper sphere, it also deprives the States and their elected officials of their constitutional powers. At some point, we must recognize that the judiciary is not omniscient, and that all problems do not require a remedy of constitutional proportions.\")\nFreeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 505-06 (1992)(Scalia, J., concurring)('\"From the very first, federal supervision of local school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination.' Dowell. 498 U.S., at 247, 111 S.Ct., at 637 (emphasis added). We envisioned it as temporary partly because '[n]o single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools,' Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717, 741, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3125,41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I), and because no one's interest is furthered by subjecting the Nation's educational system to 'judicial tutelage for the indefinite future,' Dowell, supra. 498 U.S., at 249, 111 S.Ct., at 638\nsee also Dayton Bd. of Education v. Brinkman. 433 U.S. 406, 410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977)\nSpangler v. Pasadena City Bd, of Education. 611 F.2d 1239, 1245, n. 5 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J., concurring). But we also envisioned it as temporary, I think, because the rational basis for the extraordinary presumption of causation simply must dissipate as the de jure system and the school boards who produced it recede fiirther 33 into the past. Since a multitude of private factors has shaped school systems in the years after abandonment of de jure segregationnormal migration, population growth (as in this case), 'white flight' Iftom the inner cities, increases in the costs of new facilities-the percentage of the current makeup of school systems attributable to the prior, government-enforced discrimination has diminished with each passing year, to the point where it caiuiot realistically be assumed to be a significant factor.\")\nBd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991)(\"Dissolving a desegregation decree after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time properly recognizes that 'necessary concern for the important values of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal court's regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination. See Milliken v. Bradley [Milliken 11 ], 433 U.S., at 280-82, 97 S.Ct., at 2757-58.' Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, 611 F.2d, at 1245, n. 5 (Kennedy, J., concurring).\"). The \"ultimate question\" before this Court is \"whether the [LRSD] [is] likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision ...Cody. 139 F.3d at 1199-1200. Joshua bears the burden of proof on this question. See Revised Plan 11. Joshua has not and cannot meet their burden. After over 40 years of court supervision of the LRSD, the time has come to return control to the democratically elected Board. Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Wilkinson's final thoughts in affirming the district court's granting of unitary status to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district apply with equal force to the LRSD: No decisions are more sensitive and difficult than those involving public schools, and no process more wrenching than that of matching limited resources to the limitless array of educational needs. But these challenges are better met by communities than by courts and, after thirty-five years of sporadic judicial supervision, the time has come to conclude. If not now, when? Each child is a human being to educate. If this essential task of education has become too daunting for democracy, then I know not who we are or what we shall become. Belk, 269 F.3d at 356 (Wilkinson, C.J., concurring). For the reasons set forth above, the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings. 34f' Respectfully Submitted, f  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR_22201-3493 (5011 r^ii r BY: :hristopher Hi r I 35 bp CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 I Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 I Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desep-egation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hellei ( f 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, ET AL. VS. NO. LR 64 C 15S THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED UAOtsnocT courr EASTtWH DtSnRCT AKKANSAS JUL 91982 CA^R. BRENTS, CLERK OE^.CLLRA PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan. The plan is referred to as the \"Partial K-6 Plan\". 1 In 1973, after years of litigation, 2 the plaintiffs ana the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Rock School District was filed in 1956. The pending case, was simply a continuation of the original litigation, in 1964. The pending case which was filea : exhibit J 1 The following chart 3 illustrates the trend' which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent DecIn In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7.5%' b.b% The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs. increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of \"white 4 flight\". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. The following chart^ illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. 5. DX 19, pages 12-28\ntestimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2I Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent beclin in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year. it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A \"Reorganization Committee\" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work. the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under -^e 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated prinary grades and graaes four through six were designated as intermediate graaes. At that tine blacks accounted for 63% of the students in graaes one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly * in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominantly white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, irtiich had black enrollment of 80% or more, one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalmueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable job of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been drrectea toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a belief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment in the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a \"65-35\" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceivea stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A \"Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the pro- posals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composea of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much input from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a stuay of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State.University. This \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to th_e Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory com- mittee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupxl assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally \"Partial K-6 Plan\" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The \"objections to petition\" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The \"plaintiffs object to additional black school closings\". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be \"closed\", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school. the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ano reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicatea that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be 51,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an elementary school causes a \"burden\" on blacks is puzzling. as is the claim that such a move is calculated \"to further relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community.\" First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding buroen on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the \"presence\" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker, Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the \"proportionate burden\" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evioence that a school has been \"closed or downgraded* because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a \"disproportionate burden\" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not blac)c, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. \"Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable\" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are locatea in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from bU% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, \"there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children\". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply \"adjusting\" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial l\u0026gt;alance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a numljer of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where b white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. 1 This was a decline of bSl from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. t and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no \"critical mass\" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Dnder the present plan, seven schools have a black I i enrollment of 80S or more. The Board's conclusion that \"meaningful integration\" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20S'of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a I simple \"adjustment\" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is \"reimposition\" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 2b. 10?! by grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a \"balanced ratio\" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which ctre essentially all black. Although maintaining a \"balanced ratio\" at each school is a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacKs. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Furthermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. No such agreement has been established by the evidence. Furthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied so as to dictate the terns of an attendance plan in 1982.* - During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be \"overcrowded\". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation And contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the \"65-35\" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing clacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the' Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K-6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivated by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that \"vestiges of discrimination\" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the \"faculty, staff. programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district\". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_ a white superintendent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewea again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black wno is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require-' ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the \"heads of departments\" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman was recommended by Dr. Masem^^ for the vacant position, but she was not hired by the Board. Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replace him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable he harbors some bitterness toward the District. him. one ana 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racxal reasons and that racial considerations influenceo personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as~Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a \"vestige\" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any discriminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are \"open\" to anybody who elects to take the courses. There is no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to br. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in disproportionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices, surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment, . I 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14) whites. Dr'. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes \"every effort\" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in \"extracurricular activities\". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other \"extracurricular activities\" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the \"at large\" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to oo so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimination. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnish the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black. against Patterson and defeated him. ran 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney repeatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to \"de-annex\" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law. concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Ark. Stat. S80-404, et seg. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that \"de-annexing\" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Stuay Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolateo complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scoools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling \"dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that \"racial balance\" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 D.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)\nSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25\nand Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Furthermore, a small number of onerace, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra at 26. This is particularly true where, as here, the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than \"racial balance\" in structuring an elementary attendance plan. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial considerations, and the desirable aspects of a K through 6 grouping are legitimate factors which may be considered when weighing the educational benefits of one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitlea to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case, Partial K-b Plan is a constitutionally sound plan which may be implementea by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 IBuilding on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock A Report to the Little Rock School District Desegregation Assistance Team December 16, 1981 The Technical Assistance Center Box 13010A, SFA Station Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 (713) 569-5307 Bennat Mullen, Director J EXHIBIT 2- Dr. Bennat C. Mullen, Team Manager and Director of the Technical Assistance Center Dr. Shirley McCune, Chairperson, Committee on the Maintenance of Quality Integrated Education Dr. Gary Orfield, Committee to Examine the Current Desegregation Plan and to Explore Options Dr. McCune and Dr. Orfield respectively drafted the reports for the two committees above. Other members of the visiting team are listed on the following page.VISITING TEAM Ms. Wanda Banks Jonal Coordinator P.O. Box 39 Marianna, AR 72360 (501) 295-5429 Dr. Clara Jenning.s Chairperson Dept, of Elem/Early Childhood Education University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, AR 71601 (501) 541-6854 \"r. Glenn Campbell Executive Director of Desegregation Monitoring Office 911 Locust St. St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 231-4153 Dr. Alex John Dean of University Relation.s Northeast Ixjuisiana University 1-5 Administration Bldg. Monroe, LA 71209 (318) 342-2055 Ms. Linda Yee Chew Assistant Director Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307 Dr. Sheryl Uenbo, Director Race Desegregation Assistance Center The zimcrican University SbO8 Carlynn Drive Bethesda, MD 20034 (202) 686-3511 Dr. Ralph Eddins Professor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13023-SFA Station 75962 , TX Nacogiloche (713) 509-3409 Ms. Donna Grady Speech Therapist Marianna School District 212 Church Marianna, AR (501) 295-3364 72360 Dr. Burnett Joiner Dean, College of Education Granibling State University . P.O. Box 46 Grambling, LA 71245 (318) 247-6941 Dr. Lee Mahon Associate Director Project Equity 2047 Ticonderoga Drive San Mateo, CA 94402 (408) 984-4696 Dr. Shirley McCune Director Education Commission of the States State Services Division 1860 Lincoln St. Denver, CO 80295 (303) 830-3786 Mr. George Mirnbal, Manager Shreveport Chamber of Coiiiiiierce P.O. Box 20074 529 Crockett Street Shreveport, LA 71120 (318) 226-8521 Lois Hart Consultant Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307 Dr. Bennat C. Mullen Director Technical Assistance Center of the Soutliwe.st Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307Ms. Willia Murphy Senior Program Administrator Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station (713) 569-5307 Mr. Allen E. Alonzo Desegregation Coordinating Supervisor East Baton Rouge Parish School Board P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (504) 928-2651 Dr. Gary Orfield, Guest Scholar in Governmental Studies Brookings Institution and Professor at at the University of Illinois 1775 Mass N.W. Washington, D.C. (202) 797-6066 (217) 333-2574 (217) 352-0696 20006 Mr. Win Grant East Baton Rouge Parish School Board P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (504) 928-2651 Ms. Susan Paynter Instructor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13018-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-2908 Dr. Kay Rogers 3809 Sevier North Little Rock, AR 42116 (501) 450-3110 Dr. Donnya Stephens Professor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13018-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-2908 RESOURCE PERSONS Dr. Dewitt Davis, Demographer Associate Professor of Geography The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 4003 Old Warren Road Pine Bluff, AR 71603 (501) 541-6855 Mr. Nathaniel Griffin, Urban Planner Director of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Markham 4 Broadway, Room 311 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4790 Dr. J. J. Lacey Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock Public Schools West Markham 6 Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3361 Mr. Paul Masem Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Schools West Markham \u0026amp; Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 490-2000Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest December 16, 1981 Mr. Paul Masem Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Schools West Markham and Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Masem: Herewith in this report are the results .of the study that you asked our Center The support and cooperation that you, members of your staff. Board to conduct. of Education, faculty, students, and community gave us throughout the long course of the study was beyond anything that could have been expected. The quality of interest in and support of the school district exhibited during this study will surely enable the community to meet some of the very real challenges that exist. The visiting team members were again and again impressed with the quality of personnel and the quality of programs found within the district. You and the members of the Board of Education can indeed be proud of the affirmative progress and the quality education progress that are in evidence. At Stephen F. Austin State University we are pleased to have been a part with you of a major effort to simultaneously address equity and excellence in education. The report is organized around those two concerns. It is believed that they complement each other very well. It is our hope that you will find this report useful as you plan for the future. On behalf of our University, the staff of the Technical Assistance Center, and the members of the visiting team I thank you for your hospitality and wish you well. Sincerely yours. Bennat C. MiXLlen Director BCM:pc Box 13010 A SFA Station Nacosdoches, Texas 75962 (713) 569-5307 INTRODUCTION into The image of nine Black children being accompanied by military personnel Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 is etched into the minds of many adult Americans. This event, the result of the confrontation between Governor Orval Faubus and President Eisenhower, captured the drama of the nations' commitment to dismantle dual school systems and end school deseg- regation. Less well known to Americans, however, is the current status of desegregation and the quality of public education in Central High School and the Little Rock schools. Today, Little Rock's ten all Black schools and 23 all white schools are integrated. The quality of education in Little Rock has shown steady improvement and progress despite the usual setbacks and controversies. Much has been accomplished through the leadership provided by the community and the steady efforts of local school personnel. Once again the commitment of the Little Rock community to the maintenance of quality, integrated, public education is being tested. Concerns about increasing racial isolation, white flight, differential treatment and achievement of Black and white students, and the future of Little Rock schools have been raised. Most of Little Rock citizens recognize that these problems will be increased in the future if nothing is done. The solutions of the past can no longer meet the needs of the community and the schools. The situation found in Little Rock is similar to that of many other cities. Changes in our societydemographic changes, economic changes, socialpolitical changes, and technological changesare as evident in Little Rock as in other areas of the nation. In 1957, Little Rock was a community with a Black population of approximately 25,352 of the total population of 107,813. Little Rock served as the trading center for an agricultural economy. Today,the community consists of 393,494, with a Black population of approximately 82,865, and it has become a growing industrial center. The structure and needs of the community have changed during this period of time and these changes require a reevaluation of the evolving needs and the steps which are required if progress is to be maintained in future years. The following is a report of the observations of a team of twenty-two social scientists, business leaders, educators and technical assistance specialists from all parts of the United States who are involved in the study of school desegregation issues. This team visited the Little Rock community in November, 1981, under the auspices of the Technical Assistance Center located in Nacogdoches, Texas. This Center, a project of Stephen F. Austin State University, serves schools in the states of Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and New Mexico. The team spent four days in Little Rock observing schools\ninterviewing community leaders, parents and school personnel\nand reviewing available research and program documentation. The purpose of the visit was to review the progress of desegregation in Little Rock and to identify ways that the progress could be maintained and expanded. Considerable information had been collected prior to the teams' visit in Little Rock, but it was not anticipated that the team would be able to devote the time or effort necessary for an in- depth study of the Little Rock schools. Rather, the goal of the visit was to utilize the experience of the team as a means of gaining general impressions and recommendations and identifying those areas where further study and consideration was needed. The team was divided into two groups. One group focused on an examination of the current desegregation plan, the demographics and attitudes of the community, and the alternatives which are available for the maintenance andimprovement of Integrated education programs. The second group focused on the internal structure and operation of school programs, the quality of education services provided to Black and white students, and the steps which could be taken to improve the quality of education for all students. A primary assumption of the team was that the maintenance and Im- provement of the quality of education is an essential component of any desegregation effort. The report is organized in two primary sections. The first section deals with the report of the community teamthe feasible adjustments in the desegregation plan within the community and the demographic change and racial trends in Little Rock. The second section of the report focuses on the general quality of integrated education in Little Rock and the opportunities for improvement within the school system. The team was Impressed by the level of community concern about maintaining quality, integrated, public education in Little Rock and the openness and can- dor of school officials and personnel. The team was provided complete coopera- cion and access to schools and information. School personnel were candid in discussing weaknes\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_1025","title":"2000-2001 AAA Handbook of the Arkansas Activities Association, North Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000/2001"],"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--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Student activities","Student assistance programs","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["2000-2001 AAA Handbook of the Arkansas Activities Association, North Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1025"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":["195 pages"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n1i1 i ~~( 2000-2001 AAA HANDBOOK of the Arkansas Activities Association 3920 Richards Road North Little Rock, AR 72117 501-955-2500  FAX 501-955-2600/955-252 l Visit our web site at www.ahsaa.org ~ ~ Building Citizenship Through Activities Participation FORWARD This official Handbook of the Arkansas Activities Association, hereafter referred to as the AAA, is compiled and distributed to all member schools of the state. It is for the specific use of all persons connected with the administration and supervision of the various activity programs in the member schools and for general use of parents, pupils, and fans who feel a need to understand the rules and regulations of the AAA. Handbooks may be purchased upon request. It is the desire of the Board of Directors of the AAA that this handbook, containing the constitution and bylaws of the assoctation and eligibility rules for the various activities, be designed to clarify and interpret the numerous requirements and regulations pertaining to the administration of all interscholastic contests, festivals, etc. In the rules that follow, the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular as the context requires or permits. Where appropriate, pronouns refer to either gender. If there is a question concerning any phase of this handbook, the Executive Director should be contacted for an explanation. If there is a question concerning the eligibility of a contestant in any interscholastic activity, the Executive Director should be contacted in writing for an official interpretation of the rule in question. NOTE: The only official interpretations are those in writing in response to requests received in writing. The members of the Governing Body, the officers of the association, and the Executive Director and staff desire to promote educational and cultural standards of sportsmanship and effective citizenship, among all participants and to extend the activities programs that will provide additional opportunities for all students to participate and compete in a variety of sports and activities at their own level of ability and interest. INDEX Activity Districts ......................... ..... .... .... ... ...... ... ...... .... .................. ........ ............................................... ..... .... ... ......... .. .. .... 10-11 Administrative Responsibilities ......... ... ...... ........ ..... .... ... ..... ................. ... .......... ......... ... ...... ..... ......... .. .... ..... ... ............... .. .... 15-17 Advisory Committees (Non-Athletic) ........... ........ ..... .... . ... ....... ..... ......... .... ... ... ....... ............. ......... ..... .................... .. ... ............ 11 All-Star Events..... .... .............. ... ... ..... ... ... .... ...... .. .... .. ... ................................. . ........ ...... . ..... .. .. .. .. ... ............ ... 28 Amendments (Also Referred to as Proposals) ... ...... ......... ...... .... ....... ................. ......... .... ... ... ........ .. .. .. ........... .......... .... ... ... 12-13 Appeals ....... ..... ....... .. ........................ ... ..... ....... .... .... ....... .... .... .... ... .... .. ... .... ... .... ... ... ....... ...... ..... ... .... .... .... .. .... ... ... ... .... .... .. 19-21 Approval of Events (See Sanction of Events) .... ... ... .... ....... .......... .. ........... .. ..... ... ... ........... ......... .. ... .. .. ...... .. ... ....... .. .... .. ... . 24-27 Arkansas Officials Association .... ........ ...... ................................. .. ........ ............................. ...... ....................... ..... ..... ... .. .. ..... ... 54 Authority of AAA and the Board of Directors ... ... ...... .. .. ... ...... ..... ............ .. .. .... ... .. .. ..... ... ..... .... .... .. .. .. ...... .... ... ... .. .. .. ................... 9 Authority of School Administrators.. .... ... .... .. .. .. .. ......... ..... ... .. .. . . .. . .. ... .. . . . .. . ... .. . .. . .. . ... ... .. . . ... ..... .. ... .. ......... . 8 Awards ...... ...... ... ... .. ..... ...... ......... .. ......... ....................... ...... ..... .... ............... .... .... ........... .... .... .... .. .... ....... ............................ 26, 33 Ballots ............. .. ........ .................... ..... .. ... .. ... ..... .. .. ...... .. ......... ...... ... ... ........ ..... ...... ...... .... ... ...... ...... ....... .. ..... ..... .. .. .. ...... .. ... 12 Baseball .. .... ... ..... ... .. . .. ................. . ....... ... ... .... ............................................................. 23, 24 ,39 ,40 ,49, 50,55 Basketball .................... ..... .. .... ...... .... .... ... ....... .............. .... ...................... .. ... ...................... ..... ..... ..... ........... .. 23 ,39 ,43-47 ,55 Benefit Games ...... .................. .... ....... .. ...... .. ...... ... ... .............. ..... .... .... ....... ... .. .. .. .... ....... ... .. ... ..... .... .. ... .... .... ....... ................... .. 13 Board of Directors ... .. ... .. ... ... .................. ..... ...................................... ................... ............................ ....... ... ... ... .. ............. .4, 5, 8 Board of Directors Code of Ethics ..... .. ....... .. ...... .......... ........................................... ... .. .. .. ........ .. .. .. ........ ...... .... ... ... .. .. ........... .... 6 Boarding School ... . .. . . ... ... .. . .... ..... ... . . . . ... . . .... ... ...... ... . ... . ... .... ...... ... .. . . . . . ... . .. . . .. ...... .. ... ... .. .. . . .. .. ... . .. ... . .. . .. . . .. . .. . ..... ... . . .. .... 30 Bona Fide Student ............ ........... .................. .. ...... .. .. .... .. .... ... .. .. ..... .. ...... ..... ..... .. ...... .... .. .. .... ... ..... ................... 31 , 32, 36, 37 Brackets . .. ... ... ...... .... ..... .. .. ...... .. ....... .. .. . . ... .. . . ... . . . .. . ....... .. .... ... . . ... ..... .. .. ... . . . ..... .. ..... ..... .. .. .. .. . .... .. ... . ... .. . . . .. ... ... . .. . . . ..... 45 Broadcasts, Radio, and Television .. . ........ .... .. .... .. .. .. . .... ... ... ... .. ... . .. ... . .. . ......... . ... .... .. .. .. . ... . . ... .. ... . ... ...... .. ..... ... .. . . . . . . . . . .. .... 28 Bylaws .......... .......... ....... ...... ..... ..... ........... ..... ....... ... .... ........ .... .............. ................... .. ... .. .... ... .... .. .. ... ... .. ...... .. ... ..... ..... 14-57 Calendar of Events ... ... . . ... . . ............ .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. . .. . ...... . . . . . . . ... .... . .. . . . . .... . . .. ... ..... ... .. .. . ....... ........ .. ... ...... ... 25, 56 Camps, Summer Athletic... ...... . ........ .......... ...... .. ..... ..... .... .. ... . . ........ .. . . .... .... .. . . . . . .. ... ... .. . .. . ... .... ... . ..... .... ........ ........... 27, 28 Cancellations .................................... ........... .. ..... ... .. .. .. ... ........ .. ...... ... ...... ...... ........ .... .. .. .... .. ...... ... ........... ........ .. ................. .... 18 Catastrophe Insurance Fund .................... ....................... .. ...... .. .. . ......... .. ....... ...... ... ...... .......... ..... ........................................... 14 Championships... . ... .. .. . . .. ....... .... . ...... ... ... ... ....................................... .. ........................................... ........ .......... ............ 22-24 Cheerleading/Drill Teams/Spirit Groups ..... ..................... .. .............. ..................... ... ........ .... ...... ... .. ..... .... ..... .... ... ... .. .. ..... .. ..... 37 Classification of Schools . ..... ..... ..................... ....... ......... ...... .. ................... ................... .... .. ....... .. .... .. .............. ... .... 13, 21, 22 Classification of Students .. ... .. .............. ... .. .. ...... ............................. ........ .......... . .. ......... ... ... ..... .... .......... ............... 24 Coaches (Also See All-Star) .... .. .. .... ... .. .... ...... ..... ... ..... .................... ... ........ .......... .... .... ...... .. .. .. . ..... ....... .... 16, 28 Coed Teams . .... ..... .. . ... . .. .. .... .. . . .. ... . .. ... . ..... ... . .. ... .... ... . . . .. . .. .. .. ... . . . .. .... .. ... . . .. ... .... . . ... ... . ... 38 Conferences ...... .. .. ....... ... ... ..... ... .. ........ ......... .. .... .......... ......... ..21 , 22, 40, 43 Constitution . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 7 -14 Contracts ................. ... ..... ... .... .... ........ ....... .. .... .. .... ... .... .. .... ... .......... .... .... .... ....... .. .... .. ...... .. .... ..... ..... .. .... .......... ... ...... .... 17, 18 Cross Country. ...... .... ...... .................. ..... ........... ......... .... .... . ............ ..... . ........ ...... .. ........ .. ..... ....... .... .. ... .... .. ......... .48, 55 Decathlon ... ......... .... .. .. .... .. ... . ....... ........ .. ..... ... ...... ................. ... ...... ........................ .... ...... ..... ....... ... ..48 Declaration for Sports .. . ... . .. .. . .. ..... ... . . . .... .. ... .... ...... .. . .. . .. .... .. . .......... .. .. .. . . . ... ........ ... . ... .. . .... ... .. .... ... . ......... 17 Definitions . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . ..... .. ..... ...... ........ .. .. . . ... .... ... ......... ..... ... . ..... .. . . . . . .... .... ... .. . ... ....... .. .... ...... .. . . . .......... 57 Dropout Rule. . . .. ...... .. .. .. ... .... ..... ........ ...... ... ... ... ................. .. ................. .... ....................... ... ..... ......... . ..... 32 Eligibility List .. . .... . ... ... .. ... .. .. . . .. . .. .... ... .. . . ........ . ........ .. .. . ... ... ... .. ... ... . .. . . . . ..... ... ... . ...... .... .. . ... .. ... .... ... .. . ........ .. ... . .. . ....... 17 Eligibility Rules for Students (Athletic) . . . . .... ... ........ ........... .. .. ....................................... .. ........................... ........ ............ 29-37 Rule 1 Residence . .. .. .. . .. ... ............ ... .. .. .. ...... .. ... ..... .................................. ......................... ...................... 29 Rule 2. Transfer Between Schools ..... ................ ...... .... . ............... ...... .... .... .... ..... .. ..... .. .. ... .... .... ...... ... ..... .... .. 29, 30 Rule 3. Recruitment ..... ........ ................. ... ..... .. .. ... ... ........... .. .................. ........ ......... ........ ... ... ..... .......... .. . . ..... 31 Rule 4. Bona Fide Students .... ... . ......................................... .... ....... ..... ........ .... .... ...... ... .... ... ............. 31 , 32 Rule 5. Dropouts. . .. ..... .. ... .. . .. .. .... .. ... ... ............... .. . .. ... ....... ....... . ............ .. .... .. ... .... ...... .... .. 31, 32 Rule 6. Semesters .......... ....... ..... ... ...... ......... ........ .. ....... ........... ... ......... ... ...... .... .... .......... .. ... .... ....... ... .. ... .... ..... .. ...... 32 Rule 7. Age ....... ................ ........................ ...... ........................... ...................... .. : ......................... ......... ... .. ............ 32 Rule 8. Amateur ... .. ........ .... ...... .. ... . ... .. ........ ... .. . ... .. . ..... ... . ............. ..... . . . . ... ...... .. ....... .... .. ... ... .. ..... ... ... ... ... ... . .. 33 Rule 9. Tryouts ....... ....... ..... . ..... .. ... ..... .. ....... ........... ... ..... .... ... ........... ..... .. .... . ..... .... ..... ......... ... ...... ... .... ... . ... .. 33 Rule 10. Scholarship ............ .. . ..... ....... .... ..... ... .. ... ...... .. ..... ... ... ......... ....... ........ ... ...... ....... .. ... .. .... ... .. .... ........ .. 33, 34 Rule 11 . Ineligible in Another State ...................................... ........................ ....... .......................... ........................... 34 Rule 12. Participation on Non-School Teams ...... .... .... .. . ........ ... ..... ....... .. ...... .... ..... ...... .... ............. .. ...... .. .... .. 34, 35 Rule 13 Participation in Individual Non-School Activities ............................. .................... .. ..... .. ..... .. .. .. ................. 35 Rule 14. Physical Examination ............. ......... ..... ... .... ..... ......... .... ..... .... .............. .... ... .... ......... .... ...... ... ............. 35 Rule 15 Hardship Exceptions .. ...... .... ..................................................... ........ ............. ......... ..................... .... ... 35, 36 Eligibility Rules for Students (Non-Athlelics) .......... ... ....................... ..... ............................ ............................ ... ......... ........ .... .. 36 Rule 1. Bona Fide Student... .................. .. .. ........... ............. . .. . ... .. . . .. ... . .. .. . ... .... .. . ... .... ..... .. . ..... .......... .. 36 Rule 2. Scholarship ........ ........ ....... .. .. ... ... ..... .. .......... ..... ...... ....... ... ..... .. .... .... ...... .. ... .... ..... .... .......... .. .... ... ... .. .......... .. 36 Rule 3. Semesters ... ..... ....... .. .. .... .. ..... ........ .................... ..... ........ ............. ... .. ...... .. ... ... ...... ... .. .. ..... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. ........ 36 Rule 4. Age . . . .. . . ..................... ................. ..... ... ....... ..... .. .. ...... .... ... .. ..... ........ .. ..... ...... ........... ................. .. .... ........... 36 Rule 5. Vocational Education Youth Organizations ....... .. .......... ... ........ ........... ... .... ... ....... .. ... ... .. ... .......................... 36 Rule 6. Hardship Cases ........ .... ... ...... ... .... ...... .... .. ...... ...... ...... ............. ....... ... ..... ... .............. .... .. ....... .. .. .... .... .. ........ 36 Exceptions to the Rules.. .... .. . ... . . . . . ... .. .. ....... ..... .... ... .. . .. . . .. ...... ... ... . ... . ...... . ....... .... ... ................ ........ .... ........ .... .... .... .. ... .. ... 36 Fees......... ........................... ... ...................... ... .. ... .... .. .... ...... ..... ..... .. ..... ............................... .... .. .... .... ... . ..... 14 Film1ngNideotaping . . . .. . .... ... ........ .. . .. . . . .. .. .. ... . ....... ... .... .. .. ... . . . . .. ... .. . ... . . . .. ..... .. ....... .. ... . . . ...... .... .. .. . ..... 28 Page 2 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook Five-Quarter Rule (Basketball) Football Foreign Exchange Students .. Forfeits ... Golf... Governing Body Gymnastics ..... Hardships . Hearings .. Heptathlon Home School Jurisdiction of AAA Limitations \u0026amp; Restrictions Loss of Class Time Number of EventsfTournaments Married Students Meetings ... Membership Requirements Minimum Participations for State Championships NASSP . Nonpublic Schools Non-School Participation Officers . AAA . Activity Districts .. Conference . Officials (Also see Contracts) Out of State Travel Penalties ... Physicals Playoffs .. Practice .... Protests .. Purpose of AAA . Recruitment . Registered Officials ......... . .. . Registration of Athletes \u0026amp; Non-Athletes (see El1g1bil1ty Lists) .. Round Robins .... . ...... ....... . Rules Books . Rules Meetings Sanction of Events Scouting . Seeding Seasons (Beginning and End) Soccer Softball Special Olympics . Sportsmanship . Sunday Interscholastic Contest . Sw1mm1ng and Diving .. Teams (Definition). Teams, Multiple Jr High Tennis . Tie Breakers Tournaments Track and Field .. Transfers Travel Restrictions Use of Registered Officials Varsity/Non Varsity . Violations . Volleyball Voting      .43 .... 22-24, 39-43, 55, 56 30 41 ... 25, 48, 55, 56  ................. 8 .. ...... .. ... 50, 51 , 55, 56 . , ........................... 35, 36 .. ............................. 19, 20,21 .48, 55 .. 31 ..... 38 . 39, 43, 44, 55 .................... .. ...... 25- 27 ..... .... ................ 39-55 ... ... ................ ...... 36 . .. ......... ... ...... ....... .. .... , ..... .. ............. , ............ 8 .................................................. 7, 8 ........................ .. .................... 39 .. ........ .... .......... .. .... 27 ..... 7, 16, 30, 31 ........ 34, 35 .. .............. .. ...... .4, 5, 9, 10 .. ...................... 4, 5, 9, 10 .. .... 10 22 18,39, 54 .. 27 .. .. 19, 20 .... 35 41 , 42 40, 41 18 ... 7 .17, 31 39, 54 17 22 37, 40 40 25-27 28 22, 23, 44 , 45 39 .23, 39, 53, 55 . 23, 51-53, 55 7, 38 15, 16 28 39, 49, 55, 56 38 38 39,49 55 56 22. 24 42, 46. 50-54 44-46 39, 47, 48 55 29 30 25, 26 39 38 19 24 39 50, 51 55 7, 8, 12 13 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 3 Arkansas Activities Association Board of Directors Officers Consecutive Term Term Class. Dist. Expires Number President ........... ............. Bill Barnes, Principal, Mills Univ. Studies ..... ................ ... AAAAA ................. At-Large ... ...... ...... 2002 ........ At-Large 1st Vice President ............ Calvin Estes, Asst. Superintendent, Searcy ............... ......... AAAA .... ..... .... ... ... ....... . 2 .. ............. 2002 ................. .3 2nd Vice President ........ ... Ed Sellers, Principal, Vilonia ................. .. ...... .................. AAAA ............ .. ....... ...... 5 ............... 2002 .............. .. .. 3 Secretary ........................ John Selph, Superintendent, West Fork .............................. AAA .......... .. .......... ..... 1 ............... 2003 .................. 3 Treasurer ................. ........ Bobby Harper, Superintendent, Hamburg ...... .... .. .. ........... AAAA ........................... 8 .. ............. 2003 .................. 2 Other Executive Committee Members Richard Blevins ................ Superintendent, Augusta ........................... ... ............. ..... .... AA ........ ..... ............ .. 2 .. .... ... ...... 2003 ............ .. .... 3 Doug Graham .................. Principal, Nashville ........... ............................................. AAA ......... .............. .. .. 7 ............... 2003 ......... ......... 1 Carl Hughes ..................... Superintendent, Cutter Morning Star .................................... AA ... ..... ................... 5 ............. .. 2001 ............ ...... l Tom Kimbrell .. ................. Superintendent, Paragould ............................................. AAAA ........................... 3 ..... .......... 2001 ...... .... ........ 1 Raymond Massey .............. Superintendent, Spring Hill.. ........................................ .. .. .... A ..... ...................... 7 ............... 2002 ...... ... ......... 1 Larry McKinney ................ Superintendent, Bergman ....... ...... .............. ........ ..... ... .. ...... AA ........................... 1 .......... ..... 2001 .... .. .. ..... ... .. 1 Dr. Mike McSpadden .... ...... Asst. Superintendent, Alma ....... .. ............ .. .. .. ................. AAAA .. ......................... 4 ............... 2001 ...... ... .. ....... 1 Dennis Meins ............. ...... Superintendent, Clarendon ........... ...... .. ...... .. .. .................... AA .... ........... ... ... ...... 6 ...... ......... 2002 .... .. ... .... ... .. 0 Harvie Nichols .... ............. Superintendent, Lavaca ...................... ............................. AAA ........ ................... 4 ............... 2002 .................. 2 Danny Sample ................. Superintendent, Harrisburg ..... .. ... ... .. ... ...... ..... .................. AAA ............ .... .. .. ... .... 3 .. ... .......... 2003 .... ......... ..... 1 Johnny Tyler ........ ..... ...... Principal, Conway ................... .. .............................. ..... AAAAA ........... ....... ...... ... 5 .... ... ........ 2001 .... ......... ... .. 0 Ted Waller ....................... Superintendent, Genoa Central. ......................... ......... ...... ... AA ........................... 7 ............... 2003 .. .. .............. 0 AT-LARGE: Loutelious Holmes .. .. ........ Principal, West Memphis ..... ......................................... AAAAA ....... .. ...... ..... ....... ................ 2003 ........ At-Large Charlotte Wright .............. Superintendent, Weiner ....................................................... A ......... .. .. ............. ..... .......... .. 2001 ........ At-Large STATE OFFICE Arkansas Activities Association / 3920 Richards Road / North Little Rock, AR 72117 Office: (501) 955-2 500 Fax: (501) 955-2 600 Monday through Thursday . . 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday . .. 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Visit our web site at www.ahsaa.org Arkansas Activities Assodation Staff Administrative Staff Jim my Coats .... ....................... ...... ... .. .... .. ........... .. ................. ... ...... ................... ............................... Executive Di rector Kathy Snell Tadlock ....... .. ......... .................. ... .............. .... .................... ................ ...... ... ......... Assistant Executive Director Don Brodell .... ............ ...... ... ......... ...... .. ..... .. ..... ..... .. .. .... .. ........ .. .... ..... ........ .. ..... ...... ..... .... ... Assistant Executive Director Lance W. Taylor .................................................................................................................... Assistant Executive Director Wadie Moore ................................ .. ............................ ........................ .. .................. .. ................. Administrative Assistant Belle Huie ...... .... ......... ... .. ....................................... .. ... .. ..................... .... ............... ..... .. ..... ...... Administrative Assistant Support Staff Shirley Gateley ...................... .... ......................... ...... ... ... .. ................. .... .... ................. Secretary to Executive Director/Board of Directors Deborah Pinkerton .................. ....... .. ... ..... ......... ......................................... ........... .... .............. Secretary to Wadie Moore/Media Secretary Amy Church ...................................... .................................................................................... Secretary to Don Brodell/Official's Records Holly Francis ....................................................................................................... Secretary to Kathy Tadlock/AHSAAA Secretary Tammy Brock ........... .. ..... .... .. .. .......................... .................................. ....... .. ...... ... Secretary to Lance W Taylor/AHSCA Secretary Angi Walker ................................................................................................................................................. Receptionist Amber Balboa .......... ............................................. ....... ...... .... ..................... ......................... Secretary to Belle Huie/Accounting Records Page 4 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook BOARD OF DIRECTORS Richard Blevins, Supt Augusta Or. Mike McSpadden. Asst Supt Alma THE ARKANSAS ACTIVITlES ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STAFF Doug Graham, Prin Nashville Dennis Heins, Supt Clarendon Bill Barnes Prin Hills Univ. Studies President loutelious Holmes, Prin West Memphis Harvie Nichols, Supt Lavaca Calvin Estes, Asst Supt, Searcy 1st Vice President Cart Hughes, Supt Cutter Morning Star Danny Sample, Supt Harrisbu,g Ed Sellers, Prin Vilonia Znd Vice President Tom Kimbrell, Supt Paragould i - Johnny Tyler, Prin Conway John Selph, Supt West Fork Seaetory Raymond Massey, Supt Spring Hill I Ted Waller, Supt Genoa Central Bobby Harper, Supt, Hamburg r,eosurer Larry McKinney, Supt Bergman Charlotte Wright, Supt Weiner The members of the Go,cming Bod: and staff of the association desire to promote educational and cultural values among its -191 member school s. These schools are junior and senior high. both public and pri, ate. A po iti, e auitude and appreciation for higher standards or srortsmanship and effective citizenship among all participants is a goal. Encouraging activity programs that \"ill pro, ide additional or portunities for all students to participate and compete in a, arict: of sports and acti, ities is a mission . Since 1912 \\\\hen the AAA \"as organi7cd as an athletic association. and since 1969 \\\\hen the scope \"as broadened to include all acti-..i ties. the association has e,presscd its commitment 10 promoting and encouraging other school acti, ities beneficial to the denlopment or students in addition to athletics. The AAA no\\\\ conducts 67 state championships in L\\\\ent) sports as \\\\Cl! as pro, iding cooperati, e asse. tancl! ,,ith the state c,ents for numerous student acti, it) organi7ations. Due 10 inno,ati,c rlanning and concern b) the Board or Directors. the 1\\AA has been able 10 return o,er S2.0 m,llion to the schools since 1985 throu gh football and basketball reimbursements. I he AAA administers the eligibilit: records for appro,imatel: 70.000 studenLs annual!:. helps organi7e and tram o,er 2.000 game olli cials and sen es as the administrati, e o11ice for theArJ.ansas Officials Association. A rkansas High School Coaches Association and the Arkansos High School Athletic Administrators Association . In addition. the associations special sen ,ces includes coordination and administration or a nationa l!: -based coaches education program. the annual coaching clinic and All-Star games. the Srortsmanship A\\\\ ard selection process. the Interscholastic Stor program and the State I arm :\\A,\\ Scholar-Athlete Scholarships. rlie ,\\,\\A i, dedicated 10 rromoting school acti, ities as a , aluablc part or a student s total educational rrogram. Administrative Staff Jimmy Coats Executive Directo, Kathy S. Tadlock Asst Executive 011ector Don Brodell Asst Executive Director Lance W Taylor Asst Executive Oirecto, Wad1e Moore Adminimatl've Asst Belle Huie Administ1a1ive A~st Supporting Good Sportmanship for Tomorrow's Leaders. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 5 Board of Directors Code of Ethics BOARD OF DIRECTORS CODE OF ETHICS \"I hereby affirm that I, as a member of the Board of Directors of the Arkansas Activities Association, agree to uphold the rules and regulations of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Arkansas Activities Association. \"I also state that I believe that this organization should serve the interests of the students of the state as a whole and these interests should have precedence over the interest of students in a particular school or district, and, if the school of which I am an employee is involved in a dispute or an infraction of the rules and regulations of the Arkansas Activities Association, I will refrain from participation in the deliberations of the Board of Directors relative to the evaluation and actions pertaining to the accusation or dispute. \"Furthermore, I realize that my authority as a Board of Directors member is in effect only at those times the board if actually in session, and to divulge information pertaining to the actions of the board or its individual members is unethical, therefore, I will refrain from giving such informations, or giving interpretations of rules, regulations, and precedents, and will refer all such questions to the Executive Director of the Arkansas Activities Association for proper answers.\" Page 6 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I - Name The name of this organization shall be the Arkansas Activities Association. ARTICLE II - Purpose Sectfon 1. Mission Statement: The mission of the association is to approve, promote, develop and direct all interscholastic activities among its member schools, that will contribute to, or be a part of, a well-rounded and meaningful educational experience at all grade levels. The association shall strive to develop a unified and coordinated activities plan, but preserve the identity of each specific activity. Section 2. More specifically the main purposes of the association are: A. To ensure that interscholastic activities shall remain an integral part of the educational program which will provide opportunities for youth to acquire worthwhile knowledge, skills, and proper emotional patterns. B. To promote the educational values inherent in interscholastic activities which contribute to the accepted aims of education. C. To avoid interference with the educational program of the school and to prevent expolitation of youth by speci'al interest groups. D. To foster a cooperative spirit of good sportsmanship on the part of the school representatives, school patrons, and students. E. To develop standards of officiating and adjudicating to ensure greater statewide consistency and quality. ARTICLE III - Membership Section 1. Any junior, middle, or senior high school accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education or the Arkansas Nonpublic School Accrediting Association may become a member of the association upon approval of the Board of Directors when the chief administrative officer of the school agrees in the name of the school board to abide by the rules of the association as set forth in its constitution and bylaws and so interpreted by the AAA Governing Body, Board of Directors, and the Executive Director. Name - Purpose - Membership AAA rules shall govern interscholastic activities for grades seven through twelve. Section 2. Membership Representative. The superintendent shall be the authorized representative of the member school. The superintendent may designate an assistant/deputy superintendent or the principal/assistant principal of the member school as the school's voting representative. Section 3. Interscholastic Participation A. Member schools are not permitted to participate with: 1. Arkansas schools which are not members of the AAA\n2. Schools outside of Arkansas which are not members of a state association affiliated with the National Federation\n3. Schools which are not approved by National Federation state associations\n4. Schools which are under suspension or expulsion from the AAA or other approved associations. B. Member schools may not participate in athletic competition (including scrimmage) with teams of any nonschool groups, organizations, etc., except for charitable purposes, when such events are under school sponsorship. C. The Board of Directors may make exceptions to the AAA participation requirements for schools whose entire enrollments are composed of handicapped students and for students involved in contests sponsored by the state chapter of the Arkansas Special Olympics. Section 4. Fiscal Year - Voting Eligibility. The fiscal year of the association shall end on June 30 of each year. Annual membership fees are due by October 1. No school shall be eligible to vote in the annual meeting unless a membership application has been approved. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 7 Constitution  Meetings - Governing Body - Board of Directors ARTICLE IV - MEETINGS Section 1. Annual A. The annual meeting of the association, for the authorized representatives of all member schools, shall be held at a time and place to be designated by the Board of Directors. One hundred members shall constitute a quorum for the regular meeting. B. The authorized representative shall represent only one school at any one meeting. Section 2. Special. Special meetings of the Governing Body may be called by the president when deemed necessary. One hundred members shall constitute a quorum for a special meeting. ARTICLE V - GOVERNING BODY Sectionl, Composition. The sovereign body of the association shall be known as the Governing Body and shall be composed of one voting representative from each member school. The superintendent, assistant/ deputy superintendent, principal, or assistant principal shall represent the member school as the voting representative. Section 2, Authority. The Governing Body shall have full legislative authority on all matters pertaining to those activities herein or hereafter mentioned and shall adopt a constitution and bylaws to govern its procedures. Section 3, Notification of Meetings. Notice of each meeting of the Governing Body shall be sent to each member at least fifteen days before the time of the meeting. Section 4. Voting. All motions and voting shall be limited to authorized voting representatives. Directors of various activities shall be invited to attend and may be called upon for information or advice. Section 5. Parliamentary Procedure. Robert's Rules of Order, Revised, shall govern all parliamentary matters of the Arkansas Activities Association. Page 8 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook ARTICLE VI - BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 1. Regular Membership. A. The number of AAA Board of Directors members elected by each district shall be based upon the number of school memberships in an activity district as compared to the total school memberships of the entire association. The total number of board members elected shall not exceed 16. Each activity district shall elect at least one member. The board members shall assume office July 1 following election. In the event a district qualifies for additional board members, they shall be elected from schools of different classification. The number of additional board members a district shall elect will be determined by dividing the number of district memberships by the number of state memberships, multiplying the result by 16, then subtracting one. 8. Minor fractions shall not qualify a district for additional board members. Major fractions shall qualify districts for additional board members except when the total exceeds 16, in which event the smallest major fraction( s) shall be disallowed to the extent necessary to reduce such additional members to a total of 16. C. The number of board members elected by activity districts shall be computed each nine years. Section 2, Meetings. The Board of Directors shall meet at least once each quarter with the organizational meeting being the last meeting held before July 1 each year. A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum. Section 3. Election. A. Board of Directors members shall be elected at a regularly scheduled meeting in their respective activity districts by the authorized representatives of member schools. Said election shall take place prior to May 1 of the year in which the member's term will expire. B. A member of the Board of Directors shall be eligible to be elected for not more than three consecutive terms of three years each and must be an authorized voting representative. C. Candidates for a position as a member of the AAA Board of Directors must notify the AAA office and/or Activity District President at least two weeks prior to the Activity District meeting where their election will be held, of their intention to seek election. Section 4. Vacancy. When a vacancy occurs on the AAA Board of Directors the Activity District Executive Committee shall fill the vacancy until the next regular spring meeting of that district. Constitution  Authority  Appeals  Officers Section 5. At-Large Members A. There shall be three at-large members. B. At-large members shall represent the female gender and ethnic minorities. C. Each member shall serve a three-year term. D. Two full time administrators should be nominated by each activity district, preferably one female and one ethnic minority. E. The at-large members shall then be appointed by the AAA Board of Directors from the activity district nominations considering the need for geographical representation, classification, ethnic and gender representation. F. Vacancies Same As E Above. Section 6. Authority. A. The Governing Body when in session, shall be the sovereign body of this association. At all other times the Board of Directors shall act on behalf of the Governing Body provided the Board of Directors not change, omit, or nullify by manner of administration any rules or policies regularly approved by the Governing Body except in extraordinary situations. B. The Board of Directors shall have the authority to set policies, to plan and carry out all activities of the Arkansas Activities Association, to have all accounts audited, and to serve as a working board where other provisions are not made. It shall at all times govern the association in accordance with rules adopted by the Governing Body. C. The Board of Directors shall have the authority to amend any rules declared invalid by a court and to amend any rules invalidated by laws which may be adopted by the state and/or federal government, subject to the approval of the Governing Body at its next annual meeting. Section 7. Appeals of Board of Directors Dedsions A. The Governing Body when in session shall have the right to review the decisions of the Board of Directors and may alter or set aside such decisions if, in the judgment of the Governing Body, such decisions are in violation of the constitution or bylaws of the association. B. When an appeal is made to the Governing Body over a ruling of the Board of Directors of the AAA, a statement of the case giving the reason for the action of the Board of Directors must be sent to the members of the Governing Body along with the appeal seeking to overrule the action taken by the Board of Directors of the AAA. ARTICLE VII - OFFICERS Section 1. Officers Defined. The officers of this association shall be a president, first vice president, second vice president, secretary, treasurer, and parliamentarian. Section 2. Election A. All officers except the parliamentarian shall be elected by the Board of Directors from its membership each year at its organizational meeting as stated in Article VI, Section 3. New officers shall assume their duties on being elected. B. The parliamentarian shall be appointed by the president. The parliamentarian may be a member of the Board of Directors or may be selected from outside its membership. C. A majority of votes cast with a quorum of the Board of Directors present shall be necessary for the election of any officer. Section 3. Voting. All members of the Board of Directors, including officers, shall be eligible to vote on all matters considered by the Board of Directors. Section 4. President. A. The president shall preside at all meetings of the Governing Body and the Board of Directors. The president shall call special meetings of the Governing Body or Board of Directors when deemed necessary, when requested to do so by a majority of either and shall appoint all committees not otherwise provided for. B. In case of a dispute between schools that cannot be settled by a conference between the adminstrative officials of the schools, or procedures otherwise specified in the constitution and bylaws, the proper method of procedure shall be to set forth clearly all facts to the president who shall in turn make the decision. C. The president shall have the authority to take whatever action deemed necessary in settling disputes or any other matter not specifically provided for in the handbook. Section 5. Vice Presidents. The first vice president, in the absence of the president, and the second vice president, in the absence of both the president and first vice president, shall perform duties of the president. Section 6. Secretary. The secretary shall be responsible for the recording of minutes of all meetings and other official acts of the Governing Body and the Board of Directors. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 9 Constitution - Officers - Activity District Organization Minutes taken by a staff member shall be approved by the secretary before they are submitted to the Governing Body or the Board of Directors or entered in official records of the association. Section 7. Treasurer. The Treasurer or a person designated by the Board of Directors shall countersign all checks drawn on any account of the association. The treasurer shall report at each annual meeting of the Governing Body and at such other times as requested by the Board of Directors, the financial condition of the association. Section 8. Parliamentarian. The parliamentarian shall advise and assist the president in conducting all meetings. Unless specific exceptions are provided in the constitution and bylaws, Robert's Rules or Order, Revised, shall be the accepted authority in all questions of parliamentary procedure. Section 9. The Executive Director A. The Board of Directors of the Arkansas Activities Association shall select and employ an Executive Director to give full time to the affairs of the assocation as an annual salary to be paid monthly. The Board of Directors shall not contract with the Executive Director for a term of longer than three years. Other personnel necessary to carry out the functions of this association shall be employed by the Board of Directors upon the recommendation of the Executive Director. 8. The Executive Director shall manage all the affairs of the association delegated by the Board of Directors. Among the duties which are delegated are the following: The Executive Director shall: (1) Interpret the rules and regulations of the association when asked to do so by the superintendent or prinicipal of any member school. (2) Be custodian of all association properties not otherwise provided for. (3) Enforce the rules of the association and shall make any investigation necessary. (4) Have custody of the official minutes and records of the Governing Body, the Board of Directors, and other committee meetings and shall make proper reports at respective meetings. All written committee reports received shall be a matter of record. (5) Be the executive officer of all school interscholastic activities. Page 10 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook (6) Be bonded and shall be the custodian of all funds due the association. (7) Make such expenditures as are necessary and keep an itemized record of all receipts and expenditures which shall be audited annually. ARITCLE VIII - ACITVITY DISTRICT ORGANIZATION Section 1. Membership. Member schools shall be assigned geographically to Activity Districts for administrative purposes. The superintendent or his/her authorized representative (see page 7, Article III, Section 2) shall be the voting representative at Activity District meetings. Voting representatives must be present, authorized in writing and may represent only one school. NOTE: Voting representatives are listed in the AAA Directory and need no additional authorization. Section 2. Officers and Terms. Each Activity District shall elect a president, vice president, secretary, and a member(s) of the Board of Directors. These officers shall be elected for a term of one year, except the member(s) of the AAA Board of Directors who shall take office on July 1, following the election. Election of officers shall be held at a regular meeting of the district. Section 3. Duties of Officers. The officers of the district shall constitute the district executive committee. The function and duties of this committee shall be to conduct the business of the district in regards to interscholastic events of the Arkansas Activities Association as authorized by the regulations of the Governing Body. It shall be responsible at all times to the AAA Board of Directors. This committee shall not have the power to nullify or modify any rules of the constitution and bylaws of the Arkansas Activities Association or to change any decisions of the AAA. Section 4. Meetings. Regular meetings shall be held by the district membership. These meetings shall be scheduled in the spring with the time and place to be determined by the district executive committee. Section 5. Activity Districts. The state shall be divided into eight geographical activity districts by county groupings as follows. District 1 - Baxter, Benton, Boone, Carroll, Madison, Marion, Newton, Searcy, Washington. Constitution - Activity District Organization - Advisory Committees District 2 - Cleburne, Fulton, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence, Randolph, Sharp, Stone, White, Woodruff. District 3 - Clay, Craighead, Crittenden, Greene, Mississippi, Poinsett. District 4 - Crawford, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Montgomery, Pope, Scott, Sebastian, Yell. District 5 - Conway, Faulkner, Garland, Grant, Hot Spring, Lonoke, Perry, Pulaski, Saline, Van Buren. District 6 - Arkansas, Cross, Lee, Monroe, Phillips, Prairie, St. Francis. District 7 - Calhoun, Clark, Columbia, Dallas, Hempstead, Howard, Lafayette, Little River, Miller, Nevada, Ouachita, Pike, Polk, Sevier, Union. District 8 - Ashley, Bradley, Chicot, Cleveland, Desha, Drew, Jefferson, Lincoln. ARTICLE IX - ADVISORY COMMITTEES Section 1. Purpose A. There shall be an advisory committee for areas of non-athletic student activity approved by the AAA. The purpose of such advisory committees shall be to plan and direct the acitivities of the students it serves and to advise with the AAA Board of Directors and the Executive Director of the Arkansas Activities Association in re~ard to scheduling and regulating such activities. B. Each student organization of non-athletics shall be assigned to one of the following areas committees- (1) Fine Arts and Performance. {2) Vocational. (3) Honorary and Service. ( 4) Curriculum Oriented. Section 2. Committee Members A. Each advisory committee shall consist of one member from each individual student organization or activity approved by the AAA, one principal, one superintendent and one member from the Arkansas Department of Education. B. The member from each student organization or activity shall be the president, executive secretary, or a sponsor of that activity and the selection or appointment and term of office shall be determined by the student organization or activity. C. The principal and superintendent shall be appointed by the president of the AAA and shall serve a three-year term. The Arkansas Department of Education member shall be appointed by the State Director of Education and shall serve until replaced by the director. Section 3. Duties and Functions. Each advisory committee shall have the following duties and functions. A. To make plans in cooperation with the AAA Executive Director for the holding of all contests, festivals, meetings and other activities that come under its sponsorship. B. To recommend rules and regulations for the governing of all contests, festivals, and other activities that come under its jurisdiction. All matters of a technical nature or matters unique to an activity shall be considered by the advisory committee for that activity before recommendations are submitted to the Board of Directors. Changes recommended are also subject to the provisions of Bylaws, Art. II, Sec. 1, Rule 2. Visit the AAA web site at www.ahsaa.org Building Citizenship Through Activities Participation 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 11 Constitution  Amendments  Special Ballots ARTICLE X - AMENDMENTS Section 1, Origin. Proposed amendments to the constitution or to the bylaws, commonly referred to as proposals, shall originate in one of three ways. A. Originated by one or more member schools or a conference/ district at an Activity District meeting. The proposal may be approved or amended and approved by a majority of those eligible to vote at the meeting. NOTE: All proposals for amendments to the constitution or bylaws submitted at the activity district meetings must first be presented in writing to the AAA office or the district president at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, and in proper form. Such proposals, if approved by a majority vote at an activity district meeting, shall be placed on the governing body agenda for a vote by member schools. B. Orginated by the AAA-approved state organization of a student activity or other suborganization. The state organization's secretary shall certify the proposal to the Executive Director of the AAA, stating date passed by the organization. NOTE: AAA Board of Directors shall have the authority to approve a proposal submitted in this manner. C. Originated by the Board of Directors of the Arkansas Activities Association. Section 2. Constitution Amendments A. A proposal to amend the constitution shall be sent to the Executive Director no fewer than thirty days before the next regular meeting. At least fifteen days prior to the meeting a copy of the proposal shall be mailed to each member of the Governing Body and this proposal shall be presented to the Governing Body for discussion and consideration at the next regular meeting. B. To be adopted a proposal shall receive a two-thirds majority of those voting. Section 3, Bylaw Amendments. A proposal which is approved shall meet the same requirements as a proposal to amend the constitution except that is shall be adopted by a majority of those voting. Section A.. Effective Date. A proposal which is adopted shall be effective immediately unless the proposal contains a clause specifying an exact date or time to become effective. Page 12 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook Section 5. Voting by Mail. The Board of Directors may, if in their opinion the interest of the association would be best served by a mail vote, delay a proposal(s) for a vote by mail. Section 6. Time Requirements. The Governing Body shall be informed when and how voting will occur when proposals are mailed to the Governing Body. Mail votes authorized by the Board of Directors shall be presented to the membership no later than forty-five (45) days following the regular meeting. Ballots shall be mailed to the superintendent or to the designated voting representative. Ten (10) days shall be allowed from the date of mailing for members of the Governing Body to mark their ballot and post them for return to the AAA office. Section 7. Provision for Spedal Ballots. When a proposal is presented to the Executive Director in the three quarters of the year following a regular meeting, the board may authorize a mail vote at the next regular meeting of the board, or delay the proposal for consideration at the next regular meeting of the Governing Body. In the event the board authorizes an early mail vote on such a proposal, the board shall extend the deadline for returning such a ballot to twenty (20) days from the date of mailing. Section 8. Editing. The Board of Directors shall review all proposals to amend the constitution or bylaws and shall combine germane proposals into one proposal, and shall submit only one proposal when identical proposals are submitted. However, in no case shall subject matter be deleted as a result of combining, selecting or editing of proposals. Section 9. Ballot Requirements A. Any proposal for change submitted to member schools for a vote by mail shall be accompanied by the following information. (1) Identity of the sponsor of the proposal. (2) A statement of purpose for the proposal. (3) A recommendation by the Board of Directors concerning the effect of the proposal on the association, its districts, and its student organizations or activities. B. The same information shall be sent to members of the advisory committee for each student organization or activity. Only schools participating in a given activity or a specific classification may vote on the involved issue(s), unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors. Constitution  Amending Proposals - Classification - Building Fund Section 10. Tellers. The president shall appoint a teller committee to count the votes and certify the results. The Board of Directors may adopt additional regulations which are necessary to implement this section. Section 11, Reconsideration for Tabled Proposals. Items that have been tabled in previous meeting of the Governing Body can not be called up for reconsideration unless the Board of Directors has been notified in writing in time to place the item on the agenda and the proposal mailed to each member of the Governing Body. Section 12. Amending Proposals. The Governing Body may consider amendments to proposals previously mailed to member schools as part of the Governing Body meeting agenda under either of the following conditions: A. If the amendment to a proposal is submitted to the Executive Director at least fifteen days before the meeting of the Governing Body, the Board of Directors shall study the amendment and furnish the Governing Body with a written interpretation of its effect on the original proposal and on the association's student organizations, conferences and member schools. The Governing Body may then consider amendments to the proposal and, after their consideration, may consider the original proposal following the parliamentary procedure outlined in Robert's Rules of Order, Revised. An amendment to a proposal may be approved by a simple majority of those voting. B. 1f an amendment to a proposal is submitted fewer than fifteen days before the meeting of the Governing Body, it can be considered at that meeting only by a two-thirds majority vote of the Governing Body members present. Such amendment to a proposal must be submitted to the Executive Director in writing with sufficient copies for all voting representatives, and must be approved by the parliamentarian as being in proper form. A member school may initiate this action. C. Amendments to proposals shall be voted on at the Governing Body meeting. Proposals that may be authorized for mail vote in the three quarters of a year after the Governing Body meeting shall not be amendable until the next regular meeting. ARITCLE XI PROCEDURE FOR CHANGING ATHLETIC SEASONS Proposed changes in athletic seasons (beginning and end) shall conform to the requirements for amending the constitution as outlined in Article X of the constitution. Two-thirds of votes cast shall be required for approval. ARTICLE XII - PROCEDURE FOR CHANGING THE CLASSIFICATION AND CONFERENCE OF SCHOOLS Section 1. Classification. Proposed changes in student enrollment for the classification of schools shall conform to the procedures and requirements for amending the constitution as outlined in Article X, and shall require two-thirds of the votes cast to be adopted, except that, in the event a classification's membership becomes less than four schools, the Board of Directors is authorized to assign such school(s) to the classification whose enrollment level is nearest the enrollments of the school(s) being assigned. Section 2. Conferences A. Any district, conference, etc., may petition the Board of Directors for a revision of the member schools in one or more conferences with a definite plan for such revision. The Board of Directors shall consider such plan and, if approved, submit the plan to all schools of the state in the classification concerned for approval, either by mail vote or a meeting called by the AAA president for this purpose. If such a plan is approved by twothirds of the schools in the classification, the new conferencing plan shall be considered adopted. B. The Board of Directors shall review the membership of conferences when reclassifying schools each uneven year and is authorized to submit plans for revisions to improve the travel required for participation in athletic conference events for the majority of member schools being reassigned. ARTICLE XIII - BUILDING FUND The Arkansas Activities Association Board of Directors is authorized to establish and administer a building fund. Building fund money shall be maintained in a separate account. Expenditures from this fund shall be limited to building maintenance and equipment. The Arkansas Activities Association Board of Directors is authorized to transfer 1% of the gross receipts from all revenue sources to the building fund. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 13 Constitution  Catastrophe Insurance  Bylaws  Fees ARTICLE XIV - CATASTROPHE INSURANCE FUND The AAA Board of Directors is authorized to establish and administer a Catastrophe Insurance Fund. Member schools may participate in one interscholastic contest (benefit game) more than provided by limitations of the bylaws in sports for every varsity team, provided the school agrees to give the proceeds of permitted games to the AAA Catastrophe Insurance Fund. The AAA Board of Directors is authorized to purchase Catastrophe Insurance for senior high member schools using the funds available in the Catastrophe Insurance Fund. If sufficient funds are not available to pay 100% of the costs, schools may be billed on a pro-rata share for the balance. BYLAWS ARITCLE I - MEMBERSHIP FEES Each school shall be assessed fees as determined by their basketball classification status and as outlined below- CLASSIFICATION SENIOR HS *JR HS AAAAA $1250 $300 AAAA 1050 250 AAA 700 200 AA 500 150 A 350 100 *Junior high fees shall be paid by all junior high schools or middle schools containing at least two grades of grades 7, 8, or 9. No membership fee shall be paid by a feeder school having only one grade of grades seven through nine. Such school may enjoy the benefits of membership but may not have voting privileges. NOTE: Schools with enrollments all of one gender shall pay one-half the membership fee of this classification plus $100 for additional administrative costs. $50 per senior high school shall be applied to state basketball tournament reimbursements. The AAA shall pay to the final eight teams in each classification reimbursement for participation in the quarterfinals through the finals of state basketball tournaments. The amount of reimbursement shall be $50 multiplied by the number of high school memberships and shall be prorated to schools on the basis of one way mileage from the school to the tournament site for each game played. Arkansas Activities Association Handbook for 2000-2001 The AAA has printed a limited number of AAA Handbooks. Two are being mailed to each member school. Additional copies will be available on the AAA website (www.ahsaa.org) to be downloaded and printed. Remember: www.ahsaa.org Page 14 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook Responsibilities of Administration - Sportsmanship ARITCLE II ADMINISTRATION OF INTERSCHOLASITC EVENTS SECllON 1 - SUPERINTENDENT ANO/OR PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBIUITES ANO AUTHORITY B1l1LJ.. General Responsibility. The Principal and/or Superintendent of each school, in all matters pertaining to the activity relations of their school, are responsible for enforcing the rules of this association. They may delegate some of these powers, but such delegation shall not relieve them of responsibility for any infraction by their school. \u0026amp;!.k..2.,_ Authority and Additional Responsibilities A. To have general local control over all interscholastic activities and contests in which the school participates. B. To be responsible for the conduct of all students representing the school as participants or spectators at any interscholastic activity, and to exclude any contestant who, because of bad habits or improper conduct, will not represent the school in a becoming manner. Any contestant who has suffered serious illness or injury should be excluded until that contestant is pronouced physically fit by the school physician or the attending physician. C. To approve all activities in which the school participates. D. To be responsible for the treatment of all visitors and officials attending activities conducted by the school. Penalties may be imposed upon a member school whose principal or superintendent fails to provide reasonable protection for officials and visitors at home contests. Although the administrator of a host school is responsible for the treatment of visitors and officials as specified above, the principal, superintendent, or school representative of a visiting school shall have the responsibility of helping the authorities of a host school in the control of the fans, students and players from the visiting school and shall make a reasonable effort to assist in controlling fans, students, and players as soon as potential crowd control problems become evident. If a game or contest is held at a neutral place, the principal or superintendent of the participating schools shall be held jointly responsible for this protection. In such a case, penalties may be imposed upon either or both of the schools. E. To see that all contracts for athletic contests in which the school participates are in writing and signed by the superintendent, principal or athletic director. F. To authorize a full time faculty member or Certified Registered Volunteer of the school to be the school representative of the organizations representing the school unless the administrator serves as the school representative. However, for activities, other than team sports, involving fewer than six students, a responsible adult may be authorized in writing as the school representative. Such individual shall not represent more than one member school. Such authorization shall not relieve the school and the superintendent or principal of responsibility to the association. NOTE: A full time faculty member, certified or non-certified, who is employed by the school for a minimum of three periods a day shall be assigned the responsibility for any spirit group of the school (cheerleaders, dance/drill team, porn pon squad, etc.). This person shall have participated in a program of education which teaches rules governing spirit activities and have received instruction aimed at safety knowledge and awareness. Such training shall have occurred within each two-year period, except that becoming certified in a recognized safety certification program may meet that safety requirement for a period of up to four years. G. To accompany all groups to all events except as indicated in F. above. H. To be responsible for certifying, in writing, the eligibility of all contestants in accordance with the bylaws of the association. I. To have such other powers concerning interscholastic contests and activities in the school as are in keeping with the growth and needs of the school and which are consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Arkansas Activities Association. B.uk....J... Sportsmanship. Responsibility to the AAA to assure good sportsmanship is as follows: A. The superintendent and principal shall be responsible for providing leadership to assure implementation of good sportsmanship policies in each school. B. School policies shall contain provisions for soliciting the support of fans in maintaining good sportsmanship. Furthermore, each school shall be prepared to expel and/or prosecute any person who commits a misdemeanor or criminal act, under the statutes of Arkansas governing an individual's conduct in public or when such action at an activity or contest constitutes unsportsmanlike conduct. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 15 Coaches Duties C. Disqualifications. 1. Coaches, faculty representatives and other school representatives shall teach and exemplify good sportsmanship and are specifically prohibited from attempting to gain advantage by intimidation of officials or the opposing team. Removing a team from the playing floor, field, etc. which causes the game to be ended for any reason other than an emergency is prohibited. 2. Any school representative or athlete ejected from an event for unsportsmanlike conduct shall automatically be suspended from the next comparable event. If a school representative, athlete or participant is ejected twice during the same sport season or activity, that individual shall automatically be suspended from the next two comparable events. If a school representative, athlete or particpant is ejected three times during the same sport season or activity, the school administration shall be placed on probation unless the school representative or athlete is suspended for the remainder of the same sport season or activity, in which case the penalty may be reduced to warning. NOTE: The ejected athlete becomes ineligible for the next comparable event. D. Interscholastic participants shall be required by coaches, faculty representatives and other school representatives to exhibit good sportsmanship. E. Schools hosting events shall require officials such as scorers, judges, announcers, etc. to exhibit fairness by accomplishing their responsibilities in a competent manner without exhibiting emotion or becoming argumentative and observing recommendations of the AAA and AOA. F. Cheerleaders, pep groups, dance/drill teams, bands and other uniformed groups representing the school shall be required to exemplify and promote good sportsmanship. G. Any school representative who publicly criticizes an event official or event official who makes public comments criticizing the performance of a school representative shall subject themselves and/or school to a penalty issued by the Arkansas Activities Association that could include warning or probation. Public comments would include quotes published in the press or taped or live comments from radio, television or other media source. Page 16 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook SECTION 2 - COACHES B.l1k..1.,_ Qualifications. All coaches shall be certified teachers as required by the Arkansas Department of Education or Certified Registered Volunteers as authorized by Act 1012 of the 1997 Arkansas General Assembly. All coaches shall be certified teachers. Football, basketball and track coaches are required by the Arkansas Department of Education to have a coaching endorsement. Coaches of other team sports (baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball) who do not have the ADE coaching endorsement must be certified through the National Federation Coaches Education Program. NFHS Coaches Education certification is recommended for coaches of individual sports. B.Yk....l.. Employment. Coaches shall be regularly employed and paid by the local board of education for professional duties. Assignments of professional duty shall be for a minimum of three regular class periods or equivalent time each day. NOTE: Assignment to a professional education duty other than a classroom teaching assignment all or part of the required three periods is permissible, but such assignment does not excuse a coach from the certification required as a teacher. 8.JJ.1tl Duties. The coach's duties as an employee shall require certification that will qualify them to be paid legally from a public school teachers salary fund. NOTE: A coach may receive money for directing recreational activities outside his regular coaching duties during off-hours, including summer months, from an outside agency. NOTE: Payment from federal program funds is permissible if the contract of the coach is eligible to be paid from teacher salary funds. However, the AAA does not approve a vocational permit as a certification for coaching even though such an- individual can be contracted and paid from salary funds. Rule 4, Nonpublic School Coaches. Nonpublic school coaches will meet the above requirement if the same assignment of duties in a comparable public school would meet the requirement. B.uk..5..,_ Volunteer Coaches/Student Teachers. An individual failing to meet the above requirements is ineligible to assume coaching duties during interscholastic events. A student teacher may assist with the coaching duties, but in no instance may he assume the responsibilities of head coach or be paid for service. Declaration for Sports - Eligibility Lists - Contracts SEffiON 3 - SCHOOL PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Bmtl Declaration for Sports A. Deadlines. Member schools shall declare, each year, the sports and designated activities in which they plan to participate interscholastically for a championship. Declarations for fall/winter sports are due by June 1. Declarations for spring sports are due by December 1. Declarations for sports may be amended by deletions or additions without penalty on or before Friday of Week #13 for fall and winter sports or Week #22 for spring sports. Following these deadlines and until the Friday of Week #16 for fall and winter sports or week #30 for spring sports a school may amend its original declaration (to delete or add a sport) upon payment of a $25 late fee, subject to the following exceptions. B. Sports qualifying or entering directly to the state event (cross country and swimming) shall be required to declare no later than the deadline for entries. A $25 penalty shall be assessed for declaring after week #13 for fall and winter sports and after week #22 for spring sports. Any school failing to declare track, baseball, softball or soccer by week #22 shall not be permitted to participate in district, region or state events in that sport. C. Failure to make a declaration or amendment to a declaration by the time specified in paragraphs A and B above shall cause a school to forfeit the right of participation for its students in the conference, district, or state events involved. D. Fall and winter sports are: Football, Girls Volleyball, and Cross Country, Swimming \u0026amp; Diving and Basketball. Spring Sports are: Girls Gymnastics, Tennis, Golf, Track, Baseball, Girls Slow Pitch Softball, Girls Fast Pitch Softball and Soccer. E. Failure to Participate. A school failing to participate in a sport (no shows) after declaring for the sport shall forfeit the right for its students to participate in other conference, district, or state events until a $25.00 penalty fee has been paid to the AAA office. The Executive Director has the authority to suspend the fee if the school's failure to appear for the event was unavoidable. F. Football and Basketball. Schools starting or dropping football and basketball programs, junior or senior high, shall notify the Arkansas Activities Association and schools of their conferences within a reasonable time (approximately ten days) after such decisions are made. \u0026amp;ikL EUgibility Lists A. Student Registration - Athletics. A member school must register its athletes on an eligibility list with the Arkansas Activities Association before the student may enter interscholastic competition. Such registration of athletes indicates they meet all AAA eligibility rules. Non-Athletics. The school administrator shall sign a statement to be attached to any entry form or list of participating students, indicating these students meet all AAA non-athletic eligibility rules. B. Exchange of Lists - Athletics. On the same date the lists are mailed to the AAA, the school should submit to all opponents with whom the school has written contracts, its eligibility lists for those sports in which the student will participate. Schools must exchange eligibility lists for students who will participate in events scheduled later, or for events scheduled without written contracts, before the schools engage in competition. RMk...1._ Recruitment of an athlete by anyone is expressly prohibited by the Arkansas Activities Association. Any school representative found guilty by the AAA Board of Directors of knowingly using or permitting to be used in an interscholastic event any student so recruited by anyone, whether that person is connected with the said member school or not, may cause the school to be suspended for up to one full year (365 days) or to be expelled. B.u.kA.,_ Contracts Between Schools A. Scheduled contests among members of the association shall be covered by contracts drawn up on regular AAA contract forms. Contracts may be cancelled only upon mutual agreement, in writing, between the two schools involved. NOTE: An exception to this requirement may be made by the Executive Director when it is determined that a schedule change is necessary for a school to be in compliance with a change of rules and regulations adopted by the Governing Body. Contractual agreements exceeding one year shall be limited to and shall coincide with reclassification cycles. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 17 Contracts - Protests B. A school cancelling a game or contest without mutual consent shall forfeit the game, pay the stipulated forfeiture fee of the contract, and reimburse the other involved school for all reasonable financial obligations incurred in their preparation for the scheduled contest. Also, the school cancelling a contract without mutual agreement may not schedule another contest during the week prescribed in the contract that was cancelled. Furthermore, all forfeitures and reimbursements shall be made within thirty days {30) following the designated contract date cancelled. Failure to make such payment may cause the school to be penalized by suspension. B.Y.k..5.,_ Contract with Offidals A. Contracts between schools and officials shall be made on AAA approved contract forms. Contracts will not be cancelled except upon mutual agreement, in writing, between the schools and officials involved. NOTE: An exception to this requirement can be made by the Executive Di rector when 1t is determined that a schedule change is necessary for a school to be in compliance with change of rules and regulations adopted by the Governing Body. B. Schools or officials breaking the contract without mutual consent shall pay to the offended party the stipulated sum stated in the contract. C. All game officials for regular season events, in those sports for which the Board of Directors specifies that registered officials are required, shall be selected by mutual agreement of the competing schools. If the official( s) approved notifies the host school that the contract cannot be fulfilled fewer that forty-eight hours before the scheduled event is to begin, the host school shall not be required to get approval of the visiting school for a replacement official of an equal or higher classification, except in the event the host school's conference establishes a list of approved officials, the host school may employ a replacement from that list regardless of the official's classification. 8.Yk.....,_ Enforcement of Contracts A. Oral Contracts. The association will not enforce oral contracts or contracts not drawn up on AAA contract forms. B. Breach of Contract. A breach of contract may be declared if a coach orders the team to cease play before an interscholastic event is completed. NOTE: The participation of an ineligible athlete may be considered a breach of contract. Page 18 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook C. If a coach unknowingly violates a contract by playing an ineligible player, the game must be forfeited to the opposing team, except that, in the cases of transfer students, where legitimate errors or omissions in the official school transcript as received are proved, such player must be withdrawn from participation upon discovery of the error without penalty to the school. D. Cancellations. Cancellation of games due to epidemics, accidents, or other hazards ordinarily judged to be of natural causes, may also be authorized by the Executive Director. E. Two-Year Contracts. Football contracts and other two-year contracts shall be drawn up with the date to be played based upon the number of week rather than upon the month and day of the month and shall coincide with classification cycles. NOTE: This regulation is designed to eliminate misunderstandings which sometimes arise when contracts are drawn up on a home-and-home basis and the second game is to be played on the corresponding week number. (Exception: out-of-state games.) B.Yk.L Protests on Games and Offidals A. Basis for Protest. No protest concerning scheduled games will be considered unless the protest is based upon a violation of contract, shown by the contract made and signed upon AAA contract forms. 1. A protest must be made in writing to the Executive Director, who must investigate and render a decision. 2. Games may be played under protest, provided the protest be made in writing, one copy being given to the coach of the protested team and a copy mailed to the AAA office. Verbal notification to the opposing coach and game officials must also be made. 3. If a game is protested, and the protest is allowed, the innocent team wins by forfeit. NOTE: Officials' Judgement Calls. The association has no authority to reverse a judgement decision made by an official. SECTION 4 - VIOLATIONS, APPEALS, AND PENALTIES. B.Y.k..L. Reporting Violations. Any authorized representative of a member school or involved game official may file a complaint against any school or school representative for a violation of the rules and regulations of this assocation. Such complaint shall be filed with the Executive Director of the Arkansas Activities Association in writing within 5 working days after the discovery of the violation. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Executive Director shall make an investigation of the charges contained in the complaint within a reasonble time. Rule 2. Notification and Investigation A. After investigating the complaint, the Executive Director shall notify the school's authorized representative of the alleged charges of violations of the rules and regulations in writing or by telephone in such language that the charged party (school or representative) shall have disclosure of the alleged acts of misconduct or impropriety constituting the alleged violation of the rules and regulations of the association. It shall not be necessary or required that the Executive Director disclose the name(s) of the person(s) making the complaint. B. When a written notice is given by the Executive Director, it shall be served by certified mail and shall be mailed to the school address of the charged party(ies). Such notice shall contain the time and place set for a hearing of the charges. C. The Executive Director shall hear the evidence presented at the hearing and at the conclusion issue a written finding and recommended order. D. Any oral or documentary evidence, not privileged, may be received if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. E. The findings and recommended order of the Executive Director shall be served upon the charged party(ies) by certified mail in the same manner required for notice of a hearing. Unless a written objection and request for appeal is received by the Executive Director within 10 working days of the mailing of said recommended order, the recommended order shall be final. If time is of the essence, a written objection and request for appeal may be required in fewer than the allotted 10 working days. F. If a school accepts a suggested penalty after receiving the notice of alleged charges of violations, no further hearing shall be necessary. Violations - Appeals Ruk-1.._ Procedure for Appeals. Any authorized representative of a member school or student (parent) may appeal a decision, opinion or recommended order given by the Executive Director, either oral or written, and such appeal shall be made in writing by certified mail. An appeal on behalf of a student by the parents shall be filed through the school's authorized representative. After receiving the written appeal, the Executive Director shall: A. Notify the president of the AAA of said appeal. B. And, 1. If time is of the essence, the president shall within a reasonable time, appoint a hearing subcommittee of the Board of Directors of not fewer than (5) members which shall convene for the purpose of conducting a hearing of the appeal with reasonable notice to the party(ies) involved. 2. If time is not of the essence, the appeal shall be heard by the Board of Directors at a regular meeting. The procedure for notice of such hearing shall be the same as for a subcommittee hearing. C. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be served upon the appealing party(ies) by certified mail. An administrator of the involved school should be present at the hearing. The appealing parties may be represented by legal counsel provided the AAA Executive Director is notified at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing. D. Within ten (10) working days after the conclusion of any hearing, the Executive Director shall notify all parties of the commitee's or hearing officer's decision. E. Then, 1. In the event the appealing parties are dissatisfied with the decision of the hearing subcommittee, an appeal to an independent hearing officer may be had by serving written notice of appeal upon the Executive Director. 2. The Executive Director shall contact a hearing officer and set a date, time and place for the hearing. Notice of the time and place shall follow the procedures established for the first appeal. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 19 Procedure for Appeals  Penalties 3. After the hearing, the hearing officer shall render an expedious written opinion as to whether the Executive Director, hearing subcommittee or the Board of Directors followed the rules of the association and the law in making a determination about the alleged violation or other basis for appeal. 4. a. In the event the appealing parties are dissatisfied with the decision of the subcommittee and hearing officer, an appeal to the Board of Directors may be had by serving a written notice of appeal upon the Executive Director. Notice of the time and place of such a hearing shall follow the procedures established for the earlier appeals. b. In the event a majority of the original hearing subcommittee is dissatisfied with the opinion of the hearing officer, and if the Board of Directors has not previously heard the matter, the subcommittee may request a hearing before the Board of Directors to review the opinion of the hearing officer. A 75% majority agreement of the Board of Directors present at the hearing is required to reject an opinion of the hearing officer. Notice of the time and place of such a hearing shall follow the procedures established for the earlier appeals. F. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal to the Board of Directors by the appealing parties, or by request from the subcommittee, the Executive Director shall set the appeal for hearing, de nova, at its next meeting. The rules as herein above set out for a hearing before the Executive Director shall apply to hearings before the Board of Directors. G. The procedure for notifications of the appealing party(ies) shall be the same as for the previous appeal. H. The filing of a written objection and appeal from the decision of the Executive Director of an appeal from the decision of the hearing subcommittee or the opinion of the hearing officer shall not stay the order of the Executive Director. Such order may be stayed by the Board of Directors if, in the exercise of its judgement, the interest of justice will be served thereby. A hearing subcommittee may stay the order of the Executive Director when acting instead of the Board of Directors and such action shall be considered at the next meeting of the Board of Directors. Page 20 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook I. If the appeal to the Board of Directors as a whole requires a special called meeting, the appealing party(ies) shall be required to make such arrangements as are satisfactory to the Executive Director to secure the payment of the costs of the appeal including travel expenses of the Board of Directors and the cost of taking and transcribing a record thereof to be paid by the appealing party(ies) in the event the appeal to the Board of Directors is not successful. ~ Penalties. Except for fines authorized in other sections of the bylaws, a violation of any rule or regulation, mandatory or prohibitory, contained in either the bylaws or the constitution of the Arkansas Activities Association, or any amendment enacted, by any member school or a representative of such school shall subject the school or the representative, through action against the school, to one of the following penalties, depending upon the severity of the violation: Warning, Probation, Suspension, or Expulsion. Any further violations during a penalty period shall subject the school or individual to a more severe penalty. If a violation occurs during a non-participating time period other penalties may be imposed. A. Warning. A school may be forced to forfeit all games played or awards received during the period of violation. The school may compete for a championship, rating, or award during this period. (See note on Bylaws Article II, Section 3, Rule 6 - Enforcement of Contracts) B. Probation. 1. A school shall forfeit all games played or awards received during the period of violation. The school may not compete for a championship, rating, or award in the sport or activity involved during the time period it is placed or continues on probation. Such penalty may extend up to a year (365 days) from the date of violation but the school may participate in regular season events. 2. As an alternative, the school may reduce the penalty of probation to a warning by suspending a school employee or student causing the violation for a length of time designated by the AAA and for duties or privileges of attendance, supervision, coaching, practicing or playing in the activity or sport involved. However, suspension of such individuals shall not exceed the time prescribed for the probation or warning period. C. Suspension. A school shall forfeit all games played or awards received during the period of violation. The school may not participate in a regular season schedule nor participate in any invitational, district, or state events during the suspension period. D. Expulsion. A school shall forfeit all games played or awards received during the period of violation. The school or individual may not participate in any interscholastic activities after it has been expelled. NOTE: The Governing Body shall have exclusive power to expel a school from the association by a two-thirds vote. NOTE: See Eligibility Rule 4 B and Rule 6 B under contracts for additional penalties. E. In the event a penalty specified in paragraphs A-D above requires a forfeiture, the offended participant or team shall receive the same forfeit as defined by the approved rule book for the forfeit of events or games due to violations of rules in the sport involved. F. If a violation requiring a penalty of forfeiture is discovered after an event has occurred, any award received by the offender shall be awarded to the next finisher in individual sports or to the last team offended in team sports. G. If a student is ineligible according to AAA rules but is permitted to participate in interscholastic competition contrary to such AAA rules but in accordance with the terms of a court restraining order of injunction against that student's school and/or the AAA, and that injunction is subsequently voluntarily vacated, stayed, reversed or finally determined by the courts that injunctive relief is not or was not justified or expires without further judicial determination, those penalties stipulated in Rule 4 A, B, C, D, E, or F may be imposed. SECTION 5 - CLASSIFICATION OF SCHOOLS B.!!.k-1..,_ Senior High Classification Cycle. The classification cycle shall occur in each two-year period in which schools are assigned to a conference. The cycle begins with an even school year (2000-2002, etc.). The classification of schools for sports in the senior high division shall be based upon the October 1 enrollment report to the ADE in grades 10-12. The enrollment from public schools shall be taken from the school's report filed with the ADE and shall be a three-year average of the October 1 enrollment. The nonpublic school enrollment figures multiplied by 1.35 shall be taken from a school's report to ANSAA at the end of the fiscally uneven year. Penalties - Classification of Schools A. Class AAAAA - The largest 32 schools. A statewide organization, not assigned to an activity district, but supervised directly by the AAA Board of Directors. Schools shall be assigned to the activity district compatible with each school's geographic location. B. Class AAAA - The second largest 32 schools. A statewide organization, not assigned to an activity district, but supervised directly by the AAA Board of Directors. Schools shall be assigned to the activity district compatible with each school's geographic location. C. Class AAA - The next largest 64 schools. D. Class AA - Basketball - The next 96 largest schools\nFootball - The remainder of football schools. E. Class A - Basketball - The remainder of football schools having an enrollment within Class A range shall be added to basketball conferences. F. Each conference in classes AAA, AA, and A is assigned to the activity district compatible with each school's geographic location. NOTE: Non-football schools larger than Class AA and A shall be assigned to a conference in the class indicated by their ADM. 8JJk..2..,. Junior High. Junior High schools shall be classified the same as their parent school except that schools not located within the principal population area (wing schools) may classify according to ADM of grades 7-9 instead of 10-12. B.uk..J.._ The ADM of schools with students all of one gender shall be doubled for classification purposes. BJ!1tl Schools whose enrollment is made up entirely of students selected on the basis of academic excellence shall participate with schools of the largest state classification in academic contests. SECTION 6 - ATHLETIC CONFERENCES Rule 1. Schools are assigned georgraphically to conferences by the AAA Board of Directors for each two-year cycle. Schools may be in a conference other than indicated by their location of their county in an activity district. A. In the event a conference has fewer than four schools declaring and participating in any sport, the Board of Directors of the AAA shall assign such schools to adjacent conferences for participation in meets, tournaments, playoffs, etc. The Board of Directors may 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 21 Conferences  Conference Authority - Round Robin assign schools from adjacent conferences to such a conference, if approved by the school(s) being reassigned. Such assignments will be for one sport only and the term shall coincide with the two-year classification cycle. In making these assignments, the committee shall attempt to keep the size of the conferences equalized and at the same time avoid excessive travel. NOTE: When such assignments are made, the schools participating shall be responsible for determining fees necessary for conducting the meet, purchasing awards, etc., and fees as agreed upon by the majority shall be paid to the di rector of the event before a school is eligible to compete in the activity. B. Classification groups, when approved by the AAA Board of Directors, may organize on a statewide basis for selected athletic activities and such groups shall not be assigned to activity districts for administrative purposes in these sports, but shall be responsible directly to the AAA Board of Directors. C. A member school shall be permitted to change from one conference to another if it does not exceed the limitation on numbers, upon consent of each of the conferences involved by a two-thirds majority vote. This shall apply to all sports in which the school participates that are under the jurisdiction of the conference. D. A member school may petition the AAA Board of Directors for assignment to a classification higher than the one indicated by its average daily membership report. Upon approval of this request the Board of Directors will assign such a school to a conference in the new class. E. Any school choosing to participate independently from their conference assignment in any sport shall be required to participate independently in ALL sports offered by their school. B.Y.k..l.. Conference Authority A. Conferences shall organize, elect officers and adopt rules and regulation to conduct conference interscholastic events as provided by the AAA Handbook. Such rules and regulations may be more restrictive, but not less restrictive than and not in conflict with, the rules and regulations of the AAA constitution and bylaws. B. Each conference shall be responsible for furnishing awards. C. Each conference shall make regular financial reports, at least annually, to its member schools. D. Conferences shall have the responsibility of working with schools to see that schedules are arranged prior to June 1 in football and October 1 in basketball so that each new school may have the opportunity of playing Page 22 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook the required number games. The conferences shall have the responsibility to set the date of the first game to be counted for the championship. B.uk...1,_ Determining Round-Robin Champions A. Conferences may use round robin scheduling for determining conference champions, certifying teams to state events or seeding of tournaments on a percent basis of games won and lost if two-thirds of the conference schools approve. B. Any school failing to schedule a conference opponent or refusing to play a conference opponent without just cause shall forfeit the contest and shall not be eligible to compete for a championship in that sport. If one or more schools involved is agreeable to scheduling, such school(s) may select from their schedule a non-conference game with an equal or higher class for a substitute game. The AAA director may approve a substitute game with a school of equal or higher classification, prior to the beginning of the season, for a school that establishes just cause for failure to schedule. C. In the event a game that is a part of the conference round robin schedule to be used for certification of teams or seeding of a tournament is unavoidably postponed and cannot be rescheduled before the date the schedule is to be completed, the placement of the teams who failed to play the required game(s) in the final order of standings shall be accomplished by two computations. First, the teams shall be placed in the order on the basis of round robin games actually played. Then each team shall be charged a loss of each game not played and the standings order adjusted accordingly. In the event the latter adjustment causes the team(s) involved to tie with another team(s) in the order, the procedure for breaking ties shall be applied to choose the team to receive the highest placement. D. Conferences may also use round robins to certify the winner to a state event and\nin basketball, may require a tournament for certification of the other team(s). E. In the event a school chooses not to participate in the basketball round robin schedule such school shall be permitted to participate in the basketball tournament and shall be inserted into the seeding order determined by the round robin by a vote of schools participating in the round robin. Bl!.1tl Conference Ties in Football A. If two teams tie, and one of the teams has defeated the other in a regular schedule conference game, the winner shall be declared the conference playoff representative. Three or more tied teams shall first be considered in sets of two-way ties. B. If two teams tie and the tied teams split or have not played each other in a conference game(no round robin) the team with the greater sum of winning margin, using the following point system, shall be the playoff representative. C. If more than two teams remain tied after applying (1) above, the following point system shall be utilized to eliminate all but two teams. Tabulate the sum of the winning margins of each team's conference games as indicated in the following: 1. If the margin of victory is more than 13 points only 13 points shall count. 2. Losses shall be tallied as O (zero) points. 3. Forfeited games. Offended teams shall receive 13 points when tabulating the sum of the winning margins for breaking conference ties. D. After tabulating the sum of the winning margins, all teams except the two with the greater sum shall be eliminated and the selection process shall begin again with paragraph(A). E. If teams remain tied after the above procedures are applied, the playoff representative shall be determined by a coin toss. The coin toss, supervised by the Executive Director, shall be used to eliminate all but two teams and then begin again with paragraph (A). F. In the event the conference is eligible for more than one playoff representative each subsequent playoff representative shall be chosen by reapplying the procedures above. G. All conferences will use the AAA adopted procedures for breaking ties that occur in the order of standings when round robin schedules are completed. R.u.k.2,_ Basketball Tie Breaker Rule (Classes A-AA-AAA-AAAA-AAAAA) If two teams are tied from regular season conference play, tie breaker procedures will be: 1. Head to head in regular season conference play 2. If the two teams have a split margin of victory between the two teams, with a maximum of 10 points per game 3. If the two teams are still tied, all winning conference game points, with a maximum of 10 points per game 4. If the two teams are still tied, a coin flip by the Arkansas Activities Association's Executive Director will decide seeding. Conference Ties If three teams are in a three-way tie from regular season conference play, tie breaker procedures will be: 1. Head to head competition. If one team has been defeated by one of the other teams twice, they would be eliminated. The two remaining teams would go to step two listed above for two teams that are tied. If step two does not break the tie, step three would follow, then step four. If three teams are tied and each team has split ( or a perfect triangle), tie breaker procedures will be: 1. Margin of victory in all conference games, with a maximum of 10 points per game, would be used. Example: A=50, B=49\nC=38 If you have one spot in the bracket team A would go If two spots were on the bracket teams A and B would go If three spots were on the bracket teams A, B and C would go If four~ teams are tied the margin of victory in all conference games would be used, with a maximum of 10 points per game. The two teams with the highest amount of points would be decided by head to head competition. If these teams had split victories, the team with the highest points would receive the spot for the first team (if both tied with the same amount of points, a coin toss would be used to decide the first team). This procedure would continue until all spots were filled. Example: Teams A, B, C, D, E are all tied from regular season conference play. A margin of victory in conference play was: A=68, 8=60, C=58, D=50, E=40 A and B would go head to head. If they split A would receive the spot in the bracket. If more than one spot was available B and C would go head to head. If they had split B would receive the spot on the bracket. This would continue until all spots on the bracket were completed. \u0026amp;!k.....i._ Conference Championships in Baseball, Softball and Soccer Determining Conference Champions/Playoff Representatives 1. Head to head competition is always the first consideration. In case of ties the following procedure shall be followed: A. If two teams tie, head to head in conference competition is always the first consideration. If one team has defeated the other team (once or twice) that team shall be the representative. B. If two teams tie and each team has beaten the other in conference play the two teams' margin of victory against each other will decide the conference representative. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 23 Conference Championships - Classification of Students C. If the two teams are still tied, the sum of the winning margins of each team's conference games with a five run limit shall be used. (In forfeited games the offended team shall receive five runs.) D. If the two teams are still tied, a one game playoff at a site agreed upon by both teams will be played. The winner will be declared the playoff representative. E. If two or more teams tie, head to head competition will first be used (if one team has defeated one or more of the teams twice in conference play this will eliminate these teams, unless two positions are available). The two or three remaining teams would go to head to head competition and the margin of victory against each other. If this did not decide a playoff representative, a coin toss by the Executive Director of the Arkansas Activities Association will be used. 1. If two positions are available and one position is decided from the above mentioned methods, the two remaining teams will be: a. Decided by a margin of victory against each other. If the two teams are still tied: b. A margin of victory not to exceed a five (5) run difference for baseball and softball and a one (1) goal difference for soccer against all conference opponents will be used. If a winner is not determined, a coin toss by the Executive Director of the Arkansas Activities Association will determine the playoff representative. \u0026amp;!k..L. Conference Championships in Volleyball If a tie results it shall be broken by the first of the following procedures which is successful in doing so: 1. Head-to-head competition between the tied schools\n2. Game record in head-to-head competition\n3. Actual point spread of head-to-head games\n4. A playoff match between schools involved in the tie. If there is a three-way tie, the schools shall draw for the numbers 1, 2 and 3 which shall identify each school to begin the playoff with 1 playing 2 and 3 playing the winner. The winner of the final match will be the first conference seed with the opponent being the second seeded team and the loser of the first playoff match being the third seed. This procedure shall be applied in the same manner if four teams are tied. After drawing numbers, 1 would play 4 and 2 would play 3, after which winners would play one another for the first seeded position. The loser of Page 24 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook this match will be the second seeded team. If more than two teams are to advance to the state tournament, further elimination play would be conducted for third and fourth seeds. BfilU Football Conference Schedules A. Any school contending for a conference championship must have its schedule in the office of the conference president and the AAA no later than August 20. Games scheduled after that date shall not count in conference standings. B. Schools moving into a new classification must be given the provilege of contending for the championship the first year of each classification cycle. SECTION 7 - CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENTS 8J!k..L. Ninth grade students may participate in all high school activities regardless of their grade placement or where they are housed, provided they are in the same attendance zone and the principals of both involved schools agree, except Class AAAAA ninth grade students who are eligible for junior high athletics may not participate in a sport on a senior high team if the junior high has a team participating in that sport, except in the sports of gymnastics and cross country. \u0026amp;!.1f:...L A ninth grade student may be promoted to the senior team in any sport and then moved back to the junior high team in a different sport. However, once engaging in interscholastic competition in senior high the student is ineligible for junior high competition in that sport. B.!lk...Ji A student ineligible for junior high athletics due only to the age rule or the semester rule may be allowed to participate on the senior high team. Seventh or eighth grade students may not participate on a senior high team except when they are in violation of the semester or age rule. SECTION 8 - EVENTS RMkJ..,. All organized interscholastic student activities shall have its rules and regulations approved by the AAA Board of Directors. B.u.k.1..,. All changes in rules and regulations, relative to the participation of students of member schools in interscholastic activities on the district, conference, region, and state level shall be referred to the superintendent, principal, or the authorized representative (with written authorization) for approval. Any change affecting fees or dates shall be voted on by mail. Events - Sanction (Approval) of Events Such ballots shall be mailed to the superintendent or 45 principal and shall be provided with a signature space 46 for the sponsor, coach, advisor, director, etc., as well as 46 Girls Golf Tournaments *Meet of Champs Overall Girls Golf the administrator. .B.u1tl The Board of Directors has authority to revoke approval of any activity at any time it does not conform to the criteria upon which approval was based for an educational program or if irregularities occur. The Board of Directors may reconsider approval of any activity at any time and it shall do so upon receipt of a written request by a school superintendent or principal. ~ A permanent calendar of events sponsored by the AAA shall be established by numbering the weeks of the calendar\nthe week containing Thanksgiving Day shall be week #21 with preceding and succeeding weeks numbered consecutively. NOTE: The AAA calendar will always contain 52 numbered weeks. A seven-year calendar will be published each year in the AAA Directory. \u0026amp;!k..5..._ Scheduling Events A. Athletic events sponsored by the AAA are scheduled as follows: CALENDAR OF ATHLETIC EVENTS Week# Event 6 Football practice begins on Monday (no pads) 6 Thursday-Football practice in full equipment 9 First football game\nfirst volleyball match 16 **First basketball game for non-football schools 16 Conference and District Volleyball Tournaments 17 *State Volleyball Tournaments 18 * State Cross Country Meet 18 Football Season ends 19 22/23 33 34 34 35 36 41 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 ***Begin football playoffs Football finals Conference Basketball Tournaments *State Swimming/Diving Meet Regional Basketball Tournaments State Basketball Tournaments State Basketball Finals *State Gymnastics Meet State Tennis and Boys Golf Tournaments State Soccer Tournament Overall Boys Golf *State Track Meet Prelims-AA-AAAAA Overall Tennis *State Track Meet A\n*State Track Finals AA-AAAAA *State Baseball and Softball Tournaments 47 *Decathlon and Heptathlon *Traditional date - Board of Directors has authority to assign date. **Football schools may begin basketball the week following last regularly scheduled game, but no earlier than week #17. ***All football playoffs shall be scheduled on Fridays except by mutual agreement of participating schools or assignment by AAA. ~ Sanction (Approval) of Events A. The AAA has jurisdiction over the following events that QQ..D..Q.t.require AAA sanction forms to be submitted: 1. Regularly scheduled events between two schools beginning after 3:30 p.m. on school days or anytime on Saturday including out-of-state athletic trips of less than 300 miles one way. 2. Invitational events sponsored by member schools and involving only member schools that occur after 3:30 on school days or anytime on holidays or weekends. Invitational tournaments shall meet the criteria in Rule 7 A. 3. Sub-District, district, and state (official) events regularly scheduled on a numbered week of the AAA calendar by the constitution and bylaws or rules of statewide affiliated student organizations or activities that begin after 3:30 p.m. on school days or anytime on holidays or weekends. 4. State or Federal constitutional events or any special event sponsored by a state for federal constitutional officer. (A special event is one that does not occur annually.) 5. Events on the National Association of Secondary School Principals list. B. The AAA has jurisdication over the following events that DO REQUIRE AAA SANCTION FORMS to be submitted and approved prior to participation. 1. Events that are not sponsored by member schools or that involve out-of-state schools. 2. Events which are postponed due to weather conditions or unavoidable circumstances that previously required sanctions or would cause a loss of class time. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 25 Sanction (Approval) of Events 3. When isolated schools, as designated by the AAA Board of Directors, participate out-of-state prior to 3:30 p.m. on a school day to use less class time for such participation. 4. Official events involving a loss of class ti me. 5. One national non-competitive non-athletic interscholastic event per year for a senior high school-sponsored group or individual. Events must meet NASSP guidelines for national participation. 6. Competition that is scheduled to begin prior to 3:30 p.m. on a school day in the academic areas of mathematics, science, social studies, language arts, or foreign language if students compete in two or more of these academic areas. A student who participates in such competition shall be currently enrolled in courses of the academic area(s) involved and be selected for participation on the basis of outstanding achievement. The actual time that a student shall be permitted to engage in such competition shall not exceed one school day or 5 1/2 hours per school year. C. The AAA has jurisdiction over events that occur during the summer or extended holiday period that are sanctioned. D. That AAA has no jurisdiction over the following events. 1. Events that are not sanctioned and occur during the summer or extended holiday period for individuals or groups that are school-sponsored that do not adversely affect the eligibility of involved students. 2. Field trips that do not adversely affect the eligibility of involved students. 3. Events in which students who are not school-sponsored participate. E. There shall be no activities on the state level (state championship or statewide invitational) for junior high students except programs listed on the NASSP Advisory List of National Contests and Activities that permit junior high participation. (See Rule 9.) Any district or regional junior high activity that is not an official event of an affiliated organization must be limited to participation of junior high schools assigned to the activity district in which the event is scheduled except when AAA sanction is requested and approved by the established procedures. Page 26 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook NOTE: One or more of the following circumstances shall be required before exceptions to the 3:30 rule may be granted and then only for official district, region or state events. 1. Facilities - If it is not possible to secure the needed facilities on a non-school day. 2. Scheduling of Events - If the essential activities involved in the event require more than one day's duration. 3. Number of participants - If there are more participants scheduled to compete than can be accommodated in one day. 4. Staffing - If a sufficient quantity of qualified officials, judges, etc. can not be secured for the event on a non-school day. 5. Financial - If the cost of officials, guest conductors, judges, etc. would be prohibitive to involve only nonschool days. B.Yk.L. Criteria for Sanction (Approval). The following criteria, ranked in order of importance, shall be considered for approving events. A. All invitational events must be scheduled to begin after 3:30 p.m., with no part scheduled to begin after 9:00 p.m. if held on week days, or any time on holidays or Saturdays. Invitational tournaments shall be scheduled to be concluded in one week. Early rounds of such tournaments in athletics may begin on a Saturday if the finals are scheduled to be on or before the following Saturday. Basketball schools may schedule only one regular event by a team the week that the team is in a tournament except when the tournament is of one day's duration and played on Saturday. B. The purpose of an event shall not be in conflict with the purposes of the AAA and any social activities should conform with the student personnel policies of a majority of the participating schools. C. Worthwhile educational benefits resulting from the activity must be realized by students who are to participate. D. Awards shall be appropriate in number, kind and value (Athletics: see Art. III, Sec. 1, Rule 8). In nonathletics, equipment awards relating to the student's skills are acceptable. Scholarships are always recommended and cash awards are discouraged. Sanction (Approval) of Events - NASSP List - Summer Camp E. Entry fees shall be proportionate to the total cost of conducting the event without a profit being realized at the expense of the student or school. F. Events will not be approved which are commercial in nature requiring special tour packages and/or theme park admittance fees. G. Junior high invitational events which occur on Saturday or a school holiday and which involve junior highs located outside the activity district in which the event is held, may be sanctioned if not issuing a statewide invitation. Rule 8. Application for Sanction ( Approval) A. An application for approval of a contest, festival, meeting or other activity must be made in writing to the Executive Director at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the event. An exception to this rule may be made if it can be determined that all involved administrators had knowledge 30 days prior to the event and that all necessary preparation had been made prior to the request. NOTE: Events approved after July 1 will not appear on the annual calendar but will be published in the AAA Bulletin. B. An application for approval may be submitted by an authorized faculty representative of an affiliated student organization or a sponsor of an event. C. The application shall include the following: 1. Name of school or organization wishing to sponsor the event. 2. Name of the faculty representative or event manager or di rector. 3. Title or name of the interscholastic event. 4. Awards to be offered and their value. 5. Entry fees, if any. 6. Time schedule and date of event. 7. Schools to be invited. 8. Agenda, program and general rules of the event. B11k...9..,_ NASSP Advisory List of Contests and Activities. Any event or activity included in the NASSP Advisory List of National Contests and Activities shall be automatically approved by the AAA Executive Director. Those events for which the NASSP has taken no action or has not included in the list may be approved if the host state's authorized association approves the event. If there is no organization in the host state authorized by the schools to have jurisdiction over an activity, the Executive Director may approve the event if it meets AAA criteria for approval. Rule 10. Out-Of-State Events A. Out-of-state events shall be approved on the same basis as in-state events. 1. Participation in school-sponsored interscholastic activities shall be restricted to the states contiguous to Arkansas. 2. School groups may not spend more than one school night out-of-state. (Monday - Thursday.) 3. Athletic events exceeding 600 miles round trip require National Federation approval. 4. An AAA member school may not participate with an out-of-state school that is not in good standing with their state association and the member school is responsible for ascertaining the status of such school. B. Exceptions to the above sections: 1. All events on the NASSP approved list. 2. The AAA Executive Director may make an exception to A. 1 and 2 above based on the educational merits of the activity. Rule 11. Summer Athletic Camp Guidelines. Student participation in athletic camps is permitted as long as: 1. No school time is lost. 2. There is no competition between the camps either during or after the camp. 3. The student does not violate the amateur rule as to receiving pay for coaching. 4. Helmets, shoulder pads and upper body padding (arms, forearm, rib, etc.) may be worn in football camps. No padding is to be worn below the waist. Use of sleds or tackling machines is also prohibited. 5. The football camps are held during the period following the end of school year through week #5. 6. The school is responsible for informing its students of the summer camp regulations and monitoring the activities of the camp. 7. A violation of these regulations may subject the school to a penalty for the sport involved throughout the following season and may cause a student to be ineligible for up to one year. 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 27 Summer Camp  All-Stars  Sunday Contests  Scouting  Broadcast Rights Camp is defined as a site where three or more students or school teams meet for the purpose of receiving instruction in basic skills in a sport. Football camps may be held only between the final day of the spring term (May-June) and the beginning of fall football practice (Week #6). NOTE: A violation of the Summer Camp Rule or the AllStar Rule may cause the student to lose eligibility for up to one year. Rule 12, All-Star Contests A. AHSCA All-Star Game. The Arkansas Activities Association sanctions an All-Star Football game and All-Star Boys' and Girls' Basketball Games and a Girls Volleyball Game. The AHSCA Executive Committee is authorized to plan the details and mechanics for the All-Star Games and the coaching clinic subject to the approval of the Board of Directors of the AAA. B. Coach and Administrator Participation. No athletic director, coach, teacher, or administrator of an Arkansas Activities Association member school, nor athletic official who is registered with the Arkansas Officials Association, shall at any time assist with the coaching, management, direction, election of players, promotion, or officiating of any All-Star or similar contest in football or basketball in which one or more of the competing teams is composed of a player, who, during the previous school year, was a member of a member high school football, basketball, or volleyball team with the exception of the All-Star games sponsored by the Arkansas High School Coaches Association. C. Student All-Star Participation 1. A student who is a member of a school team may not become a member of an all-star football, basketball or volleyball team, in season, without losing his eligibility in that sport for up to one year {365 days) from the date of such participation with the all-star team. 2. Following completion of high school eligibility in a sport and prior to graduation from high school, a student may not participate in an all-star contest that is not specifically approved by the AAA or participate in more than two such all-star football, basketball or volleyball contests. NOTE: Violation of any of the above regulations may cause a student to be ineligible for the AAA-sanctioned AHSCA All-Star Game(s). Page 28 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook Rule 13. Sunday Interscholastic Contests. There shall be no interscholastic athletic contests on Sunday. Rule 14, Approved Scouting and Filming or Videotaping A. When hosting regularly scheduled competitive events, member schools shall grant admission to at least two scouting representatives from other member schools who are scheduled to compete with either of the participating schools at a later date. No filming or videotaping by a third party member school shall be allowed unless permission is granted by both competing schools. B. Filming/Videotaping: Each school when engaging in regular events shall have the right to make films or videotapes for educational or historical purposes and such films or tapes may be shared with other member schools for scouting purposes. The host school may also permit the use of non-commercial cameras and video reco1ders to record events for families and friends of participants. Rule 15. Broadcast and Television Rights A. For regularly scheduled local interscholastic events the host school only shall have the right to grant permissions for public broadcast by radio or television. B. Conference, Region, or State Events: The AAA shall have the rights and authority for controlling the scouting, filming, videotaping or broadcasting, either by radio or television, at all elimination events leading to a state championship endorsed or sponsored by the association, except those games approved by the AAA bylaws to be played as regularly scheduled events. ARnCLE Ill - EUGIBIUTY INTRODUCTION Participation in competitive interscholastic activities as a part of a school's educational program is a privilege and not a right. The eligibility rules of this association are designed to promote the educational values derived from participation in interscholastic activities, prevent exploitation of youth by special interest groups and to ensure that interscholastic activities shall remain an integral part of the educational program. Students wishing to participate in interscholastic activities shall have the opportunity to become eligible for these activities when they meet ill eligibility rules. They will remain eligible for the opportunity to participate provided they .d.2....n.Qt: (1) exceed any limitations, (2) fail to meet any minimums, or (3) violate any other rules of the association. They may, however, regain their opportunity to participate at a later date by correcting any deficiencies which caused the ineligibility. NOTE: Students who exceed the junior high age rule or junior high semester rule limitations shall have the opportunity to be eligible for senior high activities. NOTE: Students who exceed the senior high age rule or the senior high semester rule limitations shall have no further opportunity to be eligible. Eligibility rules apply to students in grades 7-12 inclusive\nspecific rules for junior high schools apply to students in grades 7-9 inclusive\nspecific rules for senior high schools apply to students in grades 9-12 inclusive. In the rules that follow, the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular as the context requires or permits. Where appropriate, personal pronouns refer to either gender. Rule 1. RESIDENCE: 1. A student's eligibility for interscholastic athletics shall be in the public school district of the parent's residence. Refer to other residence and transfer rules for limitations and situations. The AAA recognizes only one residence for eligibility. A change in residence consists of a complete and bona fide move from one domicile to another. 2. A student may meet the residence requirement at another AAA member school after attending said member school for one calendar year (365 days from initial Eligibility  Residence  Transfers enrollment). 3. A student shall also meet the residence requirement if the student receives a legal transfer from one public school to another (release and acceptance respectively by the boards of both schools). Transfers must take place prior to Labor Day. 4. Member schools accredited by the Arkansas Nonpublic School Accrediting Association shall be required to have student eligibility boundaries which will be limited to the county in which the school resides and/or a 25-mile radius of the school. Students who live outside the boundaries may participate in all AAA sanctioned athletic events as long as they have been enrolled in the nonpublic school before Labor Day of the 10th grade year. Those enrolling after Labor Day of their 10th grade year may not participate in interscholastic athletics for 365 days from the first day of their enrollment. LEGAL ATTENDANCE: A student's eligibility for interscholastic athletics with respect to the residence rule may be in the public school that the student is legally attending at the beginning of the fall semester, provided attendance is not for athletic purposes. Refer to other residence and transfer rules for additional limitations and situations. NON-SCHOOL COACH: A student transferring, moving or, for any reason, attending a new school where the student's non-school coach is the school coach, or is anyone assisting in any capacity with the coaching or training of the school team, is presumed to be attending for athletic purposes, if the student participated in athletics the previous year. TRANSFERS: 1. Students changing schools under the Freedom of Choice law, transferring other than legal transfers (both boards agreeing) or any circumstances other than residence rules 1 through 3 above is assumed to have changed schools for athletic purposes if the student participated in athletics the previous year. 2. A student changing schools, for any reason, who has been a member of an a\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_320","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits: ''Elementary Schools''","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":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits: ''Elementary Schools''"],"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/320"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["253 pages"],"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\nELEMENTRY SCHOOLSzom5 mm z CZ) o -n Elementary Schools 1. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in June 2, 1999, Learning Links with attached copy of new publication. Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Approaches to Improving Student Achievement. 2. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Dec. 1, 1999, Learning Links with attached information on The Basic School model for school improvement created by Ernest Boyer. 3. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links with attached study of nine urban elementary schools with high achievement. 4. Memorandum from Patricia Price to elementary principals in Feb. 7, 2001, Learning Links with information about a new publication, Building Strong Foundations for Early Learning: The U.S. Department of Educations Guide to High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs. 1 L.L b/^/qcj LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 June 1,1999 TO: Principals FROM\nDr. Bonnie Lesley? Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: School Improvement We are sending to you under separate cover a copy of a school improvement planning resource, Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Approaches to Improving Student Achievement by Gordon Cawelti. We think you will find it useful. In fact, we suggest that you read it before the Principals Institute in late July. BAL/rcm LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 April 20, 1999 TO: All Principals Curriculum Staff FROM: A? Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Training in Teaching Writing I can think of no other single thing you could do with more potential for improving student achievement than in preparing ajl teachers to teach writing across the curriculum. The new Arkansas benchmark examinations are going to be, for the most part, writing tests. The National Writing Project is the most successful professional development program in this country! UALR is awarding 25 scholarships for teacher participation. We need all 25 of those slots! See the article below for how to sign up one or more oyour teachers. Call Gene Parker or me if we can help. Curriculum staff is also encouraged to participate in this training. BAL/rcm 25 teachers get writing fellowships The National Writing Project and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock will award up to 25 fellowships to Arkansas schoolteachers. _ The awards, valued at $900 each, enable teachers to enroll for SIX hours of graduate credit in the U.ALR department of rhetoric and wTiting. They will participate in The Summer Institute, a five-week program from June 28July 2S. Monday through Thursday, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Applicants may be teachers in any subject. The application deadline is May 7. More information is available at 569-8063 or 835-3390. 3RD QUARTER CRT READING RESULTS 1998-99 DISTRICT TOTALS I 2ND GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 3 RD3 BENCHMARK 9 RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 4.4 2.9 3.8 3.6 14.6 3RD GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RD3 BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RD6 BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH- BENCH-MARK 9 RD9 MARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.8 3 2.9 3.1 3 2.3 2.2 29.1 4TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARK 3 RD3 BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RD5 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCHMARK 9 RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3 1.8 3.2 2.8 2.7 3 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.7 26.9 5TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH-MARKO RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.7 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.8 3.2 30 I I 6TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RD6 BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH-MARKO RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.4 2.8 3.1 3 2.5 3 2.7 3.3 3.3 30.7 1 3RD QUARTER CRT MATH RESULTS 1998-99 DISTRICT TOTALS 2ND GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-6 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 16.8 3RD GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK! M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 1ST QTR BENCHMARK 4 MI-4 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 1ST QTR BENCHMARKS MI-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 2 M2-2 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.7 3 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.5 3.1 27.5 4TH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-8 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 7 M3-7 1ST QTR BENCHMARKS MI-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.3 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.3 26.3 STH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 MS-? 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-6 2ND QTR BENC-MARK7 M2-7 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 2 M2-2 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 4 M2-4 TOTAL SCORE I I AVERAGE 3.2 2.4 2 1.8 2.7 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.5 1.9 22.8 6TH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 7 M3-7 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-6 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 4 M2-4 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 21 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.7 2.6 2.3 21 21.6 2 Memo To: From: Re: Elementary School Principals and Teachers Dr. Ed Williams, Planning Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation District Wide 3''^\u0026lt;3uarter CRT Results Attached are the District average scores for the 3\"* quarter reading and math benchmarks. The reading scores are on page 1 and the math results are on page 2. For the 2^^ grade there were 20 questions for each subject. Reading had four benchmarks, with five questions for each benchmark. Mastery of a benchmark would be four out of five correct. A total score of 16 or above indicates mastery of the reading section. Math had five benchmarks, with four questions for each benchmark. Mastery of a benchmark would be three out'of four correct. A total score of 15 or above indicates mastery of the math section. For grades 3 through 6, there were 40 questions for each subject, with ten benchmarks and four questions per benchmark. Mastery would be three out of four correct. A total score of 30 or above in a section indicates mastery of that section. Testing for the 4* quarter will be on May 19*^ and 20, except for grade. Due to a conflict with 6' Grade Challenge, we ask that you test your test 6' grade students on May 18. Return scoring sheets to PRE by 5 p.m. on May 21^ The student ID number \u0026amp; name, type of test, and school will be pre-slugged. Teachers will only need to pencil in their ID number. Any school that cannot adhere to the above testing dates please call 2125. 1Memo To: Elementary School Principals and Teachers From: Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Re: Comparison of Z\"** and 3\" Quarter CRT Results District average test scores in reading 2\"** Quarter 3\"^ Quarter % + /- 3\"* grade 25.58 29.07 +13.6% grade 26.72 26.91 +.07% 5* grade 26.73 30.01 +12.27% 6* grade 29.78 30.67 +2.99% District average test scores in math Z\"** Quarter 3^ Quarter % +1- 3\"* grade 27.69 27.51 -.06% 4* grade 20.71 26.32 +27.08% 5 grade 20.71 22.79 +10.04% 6 grade 24.01 21.56 -10.20% Interpreting scores. Some benchmarks were assessed in both quarters (e.g., 3rd grade math M2-1, 2-2, 2-3, \u0026amp; 2-5). Refer to Learning Links, February 3,1999, for average scores, on individual benchmarks, for the 2'* quarter.-Benchmarks are based on the concept of vertical linkage or chaining (i.e., what you learn in a previous quarter is built upon and linked or chained to learning in the current quarter). The question, to some extent, that could be answered by these results is that Yes, student achievement is improving.\" Congratulations! Please share this information with your building teachers. 22 LL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 November 15, 1999 TO: Elementary Principals FROM\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: The Basic School - Model for Change I promised at a recent meeting to send to all of you some information on Ernest Boyer's The Basic School, a change model that I really like. I have lots of information, but I am sending this much to see if you are interested. An address and phone number are included - if you want to order your own book and videotape. They also have a web page\nwww.baesp.org/sci.htm. You Can e-mail the national director. Dr. Mary Ellen Bafumo, at bafumome@imu.edu. Attachment BAL/rcm The Basic School Page 1 of 2 M J M ?\nijdcj?= I J?JLJiJ = National Association of Elementary School Prindpals The Basic School The Basic School Network began as a partnership of The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, and James Madison University Copyright 1996 \"As I listen to teachers, parents, university faculty, colleagues, even children respond to the ideas of the Basic School, I realize how deeply resonant they are. I believe that the Basic School truly has the potential for changing the face of elementary education in America. These changes will not take place through inspirational talks alone. Teachers will learn from each other\nputting ideas into practice.\" Mary Beth Van Cleave, Principal, Clinton Kelly Elementary School, Portland, Oregon Learn more about The Basic School and the Network from:  The Basic School Network Highlights  The Carnegie Foundation's Basic School Blueprint  Dr. Ernest Boyer's speech at the 1995 NAESP Annual Convention - Part I and Part II  Principal Magazine  Principal Magazine Character\"  Principal Magazine article \"The Basic School: Focusing on the Childfl article \"Character in the Basic School - Making a Commitment to article \"The Basic School: Building a Framework for Curriculum  Communicator article \"Basic School Update -13 Schools Try Out Reforms\"  Teaching PreK-8 article \"Norfolk's 'Model' School\"  Instructor article \"My Colleagues Never Drive Me Crazyft  List of Other Publications on the Basic School and the Basic School Network  Other Up-To-Date Information on The Basic School Network: o Direct link to The Basic School Network at James Madison University o The latest Basic School News ~ o The Basic School Network Events For Further Information: The Basic School: A Community for Learning, by Ernest L. Boyer, is available for $15 (Bulk rate available) plus shipping from: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 350 Sansome Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Telephone 888-378- http\n//www.naesp.org/bshili.htm 11/12/99 2537, Fax 800-605-2665 Or for more information about the network contact: Mary Ellen Bafumo, The Basic School Network, James Madison University, 101 Roop Hall, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, phone (540) 568-7098, fax (540)-568-3803, or E-mail: bafumomef^imu.edu PRINCIPAL ONLINE is sponsored by: The National Association of Elementary School Principals 1615 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 For Additional Information about NAESP contact us at: 1-800-38-NAESP (voice), 1-800-39-NAESP (fax) or E-Mail: naesp(^naesp.ors ^Honw ^Publications ^Membership \u0026amp; Products ^SpecialProjects ^Programs ^Research  Forum ^Students * Government * Index Copyright  1996-1999 National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. s j / M J \u0026gt; HtbCIkMUM ktQVIiX HLVltlM /CUbUKC PMICV S' i' -c a- ' i-iC-Vr ! ?! ivacv- I Partnership f -B -SFh 5^ J V 11 i t J I. W f 9 http://www.naesp.org/bshili.htm 11/12/99National Assodation of Elementary School Prindpals The Basic School A Community for Learning Introduction to The Basic School-A New Beginning For years, America has been working hard to improve the nation's schools. Reform has been high on the public agenda. As a result, academic standards have been raised, teacher certification requirements have been tightened, and educational innovations have been introduced from coast to coast. Without question, progress has been made. Today, America's best schools are among the most outstanding in the world. Others are succeeding, often under difficult conditions. But it's also true that far too many schools are only marginal at best, and that some, often those in our me st troubled neighborhoods, should hardly be called schools. The world has changed and schools must change, too. The lives of children who enroll in school today will span a new century. If, in the days ahead, educators cannot help students to become literate and well informed, if the coming generation cannot be helped to see beyond the confines of their own lives, the nation's prospects for the future will be dangerously diminished. Clearly, the push for school renewal rieeds a new beginning. This time the focus must be on the early years, on elementary education. Every level of learning is important. No sector should be neglected. But school failure starts very early and if all children do not have a good beginning, if they do not receive the support and encouragement they need during the first years of life, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to compensate fully for the failure later on. Responding to this challenge, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has proposed a new, comprehensive plan for elementary schooling called the Basic School, presented in a report entitled The Basic School: A Community for Learning. Following is an introduction to the priorities of the Basic School and answers to most frequently asked questions. What is a Basic School? The Basic School is not just another \"pilot program\" or novel innovation. Rather, it's a comprehensive plan to strengthen elementary education by bringing together, in a single school, the key components of an effective education. The shared vision of the Basic School is excellence for aH. The school affirms, as its central mission, that every child has a right to a quality education, that high academic standards must be set, and that every child can and will succeed in ways that reflect his or her own aptitudes and interests. This vision defines the purpose of the Basic School and becomes, both for teachers and students, the source of daily inspiration. Why is it Called \"Basic? ft The school is \"basic\" for several reasons. First, because it takes the push for school renewal back to http\n//www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99 me casic dcaoui the beginning - to the neighborhood school and to the first years of formal le^ing. Second, it's called \"basic\" because it gives priority to language and to a core of essential knowledge. Finally, the , , . . zK-t really work and seeks to make them available to school IS basic because it identifies practices that reauj every child. What are the Educational Priorities of The Basic School. To achieve excellence for all, the Basic School has four priorities that are considered the essential building blocks ofthe school. Fitted within these priorities are the components of an effective education. The First Priority: The School As Community A Shared Vision: The Basic School is a place where everyone comes together to promote learning. In the Basic School, the separate classrooms are connected by a clear and vital mission. Teachers as Leaders: In the Basic School, teachers are the leaders, with the principal as lead teacher. Parents as Partners: In the Basic School, the circle of co^unity extends to embrace parents. who are viewed as the child's first and most important teachers. The Second Priority: A Curriculum With Coherence no Centrality of Language: In the Basic School literacy is the first and most essential goal All children are expected to become proficient in the written and spoken wort, as well as in mathematics and the arts. The Core ComngtnaUtiett: In the Basic School, all students become well mfomed. They study the various fields ofknowledge - history, science, hterature civics, health, fcr example  which are organized thematically within a framework called \"The Core Commonalities. This is not so much i a new curriculum as it is a new way to think about the curriculum. Measuring Sesults: The Basic School is accountable to parents, to swdents, and to the coi^umty at large. High academic standards are established in both taguage achievement and general knowledge Student progress is periodically evaluated, with assessment always in the service of learning. The Third Priority: A Climate for Learning  r- n T n  c u ,.1 studcnt is encouraged to become a disciplined. Patterns to Fit Purpose: In the Basic School, every  .  J , ,  , 4 1 rii  e-mail, the teaching schedule IS flexible, and student creative, self-motivated learner. Class size is kept sro\u0026lt;iib \u0026amp; \u0026gt; grouping anangements are varied to promote learning- r, n  L 'Tu a  o u 1 available to all students nch resources for leaming- Resources to Enrich: The Basic School makes avan^^i , .  . , , , -ij- ui 1 i. u A J i\u0026lt;:n gives students access to the new electronic tools from building blocks to books. And the school also irUill uiuvivo uiiv ovwvv . that connect each classroom to vast networks of knowle o Support Serrtcafor Children: The Basic School is commined to serving the whole child. Beyond http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/991  :  i.- The Basic bcnooi - rage j Oio a solid academic program, the school provides basic health and counseling services and afternoon and summer enrichment programs for students. The Fourth Priority: A Commitment to Character TAe Core Virtues: The Basic School is concerned with the ethical and moral dimensions of a child's life. Seven core virtues-honesty, respect, responsibility, compassion, self-discipline, perseverance, and giving-are emphasized to guide the Basic School as it promotes excellence in living, as well as in learning. Living with Purpose: The core virtues of the Basic School are taught both by word and deed. Through curriculum, school climate, and service, smdents are encouraged to apply the lessons of the classroom to the world around them. Does The Basic School have Specific Educational Goals for All Students? Yes, in addition to the larger objective of excellence for all, the Basic School defines five sharply focused educational goals: First, to communicate effectively. Language, defined broadly to include not just words, but also mathematics and the arts, is not just another subject\nit is the means by which all other subjects are pursued. Second, to acquire a core of knowledge. Students become well informed by learning a core of knowledge, while making connections across the disciplines and relating what they learn to life. Third, to be a motivated learner. Students remain curious and develop both the desire and skills to study on their own. They learn how to gather information and become problem solvers. Fourth, to feel a sense of well-being. Through school support, students become physically healthy, socially competent, and emotionally secure. Fifth, to live responsibly. Students learn by word and deed the core virtues that promote good conduct and citizenship. How is The Basic School Different? First, the school seeks to bring together all the key components of an effective school. Second, the Basic School seeks to build a community in which teachers work together and parents are actively involved. Third, the Basic School gives high priority to a commitment to character and defines core virtues to be taught. Fourth, the most distinctive feature of the Basic School is its curriculum. Most elementary schools have a confusing, fragmented course of study, with teachers often developing lesson plans in isolation and with each grade level disconnected from the others. In the Basic School, the curriculum is organized around eight integrative themes-core commonalities-that spiral upward from kindergarten to the upper grades. By core commonalities we mean those universal experiences shared by all people. These include: the Lf http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm bi. 11/12/99 The Basic School Page 4 of 5 Life Cycle, the Use of Symbols, Membership in Groups, a Sense of Time and Space, Response to the Aesthetic, Connections to Nature, Producing and Consuming, and Living with Purpose. Within these eight themes, every traditional subject or academic discipline can find a home. Finally, the Basic School places great importance on fostering children's love of learning. This means that Basic School students are taught in a way that sparks their interest in learning and makes their school a lively, exciting place. Does The Basic School Require More Money? No, not necessarily. Creative schools have found ways to implement almost all of the recommendations of the Basic School within their existing budget. Such critical issues as clarifyin\ngoals and building community have to do with ideas and attitudes, not money, and that applies to g parent participation and creative teaching, too. Adding technology to the school will require money, of course, but this can be implemented over time. The most important budget issues perhaps relate to providing teacher time and achieving small classes, especially, in the lower grades. Will Basic School Students Meet District and State Standards? Again, assessment is a critically important part of the Basic School. Language skills will be continuously monitored, since proficiency in language is a key objective of the Basic School. In teaching the curriculum, evaluation is embedded in instruction, so students, teachers, and parents can follow the progress being made. Further, any required state or district tests are administered at the Basic School with the confidence that all students will succeed. Students will have learned a core of essential knowledge in context. Can Every School Become a Basic School? Yes, but it's an ongoing process. Sortie ideas can be implemented quickly, while others take more time. What's required is a commitment on the part of everyone- the school board, the principal, teachers, and parents-to support the priorities and proposed practices of the Basic School, to evaluate the current program of the school, and to develop together a plan to implement the recorrimendations. In the end, becoming a Basic School is not a top-down decision, it must be continuously affirmed and sustained at the school level. Ultimately, the aim of the Basic School is not just to build a better school, but, above all, to build a . better world for children. It is our deepest hope that not a single child, let alone a whole generation of children, should pass through the schoolhouse door unprepared for the world that lies before them. There is an urgency to this effort. For Further Information Contact: Mary Ellen Bafumo, The Basic School Network, James Madison University, 101 Roop Hall, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, phone (540) 568-7098, fax (540)-568-3803, or E-mail: bafumome\u0026amp;jmu.edu http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99 me oabic oenooi Page 5 of 5 r PRINCIPAL ONLINE is sponsored by: The National Association of Elementary School Principals T6I5T)uke Slreef ~ .......... Alexandria, VA 22314 3 4 For Additional Information about NAESP contact us at: 1-800-38-NAESP (voice), 1-800-39-NAESP (fax) or E-Mail: naesp(^naesp.ors 4 1 ^Home ^Publications ^Membership \u0026amp; Products ^SpecialProjects Programs Research Forum Students  Government Index 4 Copyright  1996-1998 National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. lowered fcrr HlDtlhMbUl MblVKSl HeMtM mTUUMCFJCY Care About Online Privacy? p ri /-3cy Partnership http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99i 1 J 4 1! T H BASIC . SCHOOL A Community for Learning ERNEST L. BOYER The Cam^e Foundation for the Advancement of Teachingi !  i i  } 5 5 i 5 ? I t Prologue: A NEW BEGINNING An Excerpt from: The Basic School: A Community Jbr Learning Ernest L. Boyer The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement Df Teaching ii I i CopjTight  1995 9 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 5 hy Lane, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Confidential, Not for distribution, publication, or citation. j The draft of this report is part of the effort by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to explore significant issues in education. The views expressed should not necessarily be ascribed to individual members of the Board of Trustees of The Carnegie Foundation. r  a 5 I s I All rights reserved. No part of this draft may be reproduced in any form without permission from The Carnegie Foundation. ISBN: 0-931050-51-0 Available from: California Princeton Fulfillment SerAdces 1445 Lower Feny Road Ewing, New Jersey 08618 1300) 777-4726 or (609) 883-1759 - I i I s Prologue: A New Beginning o o I ! I i i We propose, in this-report. a new place of learning called The Basic School. The Basic School is not so much an iiistiiiition as it is an idea based on best practice, a comprehensive plan for educational renewal that is, we believe, appropriate for every elementary school. Our goal is to improve the prospects for learning for every child. I I I We call this school basic,  first of all, because it takes the push for school reform back to the beginning, to the first years of formal education. It is basic because it gives priority to language and sugsests a core of knowledge with coherence. Finally, the school we propose is basic\" because it identifies key components of an effective school and brings them all together in a single institutionthe Basic School. ) i1 I I I The purpose of the Basic School is to provide quality education for the more than three million kindergarten children' who enrolled last fall in over fifty thousand public and private elementary schools from Bangor, Maine, to the islands of Hawaii.- Most of these young students arrived at school anxious, but also eager. Some were cheerful, others troubled. Some skipped and ran, others could not walk. This new generation of students came from countless neighborhoods, from a great diversity of cultures, speaking more languages than most of us could name. The urgent challenge the nation's schools confront is to ensure that every child will, with care and guidance, become a confident, resourceful learner. I f Children are, of course, always learning. They learn as they touch the earth, feel the grass, dig into the sand. Children, endlessly responding to the world around them, learn as they chase pigeons in the park, study drifting clouds, I I1 and watch ants scurrying acros.s city sidewalks. \"The child is.\" as Ashley Montagu observed, \"the most avid learner of all living things on this earth.' Yet this maivelous gift of continuous discovery can be diminished or enhanced. and the purpose of the Basic School is to keep the urge to learn alive in everv child. I V I I i For more than a decade. America has been working hard to improve all the nation's schools, and enrich learning for all children. As a result, academic Standards have been raised, teacher cenification requirements have been tightened. and educational innovations have been introduced from coast to coast. Without a doubt, progress has been madewith a decline in school dropouts in some districts as well as modest increase.s in basic skills performance, especially among minority students. n 'i } i Today, America's best schools are among the most outstanding in the world. Others are succeeding, often under difficult conditions, wdth teachers assuming responsibilities that families and communitie,s have not been able to accomplish. But it's also true that far too many of the nation's schools are marginal at best, and that some schools, those in our most troubled neighborhoods. can hardly be called schools, a.s U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley put it.-' In one suburban elementary school in Ohio, a fourth-- grade teacher told us: \"We seem to be working harder, with fewer gains.\" 4 J When we asked elementary school teachers in a national survey how the quality of American education today compares to five years ago, about 40 percent said about the same.\" Thirty-two percent said it's gotten worse. Only 26 percent said it's better.' Parents, we discovered, were even more pessimistic about the progres.s being made. Twenty percent feel the quality of education is better. Forty percent say it'.s worse, compared to five years 5 ago\" (table 1). School success, ultimately, must be measured by .student performance, not opinion polls. Still, no one can be fully satisfied with where we are todaw T/ic Basic Sclinnl  4 I Table 1 I i How Does the Quality of Education in the Nation Today Compare With Five Years Ago I Teachers Parents Better About The Same Worse 26 42 20 40 40 Source: i The Carnegie Foundaiion for the Advancement of Teaching and the Georae H. Gallup International In.siitute. The International Schooling Project. 1994: survey of teachers and survey of parents. We reach one incontrovenible conclusion. The world has changed and schools must change, too. The lives of children who enroll in school today will span a new century. Those who graduate will enter what Peter F. Drucker calls the knowledge society,  a society that requires higher literacy, more technical competence, and lifelong learning. Knowledge has, without question. I I a become_our most precious resource. And if, in the days ahead, educators u n 12 \u0026amp; id 3 cannot help students become literate and well informed, if the comins seneration cannot be helped to see well beyond the confines of their own lives, the nation's prospects for the future will be dangerously diminished. I Clearly, the push for school renewal needs a new besinnins. This time the focus must be on the early years, on clctnsntorv education. Every level of learning is important. No sector should be neglected. But school failure starts very early, and if all children do not have a good besinnins, if they do not receive the support and encouragement needed durins the first years of life, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to compensate fully for the failure later on^ Pmlngiie: \u0026lt;4 ,\\ew Beginning - 5W I A third-grade teacher in Wyoming put the challenge this way: With all the talk about school renewal, there is a tendency to overlook elementary schools. The first years must be recognized as the most essential. Until the elementary school becomes a priority for renewal, education in this country will not make much improvement. And responding to this challenge. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching launched, several years ago, a study of the elementary school. We searched the literature, consulted scholars, conducted national and'international surveys, and sent researchers into schools all across the country. y J cl During school visits, we were struck, time and time again, by the commitment of principals, the eagerness of students, the concern of parents, and most especially by the dedication of teachers, who are, we concluded, the unsung heroes of the nation. Above all, we were struck by the way so many of the nations elementary schools have adjusted dramatically to new demands. We concluded that the elementary school is, as former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett put it, a place of hope.\"* Still, this is not the time to be complacent. 5 5 While inspired by dedicated efforts, we also were troubled by the way most teachers work alone and by the weakened partnership between the home and school, a fragmented relationship described by one principal as a lack of community at our school.\" We were troubled, too. by the confusion over what schools should teach and how students should be assessed, issues that go to the very heart of quality education. We also became concerned, while visiting schools, that a rigid daily schedule and poor resources often restrict learning, especially for the least advantaged. Finally, at the very time the nation's children need ethical and moral guidance, we found most schools greatly perplexed about what virtues they should, in fact, be teaching. We are convinced that a new vision of elementary education is urgently required, one that presents a comprehensive, practical plan of action based The Basic ScIhidI  f) I '5^' on best practices, one that would be appropriate for every school. We agree with James Rodenmayer, the principal at Etna Road Elementary School in Whitehall, Ohio, who said to us: There is a growing urgency all over the country about the direction of education and a sense that, nationwide, we must do better, for the sake of our children. How, then, should we proceed? I I 1 J The plan we present in this report is not just another pilot project. It is not yet one more novel experiment.\" Rather, what we have done is to identify practices that really work and put them all together in what we call the Basic School. The piecemeal approach to school reform has been tried. During the past decade, we have had literally hundreds of isolated innovations. Whats needed now is a comprehensive approach to school renewal, one that pulls together the essential elements of an effectix e school and makes them available to every child. 1 3 After completing our research we concluded that the most essential ingredient of an effective schoolthe one idea that holds it all togetheris best described bv the simple word connections. An effective school connects people, to create community. An effective school connects the curriculum, to achieve coherence. An effective school connects cla.ssroom.s and resources to enrich the climate. And an effective school connects learning to life, to build character. a L These four prioritiescommunity, coherence, climate, and characterare the basic building blocks for the Basic School. Fitted within each of these priorities are specific proposalsprograms that, we discovered, really work. The 2oal. then, of the Basic School is to present an overall strategy for renewal, one that seems to fit all institutions, while, at the same time, encour- asina every public and private school to develop, within thislaverarching framework, its own distinctive program. t I I i i Prohiiue: A New Beginning - 7\u0026gt; First: The School AS Co.M.ML'NiTY Building Community. The Basic School has, as the first requirement, a clear and vital mission. The school is a place where every'- one comes together to promote learning. Each classroom is, itself, a community. But in the Basic School, the separate classrooms are connected by a sense of purpose, m a climate that is just, disciplined, and caring, with occasions for celebration. Teachers as Leaders. In the Basic School, teachers are empowered. Working together as teams, they serve as mentors to their students, and have the time and resources needed to be professionally renewed. The principal in the Basic School is lead teacher, the one who guides the school, more by inspiration than directive. Parents as Partners. In the Basic School, the circle of community extends outward to embrace parents, who are viewed as the child's first and most important teachers. A vital pannership is created between the home and school, one that begins during preschool years, is strengthened when the child formally enrolls, and continues from kindergarten to grade five. i I i The Basie School - 8 I ( i i i 1 \u0026lt; Second: A Cl'rricli*um with Coherence The Basic Tools. In the Basic School, literacy is the first and most essential goal. All children are expected to become proficient in the written and spoken word. But in the Basic School, language is defined broadly to include words, numbers, and the arts, the essential tools of learning which, taken together, help create a curriculum with coherence. The Core Commonalities. In the Basic School, all students become well informed. They study, with diligence, the various fields of knowledge, which are organized, thematically, within a framework called the Core Commonalities. These eight commonalities, based on shared human experiences, integrate the traditional subjects, helping students see connections across the disciplines and relate what they learn to life. X Measuring Results. Assessment in the Basic School is, always, in the service of learning. Academic standards are established both in language and the Core Commonalities, with benchmarks to monitor student achievement. The personal qualities of student development also are evaluated carefully by teachers. The Basic School is, in the end, accountable to students, to parents, and to the larger community. Prolugue: New Beginning  9 'fl* Third: A Climate for Learning Patterns to Fit Purpose. In the Basic School, every student is encouraged to become a disciplined, creative, well-motivated learner. Class size is restricted to promote learning, and the teaching schedule and student grouping are flexibly arranged. Connections are made across the generations, to enrich students lives. Resources to Enrich. The Basic School makes available to all students rich resources for learning, from building blocks to books. Libraries, zoos, museums, and parks in the surrounding community become resources, too. And on the threshold of a new century, the Basic School gives all students access to the new electronic tools that connect each classroom to vast networks of knowledge. Services for Children. The Basic School is committed to serve the whole child, acknowledging that a students physical, social, and emotional well-being also relate to learning. Beyond a solid aca- - demic prosram. the school provides basic health and counseling services for students, referrals for families, and a new calendar and clock, with after-school and summer enrichment programs for learning and creative play. The Basic School - 10 I I iI I 1 I I I I I I Fourth: A Commitment to Character The Core Virtues. The Basic School is concerned with the ethical dimensions of a childs life. The goal is to assure that all students who leave school will have developed a keen sense of personal and civic responsibility. Seven core virtues, such as respect, compassion, and perseverance, are emphasized to guide the Basic School as it promotes excellence in learning, as well as living. Living with Purpose. The core virtues of the Basic School are taught by both word and deed. Through the curriculum, through school climate, and through service, students are encouraged to apply the lessons of the classroom to the world around them. Prologue: A New Beginning -11These, then, are the four priorities of the Basic School. The first priority, community, focuses on how people relate to one another. The second priority, coherence, considers what all students should learn. The third priority, climate, deals with effective teaching and learning. The fourth priority, character, considers how the school experience shapes the ethical and moral lives of children. Many proposals presented in this report are already being practiced, to one degree or another, in schools from coast to coast. What we propose to do, however, is bring them all together in the Basic School, while encouraging every elementary school to implement the proposed plan in its own distinctive way. And it is our hope that this reportthis vision we call the Basic Schoolwill be helpful to principals and teachers, in all schools, who are working so diligently to educate the nations children. What we envision, in short, is a continuing commitment to renewal. In the end. the goal of the Basic School is not just, to build a better school, but, above all. to build a better world for children. It is our deepest hope that not a single child, let alone a whole generation of children, should pass through the schoolhouse door unprepared for the world that lies before them. .And there is. we believe, an urgency to this effort. Chilean poet Gabriela Mistral wrote: \"Many things we need can wait. The child cannot. Now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made, his mind is being developed. To him we cannot say tomorrow, his name is today.'' The Basic School  12 a t i 1. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 6 March 1995. I 2, Market Data Retrieval, 7 March 1995. r i i 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ashley Montagu, Growing Young, 2nd ed. (New York\nBegin and Garvey Publishers, 1989), 121. Richard W. Riley, State of American Education,\" remarks at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 15 February 1994, 2. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, National Survey of Kindergarten Teachers, 1991. All quotations from kinderganen teachers are taken also from this survey. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, National Survey of Kindergarten Teachers, 1991. All quotations from kindergarten teachers are taken also from this survey. Peter F. Drucker, The Age of Social Transformation,\" Atlantic Monthly, November 1994, 53-80, William J. Bennett, First Lessons: A Report on Elementary Education in America (Washington. DC\nU.S. Department of Educa-  tion, 1986), 1, Cited in a speech by Pat Henry, former president of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers Association, at the Children First Conference for Media, Washington, DC, 15 September 1992\nreprinted in Leading the Way\nChildren First,\" PTA Today, December 1992-January 1993,4-5. Pmlo^iie: A /Vcu- Be^^innirt! - 13 I I I i I i I I I I BASic ScHocn Materials The Basic School: A Community for Learning (report) Introductory Price $10.--ISBN 0-931050-48-0 Lite Basic School: PrologueAN ezo Beginning (excerpt from report) ComplimentaryISBN 0-931050-51-0 Tl-ie Basic School: One Hand Taking Another (video) Introductory Price $45.ISBN 0-931050-49-9 The Basic School: A Conversation with Ernest Boyer (audio) Introductory Price $10.ISBN 0-931050-50-2 The Basic School Package (all above in shelf case) Introductory Price $50.ISBN 0-931050-52-9 Available From: Please Add Shippiug. Bulk Order Discounts Available. Call for Rates. California Princeton Fulfillment Services 1445 Lower Ferry Road Ewing, NJ 08618 (800) 777-4726 or (609) 883-1759 THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING - 5 ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 ) January 10, 2000 TO: Elementary Principals and Brokers FROM: .^/s Dr. Bonnie Lesley\nAssociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Study on Urban Elementary Schools I alerted you earlier by e-mail about the just released study of nine urban elementary schools with high achievement. You will find it very interesting and I urge you to read the whole report. Attached for your convenience is an executive ofthe section on Improvement Strategies. summary of the study, plus a copy Please share this information with your CLT. Attachment BAL/rcmBRIGGS, MONA From: Sent: To: Subject: Winters, Kirk [Kirk_Winters@ed.gov] Tuesday, January 04, 2000 4:14 PM Information from \u0026amp; about the U.S. Department of Education publications \u0026amp; more . Hope for Urban Education: A Study of High-Performing, High-Poverty Elementary Schools NINE URBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS that have served children of color in poor communities \u0026amp; achieved impressive academic results are the focus of a report Secretary Riley released last month at the Department's third regional Improving America's Schools conference in Chicago. \"What stands out among these schools,\" the Secretary said, \"is a clear \u0026amp; unrelenting focus on high standards, a commitment to serving children \u0026amp; ensuring their academic success, \u0026amp; a collective sense of responsibility \u0026amp; persistence among school staff.\" Below is the executive summary \u0026amp; a list of the schools. Most of the the 150-page report (126 pages) is devoted to indepth case studies* of these 9 schools. The full report is at: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/ This study \u0026amp; report were produced for the Department's Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Service by the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin. The 9 schools are... Harriet A. Baldwin School in Boston, Baskin Elementary in San Antonio, Burgess Elementary in Atlanta, Centerville Elementary in East St. Louis, IL, Goodale Elementary in Detroit, Hawley Environmental Elementary in Milwaukee, Lora B' Peck Elementary in Houston, Gladys Noon Spellman Elementary in Cheverly, MD, \u0026amp; James Ward Elementary, Chicago. (All are Title l-funded schools that pool resources through \"schoolwide projects\" to serve all students and improve achievement.) Executive Summary of \"Hope for Urban Education: A Study of Nine High-Performing, High-Poverty, Urban Elementary Schools\" (December 1999) This report is about nine urban elementary schools that served children of color in poor communities \u0026amp; achieved impressive academic results. These schools have attained higher levels of achievement than mos^choois In their states or most schools in th^n'atioh~They'have achieved results in reading \u0026amp; mathematics beyond that achieved in some suburban schools. This report tells the stories of these schools \u0026amp; attempts to explain how these schools changed themselves into high-achieving schools. All nine of the schools used federal Title I dollars to create Title I schoolwide programs. 'I hes~e schools are a powerful affirmatTon of the power of Title I to support comprehensive school improvement efforts. In these schools, many important change efforts were enhanced through the use of federal education resources. On the other hand, although Title I supported the  change efforts, Tjtl^was not the catalyst of the change effort. The true catalyst was'the strong desire of e'ducafdrslo ensure the v acad^lFsuccess bftTie~cRirdren they served. Each of the nine public elementary schools selected had the following characteristics: 1 * The majority of their students met low-income criteria (i.e., they qualified for free or reduced-price lunch). In seven of the schools, at least 80 percent of the students met low-income criteria. ' * The school was located in an ur^n area \u0026amp; did not have selective admission policies. * Student achievement in mathematics \u0026amp; reading was higher than the average of all schools in the state (or higher than the 50fo percentile if ajiation^ly-normed assessment was'used). 'Af least three years of assessment d'afa*were available to gauge the school's progress. * There was not evidence that the school exempted large percentages of students from participation in the assessment program because of language proficiency or disabilities. * The school \u0026amp; district leaders consented to participation in the study in a timely manner. The high-performing, urban schools selected were Harriet A. Baldwin School, Boston, Mass.\nBaskin Elementary School, San Antonio, Texas\nBurgess Elementary School, Atlanta, Ga.\nCenterville Elementaiy School, East St. Louis, 111.\nGoodale Elementary School, Detroit, Mich.\nHawley Environmental Elementary School, Milwaukee, Wis.\nLora B. Peck Elementary School, Houston, Texas\nGladys Noon Spellman Elementary School, Cheverly, Md. On metropolitan Washington, D.C.)\n\u0026amp; James Ward Elementary School, Chicago, 111. Teams of researchers conducted two-day visits to all nine schools. During the visits, the researchers interviewed campus \u0026amp; district administrators, teachers, parents, \u0026amp; other school personnel. They observed classrooms, hallways, playgrounds, \u0026amp; various meetings. Also, they reviewed various school documents \u0026amp; achievement data. \u0026gt;From these data, case studies were written for each of the nine schools. The nine schools were different in important ways. These differences suggest that many urban elementary schools serving poor communities can achieve high levels of student achievement. Also, the differences suggest that schools may be able to achieve academic successes through different means. Some of the differences observed included the following: * Among the nine schools, there were schools with small \u0026amp; larg.e enrollments. Enrollments ranged from 283 studenfs^TBaldwin 'Elerhenfary to 1,171 students at Goodale Elementary. * Although all of the schools served elementary grades, they had different grade teyel configurations, starting as early as pre-kindefgarten at'Hawley.'Peck, \u0026amp; Ward \u0026amp; ending as late as grade eight at Ward. * Student_demoqraphics varied. At six of the nine schools, most students were African American. At one school, most students were Hispanic, \u0026amp; at another most were Asian American. * Only ^o of the_schoo[s used natioriaHy^known comprehensive school reform .rnoJel.sl.ZDne_usecrthe Accelerated School Program \u0026amp; andlh'er used Success for Ail. * Even though none of the schools would have been considered high-performing based on achievement data from five years ago, some of the schoojs_made dramatic lmRpyerng.nt over a three or four-year period, whereas others took five years or longer' Before experiencing dramatic gains in student achievement. * In a few cases, the district office played a major role in the school's improvement efforts. In contrast, there were other cases where the district played a modest role in the 2 improvement process. * A few of the schools managed to make dramatic improvements without great turnover in teaching personnel. In contrast, some schools experienced substantial teacher turnover during the reform process. Beyond these differences, there wereimportant similari^s in the strategies used to improve academic achievefherit. The following strategies were used by many of the nine schools: * School leaders identified \u0026amp; pursued an important, visible, yet attainable first goal. They focused on the attainm^t of this first goal, achieved success, \u0026amp; then used their success to move toward more ambitious goals. * School leaders redirected time \u0026amp; energy that was being spent on conflicts between adults in the school towa^rd service to cKHdren. 'Leaders 'appealed\"to'feachers,' support staff, \u0026amp; parents to put aside their own interests \u0026amp; focus on serving children well. * Educators fostered in students a sense of responsibjlity-.for appropriate behavior \u0026amp; they created an envirbnmeritJo.which students were fikely to behave well. Discipline problems became^f^re as the schools implemented multi-faceted approaches for helping students learn responsibility fortheir own behavior. * School leaders created a collective sense of responsibility \"V\" for school irnprovement. The'shared sense of responsibility was nurtured 5y loirit planning processes \u0026amp; reinforced by efforts to involve everyone in key components of the school's 'work. ' ' ........ . * The quantity \u0026amp; guality of time spent on instructional leadership activities increased. Principals spent more time helpEng tea'cRers attend to instructional issues \u0026amp; decreased the time teachers spent on distractions that diverted attention away from teaching \u0026amp; learning. Also, principals put other educators in positions that allowed them to provide instructional leadership. School leaders constantly cH^lenged'teachers \u0026amp; students to higher levels of academic attainment. They used data to identify, acknowledge, \u0026amp; celebrate strengths \u0026amp; to focus attention \u0026amp; resources on areas ofneed. * Educators aligned instruction to the standards \u0026amp; assessments requiredTyme state orthe school ^strict. T eachers'S \" administrators worked together to understand precisely what students were expected to know \u0026amp; be able to do. Then, they planned instruction to ensure that students would have an excellent chance to learn what was expected of them. * School leaders got the resources \u0026amp; training that teachers perceivedlFie^eeded' to get their students to achieve at high leT/el^Iri'particular, school leaders made sure that teachers feiriiRe they had adequate materials, equipment, \u0026amp; professional development. * School leaders created opportunities for teachers to work, plil^'i leaiTTl^^hefarpunff in^guctio^ was 'structured' to ensure that coITaboratioKafdund instructional issues became an important part of the school day \u0026amp; the school week. * Educators made efforts to win the confidence \u0026amp; respect of parents' primarily by improving the achievement o'f students. Then educators built strong partnerships with parents in support of student achievement. 3 *  School leaders created additional time for instruction. In some cases, efforts focused on creating addition^'time for attention to critical instructional issues during the school day. in other cases, efforts focused on creating additional time beyond the regular school day. / * Educators persisted through difficulties, setbacks, \u0026amp; failures~rh^'ite~of challenges \u0026amp; frustrations, school leaders did not stop trying to improve their schools. These findings suggest the following recommendations: * Build the capacity of principals to provide instructional leadership. Federal, state \u0026amp; local education agencies should promote efforts to build the capacity of principals to provide the quality of instructional leadership demonstrated by the principals in the nine schools studied. ways that provide additional p to schools. hSeral, state, \u0026amp; local * Channel resources in ihjtructlQ'narieadefsFfip education agencies'should consider other ways to increase the quantity of instructional leadership available to schools, such as the development of instructional facilitator or specialist positions within schools. * Create clear, measurable, \u0026amp; r^rous school accountability ^vTsron's.' Thefederal governrri^t'should continue to encourage states \u0026amp; districts to frame rigorous school accountability requirements. However, a focus on adequate yearly progress is insufficient. Many educators will be motivated to higher levels of performance if state \u0026amp; district policies define exemplary academic achievement. * Ensure that accounta^lity provisions are accompanied by adequa^te strgfegie^s to build capacity \u0026amp; provide support? In considering' requirements foradequate yearly progress, states \u0026amp; districts should set ambitious requirements but also provide high levels of support. One of the most important supports is time for school personnel to engage in processes that align instruction to standards \u0026amp; assessments. * Along with accountability, provide schools adequate flexibility \u0026amp; support to use that flexibility well. Federal, state, \u0026amp; local education agencies should ensure that accountability provisions are coupled with adequate resources for schools \u0026amp; reasonable flexibility in the use of those resources. Principals \u0026amp; school decision-making committees need high quality training that helps them use data to focus resources on critical areas of instructional need. * Infuse the tenets of comprehensive school reform into other federal education programs. Th^federargovernment's focus on cornprehefTs'ivesChodl reform should be expanded \u0026amp; infused into other federal education programs. However, emphasis does not need to be placed on the adoption of models of reform as much as upon the principles of reform, as defined in the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program legislation. * Use legislation, policy, \u0026amp; technical assistance to help educators create regular opportunities for true professional development Professional developmentneedsfddecompletely rethoughfin a way that results in more effective teaching \u0026amp; improved student achievement. State \u0026amp; federal resources should support the costs associated with the provision of high-quality, school-based professional development that increases the amount of time educators spend working with \u0026amp; learning from each other. * Provide resources for increasing the quantity of time made avallaBre'ldr in^ruclion'.' State \u0026amp; federal resources' should suppoft effdtfslo'increase the quantity of time made 4 available for instruction. After-school programs, \"Saturday Schools,\" \u0026amp; extended-year programs are important vehicles for ensuring that students meet challenging standards. * Strengthen legislation \u0026amp; provide technical assistance to encourage schools to builTthe capacity orteacRersTS parents for increasing parentarTnvolverrient aUschool. Paper cofn^fance with existin^federal parentarinvolvement requirements is inadequate to improve schools. The capacity of educators to work with parents must be broadened. Also, educators must work to build the capacity of parents to support the education of their children. * Research i^needed to better understand how school districts carTbeftehsupport the improvement of teaching ^'learning in RI^-poveTfyschools. DTsfricts can play important roles in st^portihg-schbol change efforts. Unfortunately, there has been little research directed to understanding the role of districts in supporting high-performing, high-poverty schools. To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) EDlnfo, address an mail message to: listproc@inet.ed.gov Then write either SUBSCRIBE EDINFO YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the message, or write UNSUBSCRIBE EDINFO (if you have a signature block, please turn it off) Then send it! Past EDlnfo messages: http://www.ed.gov/MailingLists/EDInfQ/ Search: http://www.ed.gov/MailingLists/EDInfo/search.html Past ED Initiatives: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EDInitiatives/ Daphne Hardcastle, Peter Kickbush, \u0026amp; Kirk Winters U.S. Department of Education kirk_winters@ed.gov 5 Hope for Urban Education\nImprovement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html Hope for Urban Education - December 1999 Improvement Strategies The primary purpose of this research effort was to generate a deeper understanding of how these nine urban elementary schools changed in a way that resulted in high levels of academic achievement for their students. There were several important change strategies that were used by multiple schools. In this section of the report, these change strategies are described with examples from a few of the schools. Targeting an Important, Visible, Attainable First Goal In several of the schools, new principals walked into difficult environments with problems ranging from student discipline, to teacher morale, to parent dissatisfaction, to academic lethargy. In response to what must have felt like overwhelming chaos, principals identified one issue or goal upon which they could focus immediate attention and give an unambiguous message that the school was changing. They sought to identify an issue where they could make progress quickly. The focus varied in response to the issues that were perceived as important at each school. At Baldwin and Hawley, the first efforts were to improve student discipline and create a safe and orderly environment. At Spellman, efforts were made to reduce the disruptions to teaching and increase the schools focus on academic instruction. At Peck, the principal disbanded the schools two, ethnically separate parent-teacher organizations and instituted a unified Parent-Teacher Association. At several of the schools, principals tried to make the physical environment more attractive for children and more conducive to learning. 1 of9 By targeting a visible, attainable goal, principals were able to give students, parents, and teachers clear indicators of change in just a few weeks or months. These early accomplishrnents helped reduce or eliminate excuses and created a readiness for additional (often more difficult) changes. By focusing on one issue, principals were able to direct their energies in a way that would have a high likelihood of success. This first success became the cornerstone of future successes. Refocusing Energies on Service to Children In prior years, teachers, principals, and parents in many of the schools spent considerable time on conflicts among the adults at school. Often these conflicts siphoned away valuable energy that should have been devoted to the improvement of teaching and learning. Principals in most of the nine schools were skillful in redirecting the energy expended on such conflicts. School leaders challenged teachers, paraprofessionals, union leaders, and parents to elevate their focus beyond self-interest to a concern for the well-being of the students. This was not done as a one-time event or an occasional sermon. Instead, principals were constantly reminding the adults about the effect of decisions on students. The principals appealed to teachers, staff, and parents to put aside small differences and unite in service to students. At Burgess, principal Carter challenged the staff to move from a teacher-focused school to a child-focused school. Often in discussions about important school decisions, the principal would ask the faculty to consider what was in the best interest of students. At Peck, principal Goodwin asked the faculty to put children first, regardless of disagreements. The staff learned, in part, from the manner in which the principal articulated child-focused rationale for her decisions. Goodwin encouraged teachers to talk about their reasons for entering the teaching profession. She tried to learn about their goals and what she called \"the desires of their hearts.\" Then she appealed to those desires to serve children well as she called upon every staff member to refocus their efforts on the improvement of the school. In several cases, school leaders helped teachers refocus energies during planning processes. By engaging in such processes and discussing \"what we, together, can do for children,\" principals were able to refocus energies in ways that coincided with improvement plans. Once plans were developed, the 1/5/00 10:29 Ah Hope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.Utm refocus energies in ways that coincided with improvement plans. Once plans were developed, the message was reinforced often, particularly in times of conflict. As an example, at Baldwin, some teachers resisted changes in curriculum and instruction. One teacher said, \"You have to have a willingness to let them go through their resistance. Then you focus them on the fact that this is for the good of the kids.\" At Baskin, when performance data were reviewed, it was done in ways that were not intended to be critical of teachers. In contrast, the review was focused on the academic needs of children. At Goodale, the principal did not allow much energy to be expended on projects, efforts, or discussions that had minimal influence on the personal or academic growth of students. In staff meetings, grade level meetings, or in other gatherings, the principal frequently refocused the staffs energy toward issues that had a substantial influence on the personal or academic success of students. The result of the refocusing process was not only a decrease in tensions but also an increase in the extent to which students were likely to feel respected, valued, and appreciated. Visitors to these schools quickly sense that teachers and other staff members genuinely love and care for the students. Building Students Sense of Responsibility for Appropriate Behavior and Creating an Environment in Which Students Are Likely to Behave Well In all nine schools, often in dramatic contrast with their environments in past years, discipline problems were rare. The schools used many approaches to improve student behavior, focusing on helping students assume responsibility for their behavior and on creating school environments that made it easy for students to behave appropriately. At several of the schools, time was set aside to establish clear rules and high expectations for student behavior. Teachers, administrators, parents, and often students worked together to establish simple rules that would help create a much more pleasant environment for teaching and learning. Often, rules were established that would help prevent behavior problems before they started. For instance, at Peck students walked in the hallways with their arms folded. This pattern of behavior helped reduce the possibility of conflicts as students walked throughout the school. In all of the schools, many efforts were made to acknowledge and even celebrate positive behavior. For instance, the Buddy Reading Program at Ward and the SPARK program (Spellman Acts of Random Kindness) at Spellman helped encourage students to interact with their peers in a supportive manner. At Peck, students earned opportunities to seek positions of responsibility in the classroom. At Spellman, a banner was flown when the school achieved a fight-free day. At Hawley, students earned the chance to participate in intramural sports. Clear and consistent rules, consequences, and rewards helped students learn to assume responsibility for their own behavior. When consequences were regular and predictable, it was easier for students to behave appropriately. The predictability of these results seemed to be positively associated with the visibility of the principal and other school leaders. The visibility of principals on playgrounds, in hallways, and in classrooms helped underscore that the rules were important and they would be enforced. At times, rules were eliminated or modified when they were not necessary. For instance, at Peck there were many students (and some teachers) who were frequently late arriving at school in the momings._ Instead of investing a substantial amount of energy into disciplining people for being tardy, the principal instituted \"Peck time.\" The beginning and ending times for the school day were moved back 15 minutes. In other words, children began school fifteen minutes later and ended their school day fifteen minutes later. Parents, teachers, and students saw the change as an effort to help them succeed at being on time. Tardiness was dramatically reduced. Training for teachers was an important component of efforts to implement discipline plans. At Peck, teachers received training in the districts Consistency Management Discipline Plan. At Goodale, teachers participated in efficacy training that focused on building a sense of efficacy and responsibility in students. At many of the schools, the regular collaboration among teachers included attention to 2 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www.ed.goy/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html in students. At many of the schools, the regular collaboration among teachers included attention to strategies for helping students maintain exemplary behavior. Student responsibility for their own behavior was also nurtured by the development of student leadership activities. For instance, at Goodale and Hawley, peer mediation programs gave students important opportunities to support each other in working out problems in a constructive manner. As well, extensive uses of cooperative learning strategies at schools such as Peck provided many opportunities for student leadership. The improvements in student behavior were also influenced by the changes in tlie extent to which children came to understand that they were valued and respected. At Baldwin, as in all of the nine schools, principal Lee knew all of the students by name and knew many of their families. The personal relationships among students and school staff created a powerful context for good behavior. At Burgess, teachers gave students time to talk about important emotional stresses in their lives. At several of the schools, counselors or social workers helped students know that they had a safe place to talk about personal concerns. Nonetheless, teachers, counselors, social workers, principals, and other support providers emphasized high expectations for student behavior, regardless of the circumstances in childrens lives. They listened and provided support that helped students continue to meet behavioral expectations, as well as academic expectations, even when students faced troubling situations. When behavioral problems emerged, they were dealt with in a prompt, objective manner that demonstrated respect for students and helped them learn responsibility. For instance, at Goodale, students were rarely suspended. Principal Batchelor believed that removing a student from school did nothing to increase the students sense of responsibility for his or her behavior nor to increase the schools sense of responsibility for educating the student. At many ofthe schools, the involvement of parents was a key component of their disciplinary efforts. Parents reported that they were supportive because they perceived that school leaders were fair disciplinarians who had the best interest of their children at heart. Ultimately, student behavior was also improved by the improvement of academic instruction in classrooms. Students were more likely to be actively engaged in learning. They were more likely to be excited about the level of challenge and rigor in their curriculum. They were more likely to be positive about their chances to succeed academically. Thus, there was less of a need for students to seek attention through negative behavior. Improved instruction led to improved discipline, which led to even better instruction. Creating a Collective Sense of Responsibility for Improvement An important improvement strategy at each of the nine schools centered on creating an environment in which all educators shared a sense of responsibility for school improvement and the attainment of the schools goals. At several ofthe schools, this joint sense of responsibility was modeled by the principal, nurtured by joint planning processes, and reinforced by efforts to involve everyone in key components of the schools work. Principals at these schools emphasized the importance of each individuals contribution to the work of the school. Principals modeled their commitment to collective responsibility by including the input of various staff members in decisions. Often teachers were given the responsibility of making important decisions. In other cases, principals made key decisions but they gave teachers and other staff substantial opportunities to contribute their thoughts and ideas. Planning processes provided avenues for the involvement of many staff and faculty. For instance, the Accelerated Schools Program provided opportunities for many Centerville staff members to get involved in identifying school needs and establishing a vision for the schools future. At Hawley, staff members participated on committees established in response to critical issue areas identified by the staff. These structured opportunities for involvement helped emphasize that staff members shared responsibility for school improvement. The principal refused to allow teachers to think that he would fix all of the schools problems. The staff learned that they all shared responsibility for getting all children to achieve at high levels. 3 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 ANHope for Urban Education\nImprovement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html at high levels. Collective responsibility became a part of the common language of the school. At Centerville, Peck, and Ward everyone talked about teamwork and the extent to which they were working as a team. At Goodale and Burgess educators talked about themselves as part of a \"family\" of adults responsible for the well-being of \"their\" children. At Baskin, principal Payne said, \"No one can do it alone.\" At Ward, principal Wilcher emphasized the importance of getting the staff to feel that they were working wilh her and not for her. The sense of collective responsibility resulted in staff members taking on new and different roles. At Spellman, the institution of the Canady block-scheduling approach resulted in almost all of the schools ancillary personnel participating in the teaching of reading. Similarly, at Peck many staff members helped support the Success for All reading program. At Hawley, the school social worker sponsored the after-school math club. At many of the schools, teachers voluntarily exceeded expectations. The involvement of staff members in a variety of activities central to the success of the school helped create a deeper sense of professional responsibility among them. As professionals, teachers and other staff were expected to contribute to an understanding of the schools problems, the analysis of possible solutions, and the implementation of commonly agreed-upon approaches to improvement. Increasing Instructional Leadership At all nine schools, the amount and quality of time spent on instructional leadership activities was substantially increased. First, principals spent a substantial amount of time engaged in instructional leadership activities. Second, other school faculty were positioned in ways that allowed them to provide instructional leadership at the school. Principals tended to spend a large percentage of their time in classrooms. For instance, at Burgess, Carter reported that she spent 40 percent of her time in classrooms, observing teaching and helping improve instruction. At Centerville, principal Butler was described as a teacher of teachers. As one teacher explained, \"She n gets in there with you and shows you. She teaches and shows you to make sure that you understand. Similarly, teachers at Peck and Goodale reported that their principals were frequently in classrooms- watching, reacting to and reinforcing good teaching techniques and providing helpful suggestions. In addition to the leadership provided by principals, almost all of the schools asked other educators to provide instructional leadership to the school staff. For instance, Warren, the former principal at Baskin, created an instructional guide position from another administrative position. This person, Payne, coached teachers on instructional strategies and later became the school principal. At Burgess and Spellman, there were instructional specialists who provided instructional assistance and support to teachers. At Goodale, Title I resource teachers assumed instructional leadership functions as they helped teachers address instructional improvement issues. At Peck, a master teacher was hired to help teachers with writing instruction while the Success for All Coordinator supported teachers in improving reading instruction. At Ward, an assistant principal was responsible for helping the principal improve instruction in classrooms and head teachers provided addition^ assistance to their peers in improving daily classroom instruction. By encouraging and training multiple instructional leaders, former principal Breen at Ward helped prepare his successor, Wilcher, and other leaders who have become administrators in other Chicago schools. As another example of instructional leadership among the nine schools, principals kept teachers and other school personnel focused on improving instruction. At Goodale, when school planning efforts veered to a discussion of improving the parking lot, principal Batchelor, helped refocus the group on improving instruction. At Hawley, Principal Helminiak supported the School Beautification Committee, but made it clear that the priority had to be on improving student achievement. Often, principals kept the faculty focused on instruction by removing distractions. At Spellman, Liebes insisted that the 90-minute reading block was \"sacred\" and would not be interrupted. Even on days shortened because- of snow. 4 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 Ah/Hope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www,ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html reading block was \"sacred\"_and would not be interrupted. Even on days shortened because of snow, everyone would have 90 minutes for reading and language arts.  One way principals and other school leaders demonstrated instructional leadership was by getting teachers to use achievement data to improve instruction. For example, at Baldwin, Lee helped teachers use data on student literacy levels to improve reading instruction. Additionally, the princip^ helped teachers use disaggregated Stanford 9 test scores to identify students in need of additional academic support. At Goodale, Batchelor helped ensure that the school s professional development plans, as well as other important plans were based, at least in part, on student results from the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). At Hawley, principal Helminiak helped teachers use student assessment data to identify areas of strength and weakness and use such data in planning improvement strategies. At Baskin, the instructional guide helped teachers use data to understand specific objectives in mathematics that needed extra attention. At Centerville, the principal used the Accelerated Schools Program to help teachers understand and use data to improve teaching. Principals constantly challenged the school staff to higher levels of achievement. They highlighted and celebrated the successes of students and teachers in a way that reinforced exemplary efforts and gave a message of hope. The walls of classrooms and hallways were visual celebrations of the achievement of students. Regularly, school leaders took the time to acknowledge the successes and special efforts of students, parents, teachers, and other staff members. As goals were achieved, school leaders generously praised the efforts of all contributors, and then artfully redirected the entire school toward even higher goals for the achievement of their students. Aligning Instruction to Standards and Assessments At the nine schools, students performed well on assessments because they were taught what the district or the state expected them to learn. Principals and teachers did not leave student performance to chance. They meticulously ensiled that children were being taught the knowledge, concepts, and skills articulated in state or district standards and measured in annual assessments. At Burgess and Centerville, curriculum alignment processes helped teachers understand the relationship between what they taught and how students performed on standardized tests. The curriculum alignment processes were unportant opportumties for teachers to talk about expectations, teaching, and student work. Furthermore, the alignment processes gave teachers a chance to understand precisely what students were expected to know and the extent to which students would be expected to demonstrate mastery. At Spellman, instructional specialists and teachers worked together to create perfomiance-based practice assessments. Teachers used the data from those assessments to improve instruction. For many of the teachers, the process gave them a much deeper understanding of what instruction was needed for students to perform well on the assessment. Alignment processes also helped ensure that teachers would be able to teach all of the knowledge and skills expected to be learned during the school year. For instance, at Baskin, the principal and the instructional guide led teachers in curriculum alignment projects in science and mathematics that gave teachers a road map for student improvement.\" Teachers no longer had to guess if they were covering all the content tested by the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. They worked together to develop plan that would ensure adequate coverage of all important content by-testing time each spring. a Getting Teachers the Resources and Training Perceived Necessary to Teach At several of the schools, substantial energy was devoted to making sure that teachers felt like they had all of the resources they considered necessary in order to get students to reach the schools academic goals. In particular, principals and other school leaders made sure that teachers felt like they had adequate materials, equipment, and professional development. At Baldwin, teachers reported that the principal \"went to the n* degree\" to get needed instructional materials. At Goodale, teachers who had transferred from other Detroit schools were astonished at the manner in which the principal and the Title I resource teachers were able to get teachers the materials they requested in a timely manner. At Ward, teachers reported, \"If teachers need it, Wilcher [the 5 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AMHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html they requested in a timely manner. At Ward, teachers reported, \"If teachers need it, Wilcher [the principal] gets it.\" When assessment data, principal observations, or analyses of student work suggested that students were not learning an important concept or skill, the principal or school planning teams made sure that resources were allocated to help teachers learn better strategies for teaching the skill. Teachers, principals, and instructional specialists from within the school often provided this training\nhowever, there were times when training from outside sources was needed. In such cases, principals either arranged for experts to come to the school and provide training to the staff or arranged opportunities for staff persons to attend workshops, seminars, or conferences where they could access the appropriate training. When necessary, the school provided substitute teachers so that faculty could attend training sessions. Often such training was attended by groups of teachers and administrators. Therefore, when the group returned to school, they could support each other in carrying out the practices learned. Also, they could assist other staff in learning the new strategies, concepts, or techniques. For instance during one semester, at Ward, a group of teachers participated in weekly math and science classes held at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Teachers attended classes during the school day and substitute teachers were provided. Then, experts from the institute visited the teachers in their classrooms and provided coaching. Teachers learned new skills that they were able to apply in their classrooms and practice with the support of their school administrators and fellow teachers. Often, teachers perceived that the support provided through access to materials, equipment, and training was critical to their success. They tended to see the schools investment as a tangible indicator of support. As a result, teachers responded with a greater willingness to support school initiatives. Perhaps, teachers felt more effective as a result of this support and were more willing to exert maximum effort. Perhaps, when teachers perceived that they had been given what they deemed necessary to teach well, there were fewer excuses for poor performance. Whatever the reason, this support was extremely important to teachers and was an important part of the success at several of the schools. Often the schools used Title I funds to provide materials, instructional equipment, and professional development. These schools used the flexibility provided by the Title I schoolwide program option to improve services to all students. In some cases, (e.g., at Goodale) Title I teachers still saw some students on a pull-out basis, yet the majority of the Title I funds were used to support the improvement of the entire school. When Title I funds ran short, some of the schools (e.g., Centerville, Baldwin, and Goodale) acquired resources from other grants to help meet these needs or combined Title I dollars with other resources. At Baskin, money from an unused professional position was diverted to purchase additional instructional materials. At Hawley, Title I and technology resources were combined to get computers into classrooms and provide associated professional development for teachers. Creating Opportunities for Teachers to Work, Plan, and Learn Together At all nine schools, leaders created regular opportunities for teachers to work, plan, and learn together around instructional issues. Without time for collaboration on instruction, many improvements would have never been conceived or implemented. Many of the schools created blocks of time during which teachers met and planned together. At Baldwin, a primary team (kindergarten through second-grade teachers) and an elementary team (third through fifth-grade teachers) each met twice a month. At Baskin, a 90-minute block of uninterrupted' planning time was created for each grade level twice a week. At Hawley, the principal ananged the schedule in a way that used \"banked\" time (additional minutes at the beginning or end of each day) to carve out time for professional development. At Peck, the principal rearranged the schedule to provide common planning times for the staff to engage in horizontal (same grade level) and vertical (different grade levels) planning. Twice a week the entire staff came together to share experiences and strategies that achieved positive results. Often planning times focused on important instructional issues. For instance, at Baldwin, teachers 6 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AN'Hope for Urban Education\nImprovement Strategies http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html Often planning times focused on important instructional issues. For instance, at Baldwin, teachers carefully reviewed student work in comparison with academic standards and discussed opportunities for improving instruction. At Spellman, this time was used to create practice performance assessments, score the assessments, and identify common areas of academic strength and need. Often these planning times became opportunities for teachers to share and learn from each other. For instance, at Burgess teachers gave reports on what objectives were being taught and how they were getting students to leam the objectives. Time was set aside for classroom visits and sharing. At Hawley, many of the professional development activities were organized and presented by teachers to their colleagues, based on the school improvement plan. In other cases, collaboration times were sometimes used as opportunities for teachers to study and research options for instructional improvement. For instance, at Baldwin teachers researched options for literacy programs before choosing one that felt appropriate for their students. Although these collaborations generally had an academic focus, they did not always start as such. For instance, at Baskin collaboration was established when teachers started going out to lunch together once a week. At Burgess, collaborations began with staff dinners, social gatherings, and team-building sessions. Building a comfort level was sometimes an important precursor to getting teachers to discuss their teaching practices openly. In some cases, school leaders set aside space for teachers to plan and work together. The new kind of II. 'teacher workroom\" helped teachers collaborate. At Baskin a special workroom was established that allowed teachers the space to meet, work together, and leam from each other. Similarly, Peck Elementary is in the process of developing such a space. Mentoring programs provided another vehicle for teachers to work and plan together. Specifically, Centerville and Ward had established mentor programs that were particularly designed to support new teachers. Team teaching at Spellman (as part of the Canady model) required teachers to work with one of the schools specialists during a 90-minute block. At Goodale, shared professional development experiences often became a starting point for collaborations among teachers. Teachers would return from such events and work together toward implementation of strategies learned. Teachers at these nine schools were constantly learning about academic content and academic instruction. Often, they learned as much from each other as they learned from any other source. Their planning efforts were central to the improvements in instruction at the schools. Winning the Confidence and Respect of Parents and Building Partnerships with Them At all nine schools, educators engaged in a wide variety of efforts to win the confidence and respect of parents. Educators did not simply seek to involve parents in token activities. Instead, educators sought a meaningful partnership with parents. Successful partnerships would never have been established if parents did not see tangible evidence of the schools concern for their children. As the school made efforts to adapt to the needs of children, parents were willing to exert greater effort to support the school. The teachers and principals of the nine schools helped parents believe that the school could provide great opportunities for their children. Parents responded positively to those efforts with an outpouring of support in various forms. Parents talked about what teachers had done for their children and the kind of place the school had become. They articulated a confidence that the school staff had their childrens best interests at heart. The conventional wisdom suggests that parental involvement leads to improved achievement\nhowever, in these schools, there was also evidence that the reverse was trueimproved school achievement led to increased parental involvement. Parents were more willing to be supportive because they saw evidence that educators cared about their children and worked hard to improve achievement. Of course, this increased parental involvement then became an important tool for generating further improvements in academic learning. 7 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 .AVHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http.//WWW.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html An important step in building partnerships with parents was making them feel like they were welcome as equals at school. Educators at Baldwin, Centerville, Spellman, and Ward described \"open-door policies\" that encouraged parents to visit the school and visit their childs classroom. At Baskin, teachers and administrators stood outside the school in the morning as parents dropped off their children. They invited parents to come in and have coffee and doughnuts and chat about their childs progress. Similarly, at Goodale, parents were invited to attend \"Snack and Chat\" sessions with teachers during lunch. At Centerville and Peck, parent centers were established that gave parents a place to meet, organize activities, and participate in enrichment classes. At Peck, the principal showed the school office staff how to greet and work with parents in a way that made them feel welcome. Often educators made small but significant extra steps that helped parents feel welcome. For instance, at Baskin, child care was provided during parent-teacher conferences. At Spellman, the schools automated phone service was used to remind every parent about PTA meetings. At Peck, the principal made personal phone calls to parents to encourage them to attend planning meetings. School personnel helped build partnerships by giving parents important ways to contribute and by acknowledging the important ways in winch parents already contributed to the schools success. At Baskin, many parents were involved in planning activities. Furthermore, those parents were encouraged to express their opinions and share their ideas. At Hawley, parents were invited to attend family nights with food and fun, but also, at these events, parents were asked to share their opinions, ideas, and desires for their children. At Peck, parents were asked, \"What do you think we need to do to help make Peck a better school?\" At these schools, parents were treated as if they were highly valued consultants with important ideas and insights. Parents were also given important ways to contribute to their own childs academic success. At Baskin, videotapes were used to inform parents about activities in their childs classroom and to help parents understand what children were learning and how they could help at home. At Burgess, parents participated in the Saturday school program. Parental participation was encouraged and structured so parents could learn strategies they could use with their children at home. Similarly, Burgess parents got training in how to help their children prepare for the science and social science fair. At Centerville, parents participated in family science nights and family math nights that provided many ideas that could be replicated easily at home. PTA meetings at Centerville were used to teach parents strategies for assisting their children with schoolwork. Of course, parents were also given important opportunities to volunteer at school. However, the schools made important efforts to make sure that parents felt their time was well spent. At Burgess, teachers participated in workshops designed to help them learn how to plan for the use of volunteers in their classrooms. At Centerville, the school developed volunteer job descriptions based upon needs identified by staff. Parents were given the opportunity to fill those jobs that best matched their talents and available time. Parents became important contributors to the success of these schools. Parents contributed ideas, time, and assistance that helped make the schools more responsive to the needs and strengths of children. By helping at home, helping at school, or helping in the community, parents helped the schools improve the academic success as well as the personal success of students. Creating Additional Time for Instruction Each ofthe nine schools created additional time for academic instruction. In some cases, efforts focused on creating additional time for attention to critical instructional issues during the school day. In other cases, efforts focused on creating additional time beyond the regular school day. At Baskin, Baldwin, Peck, and Spellman, school leaders created additional time during the school day for attention to reading. In each school, there was a 90-minute period devoted to literacy. Furthermore, at each school, almost all staff were involved in teaching reading during this period, thereby reducing adult-to-child ratios. At Baskin, teachers used assessment data to change instructional groupings that 8 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AhHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www.ed:gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html 9 of 9 provided more intensive instructional time (three-to-one groupings twice a week) for students in need of additional assistance. At Burgess, Baldwin, Hawley, Peck, and Ward there were after-school programs intended to create additional opportunities for students to learn important content and skills. At Centerville, teachers provided valuable tutoring for students during lunch periods. Educators at the schools assumed that they could get their students to reach high academic standards\nhowever, they recognized that additional time was often necessary to ensure student success. Persisting through Difficulties, Setbacks, and Failures None of the principals and none of the teachers interviewed reported that the transformation of their school was easy. In fact, there were many reports of difficulties, challenges, and frustrations. Perhaps, a key difference between these schools and other less successful schools is that educators in these schools persisted. They refused to give up the dream of academic success. Initially, at Spellman, some of the staff did not like the idea of having instructional specialists and rebelled against using them. At Baldwin, some teachers perceived that the mandate to improve learning was an affront to them. At Peck, parents circulated a petition and demanded that the school board remove the new principal. In Wilchers second year as principal at Ward, teachers had to deal with a district reorganization and a slow building rehabilitation project that hampered preparation for the beginning of the school year. These difficulties and others might have been sufficient to derail improvement efforts\nhowever, the school leaders persisted. At Peck, the principal kept asking herself if her actions were in the best interest of children. When she answered affirmatively, she knew she should continue. Also, at Peck, as was the case at Burgess, the support of district office administrators was sometimes crucial in helping the principals hold the course. On the other hand, there were times when principals felt the need to fend off district office directives that threatened their reform efforts. Some principals described efforts to resist district pressure and avoid hiring teachers who had been removed from positions in other schools. Some principals told how they preserved the teachers time for collaboration and resisted district efforts to involve their staff in district-wide professional development activities that did not address the needs of their students or teachers. Some principals described other district policies that could have diffused their schools focus on academic improvement. Often those principals either negotiated compromises or found ways to comply that were minimally disruptive to the schools improvement efforts. Perhaps, the persistence of school leaders was influenced primarily by their deep commitment to the students and families they served. They perceived their work, less as a job, more as a mission. They persisted because they believed in themselves, they believed in their school staffs, and they believed in the ability of the children to succeed. -###- PBEV TDinerences .Among the Nine Schoolsl ur NEXT [Recommendations I 1/5/00 10:29 AJv4 i EARLY CHILDHOOD/ELEMENTARY LITERACY INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI LITTLEROCK, AR 72206 PHONE (501) 324-0517 FAX (501) 324-0504 TO: Elementary Principals FROM: .^^^Price, Director of Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy DATE: February 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Early Childhood Publication from U.S. Department of Education I would like to recommend that you request this recent publication from the U.S. Department of Education: Building Strong Foundations for Early Learning: The U.S. Department of Educations Guide to High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs It is an excellent source and guide of information on the hallmarks of high-quality early childhood programs. It offers quality standards to be used during planning for preschool programs. The quality indicators and outcomes will be useful as you work with your Campus Leadership Teams to develop your school improvement plans. I tried to obtain copies for all of you, but to no avail! They will not send multiple copies to one address. You must request your own (free) personal copy by calling: Toll Free - 1-877-433-7827 at the U.S. Department of Education. This is truly a valuable resource!\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_553","title":"Moratorium","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":["1996/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Moratorium"],"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/553"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["183 pages"],"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\n07x25/1996 0S:52 FROM. JOHN . U . WALKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WACKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUOTN PORTER. JR. July 22, 1996 Me. Hafeeza Majeed 2604 Brown Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Mark Cole 1306 Louisiana Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Majeed and Mr. Cole: Thank you for your inquiry about the moratorium on new litigation regarding desegregation issues which may be brought on behalf of the class which I represent against the Little Rock School District. Your concerns are noted with deference and respect. Let me hasten to try to address your concerns in a manner which you may feel free to publicize as you see fit. In order to put the matter into perspective, a bit of background is appropriate and necessary. When the Little Rock School District Board President appointed me to the Contingency Committee to plan for a superintendent replacement recommendation, I accepted that responsibility for three reasons: a) the Board president is able, conscientious, dedicated and committed to the creation of a high quality, nondiscriminatory, equal opportunity school system for all children\nb) the other appointees are individuals whom I believe to be capable of operating in good faith on this important issue/ and 107/25/1996 08:53 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.P. TO 3710100 P. 03 c) the district's present needs require an administrator who has experience, demonstrated success in bridging racial chasms, and unreserved commitment to the Little Rock School District and to the ideas contained in the settlement plan. I also weighed the possibility of my being in a conflict situation in the process. I resolved that concern in favor of participation because the Court is not obliged to accept our choices for school administrators\nthat clearly is a school board function. I became merely an advisor on an ad hoc basis. I now proceed to address the question of our choices and our processes. The first task of the committee was to deal with interim management between the date announced for the employment of Dr. williams by another district and the time that an interim superintendent could be employed here while the District considered its long term options. For your information, the choice of an interim management team was difficult. It is fair to say that each of us made suggestions of team members and that no one person's viewpoint dominated in the process. The team selected reflects a consensus judgment with which I am pleased. As you may suspect, I have had problems with some of the people on the management team, but by and large I believe that the team membership has competent, willing individuals who can work together. With respect to Dr. Roberts, my recollection is that Dr. Roosevelt Brown was familiar with his work and with that of Dr. 207/25/1996 08:54 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.O, TO 3710100 P . 04 Morris Holmes of New Orleans. Dr. Roberts and Dr. Holmes were on staff in Little Rock and recently worked together in Pt. Worth as well. Dr. Holmes, a Superintendent of the New Orleans highly respected African American, is now School District, and it was felt that he would not very likely be interested in an interim position in Little Rock, charge to be one to select permanent superintendent. Moreover, we did not understand or to recommend selection of Although Dr. Brown Roberts, as did several other committee other persons were suggested as well, some of whom were white, but a our recommended Dr. members, the names of some of whom were black and our view was unanimous that Dr. Roberts well met the qualifications that the committee established for interim superintendent. After we interviewed Dr. Roberts, I came to the conclusion that he is of strong and genuine interracial goodwill\nis committed to the education of all children, especially underpriviledged children\nis committed to the actions set forth in the settlement principles and leadership potential for bringing together agreement\nand has unique divisive forces in the Little Rock School District. volunteered to cooperate with him spirit of the settlement plan and Upon arriving at that opinion, 1 he is here on an interim basis. and to work with him in the to avoid litigation as long as I indicated that I would initiate any new litigation for that period (between not one to two years ^ijiq his tenure), as long as the Board of Education supports his recommendations and emphases regarding our children. 307/25x1996 08:55 FROM JOHN W.UfiLKER P,B. TO 3710100 P . 05 The \"no litigation\" promise relates solely to Dr. Roberts and not to the school board. If the board takes any action which is contrary to the desegregation plan and to Dr. Robert's judgments, this \"moratorium\" does not apply. Moreover, the \"no litigation\" pledge is consistent with the pledge contained in the original settlement agreement and with the very way I related to Dr. Henry Williams. The difference is that this pledge was publicized. while it was not publicized for Dr. Williams. Please be reminded that I took no action regarding the stewardship of Dr. Williams for a lengthy period. The moratorixjm does not apply to the three matters which are presently pending, at my initiative, before Judge Wright, namely\na) the motion we filed to implement the desegregation plan provisions regarding the Incentive Schools and to designate someone as an overseer for those schools\nb) a motion to enforce the findings, recommendations and suggestions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, which have been made over a period of five years\nand c) the attorney fee motion which is scheduled to be heard on August 19, 1996. We are in the process of addressing the problem of disparate discipline and have advised the committee that this matter is not included in our promise except to the extent that before we file a motion regarding it we will afford Dr. Roberts an opportunity to address it. But the record on which we will proceed pertains to the previous administration rather than to that of Dr, 4 I I07/25/1996 08:56 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 06 ( 1 1 Roberts. Perhaps it would be more simple to say that I do not envisage initiating new litigation against the school district for acts undertaken by Dr. Roberts or his administration for a period of at least one and up to two years while he is here. me also say Let that the settlement has other enforcement provisions and provides the opportunity for plan revision, if necessary. in I expect to agree with some of the recommendations made by the Desegregation Revision Study Committee headed by Ms. Cora McHenry and Mr. Bill Bowen, which was appointed by the Board President several months ago, and also expect to join the school board in a motion to the Court for their adoption. The new objective that I have in mind at this time is to ensure that the goals of the settlement agreement are implemented within a framework of good will and racial cooperation which will extend beyond any final court judgment in this case. It should be made clear to people in our community that if anyone feels that his/her rights have been denied by either Dr. Roberts or the Little Rock School District, they will still have at least two options, i.e., a) enforcement through the settlement decree. or b) initiating a private legal action either in state or federal court. I am stating simply that I will not resort to new litigation regarding desegregation issues until we afford Dr. Roberts and his staff, which is expected to be biracial, an opportunity to comply with the settlement agreement. I suspect that-some are cautious about my public statement because of the expressions of support from conservative and white 5 1... 0J/25/1996 08:57 FROM JOHN U,WALKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 07 affluent sections of the community- because of their That is a normal reaction historic pursuit of favor for their children. Be assured that my commitment is total to our people. But also be assured that that segment of the community must come to understand that their children do not suffer because the educational needs of our children are given more consideration. It is now simply our in anticipation of a collective task to work together with them time when the Court ends its careful \u0026lt; ) i 1 scrutiny, i.e. jurisdiction. I implore you and others in the community, therefore, to reappraise our situation, meet Dr. Roberts, listen to his ideas and then hold him to the plan and to the other promises he makes as he enters this most difficult time and district. Thank you for your usual cooperation. Vj truly yours, ohn W. Walker JWW\njs 1 i cc: t. MS. Lorene Joshua Ms. Daisy Bates Ms. Sarah Facen MS. Linda pondexter Dr. Michael Daughtery Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Dale Charles Rev. Robert Willingham Mr. Marcellus Person Rev. A.J. Allen Bishop Jessie Burris Rev. C.E. McAdoo Ms. Mr. Ms. Ms. Daisy Bates Delaney Fleming Teresa Young Alice Rowe r 6 1 I87x25/1996 08:58 from JOHN U.UfiLKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P . 08 1 Dx  Roosevelt- Brown Ms. Marion Lacey Dr. Rufus Thrower Ms. Katherine Parham I I  I t! ,1 I 7 b i11/22/1906 12:41 FROM JOHN W.WnLKER P.-fl- TO 3710100 , P . 02 This document addresses the perspective from which Joshua's representatives approached the meeting of November 14, 1996\nthe content of that meeting\nand areas for possible agreements about the future of the litigation. earspegtXvLq The Joshua Intervenors' goal has been and is the elimination of racial discimination and segregation and their effects in the LRSD, root and branch. Fulfillment of this goal requires multiple steps. There must be among other things actions to promote and maintain desegregation and to address the achievement gap. system's desirable academic classes and programs, as well as extracurricular activities. Discipline and other harsh consequences must not be visited disproportionately on black students. African American persons must be involved in all departments in the LRSD, including in leadership positions. Individuals selected for leadership positions should be committed to the achievement of a genuinely nondiscriminatory system, competent to fill the positions for which they are selected, and selected in a fair manner. Tiic Cvjiiuu luLci vcjwia vleweu Lii apptoveu ayteenieiius In this case as ones which could, if properly implemented, lead to a genuinely nondiscriminatory system. Intervenors have been disappointed, as have the court and its monitoring arm, ODM, As a consequence, those representing the intervenors have been required to expend considerable time in mnoitoring compliance with the agreements and working for improved compliance. Lead counsel participated in the process which led to the selection of Dr. Don Roberts. Based upon his familiarity with Dr. Roberts, he viewed the interim superintendent as a person whose leadership, even on a temporary basis, could yield strengthened implementation of the plan, including its features addressing the achievement gap. Lead counsel, who had made a committment to reduce court activity, was, therefore, willing to listen when, he understood, Dr. Roberts sought to discuss approaches for improving attainment of the objectives of the approved agreements. -Trie-Msg,t\ning Dr. Roberts stated that the LRSD is graduating 1,500 ill- prepared students each year. He described a process utilized in the Fort Worth School District for strengthening the relevant knowledge and skills of high school graduates. It involved careful study of a wide variety of employment opportunities in the area to identify the knowledge and skills needed by employees\nstrengthening student enrollment in more rigorous areas of the curriculum, including algebra and geometry, with an1 1 / 2 2/19 9 6 12:42 FROM JOHN W.UALKER P.fl. TO '10100 I P . 03 emphasis on groups traditionally participating the region, strengthening elementary education, for examole bv increasing emphasis on the application of higher order skills^ during the course of instructional activihiel involve increased emphasis on teaching students to perfora a sinale lob. Tht^v :_ r periorm a . , - - * ---J bbosd supporting these students to enhance participate during the summer i single job. They were viewed by Or. courses Roberts as likely to to yield increased ooliege-gcing by graduates, for exaspie as a participating in rigorous elements Dr. Roberts expressed the need to We understood him to strengthening education prevent \"resegregation. argue, perhaps implicitly, that over a several year period, by h period, oy an White families in the \"?--????-' == some white youth. ' -- approach similar to the possibly, lead to the return of Lead counsel described a litany of problems segregated components of the administration- These included! -, - appointment of  , well as those opposed to assistant principals^ ^1. and people with no experience, desegregation\nclass members\nabsence of promotion of persons who have mistreatpd excessive and \"mean spirited\" disJiplTSr \"child advocates\" at each level\nthe police in the schools often in arbitrary ways\nwho act to justify their presence, ... armT-r- an determine whether as having a _____ a lack of assessment to programs are effective\ninadequate steps to gap, pushing students out of school same each year\naddress the achievement actions which communicate that thevareunwXZ+-X^^ scnooi oy for the incentive schools. -^wp-tementatioh of the program by Lead counsel emphasized that should be part of the ---- scholarships for participants ?un5rSch oou?d =chSoi/Kh:rL, suggested setting superintendent indicated some supoort for th4= f -x. the particular formulation offerSd^bJ Walks?? ' He Mr. Walker. At the conclusion of lead understood Dr. Rogers to state, of the type identified by lead consistent with his agenda. counsel's presentation, we tersely, that addressing problems counsel was either part of or Dr. Rogers discussed ideas for the school board, appearances on television appearances on television, and communityn-22/1996 12:44 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 04 meetings with prior steps taken to generate large attendance by persons from many constituencies. He emphasized the need to initiate such steps promptly. Dr. Rogers also identified the need for advocacy to generate a pool of funds to address facility needs, as well as strengthening access to techology. Ms. Ann Brown referred to the court's interest in modifications to the agreements. She mentioned some frustration on the part of ODM staff in finding recurring problems in the LRSD in successive monitoring cycles. Ms. Brown noted the substantive talents of her staff and their abilities to contribute to improved implementation of the agreements, or other steps, by more direct involvement. Dr. Rogers expressed receptivity to this concept, for example fay stating that ODM staff could work with LRSD staff to prepare the budget, rather than simply review LRSD's version. The possibility that ODM staff could be increased to allow completion of its monitoring responsibilities outside LRSD was viewed as conceivable. (Moreover, these intervenors have expressed the view that ODM monitoring in LRSD needs to reach down to the student level to identify the types of hostile conduct responsible for the achievement gap.) ODM The participants at the meeting discussed issues framed bv 1 T o4 Z-,____ .  submissions to the district court and the court of appeals This included the possibility of withdrawing the Joshua motion incentive schools and the ODM recommendations  LRSD s appeal of the denial of the motion for dismissal of the case, as well as the motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction. Lead counsel and LRSD representatives discussed system's paying some attorneys' fees. and the participants discussed a 6-9 month period in which Dr. Roberts and LRSD's administrators and employees under his Ife.yaa direction would get some breathing space to move forward with Dr Roberts' ideas regarding strengthened education and, implicitly.' the issues raised by lead counsel as described above It was ^BPaggPtJtoCing the meeting that Dr. Roberts sought semT^nae IP .the-SUCrent obligations for plan implementation during the 6-9 month period However. the nature of such changes was not clear tfiL..any .Joshua representative. based upon viie uxscussiun, IILJ understood the 6-9 month period to be one where a focuswould be developing plan modifications for submission to the court. Rather, we viewed the period as one in which to learn whether Roger's approach would better attain the objectives of the agreements. This \"track record\" could then provide a concrete basis for Joshua representatives to decide upon the propriety of identifying plan modifications. (The second and third sentences Dr. uu,J\n^iS set forth our independent thoughts about the pUtpUSC VX U.X U i --------------------- ,.X,4. 4.U______ e\u0026lt;7. was discussed in a way so that their would be \"** bat- -thft matter understanding of this.) a oonunon11/22/1996 12:45 FROM JOHN W.W fl L K E R P.fl. TO P J15. r 1010 0 (1.) We will consider a 6-9 month period for the superintendent to focus on his educational agenda and issues identified by lead counsel, once we understand fully what LRSD proposes with regard to the existing plan obligations during this period and we have some assurance that the problems identified by lead counsel will be addressed. (2.) we will consider requesting the court to treat as inactive during any agreed upon 6-9 month period our notions regarding the incentive schools and the ODM recommendations. There should be some reciprocal action by LRSD. (3.) Lead counsel could, consistent with his schedule, participate in efforts to disseminate information about any agreements and advocate for funds for facilities and improving the use of current technologies. This and any other agreements are dependent upon progress regarding attorneys' fees, see paragraph (7.) below. I (4.) We can not agree to discontinue on site monitoring at Little Rock schools in view of our perceptions about inadequate compliance in this sphere, views buttressed by the findings of the court and ODM. Such a step given the circumstances would be inconsistent with the obligation to provide vigorous representation to the class. We can consider directing our findings and contentions based upon such monitoring to a particular person or persons other than Dr. Rogers, if we have confidence based upon the identity of the dGsignee(s) that our material will receive the attention which it is due  and the designee has the ability to accomplish something. (5.) We can not, in view of the continuing problems which we have called to LRSD's attention, agree that Ms. Springer and lead counsel will cease involvement in discipline matters below the level of expulsion  if LRSD means to suggest this. We can agree to present our contentions regarding such discipline to child advocates designated jointly by LRSD and Joshua Intervenors, if these persons have the ability to take corrective steps and the responsibility to provide the interim superintendent an overview of any problematic patterns which come to their attention. (6.) Wg will consider carefully any proposals for a new stephens School and \"a school out west.\" We note however that the court has expressed the need to consider any such proposals in the light of overall facility needs. (7.) We seriously question whether we are in a position to make any agreements without progress on the matter of attorneys' fees. Lead counsel did not receive the entirety of the earlier LRSD payment, and the proceeds which he did receive were subject to taxation. Lead counsel and his associates each function as a private attorney general. Funds received form one civil rights! 1 IS 1996 12 47 FROM JOHN U.U A L K E R P.A. TO 710100 P . Ob other civil rights cases where clients are needed to support other civil rights cases are unable to pay the full costs, and success is uncertain and are unaoie w p i t-he denial of fees, should that be uneven. indeed, we will appeal the denial of fees, the court rules upon our motion for the situation after reconsideration. (8.) We will consider carefully specific proposals for ODM sta to be involved .-ore direotly in the operation of the ^SD. However, we also resources e need to know about steps to provide additional to ODM so that more micro level monitoring is possible. (9.) We will consider any particular proposed modifications to the agreements offered by LRSD. (10.) Me once we understand will work expeditiously on language for the court the full context and have the reaction of LRSD to this memorandum. need to have periodic briefings by 1 (11.) There would be a i--- ----- , that intervenors' representatives would the superintendent so understand the status of work under way. i*U HEReCHSk H. FBIDAT WikUAM H. SUrrOM, F.A. JAMES W . MOORE B*80h M. EI6EWAM, 4M., F.A JOE a EU. F-A. JOHM C. CHDk:i F.A. JAMES A MUfVRT, EUFQeWICX 5, URtSRV. F A H.T, kAK2LRC, F.A. DOAR E. OAVIV, jR.. P A. JAMFB C OlaR\u0026lt; 44.. P.A. IKOMAS P LS066TT, P.A. JQHM OEWEY WATdOM, F.A FawU a EEMHAM ill. F-A. iapxt w. auRxa. * a. A, WY$Xk\u0026gt;ES M8BET. JR,. F-A. JAMEi COWARD HARRIE. F A. J-. PK^kUF MAkOOM. F.A. JAMCf M EfWF^ON. P A MtPEOlTH F. OATUETT. P.A. 4AMED M. 9AVTON. P.A. 4. SHCFMERa RySftELL U(. F.A. OOMAkD M RACON, F.A. WlkklAM THOMAS RAXYCfl. F.A WAkTER A, PAUL80M \u0026lt;1. F.A RAMftT 6. DOPUW. F.A. RICHARO 0. TAFkOR. P.A 4QVEFH a. HUR9T. 4R , P A. EtllARETH HOaaEM MURRAV, F.A, OHRidTOFMCR HCUER. f -A. LAURA MENRiCy OMITH, F A. R09ERT 8 SKAFCR, F.A. Wtkk'AMM SRtFFlN (11. F\u0026gt; tMOUA\u0026lt; M Roae, P.A. MlOMACt e. MOORE, F A. OlANf a, MACtE*. F'A. waiter M. EFEk (H. F (EVIN A oaxts, R.A. WtUiAM A. WADOEkk. 4R.. F A. 'A .'It- ' 4'\"  FRinXY, ttDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP O* WOIVlDUAlS ANO PROFESaiONAt ASEOClAl IBNS ATTOftNCYR AT XAVil 2000 FtftST COMMEf^CIAL SUlL\u0026amp;}NQ 400 wesr CAFiroL IjYTue ROCK, ARKANSAS 72a0134t3 TElC^MOME S0V37S-2O11 FAX NO. 6O1-S5-81\u0026lt;! November 26, 1996 1. ,1 . JteOTTJ. kAMCADTjF\nF.A. M. OAYkI eORkt*.  A. z i ROSUt ft, EAC. 4S\\, F A ' 4. kCE ftROWH, \u0026gt;.X. - , 4AMe 0. iARER. 4R.. F.A  HARAT A, LI4MT. r A, ftCOTT H, TUO\u0026lt;. F.A 40hM DkRTTCIH RAMQOLFK. * fiWT AkTOW WAas. F-A FWret C QAHONEX. F A 4. MtCHAEl FtORCNS, P.A, TOMIA F. J0N8. F.A OAVIO 0. WlteON. F.A 4fPF|lCr M, MOCHt.^.A AMDREW T.TwANCX DAV^OM ONAF CAAUA 9  SPAINHOuR 4OHH e PCNOtev, iti. AL1,IOK QRAVES jorann c. nqqseveu 4. OHRiSrOFMER LAWtiOM OSEAOR* D. TAVLOX rOMV k. WILCOX AM G h\u0026lt;6KMAM ICTTV J OmOKT AaAaFA 4. 4AM\u0026gt; 4AME8W. SMITH CUFPOFD W. nUMXXT* DAHIEI. L. HEMNiNVTtrM AUkieON 4. C04MW|.k TODO A. 9nEE4 flISaUNIEi WfLMAM il. 9U1TH ..a. CLAfl\u0026lt; WIUlAM L. TCRftv, A-.. . WitLIAM t. FeTTO^, 44., \u0026gt;.* VAffli,'* cmte7 c. (601) 370'3323 . -i*! \u0026gt;,  VIX FACBTMILB TRANSMISSION .r 371'-0100 MS. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 '   ' li Re: Little RocX school District v. Pulaski county Special School District, et al. Dear Ann: Attached please find a copy of the draft Resolution which we have prepared for tonight's Board meeting. Also attached please find a copy of our response to Mr. Walker's fax from last Friday prepared by Bob Pressman, Please give ma a call after you have had a chance to review the Resolution. I looX forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, '^1 Jo)hhnn C. Fendiey, Jr. JCFjr/mln LI230-09O Attachments 2'd kjaij .r^ ,^W'3iaj .wdieiei 3t./ 3?  Jd A,  ..A jy I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Little Bock- School District (\"LRSD\") could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications\nWHEREAS, LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the District if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task\nWHEREAS, LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"OOM\") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within th District\nand WHEREAS, ODM is willing to support lrsd's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nstudent assignment and redeploying monitors to provide assistance to IjRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, assignm.ent resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that LRSD Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts is authorized to submit to the court appropriate pleadings as necessary to secure the time and resources needed to develop a modified education and desegregation plan for the Little Bock School District. e-d' WdlJ Mtn .widj VWTStQT 96, 9? {CBRTIFTGATB I, the undersigned Secretary of the Soard of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special meeting of the Board held on the 26th day of November, 1996. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting, th duly elected, qualified and seirving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows? Oireetor Vote (Aya, May, Abatain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat, to the extent required by law, due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the Jaw incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. day of CERTIFIED under ay hand and seal of the District this , 1996. [SEAL] Secretary 2 f' d i-jdij m '-.tfaidj wbse.-aT 96. 93 AC\u0026gt;r J a *1* HERSCHEL H. \u0026lt;\u0026gt;\u0026amp;AY WILLIAM h SUTTON. F A. JAMES W UO0A6 STRCN M EiSEMAN, P.A. \u0026gt;)0E O. BELL, F.A, JOHN fi eH0k$. F.A lAMES A BUTTPY. P.A, FREDERIC* S. USSSRT. A, H.T LAR7SLERC. P.A. OSOAR E DAVrS, 4R.. P A. JAMES C. CLARK. VR., f.A THOMAS F. LEGCeTl, F.A. JOHN OeweV WATSON. P.A. RAUL e BENHAM KI, F.A. LARRV W BURKS, P.A. A WVCKLIFP NiSBtT, jR . P.A- JAMES EDWARD HARRiS. P.A. J. PNlLLlP MALCOM. P.A- JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A UEBEOITfl P. CAnCTT. P.A JAMES M. SAKTON. P A. 4, SHEPHERD RUSSELL Hb P.^- OONALQ H WILMAM THOMAS BAXYB, P.A WALTER A PAULSON (b P,A. BaRRV E. COPLIN. P.A. NlCHARD 0. YATLCH. J.OSe^H E HURS T JR.4 9 .fi,. CLiMSETH ROSBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HfiLLER, P.A. tAURA NENSvEY smith, F.A, ROCftTfl. 6HAF6R. *.A WULtAM M. OBIFStN III, F.A. ruDMAfi N. ROSE. F.A. MiQHACL S MOD At, P.A OlANE S. MACKEY, P.A WALTER M. FSEL 111, P.A. KEY!N A. CRASS, P.A VrUb^AM 1 WAOOELL, jR.. B. A 6 ,1 \u0026amp; Sc  V FRIDAY, ELDRFDOE \u0026amp; CLARK A FARTNSRSKlP QF INOIVIDUAIS AMD PROF6SB1OSAL ABSOCIATIOMS ATTOHNEVB AT LAW 2000 FIRST COWMSROIAI SVltOIMO 400 WEST CAPITOL VITTIE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72JO1-3A93 tSlcphone goi.S7-seii FAX MO. so, .378.2147 November 22, 1996 SCOTT J. IAHCATCJ1. M. P A sOaCftT . BCftCH. ja . f a J UC t20WM. P A jAMh C. P.A HA#MV A. k.iHT. P.*. StOTT w. TVCttfl P.A. jOwH C^AVTCN ftAHOPtPM P.*. GUT A^TON P.A. FRiet . 0*eNfeA. P A J. MtCMACk PtCREAfi. F A TOM\u0026lt;A P. 40lQLe. P A. OAVe 0. W\u0026lt;(,80M, P A. 4SFFREY M. MOORB. P a  MOPIVT T. TURFireN OAWlO M. RAP CAAtA G. SPAINHOUH JOHN C PLNOlfT, JR AkkieON GRAYEfi jONANN 0 RODseweir 4 eHftiaTfiPHEA lAW\u0026amp;OM ORgOGRT 0 lAViOP TOHV V *IVCOX *RAN C. HICKMAN SCTTT J. OfcMOST BAKWAI^A J. *ANO JAbCS W *MkTH CLIPFORO \u0026lt;f/. OANtSi. L. HCMHINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWCLL TODO A. CREER BF ffOWMVEc MraUtAM 4. SM)t^ StC eUARK WKLUM L IgRAT, P.A WILLIAM L. PATTQM. . P. A 15011 3?0'2a33 1 .vl Mr. John W, Walker (Via Fax) Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County special School District, et al Dear Mr. Walker\nRoberts and I have reviewed your fax setting^ forth Joshua's perspective on the meeting of November 14, 1996. I7h\n.l\n.:z can see much common ground, we have two primary concerns, Dr. While we The first is your focus on solving current problems within the context of the current system. Dr. Roberts wants to change the entire system and needs six to nine months to develop, with your help, a plan to do so. If you will work with us, you can be assured that the new system will solve the \"litany of problems\" about which you continue to complain. This is not to say we are going to ignore the current problems There are some issues which must addressed be immediately. However, we want to change everyone's focus from trying to make a bad system work to developing a system which will ensure a first rate desegregated education for all LRSD students. Our second concern is your suggestion that an agreement cannot be reached without \"progress\" on the issue of attorneys' fees. As   ' this will have to wait until Chris returns from out of town. We hope you will reconsider so that an agreement can be reached before the board meeting on Tuesday. a practical matter out of town. Sd As ^1 i'WlJ wn AWiaj WUSE:0T 96. 92 .M3W .3 4 -5#11/26/96 11:06 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMI N I CAT 1 ODM @002/002 Little Rock School District Special Board Meeting For Immediate Release November 26, 1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this evening. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools, will provide to the Board his assessment of the LRSD and concerns about the present approach to education and desegregation within the district. Dr. Roberts will present to the Board a resolution authorizing the presentation of pleadings to federal court for interim relief from some aspects of the desegreaation plan. During this period of time the LRSD will develop modifications to the districts educational and desegregation plan. The special meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. M ###\u0026lt;1 ! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION Little WHEREAS, the court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Rock School District (\"r^RSD) could benefit from ii 1 modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications\nstudents WHEREAS, LRSD Can improve its educational program for all and can enhance the prospects for the long terra desegregation of the District if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task\nWHEREAS, LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ('opM) in order to develop and pi'esent to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the District\nand WHEREAS, ODM could, with' court authorization, support LRSD^s efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nredeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. 1 IT IS HERESy RESOLVED that LRSD Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts is authorized to submit to the court appropriate pleadings as necessary to secure the time and resources needed to develop a modified education and desegregation plan for the Little Rock School District. Wd90\n{\"0 Sto. 9? ACHJ  . y 'I '4*7 lil |\\_ l-i TV CERTIFTCATg wt 1 -i-  .\".Pj I, the undersigned Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special meeting of the 'I- Board held on the 26th day of November, 1996. The Resolution\nappears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting, the duly elected, qualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the ', 1 adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Director Vote (Rye, May, Abstain er Absent) I*- ' h-'' . h- 3^ r nz.' iC'i' 1 .V I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat, to the extent reguife\u0026lt;i by law, due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. fl day of CSRTiriED under wy hand and seal of the District this_____ , 1996. [SEAL] Secretary a V 1 f 2 ( *d I- \u0026lt;1 waij wn Ayaieij 9b. 92 aon t * SslTTLS ROOK SCSOOh DTSyRICi hOAS.3 OF D.IRBCTOag RBSODHTIOH Little Rock , ths court, has r\u0026amp;peats'aiy expressed rha visw that, ths School District (vP.SD\"'i could benefit from o\u0026lt;Sification to its de5prsgat.ion plan and has prcvidsd sxrpert testitiony in ordor to yv. .ide Li?..SD in ths a od 1 f i c a t i ait s / developtient c-f' plan stiidenta 5'?^SBEJ4S, ajid LRSD can iKiprovs car. enhsrscs rrs a its educational, pirogra. ^\n.i. pxospscts lor the long dssagragation of tn Dist.rict if given ths opportunity to davctii 'the rvsotisseary bias and resourcos to the t-sri?i UISO is preparod to work cocparativeiy wrth ths othr ..\n! and with the Office of iiesfe\u0026lt;jrg-at.ion MohX tor ing in de.v.'i.Cip and present to the court plan laodif.ication* to . -S education nd dtsegregation yithin the Oi??triot\nund COM could, 'with court euthorination, ouppoft tRSi-'s by consulting with tns x'^arties and participatij,q' in thd davR,.i.tpsont Ui a aodififed pltn for ^clucation and fusstBordgat.lt'.h -in LRgD\nredepieying laonitors :\u0026gt; prcv.!.da assistance to LRSD in 3 budget devslcpnenfe, staff development, student asss-igntient and sselutioxi of di3cipl.iri issuss, and to withhold a'ny further Qv '.x''..or\u0026lt;i\\.g of 'cha current LftSb plan (other than th c-oripist.'io'n of aor\n.xtc:?j.ng reports presently in process\nc the six to nine .nonth period ilur.tng which a siodltied education and ddsegregatior plan, vtll be developed. X':- IS S^:Ri!By RSSOLV^-a that LRSD Supe.rintsndsr.t br. Don Ro.fes'-'^? is author igsG to subKiit to rhe court appropriate pler^dir.gs ncs5.s3ry t's seevre the time and resources nafedsd to develop a modified evhjcatios's and desqrgafcron plan for the School D'Lstrict,-.. :-o * z* i S5srjl*AtiS certify\nri'\na.r y the  ^'-5 ro. hi: a^iy Adopts^^ ty J.U .1 f the \u0026amp;X1\u0026gt; CsSlV ! of r  of kc:  J iii X 4 j tr Ji At the tiiSft Ct 'ni5Mb25r\u0026amp; \u0026gt; t\nvj'i o-f the 4.'ii- br. *** W. furtbet' '.C H'itl d certify in 1 t B os VO i V Lv3 1 i'. ^. rd SGe^ .\nris? lii'itier Vigne p. i y''fk!i 'T nJ Cl'^\nSO U u il KCfyait'\u0026amp;Z. , Si?' ent t 4- i:i\u0026lt;' . . t levs -: i ? y s thh Vteiat i'SapeStii -5.C r* .O)-' hy rafeisbers x-r\u0026lt; OX d * 1 '^' I\"- 2\u0026lt;rsd. Bweirti t.\u0026lt;? ths j. t *\n/\nU^4r  {-i t X a i Q V th:* prrper 34' i thefc I tsstystic: i in e ~i -i^, \n1 .7 / d\nW js. \u0026gt;!  i. v^ 5?sas- c J ly C! -4 '7i: feif .Afe ,M.a. V? Xis V\nj X 3y\u0026lt;?, i ctvr I i r. '1 if .  V4 5Ui i. x J. tsC \u0026lt;- 1 \"hiit J ^biXy t\n,c '.ic\nil h^it '..e .'- *?. f. -.4 ,7. ? : rvfd i i'F X 4 ' . f'  I r * li' ie.' 1'996 11139 JOHN W, WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON mark BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. KIMBERLY R. DICKSON t. I KS i. ! FROn JOHN kl.. UALK6R P,n. TO 3?1010 P. 02 John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LiTTi.E Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile * 374-9537 November 26, 1996 Mr. Rett Tucker Flake, Tabor, Tucker, Wells \u0026amp; Kelly TCBY Tower, Suite 300 Little RocK, AR D\u0026amp;etr Retts 72201 This will acknowledge receipt of your notice of the Little Rock School Board meeting scheduled for this evening. I am currently in federal court before the Honorable Judge Harry Barnes in Texarkana, I had previously intended to try and make the meeting this evening, however. Judge Barnes has indicated that we will continue this case this afternoon until it is completed. I remain committed to working with Dr. Roberts in trying to help move the District forward. You should know, however, that we have not reached an agreement regarding our further roles in making this possible. asked Ms. I hope to you at the meeting this evening, however, I have Springer to attend and restate oxir position. Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker JWW\njs cc\nDr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Don Roberts Clay Pendley Chris Heller Ann Brown Robert Pressman Z kHdiiaaii TOTAL P.02 ts 11 / Ci .a J l .'1 ':S i 3 * -J , :''T is '4V. i -( M J I fl 6 \u0026lt;4  'A 3\"^4 ' \u0026lt; . .11:06 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMVNICATl ODM 2 ^wubI Little Rock School District For Immediate Release November 26, 1996 002-002 Special Board Meeting For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this evening. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools, will provide to the Board his assessment of the LRSD and concerns about the present approach to education and desegregation within the district. Dr. Roberts will present to the Board a resolution authorizing the presentation of pleadings to federal court for interim relief from some aspects of the desegregation plan. During this period of time the LRSD will develop modifications to the districts :  f educational and desegregation plan. -'I. 1'j, The special meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD .4 Administration Building, 810 West Markham.  if.' ### '' ' j\ni -t 4 .5 J i 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (901)324-2000 * WWW JOHN W. WALKER, PA. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 rOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. KIMBERLY R. DICKSON December 5, 1996 Honorable Judge Susan W^ber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. RCSSD U.SD.C No. LR-C-S2-866 Judge Wright: In the first paragraph of my letter, it may appear to some that I am indicating there is some conflicts between my office and ODM. This is to clarify that the conflicts to which I referred are those between Joshua and the school district parties. ODM is not a party. Please accept this clarification. Thank you. .cerely, '1 John W. Walker JWW\nlp cc: Ms, Ann Brown 12/06.-1996 12:11 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 02 /OHN W. WALKER, PA.. 1723 Broadway Little Ruck, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHI^^GTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR KIMBERLYR. OICKSON December 5,1996 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD U.S.D.C No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright\ni 1 1 I i I } I As counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, I am persuaded that the interim superintendent, Dr. Don Roberts, will act in good faith to achieve the objectives of the desegregation plan and to otherwise address the educational needs of our class members. I am also persuaded that he will approach the matter as originally contemplated in a spirit of cooperation and mediation rather than one of antagonistic adversariness. I have met with him by telephone and in person at least a half dozen times in the last three weeks to get some understanding of how he will try to make things better in the District. During this time, I have described to him our concerns both in writing and verbally. Several of these meetings involved Ms. Ann Brown of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. He is aware of the conflicts which exist between us and he is aware that there are a number of people in the school district of both races who have reservations about an approach of cooperation rather than confrontation. The plan calls for cooperation, but the parties have been adversary due to different leaders and leadership styles of the District during a time which has seen the departure of every architect of the plan itself. Dr. Roberts has inherited a situation where there is literally no one on staff who was involved in a high level capacity with the creation and underlying justification of many of the plans' features and objectives. He is literally in a posture where he will have to recreate the wheel so to speak and where some degree of plan modification may well be needed if the educational needs and priorities of black school children are to be effectively addressed.12/06/1996 12:12 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P . 03 k' Page Two December 6, 1996 I i I ! i The ODM staff, through its monitoring experiences, may provide the nexus between the plan formulators and the present staff capable of advising and assisting Dr. Roberts as he seeks to bring a different character to this troubled school district. I share his view that he could profit from a different kind of association from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring than that of the last two administrations, one which gives respect to the roles and duties of the court as well as the commitment of the ODM staff to the achievement of the plan objectives. Although I have reservations about requesting that the court enlarge or modify OOM'S role, I believe that there is compelling urgency to such an approach, for a short period of time, if the educational needs of black children are to be met and given the priority required by law. I, therefore, request that you allow Ms. Brown and her staff to work closely, affirmatively and on a day to day basis with Dr. Roberts on operational activities such as the development of the budget. We also expect to work closely with Dr. Roberts but with the caveat that we will continue to monitor the situation and otherwise seek to protect the rights of our class members. Dr. Roberts has made these promises: 1) He will implement the plan as approved by the Court until it is modified with Court approval\n2) He will seek to lead the Board and the community to understand the necessity for genuine interracial cooperation and involvement in every level of school operation\n3) He will promote the retention and equal treatment of minority students and he will see to it that teachers actually engage in teaching them with the same fervor and commitment that is exhibited toward children of privilege\n4) He has pledged to integrate what has become, with but one or two exceptions, an all white administrative staff and he will take sensitive action to ensure that there are no one race staffed departments in the school system\n5) He commits to staff development which promotes interracial staff associations and cooperation rather than allowing proliferation of separatist activities within schools\n6) He commits to activity involvement of all children in something through which each may feel that he/she is an integral part of the school system, 7) He commits to more meaningtul parental involvement with black parents being given equal respect of their views and needs regarding their children\n8) He commits to a reduction of disciplinary punishments for insignificant and petty offenses and the substitution of an educational program which emphasizes that children should expect the school to teach them alternative ways for conflict resolution and for understanding the way the educational system is supposed to work\n12/06/1996 12 13 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 04 F  Page Three December 6,1996 9) He commits to continuing the District's practices to the develop and maintain a viable pool of qualified minority staff tlirough the binder program, a uniform salary schedule and identifiable nondiscriminatory criteria for the selection, placement and promotion of staff\n10) He commits to devoting serious and prompt attention to evaluation and assessment of prosrams and activities, as well as a program development and implementation by which achievement disparities may be eliminated and/or otherwise improved. Many of these concerns and commitments may be the subject of modification of the desegregation plan with our approval. To avoid later con\u0026amp;sion, I do note that we do not envision a direct role for ODM in the development or approval of any modifications. Dr. Roberts asks for our cooperation for what is a relatively brief period of time in the history of this case a six to nine month period of time. I am willing to give it to him provided the court sees fit to approve his request. In closing, I must say that the District is in the plight that it is, in large part, due to a number of feilures for which both we and the Court must take some responsibility. I must say that the court's oversight of this case has been essential, but it is our considered view that recalcitrant district officials challenged the court to force them to act and when the Court did not act, other than to issue words of condemnation, it set a tone for further inaction and dereliction which brings us to the point where we are today. The request here will allow all of us an opportunity for much needed redemption. Thank you for your cooperation truly yours, /'.John W. W^er JWWijs cc: All Coujsel Clerk ofthe Court Ms. Am Brown Dr. DofRobertsIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82866 RECEP PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL Office of Desesregation MonitotuitiNTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL -- INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted. however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM'') in order to develop and present to the courtplan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval. support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nby redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development. staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline 2issues\nand by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nto redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues\nand, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: (781083) J Christopher Hell John C. Fendley, Jr.' (#92182) r^hfTnr\\innfnfy*ihwriiig\u0026gt; phn (knf 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop mail on this aLe Joy deposBeang a copy of same in the United States day of , 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200- West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Cttflstopher Helle: John C. Fendley, Jr. 4t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL REGESVE'.n Uu MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC 6 1996 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desesregafion Moniioring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOP! P PERIOD lylW The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard. the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, \"We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from the f:\\haijc\\fcndicy\\irtd\\bri-pbiuiev1 PCSSD.\" Id. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month plan development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development, staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nby redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as 'The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota. Inc, V. Wray. 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified modification. myriad of changed circumstances County School See. Board, e.g., 978 Jacksonville Branch, which justify NAACP V. Duval F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992)(\"Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). a f:^ionK\\ieodlcy\\lndUjri-pUii.dev 2budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues\nand by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. LRSD prays that ODM be authorized to support LRSD in this manner so that modifications of the LRSD Desegregation can be developed and so LRSD can take a step closer to its goal of providing all LRSD students a quality desegregated education. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: ristopher Hi John C. Fendley, e: (#81083) . (#92182) f:yxnc\\ieodley\\irtd\\bri-pliiulcv 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peopL^^ mail on this ly depositing a copy of same in the United States day of , 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 opher Hell John C. Fendley, Jr., f:\\homB\\feadky\\bd^ri-pbux.dev 4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT DEC 1 6 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. MCbonwmv.s bttKh WESTERN DIVISION gy. DEF CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC 1 7 1996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregalion Monitoring INTERVENORS EASTc^*^*' njQT-'*'~ - MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEADING For its motion, the Little Rock School District states: 1. On May 17, 1996 the Little Rock School District filed a Mtion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. The motion was denied on September 23, 1996. LRSD filed a timely motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1996. 2. On December 6, 1996, the Little Rock School District filed a Motion For Approval of Plan Development Period. In that motion, LRSD asked the court for a period of time within which to work with the parties to improve education and desegregation in LRSD and to develop necessary modif ications to the LRSD desegregation plan. That process, if successful, could result in the abandonment by LRSD of its motion for reconsideration. 3. LRSD would prefer to commit its resources to a cooperative education and desegregation reform effort than to litigate its Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction so long as the prospects are good for a cooperative and productive reform process. LRSD therefore asks the court for permission to withdraw its motion for reconsideration subject to refiling no later than September 30, 1997. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order withdrawing and removing from the docket its motion for reconsideration subject to its right to refile the motion no later than September 30, 1997. 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*v istopher Hell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw Pleading as been served on the following by in the United States mail on this ^day depositing copy of same of December, 1996: 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 2Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 iristopher Hell 3   002 12'17'96 11:45 FRIDAY LAW FIRM FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL M. KBiDAY lieSX-IBVAl WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISIMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. USSERY. P.A. H.T. LARJELCRC. P-A. OSCAR E. OAVIB. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LCOCCTT. P-A. JOHN DEWEY WATBON. Paul B- BENHAM III, P.A. larry W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EOWARO HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SiMPBON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P-A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A, J. BHEPHERO RUBSELL III, P-A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BAHRY . COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH . HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HCNBLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P-A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN 111. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P,A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. OIANE a. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. A partnership op inoividuals ano professional associations ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST commercial BUILDINO 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3483 TELEPHONE 601-378-2011 FAX NO, 601-378-2147 December 17, 1996 8COTTJ. LAWCA8TEII. R.A. M. OAYLC CQULCY, F-A. HQBCDT B. hack. JR.. r.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMEH C. BARER, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. UHT, P.a- BCQTT H. tucker, P.A- JOHN ciAVTaN Randolph, p.a. aUY ALTON WADS, P-A. PRICE C. CAHQNift. P A. J. UiCMAEk PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JCNEB. P.a. DAVID 0. WILSON, P. A, JEFFREY H. MOORE, P. A. ANDREW T- TURNER DAVIO U. QRAF CARLA D. dPAINHQUR JOHN C. FENOLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONAHN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON onCOOBY 0. TAYLOR TONY U. WILCOX FRAN C, HICKMAN BETTY J. OCMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BOND DANIEL L. HERRINCrOM ALLISON J. CORNWELL TODD A, CREEH e* eouwatL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S- CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P.A i60n 370-1608 VMlTIt'* AUfCT HO. FAX Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 722OS Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Ann and John: I have enclosed a draft of a stipulation which would approve the entry of an order containing the provisions of our original proposed stipulation and those items (discipline, good faith, Joshua and ODM monitoring reports, and staff development) suggested by John Walker at our last meeting. Please let me _ know if this document will provide a sufficient basis for discussions to make a meeting today worthwhile. 12-17-96 11:46 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM  003 If a meeting today will be helpful, it must be held from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. in order to accommodate everyone's schedule. I have asked everyone to reserve that time for a possible meeting at Ann Brown's office. Yours vj Christopher Heller CJH/k Enc. cc: Dr Don Roberts12 '1- -96 11:46 O FRIDAY LA\"' FIRM 004 IN THE 'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL / MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION The Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) will agree to the entry of an order which contains the following provisions and statements by the court: 1. The court grants LRSD's Motion For Approval of Plan Development Period, 2 This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 3 LRSD believes that it can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in order to develop and present to 12'17 '96 11:47 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @003  the court a plan to improve education and desegregation within the district. 4 The Joshua intervenors believe that certain components of the present LRSD desegregation plan have proved unsuccessful and that black students and parents within LRSD can benefit from a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD. The Joshua Intervenors are prepared to work cooperatively with LRSD in order to develop such a plan. 5 The Knight intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 6 PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a new education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this stipulation. 7 The parties expect that they can work cooperatively to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for the improvement of education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation plan. 8 In order to allow LRSD to commit the necessary effort to the cooperative development of an improved education and desegregation plan, LRSD and Joshua agree to withdraw all pending motions concerning compliance or lack of compliance with the 212'1'96 11:48 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM @006  present LRSD Desegregation Plan. Joshua also agrees to discontinue any on-site monitoring at LRSD schools and to refer any disciplinary issues, other than expulsion issues, to an ombudsman selected by LRSD with input from ODM and Joshua for resolution. 9 LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM is willing to support the effort described in this stipulation by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nredeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a new education and desegregation plan will be developed. 10. The parties agree to support LRSD's request for a court order approving this stipulation and to participate in a good faith effort to develop and present to the court within six to nine months an improved plan for education and desegregation in LRSD which will modify the plan under which LRSD presently operates. 11 The court understands that as a part of the process to improve desegregation and education within LRSD, LRSD will take 312 17/96 11:48 FRIDAY LA\"' FIRM @007  into account the recommendations made by Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in their monitoring reports. 12 The court expects the parties to work together in a good faith effort to improve education and desegregation within LRSD. 13 The court understands that the LRSD superintendent will work with administrators, teachers, counselors and staff to ensure that the student discipline system within LRSD provides fair, even handed and appropriate discipline in a non-discriminatory matter. 14 The court understands that during the time for development of an improved plan for education and desegregation in LRSD that LRSD will provide an appropriate staff development program for principals, teachers and counselors. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. John W, Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: John W. Walker Bar No. By 5------------------- Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 412 -17 '96 11:49  FRIDAY LA\"' FIRM @ DOS CERTIFICATE OF. SERVI-CE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Stipulation has served on the following by depositing copy of same in the Uni. in the United States mail on this 17th day of December, 1996. 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 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller 5FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT DEC 3 0 1996 Ofiice 01 Desegieijaii. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION jAMtS I-** -\u0026lt;'. 27 1996 fiMAGK, CLtni DEPT. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * * * * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") for approval of a plan development period to which the Joshua Intervenors have responded. Upon careful review of the motion, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. A. On numerous occasions, the Court has expressed the view that modifications of the LRSDs desegregation plan might be appropriate. In an attempt to assist the parties, the Court itself called experts who testified concerning potential areas for modification. However, the 290 1Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a si-\\ to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Specifically, the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. The LRSD asks that the Court redeploy monitors to provide assistance to the district in a refl s such as budget development, staff development, student assignment, and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD desegregation plan for a six to nine month period. The LRSD states that the Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for the LRSD, and that the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District support the effort described in the motion. While the Joshua Intervenors respond generally in a favorable manner to the new superintendent and the motion, they also express some reservations. Because the ODM operates as an arm of the Court, the Joshua Intervenors urge that the ODM not participate in negotiations between the parties, unless the ODM agrees not to report the content of such negotiations to the Court. Further, the Joshua Intervenors urge the Court to appoint additional monitors to work on matters of particular concern to them, namely alleged ill-treatment of class members. See docket entry 2885. The Court finds that the parties, particularly the LRSD, will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The ODM has assured the Court that the 2functions of monitoring and assistance can and will be kept separate during this period. The Court declines at this time to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. Should the ODM determine during the course of this plan development period that it needs additional staff, the Court will address the issue at that time. The Court will not prevent the ODM from advising the LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. However, neither the ODM nor the Court is a party to this litigation and the ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. The Court will rule on any plan modifications on the basis of the evidence and the record in the case, including orders of the Eighth Circuit. B. Pending before the Court are the Joshua Intervenors motions for relief concerning the incentive schools, for implementation of recommendations of the ODM, and for a hearing on those motions. In light of the Courts approval of a period during which the LRSD intends to develop a modified education and desegregation plan, the Court denies without prejudice the motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors. Should the Joshua Intervenors wish to refile the motions, they must do so within thirty (30) days following the submission by the LRSD of its modified plan. C. Also before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to withdraw its motion to reconsider the Courts ruling on the LRSDs motion to end federal court jurisdiction. The motion is 3granted. The LRSD has until and including September 30, 1997, within which to refile its motion for reconsideration. D. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSDs motion for a plan development period [docket entry 2878] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joshua Intervenors motions [docket entries 2680, 2705, \u0026amp; 2812] are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRSDs motion [docket entry 2890] to withdraw the motion for reconsideration [docket entry 2831] is granted. SO ORDERED this ^7 day of December 1996. \"UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 'HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN A MPUANCE WITH RULE 5 AND^DR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 4 ri 1^0-27-96 FRl 16:07 ''V SUSAN WMRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. *  *  4c * No. LR-C-82-866 P. 02 FILED . us. DISTRICT COURT , , 4 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS S OEG 27 1996 .1' PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL, , Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor.     * * * *  * * * * * * 45? lAMtS i^MAQK, OUrJ DEPT. CLERK w ( f ' /  . ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for approval of a plan development period to which the Joshua Intervenors have responded. Upon careful t review of the motion, the Cotirt finds that the motion should be granted. A. ii' 4 On numerous occasions, the Court has expressed the view that modification.^ of the LRSDs desegregation plan might be appropriate. In an attempt to assist the parties, the Court itself called experts who testified concerning potential areas for modification. However, the 1 \u0026lt;1 a IP. li til / V %[^EC-?7-96 FRI 16:08 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a six to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Specifically, the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM\") to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. The LRSD asks that the Court redeploy monitors to provide assistance to the district in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment, and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the cunent LRSD desegregation plan for a six to nine month period. The LRSD states that the Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for the L,RSD, and that the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District support the effort described in the motion. While the- Joshua Intervenors respond generally in a favorable manner to the new superintendent and the motion, they also express some reservations. Because the ODM operates as an arm of the Court, the Joshua Intervenors urge that the ODM no ticipate in negotiations between the parties, unless the ODM agrees not to report the content such negotiations to the Court. Further, the Joshua Intervenors urge the Court to appoint additional monitors to work on matters of particular concern to them, namely alleged ill-treatment of class members, See docket entry 2885, The Court finds that the parties, particularly the LRSD, will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The ODM has assured the Court that the 2 i^C-27\n9e FRI 16:08 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX HO, 5013246576 P. 04  functions of monitoring and assistance can and will be kept separate during this period. The Court declines at this time to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. Should the ODM determine during the course of this plan development period that it needs additional staff, the Court will address the issue at that time, Tlie Court will not prevent the ODM from advising die LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. However, neither the ODM nor the Court is a party to this litigation and the ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. The Court will rule on any plan modifications on the basis of the evidence and the record in the case, including orders of the Eighth Circuit. B. Pending before the Court are the Joshua Intervenors motions for relief concerning the incentive schools, for implementation of recommendations of the ODM., and for a hearing on those motions, In light of the Courts approval of a period during which the LRSD intends to develop a modified education and desegregation plan, the Court denies without prejudice the motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors. Should the Joshua Intervenors wish to refile the motions, they must do so within thirty (30) days following the submission by the LRSD of its modified plan. C. Also before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to withdraw its motion to reconsider the Courts ruling on the LRSDs motion to end federal court jurisdiction. The motion is 3 Mi ikiil ilT ^E0-27\n96 FRI 16:09. SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 -4 'i granted. The LRSD has until and including September 30, 1997, within which to refile its motion for reconsideration. .1 D. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSDs motion for a plan development period [docket entry 28781 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joshua Inter\u0026gt;enors motions [docket entries 2680, 2705. \u0026amp; 2812] are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRSDs motion [docket entry 2890] to withdraw the motion for reconsideration [docket entry 2831] is granted. SO ORDERED this of December 1996. 1 I 7' (-  ijn\n4 JUDGE S. .1. 1 k' Tj.' 1  ''.J. Iriihi IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION J . f 1 . .. clerk LITTLE V. rock school district, et al. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS Lj\n.-. CLthk PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED INTERVENORS DfcC 3 0 1996 INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER INTERVENORS SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNEKbrtih' Office of Desegregation Monitoring Response Joshua Interv'enbfs to\" the LRSD' s plan ODM. Motion for the. of the Joshua intervenors co cue - Approval of A Plan Development Period The LRSD has filed a motion referring to a six to nine month development period. The relief sought in the motion relates to Motion, 12\\6\\96, at 3. That office would \"consult with the parties and participate\" in the development of a modified plan\nit would \"redeploy monitors\" to provide more direct forms of assistance to LRSD\nit would withhold additional monitoring of the LRSD for the six to nine month period. This memorandum sets forth Joshua Intervenors' reaction to the LRSD motion. It is appropriate to begin with some reference to the status of the case. These motions concerning intervenors filed a the incentive schools number of months ago two and ODM recommendations. These motions are grounded in the view of Joshua's representatives, and the repeated findings of the court and ODM, that LRSD officials and their agents have implemented the agreements in an inadequate 1manner. It remains the view of the Joshua intervenors that the central problem has been the unwillingness to implement the agreements, not the agreements themselves. a Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors are willing to respond in positive manner to the view of the interim superintendent that ways can be developed to achieve in a better manner the objectives of the agreements. As reflected by lead counsel's letter to the court of December 5, 1996, counsel views the interim superintendent as a person of ability and integrity. The Joshua Intervenors will respond in a prompt and good faith manner to proposals to modify the agreements with regard to the LRSD. These intervenors may well suggest provisions to address problems in the areas mentioned in lead counsel's letter to the court of December 5 (at 2-3). LRSD and Joshua representatives are in the process of discussing ways in which perceived problems of class members, in the area of discipline for example, can be addressed in a better fashion, but with lesser demands on the interim superintendent's time. The objective of this effort is to allow the superintendent to focus on his ideas for plan modifications and systemic efforts to address some of the problems surfaced by these intervenors. Our reactions to the specific proposals regarding ODM are as follows. First. ODM is, in substance, a part of the court's staff. It serves as the court's eyes and ears. It gathers facts and generates ideas for the court. It seems to serve as confidant for the court. This being the case, we believe that limits on ODM's participation 2in the process of developing and considering proposed plan modifications are necessary. Development by ODM of proposed modifications in areas identified by the parties should be welcomed, as well as party. However, ODM ODM reactions to proposals initiated by a should not participate in the parties* negotiations  unless it is agreed upon, unambiguously, that ODM will not report the content of negotiations to the court. The parties can present to the court any agreed upon changes in the plans, as well as periodic status reports on their progress. Second. The Joshua Intervenors are supportive of the notion of ODM staff playing different roles in the LRSD, subject to our recommendations, filed on December 13, 1996, that there be additional ODM staff to work on the matter of ill-treatment of class members. This ill-treatment prevents, in far too many cases. the achievement of the objectives of the agreements. Moreover, there are needs for monitoring in the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Third. The proposal concerning additional monitoring in the LRSD for the six to nine month period is acceptable. with the exception of the new form of monitoring, by additional staff. identified in intervenors' submission of December 13, 1996. Conclusion The Joshua Intervenors agree to the entry of an order 3consistent with the views set forth in this response. Respecfully submitted, abhn W. Walker, / 64046 Uohn V. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA # 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 copy of the Joshua Intervenors' I hereby certify that a foregoing response has been mailed to all counsel of record on this 18th day of December 1996. \"John W. Walker / 4RECEIVE JAN 2 4199? OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING HARVARD UNIVERSITY Graduate School of Education Gutman Library 442 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Gary Orfield Professor of Education and Social Policy phone: 617-496-4824 fax: 617-496-3095 January 21, 1997 TO: Ann Brown and associates FROM: Gary Orfield I was very happy to hear about the new court order and your expanded responsibilities. Best of luck in the important work in the coming months. I think that some substantial improvements should not be very difficult to identify.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 January 22, 1997 Dr. Mary Prentice Department of Teacher Education UALR 2801 So. University Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Mary: Thanks so much for your message volunteering yourself to help during the coming year. I would welcome your assistance! Your skills, insights, and optimism and would be assets indeed. I promise to keep your generous offer in mind as Don Roberts and I are developing our initial plan of action in the next few weeks. Thank you so much for your kind offer, Mary. I'll keep you posted on developments. Sincerely yours, I \\ Ann S. BrownRECEIVED FEB 2 1 L/iQ St OmCEOF OESEGREGMIONMONITORUIG STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Listed below are the committees that are actively implementing the plan and completing the work designated for Year One, the meeting dates of the committees, and a brief  synopsis of the work accomplished. STRATEGY ONE: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. COMMIITeE: Gene Parker (W), lead administrator, Lillie Carter (B), Eleanor Cox (B), Gwen Ziegler (B), Cynthia Jefferson (B), Malinda Martin (B), Lisa Maxwell (W), Opal Rice (W), Nancy Swaty (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Kris Huffman (W), Judy Milam (W), Judy Teeter (W). MEETING DATES: Three, 3-hour work sessions were held in March/April 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISECED\nDefinitions for content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards have been developed and are ready for submission to the Superintendent for Board approval. In the areas of language arts/reading and math in grades K-5, the hierarchy of key skills/knowledge, rubrics, and skills mastery continuum have been completed and were piloted in the K-5 summer program. The first draft of the hierarchy, rubrics, and skills mastery continuum has been completed in social studies and science. This strategy is also addressing the integration of the SCANS skills into the standards process. The core committee of Gene Parker (W), Carol Green (B), Marie McNeal (B), Linda Young (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Vanessa Cleaver (B) has met on November 26 and December 20, 1996. An additional meeting was held with Gene Parker and Vic Anderson on Dec. 20 to discuss progress of committee.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TWO: We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives of the strategic plan. No implementation committee has been appointed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY THREE\nWe will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on the standardized tests or who are at risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  COMMITTEE\nVic Anderson, lead administrator (W), Leon Adams (B), Jo Evelyn Elston (B), Gene Parker (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Margaret Gremillion (W), Patty Kohler (W), Sadie Mitchell (B), Leon Modeste (B), Susan Merry (W), Ann Blaylock (W), Sammy Grandy (B), Rick Woole (W), Linda Young (W). The committee is slated to be expanded to include teachers, principals, parents, and community members. (A middle school committee functioned as a separate committee. This committee was convened with full approval of the Board of Directors and met regularly from December, 1994 through April, 1996. List available if needed.) MEETING DATES\nDec. 15, 1995\nJan. 11, Jan. 18, Jan.3O, Jan.31, Feb.6, March 3, March 4, March 11, March 15, May 31, July 23, July 24, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED\nA policy on retention and promotion was revised to include early intervention and approved by the Board in September, 1996. A policy to formalize intervention as a step in the educational process was developed and approved by the Board in September, 1996. The Reading Recovery program was expanded in four elementary schools. The middle school committee completed an extensive report and business case including a three year district wide transition work plan to implement middle schools (grades 6-8). The report and recommendations were presented to the board in April, 1996. The delivery system at the Alternative Learning Center was expanded to include the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the students. A business case was written, approved, a committee (list available if needed) appointed to develop curriculum, training provided to all staff on the new curriculum and implementation began in September, 1996. Training teachers interested in the Math/Science Crusade (K-12) was continued with 95 teachers participating in the 95-96 school year and an additional 29 participating in the 96-97 school year.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOUR: We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support. COMMItieE: The Alliance marketing committee has been serving as the committee to support this strategy in the area of external communications issues. Internal issues have been handled by the communications department staff. MEETING DATES: Full committees and sub-committees met on Jan. 12, Feb. 27, March 12, March 27, April 10, May 1, May 22, June 10, June 12, July 11, July 17, July 22, July 24, Aug. 14, Sept. 17, Nov. 22, Dec. 4, Dec. 19, and Dec. 20, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: To achieve positive relationships with key members of the media, discussions have occurred with media representatives by the Superintendent, business leaders through the Little Rock Alliance for our Public Schools and the communications staff. To expand the available tools to positively influence the perceptions of parents and other audiences, four new brochures have been produced aimed at various target audiences. New video equipment has been purchased and a new staff person hired for expanded video coverage of the district. Twenty-five public relations training sessions were held at the schools during the fall semester. Information provided will assist teachers, counselors and other school staff in incorporating positive public relations in their work with various audiences. To improve the existing system designed to direct media to the appropriate source, on-going training and communication continues between principals, key communicators and the Communications Office.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FIVE: We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations-to address external issues that are interfering with our students learning. COMMITTEE\nDebbie Milam (W), lead administrator, Sandy Becker (B), community chairman, Beverly Miller (W), Gail Nickerson (W), Charles Nickerson (W), Lou Miller (W), Bob Hightower (W), Loretta Alexander (B), Zenobia Harris (B), Johnnie Bradford (B), Richard Bell (B), Boyd Ward (W), Carol Scott (W), Helen Leigh (W), Mike Vogler (W), Charles Moore (B), Liz Lucker (W). MEETING DATES: May 29, June 22, August 13, September 9, October 14, November 19, and December 17, 1996\nJan. 28, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: Drafts of three proposed school board policies have been prepared and submitted to the Superintendent for Board approval. The committee prepared a business case to support their recommendations for additional resources needed to implement Strategy Five. A list of activity suggestions for partnerships between churches and schools was prepared by the committee for use in recruiting more churches to become Partners in Education. A $20,000 grant was received to begin the Community Mobilization Program with the local schools, neighborhood groups, community groups, youth serving groups in the various neighborhoods, and the citys alert centers. The committee has met with the grant writer to discuss district grant writing efforts and results. The Vital Link program will assist in meeting the goal of expanding the development of business and community partner coalitions with focus on job shadowing experiences. The committee has been reviewing the Beacons Initiative as a pilot program as the initial step in designing and ensuring availability of and access to comprehensive support services for all LRSD students.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SIX: We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to . ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. COMMITTEE\nBrady Gadberry, lead administrator. No implementation committee. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: All job descriptions are to be consistent and specific. Dr. Hurley surveyed administrative staff and is working to rewrite the job descriptions as needed. He reports that 25% of this task has been completed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SEVEN: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. COMMITTEE\nMarion Woods(B), lead administrator, Phil Burch (W), Beth Munson (W), Leon Modeste (B), Linda Joshua (B), Debbie Glasgow (W), Linda Young (W), Vicki Armstead (B), BUI Geiger (W), Lun McCall (B), Ann Mangan (W), Betty Mitchell (W), John Walker (B), Linda Pondexter (B), Richard Rochell (W), Sterling Ingram (B), Betty Raper (W), Rett Tucker (W), Dean Johnson (B), Patty Kohler (W), Ed Jackson (W), Pat Price (W). MEETING DATES: April 28, May 23, July 19, Aug, 2, Sept. 5, Sept. 23, Oct. 28, 1996, and February 24, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: The staff development council was reformulated and the membership expanded according to the recommendations. The council is to complete a district wide analysis of the staff development program. The council is in the process of developing a staff development evaluation form. The council suggested that 150 school districts around the United States be canvassed to gather forms and suggestions on this issue. The National Staff Development Council has also been providing support and ideas on this issue. The final form for LRSD will be designed specifically for this district.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY EIGHT: We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. COMMITieE: Patty Kohler (W), lead administrator, Sadie Mitchell (B), Gene Parker (W), Lillie Carter (B), Manan Shead (B), Darrall Paradis (W), Eleanor Coleman (B), Mary Menking (W), Doug Eaton (W), Margaret Leigh (W), Margaret Gremillion (W), Sharon Brooks (B), Cassandra Norman (B), CharUe Neal (W), Donna Stiles (W), JiU MeUroy (W), Rudolph Howard (B), Leon Adams (B), Mabie Donaldson (B), Faith Donovan (W), Anne Mangan (W), Junious Babbs (B), JuUe Davenport Paula Padilla (W), EUean Cleveland (B), Pat Boykin (B), Pat Higginbotham Marian Lacey (B), Vic Anderson (W), Cathy Collins (W), Gayle Bradford (W), Marcus Moore (B), Jackie Moore (W), .Stsphanic Walker (B), Morlin McCoy (B), Betty Raper (W), Diann Chase (B), Gail Shelton (B), Carol Green (B), Linda Johnson (B), Mildren Walker (B), Shirley Ferguson (B), Kristie Robinson (B), Leon Modeste (B), Linda Young (W) and Teresa Courtney (W). MEETING DATES: Dec. 15, 1995\nJan.ll, Jan.18, Jan.23, Jan.28, Feb. 19, March 11 April 8 Mav 6 Aug. 21, 1996.  '  WORK ACCOMPLISHED: A core committee began the primary work by focusing on developing a process and framework for the implemenution of site-based management to allow individual schools choice in terms of best meeting the needs of their students. Research, published articles and implementation efforts in other districts were provided to the core committee. The committee began the process of reflecting on and studying the issues involved, articulating how the district currently operates and discussing how this distnet could best operate in the future. The committee functioned as a study group so that ey could begin to operate from a common knowledge base, create conditions for thinking beyond the current state of operations, dare to dream of more effective ways for the system to function, frame the thinking specifically for the LRSD, share common language, and begin to forge shared thinking on what and how site-based management can be used to assist in meeting the districts mission. The committee developed initial responses to the following questions: 1) What results are expected from implementing a site-based decision making process in the district? 2) What has to be created at the district level for site-councils to be effective at reaching the anticipated results? 3) What support will be needed and how will it be provided? 4) What actions are needed to lead this change initiative? 5) What is a timeiy/reasonable time firame for successfill and effective implementation? A draft position paper defining the critical issues and the specific actions needed from the educational system of the LRSD to prepare and implement an effective model of site-based management for the LRSD included five major areas: 1) Articulation of policy, rationale and belief^ 2) Parameters for decision making and processes for evaluating decisions, 3) Definition of a model of a Good School to serve as a standard and guidelines for assessing progress toward the standard, 4) Skills and knowledge needed and training plan (district \u0026amp; local), 5) E.\\pectations and roles of personnel and guidelines for council membership. a A district wide invitation for participation was extended to all teachers and administrators across the district. The response is reflected in the total committee listed above. This expanded committee is now assigned to one of the five major issues/action areas. A plan of how these committees will function and produce the needed products has been completed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY NINE: We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district. COMMITTEE: Mark Milhollen (W), lead administrator. Bob Beach (W), Keith Cox (W), J. Ralston Creswell (W), Ernie Davis (W), Hugh Earnest (W), John Gardner (B) Co- Chair, Dewayne Holmes (B), Betty Mitchell (^, Bob Morgan (V^, Rich Nagel Tim Scott (B), Steve Shults (W), Andy Terry (W), Mark McBryde (W), John Nimmer (B), Earl Weniger (W), Judy Magness (W). MEETING DATES: Nov. 16, Dec. 7, Dec. 14, Dec. 21, 1995\nJan. 4, Jan. 11, Jan. 18, Feb. 15, March 12, May 7, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: The committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the next two to three years are crucial transition years for the LRSD and that some fundamental changes must be made and communicated to the public in the way the LRSD conducts its business. This committee recommended that the LRSD Board of Directors utilize the following eight point process in developing its 96-97 budget and forecast: 1) Determine revenue projections, 2) Determine educational programs to be provided, 3) Determine the facilities to be utilized in delivering programs, 4) Consider non-school level program/personnel reductions, 5) Determine wages and benefits level, 6) Optimize student/stafF ratios, 7) Start Desegregation Plan modification process, if required, 8) Seek additional revenue, if required. The committee met with the board on several occasions during the budget process. The board failed to take any action on the recommendations of the committee.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TEN: We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. COMMIIteE: Jo Evelyn Elston (B), lead administrator, Vic Anderson (W), co-chair, Bobby Jones, (W), Frances Dedner (B), Minnie Thompson (B), Tim Fullerton (W), Kathy Wells (W), Jane Meadows (W), Steve Bradley (B), Wiley Branton (B), Neddie Nichols (B), Bettye Robinson (B), Linda Watson (B), W. W. Williams (W), Lillie Carter (B), Pat Gee (W), Rich Robbins (W), Cory Anderson (B), Ed Streeter (B), Patty Kohler (W) Steve Shults (W), Stella Watson (B), Bruce Moore (B), Janet Buford Nancy Rousseau (W), Mary Jane Cheatham (W), Valerie Hudson (B). mee ting DATES: April. 29, June 3, July 10, Oct. 2, Dec. 12, 1996. Next scheduled meetings dates are March 6, 1997 and June 5, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: Conflict resolution training and skill development for students as been implemented and commercial curriculum has been adopted for use in the secondary schools. Training was conducted for teachers October 16-19, 1996. All secondary buses have been equipped with 2-way radios\nadditional security has been assigned to monitor buses and bus stops. Additional cameras have been added to the buses. Training for bus drivers has been provided. Additional security equipment has been added to control access to school buildings, grounds, and events. A pilot program for evaluating security devices has begun at Central High and the Alternative Learning Center. A program to assist staff in full understanding safety policies and procedures has been implemented and is on-going. To enhance communications throughout the community regarding the safety and security issue, efforts to address this have occurred at Town Hall meetings, Superintendent Chat sessions, PTA council and PTA Board meetings. The Safety and Security Department is developing a manual on How to Establish a Parent Patrol for schools and transportation. In order to better inform the public about the control of drug activity, violence prevention, and safety issues, the student handbook was distributed August 10, 1996 to neighborhood associations, parents, businesses, and city government. 1,000 extra copies of the manual were printed for community distribution.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ELEVEN\nWe will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district. COMMIITeE\nJohn Ruffin (B) lead administrator, Richard Kennedy (W) chairman, Sam Branch (B), Susan Schoessel (W), Kenyon Lowe (B), Carletta Burchett (B), Debby Herden (W), Tom Smith (W), Sandra Hoff (W), Tom Alstadt (W), Lucy Lyon (^, Barbara Kennedy (W), Richard Kirchmeier (W), Cesar Compadre (W), Manlynn Hendricks (W), Chuck Morse (W), Max Brantley (W), Scott Kristie Winthrop Rockefeller (Vf), John Riggs (W), Susan Beard (W), Charles Moore (B), Lou Ethel Nauden (B),Lynn Leidigh (W), Charles Moore (B), John Walker (B), Larry Berkley (W), Tom Malone (W). MEETING DATES\nJuly 24, Aug. 14, Sept. 4, Oct. 8, Oct. 29, Nov. 26, 1996, Feb. 20, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED\nA definition for technology in terms of the educational and administrative needs of the LRSD has been developed. A broad based technology advisory board for the LRSD has been established. The committee articulated three major areas of initial focus\n1) Procurement issues, 2) Technical support, 3) Training and staff development. The committee is working in sub-groups on these three issues. Also completed is the installation of a decision support system which is now in place and operational. This system addresses the issue of gathering, storing, and analyzing student data bases.02/28/97 16:27 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMVNICATI ODM @001/003 LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT HIO WEST MARKHAM SI REE'l' LII TLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501)324-2032 DATE 57 TO Central Arkansas Media FROM Suellen Vann SENDERS PHONE# 324-2020 SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial * 01 rOR COMMUNICATIONS OTl'ICE USE ONl.Y' Transmitted By Date Time02/28/97 16:28 501 324 2023 I.RSD COMMUNI CAT I ODM 002 003 J Little Rock School District Community Leaders, School Supporters Coming Together for Little Rocks Public Schools at Assembly for Success /^SEMBLY FOR February 28,1997 For Immediate Release Coiwfcw Tcaate for Iide ftiHc Sdnots For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Joy Wier, 374-4871 Gail Nickerson, 370-9300 Over one thousand supporters of the Little Rock School District are being invited to gather on Monday, March 10,1997, to demonstrate support for efforts toward reshaping the districts future. The Assembly for Success, scheduled for 4:30 p.m. in the Clinton Grand Ballroom of Arkansas Excelsior Hotei, will be a spirited rally by community and business leaders, parents, school staff, students and representatives of the work groups named at last nights school board meeting. 'The formation of work groups which will define the future of the Little Rock School District is a landmark occasion toward improving our schools, said Superintendent Don R. Roberts. This coming together of our community for a rally is (more) AAOJUaaMtailiii 02/28/97 16:29 QaOl 324 2023 LRSD COMMLMCATI ODM @003 003 LRSD Rally Page 2 of2 a Step toward a new optimism for the future of our public schools. The court-approved moratorium allows us a window of opportunity which has not existed previously to initiate significant educational changes. JJ The Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools have partnered with the district to plan the Assembly for Success. 33 Entergy, which has always played a major role in supporting public education in Arkansas, is the events major corporate sponsor. Doug Buford, chairman of the board of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, said, This assembly on March 10 will demonstrate the optimism of the business community that the Little Rock public schools, under Dr. Roberts leadership. are on the threshold of making significant improvements. A lot of us have talked about what we can do, and now Dr. Roberts is giving us those opportunities to get involved. AU of us in the community are encouraged by recent events which impact the Little Rock School District, said Baker Kurrus, president of the Little Rock Alliance For Our PubUc Schools. This new sense of enthusiasm will drive the endeavors of the newly formed work groups which we believe will result in great strides for the district. The Assembly for Success will culminate with a roll call of community groups and educational organizations which are supportive of the Little Rock School District. Representatives of local organizations that have an interest in the future success of the district wiU be invited to the rally. II /I ff03/06/97 13:33 501 324 2023 LRSD COM'IVNICATI ODM @002. 003 Little Rock School District MEDIA ALERT March 6,1997 For Immediate Release For more information: Snellen Vann, 324-2020 Joy Wier, 374-4871 Gail Nickerson, 370-9300 WHAT: ASSEMBLY FOR SUCCESS Coming Together for Little Roch's Public Schools A national convention-style rally of support for Little Rocks public schools. This is a wonderful opportunity for a very visual Live at Five or Six broadcast with about 1,000 attendees. WHEN: Monday, March 10,1997 Reception, 4:30 p.m. Program, 5:00 p.m. WHERE: Clinton Grand Ballroom Arkansas Excelsior Hotel WHO: One thousand representatives of community organizations, businesses, parent groups and schools will gather to express their support of the public schools in Little Rock. The event is open to the public.Stand Up And Be Counted Monday Afterfioon! \u0026gt; o You are personally invited to attend the Assembly For Success, a major rally in support of Little Rocks public schools. Our community is coming together to pledge their support for our schools on Monday, March 10, in the Clinton Grand Ballroom of Arkansas Excelsior Hotel. The Assembly For Success begins at 4:30 p.m. with a reception, followed promptly at 5:00 p.m. with a special program you wont want to miss! Enclosed is your special ticket/name tag. Print your name in the space provided and wear it Monday to be admitted to the Assembly. Please come and show your support for Little Rocks public schools. Your attendance is very important! If unable to attend, send someone to represent you! Organizations from throughout Central Arkansas will be saluted for their role in support of our public schools. This is your chance to stand up and be counted as a participant in the positive momentum building for Little Rocks public schools. o C5 o 73 tn y-it -I  o FOROWnBUCSQUU unuRocx The Assembly For Success is a parmershil) project of the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. ASSEMBLY FOR SUCCESS The Assembly*s Major Corporate Sponsorship is provided by: Enlerfiv Coming Together for Little Rocks Public Schools MONDAY, MARCH 10  4:30 P.M. RECEPTION, 5:00 P.M. PROGRAM  CLINTON BALLROOM. ARKANSAS EXCELSIOR HOTEL O o o o 6 To: From: Date: Re: Ann Polly 5-2-97 QV u/iV dUMu^i \u0026amp; Joshuas involvement during the plan development period In an order filed 4-29-97, the Judge stated that, during the plan development period, the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD were discussing and working together in preparing proposed plan modifications. Horace, Margie, Melissa, and Skip said that no Joshua representatives were on their working teams, although Margie stated that her discipline team plans to include Joshua later. Gene was out of the office and, since he is the only associate on the incentive school team, we do not know if Joshua is represented on the incentive school working team. Redflag: If John doesnt agree with the final modifications, he might appeal on the basis that he was not involved during the development stages. Also, it seems that from some language listed below, that ODM is to advi^ and consult with him during the development period. 'i For your review, I have both attached the following documents and restated, with emphasis, the relevant statements from:  LRSDs 12-6-96 motion and brief  Joshuas response  Courts 12-27-96 order  Courts 4-29-97 order In the 12-6-96 motion, LRSD stated: LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. ...in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD ODM could...support LRSDs efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD... ...prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan...In the brief that supports the 12-6-96 motion, LRSD restates: ODM could...support LRSDs efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan... In Joshuas response to the 12-6-96 motion, Joshua states: That office [0DM1 would consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan. The Joshua Intervenors will respond in a prompt and good faith manner to proposals to modify the agreements with regard to the LRSD. These intervenors may well suggest provisions to address problems in the areas mentioned in lead counsels letter to the court of December 5 (at 2-3). LRSD and Joshua representatives are in the process of discussing ways in which perceived problems of class members, in the area of discipline for example, can be address in a better fashion, but with lesser demand on the interim superintendents time. The objective of this effort is to allow the superintendent to focus on his ideas for plan modifications and systemic efforts to address some of the problems surfaced by these intervenors. The parties can present to the court any agreed upon changes in the plans, as well as periodic status reports on their progress. In Judge Wrights 12-27-96 order, she states: . ..the Court finds that the motion should be granted. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a six to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. ...the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODMT to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. ...the parties...will benefit from...the expertise of ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The Court will not prevent the ODM from advising the LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. . . The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. In the order fded 4-29-97, the court states: [T]he LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The Court is mindful that the parties are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modifications to the settlement plans...i I 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 filed EASTERN'D?s^ra?CT ARKANSAS APR 2 9 1997 JAMES By\n w. McCormack, clerk \u0026lt; cumt ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors on September 27, 1996, requesting attorneys fees for the work of their counsel in successfully opposing the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to end federal court jurisdiction regarding the LRSD. In that motion filed on May 17, 1996, the LRSD argued that it had agreed to an implementation period of six years, that the six-year period had expired, and that it was in substantial compliance with the settlement plans. On September 23, 1996, the Court denied the LRSDs motion. The ' Joshua Intervenors then filed their motion for attorneys fees. The LRSD moved for reconsideration of the Courts September 23, 1996 Order denying its motion and also moved for an extension of time to respond to the Joshua Intervenors motion for attorneys fees. The LRSD asked that it not be required to respond to the motion for attorneys fees until after the Court ruled on its motion for reconsideration. The LRSD additionally stated that it should it not receive relief from this Court on its motion for reconsideration, it intended to appeal to the Eighth Circuit and requested that any response to the Joshua Intervenors motion for fees be delayed until the issue was resolved, if necessary, by the appeals court. The Joshua Intervenors responded in opposition, arguing that the LRSDs requested extension was too long and that the LRSD should not be allowed to wait until after a ruling by the Eighth Circuit before responding to the attorneys fee motion. Subsequently, the LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The LRSD also filed a motion to . .J -----  withdraw its motion for reconsideration ofthe Courts Order regarding federal court jurisdiction. On December 27, 1996, the Court granted the motion for a plan development period and also granted the LRSDs motion to withdraw. The Court has determined that in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness the Joshua Intervenors motion for attorneys fees should be resolved. The Court is mindful that the parties are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modification^ the settlement plans and the Court does not wish to place the parites in an adversarial position. However, the Court 2finds that it is in the interest of justice to address the motion for attorneys fees. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for extension of time (doc. 2837) and directs the LRSD to respond to the motion for attorneys fees within ten days from the date of entry of this Order.  SO ORDERED this day of April 1997. JNIIED STATES DISTRICT jfiDGE UNITED GE ON IN 'The resolution of the issue of attorneys fees will not defeat the LRSDs right to refile its\" motion for reconsideration as set forth in the Courts Order of December 27, 1996. 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LRC82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL Ofiics of DeseSfSgsSon ^'oniisfint^NTERVEuoRS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL  INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expeirt testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational progreim for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") in order to develop and present to the courtplan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively^ with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD eind Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval. support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plaui for education and desegregation in LRSD\nby redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline 2issues\nand by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nto redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development. staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues\nand, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: Christopher Helli (/81083)^ John C. Fendley, Jr.' (#92182) 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop^^\nmail on this ly depositing a copy of same in the United States day of , 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200- West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markhcim Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Helle\nJohn C. Fendley, Jr. 4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-S'66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL CtC G DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL J996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Ofrice of Dese^rocsiicn Woni'Cfirxj INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN D' LOPMENT PERIOD The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jaril, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. moving party meets this standard. If the the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, \"We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from thePCSSD.\" Id? Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month pleui development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development. staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nby redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota, Inc. V. Wray. 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified modification. myriad of changed circumstances which justify County School See. Board. e.g., 978 Jacksonville Branch, F.2d 1574, 1582 NAACP V. Duval (11th Cir. 1992) (\"Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitadaly tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). a ^^hniTW^ftwrihT*liTil*hTi piw ijrr 2budget development, staff development, student assignment and resol\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_741","title":"Technology","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":["1996/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Technology"],"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/741"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["76 pages"],"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\nIncludes challenge grant applications and newspaper clippings\nt Tech97.doc d8 Challenge Grants for Technology in Education Summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 LRSD proposal Topics and Comments Potential Response in 1997 Proposal Strategy______  lack of continuity between abstract and narrative on focus of project activities  greater clarification of expected interaction between stakeholders, stronger relationship between partner involvement and objectives  more detail on specifics and strategies - how technology will impact curriculum modules, developing a database for library research is too nebulous  explain what is being done before telling who will do it  provide more detail about secondary programs and integration of technology  identify possible initiatives beyond the chosen themes  create cross-curriculum, interdisciplanary modules. Avoid specialization only in math/science  explain how elementary program will be implemented within existing curriculum  identify experience with similar projects (district technology plan)  staff development should be provided by people familiar with the classroom and integration of technology. UALR staff should be more involved in lesson design and development  include more teacher involvement in the planning  Revise abstract  Revise narrative  Get input from program partners and revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Get input from technology committee and revise narrative  Review project role with UALR and revise narrative  Revise narrative Partnerships/Inclusion__________________  increase community and business partnerships  include a community impact component in the evaluation  graduating students should be represented in the consortium  Include description of Vital Link program  Get input from evaluator (Horizon Research) and revise narrative  Revise narrativeJ Access__________________________________  availability of public access sites when parents/students can get to them - evenings and weekends  sufficient placement of equipment at public access sites  Identify the eight schools to be involved in Year 1  identify University library as already being on-line  add a national component and an interschool teacher-to-teacher component to the dissemination plan Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise nanative  Revise narrative Finance_________________________________  LEA support to equipment unbalanced vs. Program funds  consultant budgets and director salary are high  Financial support available from consortium members  identify intent to maintain program staff after grant period  clarify cost of public access sites - what will be bought and what provided in-kind  too much staffing in network engineers  Can Title I funds be used as match?  Unclear what action to be taken  Unclear what action to be taken  Include costs of Vital Link program Revise narrative Revise narrative  Reduce budget accordingly  Contact national office for clarificationDATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH:   Kc LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR 72202 0/ras December 19, 1995 Board of Directors Ujiarles Neal, Director, Procurement Fred Smith, Manager, Support Services iiTOndenf d'- d 1996 Of/jc* vA.'-. D -'Stii'jii'ijn Monitc:i,-\ng lj^6 \"J SUBJECT: Bidding Process/for Purchasing Computers This report is in response to a request from Board members during the December 7, 1995 agenda meeting. It is understood that the request contains two requirements\n(1) the bidding process for purchasing computers, and (2) an interest in reviewing all bids received. A. Bidding Process for Purchasing Computers The process for buying computers is no different from buying any other commodity. If the anticipated cost exceeds $5,000, the purchase will be accomplished by soliciting competitive formal bids or proposals. To assist in understanding the procurement process as practiced in this District for many years, there is enclosed that portion of our procedures manual which covers bidding procedures (Section 7.4.4). (A part of this section was provided to the Board recently in response to another request.) The criteria for bidding is established in paragraph B at the bottom of page 26 (page one of enclosure). L Formal Bids and Proposals: Formal bidding is described at paragraph C.l, page 27 and formal proposals at paragraph C.3, same page. Formal bids and proposals may be referred to as sealed bid/proposals in some governmental agencies and entities. Unless otherwise exempt, all commodity purchases estimated to exceed $5,000 shall be competitively purchased under these guidelines. 2. Informal Bidding: Informal bidding is a less formal method of purchasing which allows for getting the needed commodity to the user more expeditiously while still seeking competitive pricing. This method is used for low dollar value purchases. A minimum of three vendors are solicited. Commodity purchases estimated to exceed $2,000, but less than $5,000, may be purchased through informal methods\ni.e., telephone quotes, etc. See paragraph C.5, page 29.3- Acquisition Decisions Versus Contract/Bid Award Decisions: In the acquisition process, there are two decision points. The decision to acquire needed commodities, programs or services is a financial decision and takes place during the budget and program planning process. The actual purchasing process is merely the administrative function that occurs in obtaining those goods and services previously approved for acquisition. The Procurement Office, in coordination with the requisitioning office school, as appropriate, decides which vendor is awarded the order or contract. The Procurement Office does not establish requirements or play a role in financial decisions other than those pertaining to its own internal departmental needs. or 4. Commodity Descriptions and Specifications: Development of the type and scope of service to be performed and/or specification is initially the responsibility of the using department or school. A full explanation of this function is found in paragraph 26 on page 40 of the enclosure. B. Review of All Bids Received It is assumed that this request pertains only to computer bids. The Procurement Office has provided copies of all computer bid actions accomplished this fiscal year. We have also included a typical Food Services, Plant Services and Supply Center bid file as a sampling of what the bid process entails. Last year the Procurement Office generated 276 bids. This year we have issued 93 to date.7.1 general policy 7.1.1. Introduction 7.1.2 Board Policies 7.1.3 7.1.4 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.3.5 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 INDEX Governing Purchasing -entralized Purchasing Systems Goal procedures for General PURCHASING FROM Mandatory Purchasing Supply Catalog Requisitions Procedures Pages 1-2 Pages 3-5 Page 6 Page 7 Preparing a Requisition Returns and Credits INITIATING A PURCHASE General Purchasing Lead Preparation of Purchase Orders Time the supply CENTER Page 8 Page 8 Page 8 Pages 8-9 Page 9 Page lo Page 11 a Purchase Requisition Textbook Purchases responsibilities. General regulations and bid Page 11 Page 11 Pages 11-13 Pages procedures Mission and Regulation Responsibilities and Procedures Bidding Procedures Capital Equipment (Fixed Asset) Purchases Pages 15-16 Pages 17-19 Pages 20-25 Pages 26-44 Pages 45-5626 7.4.4 Bidding Procedures 'A. Definitions of Commonly Used Biddincr extracted from Model Procurement Government Purchasing Manual) Terms. (Definitions Code and State and Local 1. Invitation for Bid.s (IFB) - used for competitive bidding, mateJiill suoll^vernments far the purchaseof ec^i^wn^ wheSer attaSS r.  construction. (2) All documents souSting b?ds ilized for (1) The solicitation document the customary method used bv (2) All documents, 2 . ssKMassafg ,-,s'ubs  ss- solicitation document an''lnvrt7t''io 3 . 4 . B. proposals process. after proposals of the proposals and/or prior to award. {2} The Tho the competitive xuii The procedure allows changes to be made are opened and contemplates that the nature prices offered will be negotiated Reguest for Quotation (RFO) for seeking competition purchase lower than the formal bidding. L\u0026lt;, uioi delivery information for sole in the formal - The document generally used on small purchases or on any amount that :---' - - or , requires competitive Can be used for obtaining price and -source and emergencies. Re\u0026lt;^est_for Information (RFI) - primarily to locate providers of in informal. A sourcing document used goods or services. data, _--- Used uncompetitive solicitation of information. comments, suppliers/contractors. always, followed by issuance of a Request for Pronosal a multi-step bidding procedure. or reactions from Normally, but not possible necessarily or Criteria for Bidding Competitive bidding shall be the standard method of in =11 L.11C aucuiaara i thP yion \"\"^ich it is feasible, the best interest of the district. otherwise authorized by policy purchasing advantageous or in As a minimum, unless or regulation, all purchases and minimum. contracts in which the^stimated cost may exceed accomplished by the formal bidding shall Further, purchases and process. or more,'shall bec. d. 28 Proposals are to be sealed by the vendor and delivered to the designated address by the designated ____ Unlike formal bids, proposals do not require a public Precautions must be taken to avoid disclosure reading. time. of contents to competing offerors in the event followup negotiation is needed. Proposals may be accessible to the public after awarding, provided confidentiality provisions are not violated. Written or oral discussions may be conducted with responsible offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award for the pu2rpose of clarification to assure full understanding and responsiveness to, the of, to solicitation requirements. responsiveness assure to, Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with ' respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals, and such revisions may be permitted after submission to and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. There shall be no disclosure of any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. ' ' from proposals Discussion need not be conducted: (1) with respect to prices, where such prices fixed by law or regulation, except consideration shall be given to competitive terms and conditions\nare that (2) where time of delivery or performance will not permit discussions\nor (3) where can be clearly demonstrated and documented the existence of adequate competition or accurate prior cost experience with that commodity or service that it from demonstrated of These particular service acceptance of an initial offer without discussion would result in fair and reasonable prices, and the Request for Proposals notifies all offerors of and the  possibility that award may be made on the basis of the initial offers. two methods of source selection. bids proposals, differ fundamentally in the following ways: versus Under competitive bidding, judgmental factors may be used only to determine if the supply or service bid meets the purchase Under competitive proposals, judgmental factors may be used not only to determine if the items or services being offered meet the procurement description but also to evaluate competing proposal description. competitive s.6 . Procurement of Professional and Personal Services: a. Professional professional engineering. Services: services as Arkansas legal, law 30 defines architectural, and land surveying. __ __ 801/805) further requires that procurement of these services be accomplished through contract negotiation, as opposed to competitive bidding. Selection made on the basis of demonstrated The law (19-11- shall is accomplished through competitive of competence and qualifications for the type of services required and at fair and reasonable prices. Solicitation be accomplished by requesting statements of qualifications. shall In evaluating the qualifications of each firm. District shall consider: the (1) the specialized experience and technical expertise of the_ firm with respect to the type of professional services required\n(2) The capacity and capability of the firm to perform the work in question, including specialized services, within the time limitations fixed for the completion of the.project, (3) The past record of performance of the firm with respect to such factors as control of costs, quality of work, and ability to meet schedules and deadlines\nand (4) The firm's, proximity to and familiarity with the area in which the project is located. Selection: The qualified firms. District shall select three (3) The District shall then select the firm best qualified and capable of performing the desired work and negotiate a contract for the project with the firm selected. Negotiation of contracts: (a) For the basis of negotiations, the District and the selected firm shall jointly prepare a detailed, written description of the scope of the proposed services. (b) If the District is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm selected, negotiations with that firm shall be unable terminated. shall The District shall then undertake negotiations with another of the qualified firms selected. If there is a failing of accord with the second firm, negotiations with such firm shall be terminated. If there is The District shall undertake negotiations with the third qualified firm.32 (2) In the absence of clear statutory guidelines, the District will attempt, when feasible, to acquire personal services by the same method used in the procurement of professional services. D. Procedures 1. Late Bids: All formal invitations for bid specify a bid number, day, hour and place for the public opening of the bid. Each vendor has the responsibility for ensuring that his bid arrives in time to be considered. The only late bids that may be considered at the discretion of the of Director of Procurement are those bids that are delayed as a result incorrect handling by the Procurement the Department or district personnel. All other late bids will be refused and filed unopened with date of receipt stamped on outside of envelope. 2 . 3 . 4 . Mistakes or Withdrawal of Bids: _______________ Correction of patent or provable in bids which do not prejudice other bidders, may be allowed upon approval of the Director of errors Procurement. In the event of an obvious error or under other circumstances considered excusable, the Director of Procurement may allow the vendor to withdraw his bid with or without prejudice. Prior to the opening of any bid, the vendor may withdraw his bid for any reason. The bid may be resubmitted any time prior to the stated opening time and date established for that bid. Penalty for withdrawal of a bid may, at the discretion of the Procurement Director, result in the disqualification of that vendor on future bids. year. Period of disqualification not to exceed one (1) Bid Openinos: Formal bids shall be opened publicly in the presence of one or more witnesses at the time and place designated in the Invitation for Bids. Each bid, together with the name of the bidder, shall be recorded. Upon evaluation and award, bids will be open for public inspection, except as protected under applicable provisions allowing vendors right of nondisclosure. shall be recorded. Award: Award will be made as promptly as possible to the responsive and responsible bidder or offeror whose bid or proposal is most economical for the purpose(s) intended according to criteria set forth in the solicitation.10 . 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . Commodities Provided, 34 available only a single source, that the purchasing official determines in from writing that it is -not practicable to use other than the required or designated commodity or service and a copy of the statement is attached to the purchase file. Purchasing Official: Purchasing Official shall mean the Board of Directors of any school district or a lawfully designated agent of the school district with authority to contract or make purchases on behalf of the school district. or Purchase Price: bid price of any commodity, trade-in. Purchase Price shall mean the full sale or without any allowance for Purchase: Purchase shall mean and include not only the outright purchase of a commodity but also the acquisition of commodities under rental-purchase agreements or leasepurchase agreements or any other type of agreements whereby the school district has an option to buy the commodity and to apply the rental payments on the purchase price thereof. Open Market Purchases: Open Market Purchases shall mean those purchases of commodities by any purchasing official in which competitive bidding is not required. Exempt Commodities: ___ The following commodity classes exempt from competitive bidding: are Advertising in electronic and print media, periodicals and related publications. b. Fees, including medical fees and physician fees. Freight and storage charges and demurrage. d. Licenses. e. a. c. e. f. Maintenance on office machines and technical equipment. Membership in professional, trade and other similar associations. g- Postage. h. Services of visiting speakers, lecturers and performing artists. 1. Taxes. j  Travel expense items, transportation charges. such as room and board and17. 36 A sole-source supplier is the only acceptable vendor who is able to furnish the product or service. Although documentation and technical assistance may be required from the user department, the Procurement Director is responsible for making sole-source determination. In doing so, the following must be considered: a. b. c. d. e. Is there a lack of responsible competition for a product or service which is vital to the operation of the district? Does the supplier possess exclusive capabilities? Is the product or service unique and easily established as one-of-a-kind? Can program requirements be modified competitive products or services may be used? so that Are there patented or proprietary rights that fully demonstrate: (1) a feature providing a superior utility not obtainable from similar products? (2) a product is available from only one prime source, and not merchandized through wholesalers, jobbers or retailers where competition could be encouraged? (3) What would the user do if the product or service were discontinued? Care must be taken to avoid making sole-source purchases because of a preference for a particular brand. Central purchasing must examine the intended use of the product or service and assure that only one supplier is capable of satisfying the intended use. The Procurement Department challenge all representations that would limit Each must competition or the rationale of \"standardization\". question of standardization/interchangeability requires Procurement seek an interface which will permit competition, while not diminishing acceptable quality and utility. Bidder List: to Opportunity shall be provided for all responsible vendors to conduct business with the district and the Director of Procurement shall develop and maintain of potential bidders for the various types of lists materials, equipment and supplies. the various types Such bidders lists shall be used in the development of a mailing list for distribution of specifications and Invitations for Bids. All responsible vendors may be included in this list upon request.19 . 20 . 38 (2) Any bidder who request in writing to be removed from a bidders list shall be removed. Qualified Vendor File: The Director of Procurement is responsible for qualifying and maintaining a listing of vendors and bidders authorized to do business with the district. Bid invitation mailings shall include those vendors and suppliers pre-qualified and in good -standing with the district. Pre-qualification shall not preclude or prevent a written determination. Discrualifications of Vendors: The Director of Procurement may disqualify a vendor on a bid under consideration for any one or combination of the following reasons: a. Bidders product does not meet district specifications or bid conditions. b. Bid is not received on the district's Invitation for Bids form. c. Bid not signed. d. Required bid bond not furnished. e. Failure to comply with bid instructions, terms and conditions that are judged to be essential to the competitive bid process and the best interest to the district. Disqualification considered for any reasons: of vendors on future bids may be one or combination of the following a. Refusal of the vendor to complete a contract or bid. b. Vendors past history of late deliveries, shipments and incomplete shipments. partial c. Vendors products have proven unreliable, unworkable or have not accomplished the result requested in the district specifications. 21. Right of Nondisclosure and Confidentiality: When requested by a bidder or offeror, and except as otherwise provided by law, information furnished by a bidder or offeror shall not be disclosed outside the Procurement Department without prior written consent by the bidder or offeror. *  provision is This not intended to prohibit disclosing such information with certain appropriate officials of the district and its attorneys.40 Bid invitations requiring a performance and payment bond are specifically stated in the Invitation for Bids. in the amount of one hundred per cent (100%) Bonds of the contract amount are required, unless specifically pre-set at a lesser amount by the Director of Procurement. 26. Specifications: To provide a common basis for bidding, specifications should set out the essential characteristics provide for bidding of the items being purchased so that all bidders or offerors know exactly what is wanted and can accurately  bidr. Assuring that specifications contain compute their bids. essential requirements relates- directly to the aspects of proper quality level. In purchasing, quality means the suitability or adequacy of a product to the intended use. Either over-specifying or under-specifying is wasteful. Commodities purchased should be capable of performing as necessary and be as durable as needed but they should not have any unnecessary frills or status features. Requiring unnecessary features can also result in a specification that is so restrictive that it defeats the objective of promoting competition. When practical, requirements should be expressed in generic terms. Specification may be classified standard: as standard and non- a. Standard - specification is developed for repeated use, in the sense that it can be lifted from a file, ready to use. b. Non-standard - specification is prepared for particular procurement and connotes a one-time use. a Types of specifications: a. Design^ - design specifications set the requirements for the item to be purchased by detailing the characteristics that the item must possess, and usually means that is written in such detail that it it IS describes how the product is to be manufactured. Normally accompanied with drawings or blue prints. Classified as non-standard. b. Performance - performance specifications set out the performance or functional requirements that a product must meet. Describe the capabilities that the product must satisfy. Generally, performance specifications provide the best approach. Performance specifications normally fall into the standard classification. c. Combination - combination specifications are written to include features from both the performance and design types. Carefully prepared specifications customarily contain both design and performance requirements.28 . 42 If the protesting bidder or offeror is not satisfied with the findings and ruling of the Director of Procurement and wishes to pursue the protest beyond the jurisdiction of the district, the bidder or offeror may seek such remedy as may be allowed by applicable state law. However, in no event can the district accept liability in excess of reasonable expenses solicitation. actually incurred in connection with the Vendor Susnension or Debarment: The Director of Procurement may, at any time, suspend or debar a vendor for cause. The Director may convene a hearing when it becomes known that a breach, anticipatory breach or that an extraordinary circumstance has occurred.  -  The Director must give notice and opportunity for the vendor to be heard and then issue a written opinion stating the action taken and the reasons. This opinion will be final unless the vendor seeks remedy in court of appropriate jurisdiction. The causes for suspension or debarment include but are not limited to the following: a. Conviction for commission of a criminal offense as an incident to obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract subcontract, or in the or performance of such contract or subcontract. b. Conviction under state or federal statutes embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification of or destruction of records, receiving stolen property or any other offense indicating lack of business integrity business honesty which currently, seriously and directly affects responsibility as a or contractor. a c. Conviction under state or federal antitrust statutes arising out of submission of bids or proposals. d. Violation of contract provisions, as set forth below, of a character which is regarded by the Procurement Director to be action: so serious as to justify debarment (1) deliberate failure without good cause to perform in accordance with the specifications or within (2) a the time limit provided in the contract\nrecent record of failure or to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more contacts\nprovided that failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor shall not be considered to be a basis for debarment.44 b. Default - a default in performance by a contractor for which a contract may be terminated shall include but shall not necessarily be limited to failure to perf the contract according to its terms, orm conditions and specifications or failure to make delivery within the time specified or according to a schedule fixed by the contract. c. Contractor's liability surety, if the contractor and/or his a performance or payment bond has been required under the contract, shall be jointly and severely liable to the district for any and all loss or damage as provided in the contract between the district and the contractor as a result of the contractor's default\nprovided, however, that a contractor's surety liability shall not exceed the final sum specified in the contractor's bond.Memorandum To: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Marvin Schwartz, LRSD Grants Writer Date: April 21, 1997 Re: Federal technology proposal RECESV'^ts APR 2 2 199/ OmCEOF OKGfiGAT(ON MONITORING Ive sent copies of the following items:  a 1997 program fact sheet and activities summary  full text of the 1997 program guidelines  1996 proposal submitted by LRSD  summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 (The positive comments are not listed) The abstract will give you a good sense of the 1996 proposal, then look on page 6 for a list of the consortium members and on page 55 for a program organization chart. I believe ODM can provide specific assistance in the Student Needs section (page 2) by helping create a tri-district profile. This would reduce the response burden on PCSSD and NLR, as well as offer an objective presentation of information. The 1996 proposal was rated highly on its presentation of Section 2. Readers wrote that the section made its point well and concisely. I think enhancing the section with similar data from the other districts would be the best and easiest way to go. Of course, this may not be necessary if I get no response or they decline the offer to come on board. I asked for specific input from each district no later than May 30. Its already been more than a week and neither has even said yes or no. I agree that bringing the other districts in will dramatically delay and complicate this proposal. But Ive got to do everything possible to make this piece as competitive as possible. With the other districts, we will virtually double our student population level. Well also create a wider community consortium and greater outreach to low income neighborhoods. I Thanks for your interest and support of this project. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. 1hili, Memorandum To: zVin Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Marvin Schwartz, LRSD Grants Writer Date: April 21, 1997 APR 2 2 I, OFFiCE vr Re: Federal technology proposal Ive sent copies of the following items:  a 1997 program fact sheet and activities summary  full text of the 1997 program guidelines  1996 proposal submitted by LRSD  summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 (The positive comments are not listed) The abstract will give you a good sense of the 1996 proposal, then look on page 6 for a list of the consortium members and on page 55 for a program organization chart. I believe ODM can provide specific assistance in the Student Needs section (page 2) by helping create a tri-district profile. This would reduce the response burden on PCSSD and NLR, as well as offer an objective presentation of information. The 1996 proposal was rated highly on its presentation of Section 2. Readers wrote that the section made its point well and concisely. I think enhancing the section with similar data from the other districts would be the best and easiest way to go. Of course, this may not be necessary if I get no response or they decline the offer to come on board. I asked for specific input from each district.no. later than May 30. Its already been more than a week and neither has even said yes or no. I agree that bringing the other districts in will dramatically delay and complicate this proposal. But Ive got to do everything possible to make this piece as competitive as possible. With the other districts, we will virtually double our student population level. Well also create a wider community consortium and greater outreach to low income neighborhoods. Thanks for your interest and support of this project. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. 1Program Fact Sheet Program Project Period Range of Awards Average Size of Award Submission Date TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANTS U.S. Dept, of Education 5 years $250,000 to $1,500,000 per year. $900,000 per year May 30, 1997 Program Purposes 1. Utilize educational technologies to improve learning and meet National Education Goals. 2. Organize schools to make computers and information networks accessible to students and teachers in learning activities integrated with the curriculum. 3. Provide opportunities for improved learning in homes, libraries, and community centers Suggested Goals 1. 2. 3. Increase student achievement in content area Provide teachers with training appropriate for technology utilization in the classroom Integrate innovative learning technologies into the curriculum to improve learning productivity in the community. Program Priority  Communities with great need for access to new technologies  Areas with a high levels of disadvantaged students  Active participation of teachers, students, and parents Use of Grant Funds Challenge grants will provide seed money for implementing promising new technologies in specific learning communities. These includes the development of new curriculum, professional development, and the evaluation of educational effectiveness. Eligible Applicants A consortium including at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. Additional consortium members should include:  other local educational agencies  institutions of higher education  businesses/software designers  other appropriate organizations.  state educational agencies  museums  academic content experts  libraries Consortium Obligations Partners in the consortia are expected to make substantial commitments for the costs of equipment, software development, technical support, and any other costs. The total value of commitments made by members of the consortium should significantly exceed funds provided by the challenge grantSuggested Activities Strong applications will have a well focused technical concept - an idea based on an important technology, software application, or other approach that is at an appropriate stage of development for implementation in a specific learning environment. Applications will focus on the innovative integration of these new learning technologies into the curriculum as part of a comprehensive, long-term plan for education reform. Students  Help meet the National Education Goals\n0 0 0 0 Contribute to school readiness and improved student achievement Smooth the transition from school to work Develop the life-long learning skills necessary to compete in the economy of the 21st century Help acquire tlie knowledge, skills, and habits of mind to get good jobs, be good citizens, and live good lives in a global community  Help all children meet high academic standards: 0 0 0 Mastering core academic subjects, including reading, writing, mathematics, sciences, history, geography, and languages. Learning to acquire and communicate new information Learning to tliink mathematically, to solve problems scientifically, to reason well, and to see and express oneself artistically. Access vast electronic libraries and museums Consult with scientists, scholars, and experts around the globe Professional Development of Teachers  Use a wider range of instructional resources titan is generally available today.  Provide tlie tools to meet this challenge in the classroom and electronic networks to share ideas  Support the integration of new learning technologies into tlie curriculum. Parents and Community  Improve learning productivity in the community  Support greater parent and community involvement in education  Involve parents and extending learning in the home Industry partners  Develop user-friendly, low maintenance systems that are cost effective and easy to scale up for widespread use  Help communities generate new markets for learning technologies  Opportunity for large-scale tests of innovative products or services Evaluation Plan  Define benchmarks to evaluate progress toward project goals  How improvements in student learning or teacher training will be assessed  Measure student performance and achievement at each stage of development  Develop evidence of effectiveness from the design stage onward. Selection Criteria Significance: the extent to which the project 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. offers a creative, new vision for using technology will achieve far-reaching impact will directly benefit students will ensure ongoing, intensive professional development for teachers and other personnel is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for educational technology6. is designed to create new learning communities, and expanded markets for high-quality educational technology applications and services. Feasibility: the extent to which: 1. 2. 3. the project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable beyond the period of the grant\nthe members of the consortium or other appropriate entities will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve the goals of the project\nand the applicant is capable of carrying out the project.Technology Innovation Challenge Grants * Applications Due: May 30, 1997 Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education Phone: 202-208-3882 Fax: 202-208-4042 E-mail: ITO_STAFFl@ed.gov http://www.ed.gov/Technology Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are the next generation of an initiative that began as the Challenge Grants for Technology in Education, and they are counterparts of the new Technology Literacy Challenge FunkHow can we use new technology and the information superhighway to improve education and increase economic competitiveness? Modern computers and telecommunication networks are powerful tools. But the hardware alone is not enough to improve learning. Sustained professional development for teachers and effective software, well integrated with the curriculum, are essential to help students meet high academic standards. THE CHALLENGE This is an ambitious challenge. We are experiencing a scientific and technological revolution of unprecedented proportions. Everywhere we look, technology is changing the way we work and live. Everywhere, that is, but in our classrooms. In the information age, we have industrial era schools. In classrooms that could be modern communication centers for learning, the basic media of instruction are blackboards and chalk. Community leaders and educators are excited about the possibilities for transforming their classrooms into information age learning centers, but few school systems can afford the costs and risks associated with developing new, high quality applications of technology on their own. Similarly, few school systems working alone, have all the expertise and resources they need to integrate these learning innovations into the curriculum on a system-wide basis. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants provide seed money to form community partnerships that can bear these costs and marshal these resources. These consortia bring telecommunications, hardware and software expertise to schools in combination with the educational resources of universities, research institutes, libraries and museums. As catalysts for change. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants support educators and parents, industry partners, community leaders and others who are collaboratively developing new applications of technology to transform their factory era schools into information age learning centers. Some of the most exciting possibilities might flow from a creative synthesis of ideas generated by teachers and students, who are working with software developers and cognitive researchers in consortia that include: telecommunication firms and hardware manufacturers, entertainment producers, and others who are stretching our thinking about how to create new learning communities. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants have the potential to improve education by building on computer and telecommunication 2advances that create powerful new ways to discover knowledge and exchange information. We learn more when we are solving challenging problems in meaningful contexts. Our mastery of new knowledge becomes stronger when we actively collaborate with others to communicate our understanding of what we have learned. The extent of learning and the effectiveness of teaching need no longer be limited by the amount of time in the classroom or by the resources of a particular school. Teachers and students can tap vast electronic libraries and museums with a wealth of texts, video images, music, arts and languages. They can work with scientists and scholars around the globe who can help them use experimental research, primary historical documents, and authentic learning in real life settings to improve their understanding of physical phenomena and world events. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia need not be limited by geography. The information superhighway creates new possibilities for extending the time, the place, and the resources for learning. It can bring high quality education and training to every classroom, workplace, and home in the community at any time of day. The information superhighway can be used to create new learning communities linking schools, colleges, libraries, museums, and businesses across the country or around the world. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia are encouraged to act on their most ambitious visions for technology in education reform. But, we must not become a society in which students from low income communities, and other areas in need of technology, are left behind in the acquisition of knowledge and skills for responsible citizenship and productive work in the 21st century. Failure to include these communities will put their future, and the future of the country, at risk. In awarding Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the U.S. Secretary of Education will evaluate the extent to which the proposed project is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for educational technology. 3Potential applicants should be aware that Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are highly competitive awards. In 1995 there were 530 applicants for 19 grants. In 1996 a total of 586 applicants competed for 24 grants. At the time of this announcement It Is estimated that twenty (20) new grants will be awarded by September 30, 1997. WHO CAN APPLY FOR A TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANT? Challenge Grants are five-year awards, and each applicant must propose five years of activity. Grants will range from $250,000 a year to $ 1,500,000 a year, with the average being $900,(XM) a year for five years. Applications that exceed $ 1,500,000 for any year of the five year project, and applications proposing less than five full years of work, will not be considered (these applications will be returned to the applicant without review). Each application must be submitted by a Local Education Agency (LEA) on behalf of a consortium of partners with appropriate resources to develop innovative applications of technology that will address specific learning needs identified in the application (a definition of LEA appears on p. 9). Each consortium must include at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. Moreover, the U.S. Secretary of Education will evaluate the extent to which the assistance sought is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for access to educational technology. The consortium may also include other local education agencies and private schools. State Education Agencies and institutions of higher education, museums and libraries, hardware manufacturers, software designers, telecommunication firms, and other businesses or appropriate community organizations. The consortium holds the potential for a creative synergy among its members. The partners should be carefolly chosen for their potential to develop innovative applications of technology for improved learning. A consortiums efforts should be clearly designed to encourage ongoing involvement of educators, students, parents, business leaders, and others who are committed to school improvement and education reform. Specific objectives for active participation by each consortium member at each stage of development will contribute to success. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are five-year development and demonstration projects. Each consortium should have plans in place to begin start-up activities in year one, including initial trials of new learning content and sustained professional development for teachers 4(Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are not planning grants). Years two and three should be devoted to refinement and expansion of the new applications of technology. Years four and five should support system-wide adoptions that can become self sustaining after the fifth year. The Technology Innovation Challenge Grant can not be the only source of support for a consortiums work. Under the selection criteria for this competition, applications will be evaluated on the extent to which members of the consortium make substantial commitments for the costs of equipment, technical support, network linkage, telecommunication services, and other resources. Specific contributions of consortium members should be clearly identified and documented in the application. The projected contributions should be realistic and credible. The application should include convincing plans for long-term support of the innovation after the grant ends. Challenge Grant consortia are encouraged to demonstrate how other community partnerships can adapt and sustain these innovations in their schools on a cost-effective basis. Funding provided by Technology Innovation Challenge Grants should augment the investments of consortium members by supporting the development of interactive learning content, continuous professional development for teachers, and instructional strategies that integrate new technologies into the curriculum. Applications In which the primary purpose is to equip schools, build networks, or obtain operating funds for existing systems have not been successful in this competition in the past. to improve learning. Other U.S. Department of Education programs may contribute to the success of a consortiums effort, including: Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act\nthe Eisenhower Professional Development Program\nSchool-to Work Opportunities\nStar Schools\nthe Regional Technology for Education Consortia\nthe Regional Educational Laboratories, and the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, which is the companion initiative of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants. Other federal agency programs also may complement or strengthen the work of a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant. The U.S. Department of Commerce helps communities to develop telecommunication infrastructure. The National Science Foundation supports the use of technology for improved mathematics and science education. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration funds initiatives to improve the use of space science data in the classroom. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development supports networked neighborhoods and the Campus of Learners in public housing. The Department of Health and Human Services is interested in carefully conceived demonstrations of how new technologies can improve learning in Head Start and pre-school settings. Funds from other federal sources, including those provided through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, may not be commingled with Technology Innovation Challenge Grant funds, or counted as costs supported by the LEA or other sources in the budget section of the application, however. The substantive contribution of each federal effort, and the cumulative impact of these activities, should be described in the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant application. But the budget for each federally funded effort or activity must be administered separately. Consortium commitments may be augmented by state or local bond issues and funding initiatives. They may include volunteer activities such as Tech Corps, and Net Days. Additional sources of support may include foundation grants, private corporate sponsorship, and other philanthropic contributions. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia may draw on a wide range of federal government sources for support. For example, with assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, communities across the country have developed district-wide and state-wide school reform plans to meet the National Education Goals, and these plans provide an ideal context for demonstrating the use of new technologies 5Oa-'erge Grarr oorsoria begh a clear of hcrw ne/.' car r~rr\n,e rescrrrg x-rz ieanr-g: arr: roe rfr,r~xr.\u0026lt;'x \"fye. 5grrfc3T ccrriojccrs r: a rrxrrr.'xif are an triregra/ part of a comprehensive plan for school improvement. New technologies can enhance school readiness and help all students meet high standards. They can promote continuous professional development for teachers and foster greater parent and community involvement in education. They can reconnect students with their communities, they can smooth the transition from school to work, and they can help develop the lifelong learning skills students will need in our 21 st century economy. WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH A TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANT? industry may become an even stronger partner for education reform in response to careful planning and well articulated technology needs. Systemwide, and statewide efforts to establish clear education goals and challenging academic standards could help define what educators and families need from computers and the information superhighway. In such an environment, industry partners could assume a leadership role if they work to supply this market with user-friendly, low maintenance systems that are cost effective and easy to scale-up for widespread use. A Challenge Grant application should make a convincing case that the proposed plan of action is likely to be an effective response to significant education need, and that the consortium partners are the appropriate ones to meet that need. Strong applications have a well defined concept - - an idea for specific learning improvements - - that clearly demonstrates how a new technology will be used to improve education. To take a specific example, as part of the effort to ensure all children can read by age 8 or Grade 3, educators, business leaders and community organizations could form a consortium to develop new applications of technology to improve reading and literacy skills for young children. Becoming a competent, self-reliant reader by Grade 3 is essential to future academic achievement and later success in the work force. New technologies with interactive learning applications could give each child access to the power of OIK' to one tutoring to Improve reading. Computers and electronic networks lould liK tease the ixirtlclfxitlon of older students, and the effectiveness of parent involvement in literacy instruction. To work with these technologies effectively, teachers and students need access to interactive computer applications and networked learning resources that can generate high quality content in all of the core subjects. The 6aeation of this new content should be bolstered by continuous professional development for teachers and sustained support for students, that goes beyond the acquisition of generic computer skills to include mastery of technology applications specifically designed to improve academic achievement. Teachers and students must learn to seamlessly integrate these new learning tools into the curriculum. If this profiessional development and these technologies are embeded in the fabric of work in the school, the teachers and students themselves may particpate in the creation of engaging new learning content that meets high academic standards. In middle schools, for example, these powerful learning tools can increase student achievement in science and mathematics by elevating the content of instnjction and the rigor of student wor1\u0026lt; in these disciplines. It is dear from recent reports that more time on task is not enough. Middle school teachers can use these technologies to take students beyond simple problem solving to in-depth study of the scientific principles and underlying concepts behind the solutions. If they build on this learning through well- fbcused projects, high school students and teachers can use these tools to gain access to the power of scientific inquiry and mathematical reasoning at some of our best colleges, universities, research institutes, and scientific firms. In this increasingly networl\u0026lt;ed sodety, learners of all ages have an opportunity to worl\u0026lt; with an enormous wealth of Imowledge. Teachersand students should be able to use telecommunications to overcome their isolation from a multitude of scholars and rich information resources that could help them improve education. With these tools they can collaborate with their colleagues in dassrooms across the country to form new learning communities that no school system could develop on its own. LinWng middle school or high school students with college students and faculty may improve the preparation of young people for postsecondary education. Many students never consider a college education as a real possibility until they have a personal opportunity to become actively engaged with the life of these institutions. Computers and telecommunication networks can be used to strengthen the early preparation of students for college. Professional development for teachers and the design of more rigorous content should be based on a careful analysis of the learning needs of students, and it should be consistent with the schools curriculum, mission, and professional standards. Teachers, administrators, parents, and community leaders should participate in decisions about the nature of the professional development and the content of the new learning activities. A teachers primary educational partners are the students parents. When families and teachers are in effective communication, students stand a greater chance of success. If parents learn how to use technology effectively, they can bring a vast array of education resources to the home. Parents can extend the time and place for learning from the dassroom to the living room, creating new opportunities for sustained study in core disdplines. With similar applications of technology, educators can forge new alliances with business leaders and local agencies that improve education by extending learning into the community. Most of our students begin their careers directly after high school. These new technologies can be used to improve the transition from school to worl\u0026lt;. In a networ1\u0026lt;ed economy employers must have well-educated employees who make sidllful use of information technologies to increase their knowledge and improve their productivity. If these new learning tools are embedded in the day-to-day work of the classroom, they will help students develop the skills they need for successful careers. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants provide seed money to stimulate the development of promising learning technologies in specific communities. They generate fresh possibilities for software developers, cognitive researchers, education leaders and others to collaborate on the creation of a research-based generation of education software that uses recent advances in cognitive science to support improved learning. If their success is well documented, the most effective practices, and the important lessons drawn from their efforts, may receive widespread use in communities across the country. But Challenge Grant successes and lessons must be well documented. A carefully designed evaluation plan should be part of each application. It is not enough to promise that an evaluation will be done at some point in the future. A specific section of the application should explidtly describe the evaluation design that will be in place when the grant begins. The plan should establish clear benchmarl\u0026lt;s to monitor progress toward specific goals, and it should be explicit about how improvements in learning and instnjction will be assessed. Developing evidence of effectiveness should not be put off until the last stages of the effort. In a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, a strong evaluation plan must be a consideration from the design stage onward and information generated by the evaluation should provide continuous feedbacl\u0026lt; for improvement to the project and to the wider education community. 7During the Summer of 1997, external panels of experts will review applications in a three tier process, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Education. The review panels are generally composed of individuals representing three broad perspectives: (1) teachers who use new technologies in the classroom\n(2) administrators with school-wide or system-wide responsibilities for developing effective applications of technology\nand (3) researchers and consultants drawn from universities, hardware manufacturers, software developers and telecommunication firms. The Secretary will use two criteria to select applications for funding: significance\" and feasibility\". Is it important and can it be done? SELECTION CRITERIA Significance will be determined by the extent to which the project: (1) offers a clear vision for the use of technology to help all students learn to challenging standards\n(2) will achieve far-reaching impact through results, products, or benefits that are easily exportable to other settings and communities\n(3) will directly benefit students by integrating acquired technologies into the curriculum to improve teaching and student achievement\n(4) will ensure continuous professional development for teachers, administrators and other individuals to further the use of technology in the classroom, library, or learning settings in the community\n(5) is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for educational technology\nand (6) is designed to create new learning communities among teachers, students, parents, and others, which contribute to State or local education goals for school improvement, and expand markets for high-quality educational technology or content. 8Feasibility will be determined by the extent to which: (I) the project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable beyond the period of the grant\n(2) the members of the consortium or other appropriate entities will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve the goals of the project\nand (3) the applicant is capable of carrying out the project, as evidenced by the extent to which the project will meet the problems identified: the quality of the project design, including objectives, approaches, evaluation plan, and dissemination plan\nthe adequacy of resources, including money, personnel, facilities, equipment, and supplies\nthe qualifications of key personnel who would conduct the project\nand the applicants prior experience relevant to the objectives of the project. In the final award of grants under this program, the Secretary may also consider the extent to which each application demonstrates an effective response to the learning technology needs of areas with a with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for educational technology. Sweeping, unsubstantiated claims about the number of low income students or high need communities to be served should be avoided. A well documented plan for meeting specific education needs in these schools and communities should be presented. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS During 1995 and 1996, a total of 43 Challenge Grants were awarded to LEAs in communities across the country. Although these 43 LEAs are not encouraged to reenter this competition as primary applicants, they may consider participating as members of consortia in which other LEAs are the primary applicants. In such cases they are expected to demonstrate that they are not duplicating or overextending work under their current grant. DEFINITION OF A LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) An LEA is defined as follows in Title XIV, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended\n...a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for such combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary or secondary schools. The law states further: The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary or secondary school. In other words, a local educational agency (LEA) is an entity defined under state law as being legally responsible for providing public education to elementary and secondary students. In some states this may include, under state law, an entity performing a service function for public schools, such as an intermediate service agency (ISA). The application must be submitted by a single LEA, but the LEA is not eligible to apply unless it is part of a consortium. Applications must be developed by a consortium including at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. The application must be submitted by a local educational agency, but a single educational agency is not eligible to apply unless it is part of a consortium that may include other local educational agencies, private schools, state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, businesses, academic content experts, software designers, museums, libraries, or other appropriate organizations. 9THE APPLICATION Each application should have the following five sections: 1. Title Page: Use the Title Page form included in these guidelines or a suitable facsimile to cover each application copy. 2. Table of Contents: Include a one-page table of contents. HOW TO APPLY 3. Abstract: Attach a one-page double-spaced abstract following the Title Page (this is in addition to the abstract requested on the Title Page itself). The abstract should mention the problem or need being addressed, the proposed activities, and the intended outcomes. Application Deadline: May 30, 1997 4. Narrative: Although a standard outline is not required, in a narrative of no more than 25 double-spaced pages, printed in 10 point font or larger, you should address the selection criteria and the issues discussed in this application package. Each submission should be concise and clearly written. Each submission should include the five sections of the Application and the six sections of the Appendix listed here. 5. Budget: Use the attached Budget Summary form or a suitable facsimile to present a complete budget summary for each year of the five-year project. Please provide a justification for this budget by including, for each year, a narrative for each budget line item, which explains: (1) the basis for estimating the costs of professional personnel salaries, benefits, project staff travel, materials and supplies, consultants and subcontracts, indirect costs, and any projected expenditures: (2) how the major cost items relate to the proposed activities\n(3) the costs of evaluation\nand (4) a detailed description explaining the funding provided by members of the consortium. Please include project staff travel hinds for two trips during each year of the project to Challenge Grant Project Directors meetings in Washington, D.C.\nand two trips during each year of the project to regional Challenge Grant meetings. Each trip will be for three days for up to three persons. At these meetings each Challenge Grant recipient will have an opportunity to strengthen its efforts by collaborating with the other grantees funded in this program. 10THE APPENDIX Each application should be accompanied by an appendix which includes the following six numbered sections.- 1. List of Consortium Members: List all consortium members, their contact persons, addresses, telephone numbers, and Fax numbers. Similar information should be provided for other sources of support. The roles and contributions of all consortium members should be described clearly within the 25-page narrative. Letters of commitment should be included in this section of the appendix to clearly document the role and contribution of each member. 2. Project Personnel: Please provide a brief summary of the background and experience of key project staff as they relate to the specific project activities you are proposing. 3. List of Application Authors: Please list all persons who wrote the application, their organizational affiliation, the sections they worked on. and the approximate percentage of the total effort each one contributed. 4. Evidence of Previous Success: Include a brief summary of any evaluation studies, reports, or research that may document the effectiveness or success of the consortium or the activities proposed in the narrative section of the application. 5. Equitable Access and Participation: Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) requires each applicant to include in its application a description of proposed steps to ensure equitable access to. and participation in. its f^erally-assisted program. Each application should include this description in a clearly identified section of the appendix. The statute, which allows applicants discretion in developing the required description, highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age. You may use local circumstances to determine the extent to which these or other barriers prevent equitable participation by students, teachers, parents or other community members. Your description need not be lengthy, but it should include a clear and succinct description of how you plan to address those barriers that are applicable to your circumstances, and it should support the discussion of similar issues in the narrative section of the application. 6. Private School Participation: Private schools may participate in Technology Innovation Challenge Grant applications as consortium members. However, if they do not participate as consortium members. Section 14503 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. as amended. (20 U.S.C. 8893) requires that a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant recipient shall, after timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials, provide private school children and teachers. on an equitable basis, special educational services or other program benefits under this program. Section 14503 further requires LEAs and educational service agencies to consult with private school officials during the design and development of a Challenge Grant application. Each application should include a specific section in the appendix which describes the consultations that have taken place, and the proposed plans for addressing the needs of private school children and teachers, should a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant be awarded. OTHER ATTACHMENTS Other attachments are not encouraged. Reviewers will have a limited time to read each application. Their consideration of the application against the selection criteria will be limited to the five sections of the Application and the six sections of the Appendix listed above. Supplementary materials such as videotapes, CD-ROMs, files on disks, commercial publications, press clippings, testimonial letters, etc. will not be reviewed and will not be returned to the applicant. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Applications may contain innovative technical or business ideas that, if released to the public, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competitive harm to the consortium member that submitted that information. Bold legends clearly identifying information that a consortium member believes is of a proprietary nature should appear at the top and bottom of each page on which it appears. The U.S. Department of Education will take this designation into account in determining whether this information can be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. 11HOW TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS The deadline for receipt of applications Is May 30, 1997. All applications must be received on or before that date. This closing date and procedures for guaranteeing timely submission will be strictly observed. NUMBER OF COPIES OF THE APPLICATION All applicants are required to submit one (1) signed original and two (2) copies of the application (including one unbound copy suitable for photocopying). Each copy of the application must be covered with a Title Page (form included in these guidelines) or a reasonable facsimile. All applicants are encouraged to submit voluntarily an additional four (4) copies of the application to expedite the review process. Applicants are also requested to submit voluntarily three (3) additional copies of the Title Page itself. The absence of these additional copies will not influence the selection process. All sections of the application and all sections of the appendix must be suitable for photocopying to be included In the review (at least one copy of the application should be unbound and suitable for photocopying). Malling Address, and Address for Applications Sent by Commercial Carrier Technology Innovation Challenge Grants ATTN: 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633 Regional Office Building - 3 7th D Streets, S.W. (D Street, S.W. Entrance) Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 Telephone: 202-708-8493 Applications sent by mall must be received no later than May 30, 1997. Applications not received by the deadline date will not be considered for funding unless the applicant can show proof that the application was (1) sent by registered or certified mail not later than five (5) days before the deadline date\nor (2) sent by a commercial carrier not later than two (2) days before the deadline date. The following are acceptable as proof of mailing: (1) a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark, (2) a legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service, (3) a dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier, or (4) any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary. Applications delivered by hand before the deadline date will be accepted daily between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Eastern Time except Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays at the Application Control Center, U.S. Department of Education, Regional Office Building 3, Room 3633, 7th and D Streets, S.W., Washington, D.C. (Telephone: 202-708-8493). Applications delivered by hand on May 30, 1997 (on the deadline date) will not be accepted after 4:00 p.m.. Eastern Time. NOTIFICATION OF AWARD Applicants will be notified by September 30, 1997 whether their application is being funded. ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS Applications selected for funding will require a signed Form ED 80-0013 (Certifications Regarding Lobbying\nDebarment, Suspension ments\"), Standard Form SF 424B (Assurance\nand Other Responsibility Matters\nand Drug-Free Workplace Requirements\"), AssurancesNon-Construction Programs\"), and Standard Form LLL (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities\") before an award is made. THE FORMS The following forms are required in all applications. They may be photocopies as necessary. o Title Page form o Budget Summary form 12TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLLENGE GRANTS 0MB No. 1810-0569 Fonn Exp.: 3/00 According lo the Paperwork Reduction Ad of 1995. no persons are required 10 respond Io a collodion ol informalion unless il displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number lor Ibis informalion collodion is 18104)569 The limo requved to complete this information collodion is oslimaled to average 80 hours per response, including the limo lo review instrudions. search existing data resources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the information collodion If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the limo oslimato(s) or suggestions for improving this fonii. please write lo: U.S. DopartmonI ol Education. Washington. DC 20202-4651 If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write dirodly to: Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program U S Depatlmonl of Education. Room 606D 555 Naw Jersey Avenue NW. Washington. DC 20202-5544. This application should be sent to: No. 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room #633, ROB 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 1. Application No. 2. Employer Identification No. 3. Legal Applicant (local educational agency) 4. Project Director Legal Applicant Name Name and Title Address (Complete) Address (Complete) Congressional District(s) Telephone: Fax: Area Code Number 5. Federal Funds Requested: 6. Consortium Members (other than Legal Applicant): Fill in NUMBER of each. 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Sth Year TOTAL Other LEA SEA Library Museum ____ Institution of higher ed. ____ Other non profit ____ For profit firm ____ Other 7. Duration of Project Starting Date: ___________ Ending Date: Total Number of Months: 60 8. Student Population Directly Benefiting from the Project per Year 9. Number of Teachers Directly Benefiting from the Project per Year 10. Application Title 11. Brief Abstract of Application: (Do not leave this blank) 12. Certification By Authorizing Official The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the data in this application are true and correct and that the filing of the application has been duly authorized by governing body of the applicant. Name Title Telephone Signature Date TITLE PAGE FORMInstructions for Completing Title Page Form DO NOT FORGET TO HAVE THE FORM SIGNED ITEM 1. ITEM 2. LEAVE BLANK - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: Enter the unique 12-digit number assigned to your organization called the Federal Identification Number. It can be obtained from your budget office. NOTE: No grant can be awarded without a Federal Identification Number. If you do not have one, you should initiate the process to obtain one by calling Ms Kim Nguven at (202) 708-9268. ITEM 3. LEGAL APPLICANT: Enter the name and complete mailing address of the local educational agency which will serve as the legal applicant (fiscal agent). When more than one institution or agency is involved, enter the name of the one which will be responsible for budget control. NOTE: Acknowledgments of grant awards are sent to this address. Remember to complete r.ui.. * this section fully. ITEM 4. PROJECT DIRECTOR: Enter the name and complete mailing address of the Project Director or Co-Directors (fiscal agent). If no one has been selected, so indicate and enter the name of the person who can be contacted to discuss the programmatic aspects of the project. NOTE: Name and address listed here will be used to mail notifications of application status. Do not forget to include the telephone number. Both this address and the Legal Applicant address should be detailed. Remember to complete this section fully. ITEM 5. FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED: Enter the amount of Federal funds being requested in each year of the project. Under \"TOTAL\" enter the cumulative amount requested for the duration of the project. ITEM 6. CONSORTIUM MEMBERS: Include the number of each type of consortium member organization included in the consortium. ITEM 7. ITEM 8. DURATION OF THE PROJECT: Enter appropriate starting and ending dates. STUDENT POPULATION DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THE PROJECT PER YEAR: Simple student count as of Fall 1996 will suffice. ITEM 9. NUMBER OF TEACHERS DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THE PROJECT PER YEAR: Enter the number of teachers. ITEM 10. APPLICATION TITLE: Self-explanatory. ITEM 11. BRIEF ABSTRACT OF APPLICATION: Keep concise and confined to the space provided, but in no case should you leave this blank. Also see instructions under \"How to Apply: Application Content\" for submitting a separate one-page abstract. ITEM 12. CERTIFICATION BY AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL: Enter the name, title, and telephone number of the official who has the authority both to commit the Legal Applicant to accepting Federal funding and to execute the proposed project. Submit the original ink-signed copy of the authorizing official's signature. IBudget Item 5 Year Budget Summary (YEARS 4 AND 5 ARE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM) Requested YEAR 1 Support by LEA or other sources Total Requested YEAR 2 Support by LEA or other sources Total A. Direct Costs 1. Salaries (professional 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel \u0026amp; Clerical) 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 6. Consultants \u0026amp; Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8. Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I TOTAL I I I Requested A. Direct Costs YEAR 3 Support by LEA or other sources Total 1. Salaries (professional \u0026amp; Clerical) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 6. Consultants \u0026amp; Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8. Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I I TOTAL I Note: Items 1 through 7 are budget line subtotals that are to be described in the Detailed Budget.Budget Summary (continued) Budget Item Requested YEAR 4 Support by LEA or other sources Total Requested A. Direct Costs YEARS Support by LEA or other sources Total \\ 1. Salaries (professional \u0026amp; Clerical) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 6. Consultants \u0026amp; Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8, Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I I TOTAL I I [ I I Note: Items 1 through 7 are budget line subtotals that are to be described in the Detailed Budget.CHECK:  The Application Title page has been completed according to the instructions on the back of the title page.  The Application Title page has been signed and dated by an authorized official and the signed original has been included with your submission.  APPLICATION PACKAGE CHECKLIST SUBMIT ONE ORIGINAL PLUS TWO COPIES OF THE APPLICATION AND THE APPENDIX (INCLUDING ONE UNBOUND COPY SUITABLE FOR PHOTOCOPYING), PLUS FOUR VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL COPIES. EACH COPY SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: APPLICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 30, 1997 The Application:  the title page (page I)  table of contents (page 2)  an abstract (page 3 - one page mciximum)  a narrative (up to 25 pages double-spaced)  the budget summary form, and a detailed budget justification The Appendix:  list consortium members  list project personnel  list application authors  evidence of success  equitable participation  private school participation  In addition to the above, include three (3) additional copies of the title page. ADDRESS AND DEADLINE DATE: Technology Innovation Challenge Grants ATTN: 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633, Regional Office Building - 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 Telephone: 202-708-8493 REMEMBER: Applications mailed or sent by commercial carrier must be received by May 30, 1997. Hand delivered applications must be received no later than 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time on May 30, 1997.In response to the technology challenges facing American education, President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced the Technology Literacy Challenge on February 15, 1996. The Challenge calls on business and community leaders to join forces with educators to guarantee every student in America can use computers and the information superhighway to prepare for responsible citizenship and productive employment in the 21st Century. The Technology Literacy Challenge is targeted at four concrete goals: equipping all classrooms with modern computers\nconnecting all classrooms to the Internet\ndeveloping engaging software and networked learning content to help all students meet high standards\nand preparing all teachers to integrate these new technologies into the curriculum. THE TECHNOLOGY LITERACY CHALLENGE The U.S. Department of Education is implementing the Technology Literacy Challenge through a two-part strategy consisting of: the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology Innovation Challenge Grants. These twin initiatives strengthen the capacity of local partnerships to improve education by helping them to: ensure new technologies support high quality learning, accelerate the use of proven technology innovations in education, and provide equitable technology access for all students. The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund provides formula grants to state education agencies. These grants help them implement state-wide technology plans through competitive funding to local education agencies that are using new technologies to improve schools. For more information about the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund you may contact your State Education Agency directly, or contact the U.S. Department of Education at: (202)-401 -0039. You may also call 1 -800-USA-LEARN, or go to the U.S. Department of Education Home Page at:\u0026lt;www.ed.gov/Technology\u0026gt; to receive additional information about U.S. Department of Education technology initiatives. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants complement the work of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund by developing and refining new applications of technology that make significant contributions to school improvement. This year, states and local school systems will invest more than $4 billion in new technologies for schools. But, these investments will be worthless unless teachers and students know how to use these tools effectively to improve education. As 18development and demonstration testbeds, Technology Innovation Challenge Grants generate new learning applications and proven practices that may be successfully adapted in schools and communities across the nation. Challenge Grants buttress local investments in computers and telecommunications by helping educators ensure that new technologies pay off in improved education for the 21st Century. For example, through a technology learning collaborative in a Midwestern city hundreds of teachers and students are engaging in computer based learning activities to elevate the content and rigor of instruction in mathematics and sciences. In model classrooms that are being duplicated throughout the school system, teachers working with student teams are learning to use classroom-based workstations with multimedia capability, video capacity, and full Internet service. Strong home-school connections, and active partnerships with community centers and business firms support students who become engaged in mathematical problem solving and scientific inquiry grounded in real-life settings. The consortium has 16 active members, including a major computer company, an architectural firm, an educational research laboratory, four institutions of higher education, the local cable provider, the State Board of Education, several community organizations, and a commercial scientific research company. These consortium members are joining forces with the schools to marshal the expertise and resources needed to transform classrooms into information age learning centers. The consortium is amplilying the impact of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants by generating matching commitments that exceed the value of federal funds awarded through the grant. An urban school system on the Great Plains is connecting its classrooms to major museums across the country to develop networked learning content that integrates the arts with core subjects including history, mathematics, science, reading and writing. Building on a strong professional development plan, which includes training by industry experts, teachers are creating engaging Internet based learning activities in the arts and other core disciplines to help students meet challenging academic standards. The program has stimulated cross-state partnerships with rural school districts that will be replicated throughout the country. A consortium with over 20 members draws on the resources of nationally recognized museums, the State Education Department, state and national arts associations, multimedia companies, colleges, and as many as 100 schools serving urban and rural youth across the state. A Technology Innovation Challenge Grant to five rural school districts in a southern state is making significant contributions to state-wide educational practice and policy. Built on the State's Goals 2(XX) effort, this systemic school reform strategy is linking low-income rural communities across the state to new learning resources that meet high standards for student achievement in core subjects. To increase low income student access to educational technology the initiative is providing educational opportunities to students and parents at more accessible times in schools and community centers that maximize building use and the technology infrastructure in under-served communities. Challenge Grant school leaders collaborated with State education leaders to draft the State Plan for Educational Technology, which was quickly adopted by the State Board of Regents. The Governor has drafted legislation to provide additional statewide funds for technology infrastructure under this plan. A Governor's Commission then joined forces with the State Department of Education and the Challenge Grant leaders to convene state implementation meetings attended by all 66 school districts and over 600 educator and business partners in the State. These stories are being replicated in dozens of communities every day. A total of 43 Challenge Grants were funded during 1995 and 1996. These grantees will eventually work with consortium partners in approximately 360 other school districts across 26 states. It is estimated that 200 business partners are participating in these consortia. One third of these businesses are information technology, software, or telecommunication firms who are joining forces with educators to develop user- friendly, low maintenance, educational applications of technology that are cost effective and easy to scale up for widespread use. A total of 90 colleges and universities are members of these consortia along with dozens of museums, libraries, research institutes, and others that are bringing new learning opportunities to our teachers and students. Over the five year life of the awards these consortium members are projected to make total matching commitments that will exceed the value of federal Challenge Grant funds by well over three-to-one. As catalysts for school improvement. Challenge Grants are supporting a creative synthesis of ideas generated by software developers, cognitive researchers, telecommunication firms, hardware manufacturers and others who are working with teachers and students to create new learning communities for improved learning. 19Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. 20208-5544 Phone: 202-208-3882 Fax: 202-208-4042 E-mail: ITO_STAFFl@ed.gov Home Page: http://www.ed.gov/Technology The cover collage of World Wide Web Home Page logos was composed by Jonathan Ruhe of the Challenge Grant Staff. These logos represent 16 of the 43 Challenge Grant projects funded to date.I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: EDC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nEDC-R X Netw ork Appropriate Lie RegwlatioBs latroduction Appropriate Cm of Computer Networki I. Purpose The Little Rock School Dtstncl provides employees and students with access to the Districts computer network, which includes access to the Internet. This policy has been developed to meet the responsibility of the Little Rock School District Hoard of Directors for securing its network and to prevent unauthorized user access and abuse. This responsibility necessitates informing users of their privileges and responsibilities as well as the consequences of misuse To establish regulations for the appropriate use of the District computer network by employees and students. II. Defiuitions E-maii: networks. The process by which messages are sent electronically across computer Network Use by Employees Flaming: Sending an e-mail message that is abtuive or that offends. .Access to the Little Rock School District computer network is provided to employees for the purpose of conducting school business Employees have the responsibility of using the network appropriately Inappropriate use of the Districts computer network may result in cancellation of network privilege as well as subject the employee to normal district progressive disciplinary sanctions Network Use by Students .Access to the Linle Rock School District computer network is provided for the purpose of enhancing the Distnct's instructional program Students have the responsibility to use the network appropriately or have network privileges revoked. Student use of the system will be governed by the Student Handbook Access to the Internet is one component of the network mailable to students. The Inlemci is an unregulated communication cm ironment. and resources can be accessed which may not be appropriate for students. Internet acces.s will be pnn ided to students only under supervision of appropriate Distnct personnel Parental permission is required in order for students to access the Internet through the District system Internet: A network of computer networks. Networks in the Internet are connected so that they can communicate with each other regardless of their manufacture. Spamming\nSending an annoying or unnecessary message to a large number of people. Vims: A computer program that uses various techniques to duplicate itself and travel between computers. Viruses can cause serious damage to computers such as erasing important data or crashing a system. III. Regulations (General 1. Computer systems and networks are provided for conducting school business and for the educational benefit of students. They are not intended for private or personal use. Adopted: U7.24 97 2. Users of the network arc responsible for follow ing local, state, federal and international laws. This includes copyright laws. 3. Users are responsible for the use of their own account, including security and proper use. Users arc not to allow others to use their password.atCOM: EDC-R laps EPS CODE: EDC-R Page 3 4. Ukts arc responsible for respecting the policies of other networks which they access and adhering to those policies. 14. Before a student is allowed to access the Internet a Student Account Agreement must be signed by both student and parent. 5. Users may not deliberately damage or disrupt a network or computer Syslem components such as hardware, software, properly or facilities shall not be destroyed, modified, or abused. Examples of activities that prohibiied are altering security codes or passwords and introducing computer wum. are 15. E-mail accounts will be issued to District employees and secondary students. Elementary students will not be issued individual e-mail accounts but may be provided access to e-mail through a classroom account. 6. No network or computer system will be used to intimidate or harass. 16. people. Users will not post personal contact information about themselves or other 7. Users will not use the network for financial advertise, promote or endorse products or personal services. or commercial gain or to 17. All users should obserse network etiquette. Users are expected to be polite and use appropriate language. Using vulgar or profane language is not appropriate. Engaging in flaming or spamming is not appropriate. t. The District will not be responsible for financial obligations or legal iafractions arising from unauthorized use of the system. 18. Use of the system to access, store, or distribute obscene, pornographic or inappropriately suggestive material is prohibited. 9. Network resources, information and electronic mail are not guaranteed to --------------M.W l,Wt ^UOiOIllCCU I De pnvaae Routine maintenance and monitoring of the system mav lead to the rtaa r --- __  ... * 19. Students are to report any inappropriate material they access to a teacher or dbeovery that a violation of a law or regulation has occurred. If there is reasonable suspicion that a law or regulation has been v iolated. an investiaation will be conducted IS other staff person. Students are not to share inaf^ropriate materials or their sources with other students. Supervision of the Computer .Network Hardware 20. Coordination of the District computer network is under the supervision of 10 Only authorized individuals wall install, service or maintain District- owned hardware the Superintendent or designee. At the building level the principal or designee- will be responsible for coordination of activities relating to the network. Sadbvare 21. The building-level coordinator will establish a system that ensures that ail 11. Only wbuare which is authorized by the District may be installed on camputer hardware employees and students receive instruction in District policies that address computer systems and networks.  he coordinator will also establish a process for supervision of students using the sv ..!cni and will maintain user agreements. 12. Only authorized individuals will install software on District equipment. Penalties for Non-Permitted .Activities Any user who violates thus policy and accompanying regulations is subject to 1OS.S of network privilege as well as other District disciplinary actions. 13. primary purpose of providing Internet acces.s to employ ees is for caaducliag official busincs.s The purpose of providing Internet access to MdoM ri Car educational benefit. Browsing the Internet for cntertainmeiil (Hapoaes is not permitted access to t ILR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Fax:1-501-574-6018 May 15 '99 14:02 P. 01/02 THE CHAMBER V\\heTe Business Osmeti Together GRL^lTERETTLEROCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE May 13, 1999 FAX MEMO TO: FROM: Skip Marsh-all Joe Swaty, APR SUBJECT: Meeting Notice Dr\nFor Your Input Skip, attached is a draft of the notice for the super joint meeting youre putting togeer for May 27***. Please review it and call me with any changes, and weTl get it out to both committees. NOTE\nThanks also for attending the membership drive kick-off breakfast... and everythingi else you do!!!! attachment LTn,: ROCK, XORII LITTuE ROCK ANC CENTRA', ARKANSAS S. SPRING H., STE. 200, 'lITT-E ROCK, AR 72201JWS \nS \u0026gt;74-4371  FAX {\n0!^ 374-3016   WEBSITE\n?:f\n.'\nuTvu-.ijraerockfharii\u0026gt;cr.fOJ3 JI LR chamber of commerce Fax:1-501-374-6018 THE CHAMBER where business Comes togeixer GREATER JTTL-RXK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE May 13 99 14:03 P. 02/02 'i' Special Joint Meeting NEW TECH/COM \u0026amp; EDUCATION COMMITTEES May 13,1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: New Technology \u0026amp; Communications Committee Members Education/Partners In Education Committee Members Brian Foster, Chairman of New Technology \u0026amp;. Communications Jesse Mason, Chairman of Education and Community Affairs Joint May Committee Meeting Special Focus: \"The Future of Technology in the Little Rock Public Schools  WIIFM?\" Thursday, May 27 / 12Noon Chamber Board Room A special joint meeting is planned for the Chambers New Technology \u0026amp; Communications Committee and the Chambers Education \u0026amp; Partners In Education Committee. To be held Thursday, May 27* at 12 noon in the Chamber Board Room, the meeting will feature a unique presentation by Little Rock School District Superintendent Les Camine, the District's Director of instructional Technology Lucy Neal and Spinnaker Business Services Executive Vice President Skip Marshall. The presentation is entitled The Future of Technology in the Little Rock Public Schools WIIFM? The WIIFM stands for What's In It For Me?\" and refers to the far-reaching impact that technology training in our public schools will have on our entire community and local economy. The challenges of teaching young people technology skills and providing access to technology in the classroom are topics that should interest members of both Chamber committees. Please make plans now to attend this informative joint meeting on Thursday, May ZT*, beginning with lunch at 12 noon. Lunch will be provided at a cost of $7 for those who RSVP in advance by calling Sandy Bradley at 374-4871 (or e-mail us at rsvp@.littlerockchsmber.com). SESViNC UTT,'- RCCK, S'ORTO LITTLE RCQ, AND CENTRAL AJiLViSAS 101 S. SWING ST.. STS. iX. LITTLE JCCX, .SR 7220t-2-(56  (501) 374-4871  EaX (301 37+8018  E-RIAIL choric^iLicKkriiorlT'.airi * 'XTEEITE\nRECEIVED APR 2 I I o GFiCE Cr DESEGREGATION yO?i!TORifJG .7 rCAMFAlQH a0ft0:.7_ dBringing ttieliilure toourchllcbnn The Little Rock School District Board of Education invites you to join them as they unveil a proposed technology initiative aimed at improving education for the students of the Little Rock School District. Please join the Board of Education f UALR Chancellor Charles Hathaway, and business and technology leaders, as they introduce the Little Rock School Districts innovative technology strategy for the new millennium. Tuesday, April 25,2000,1:30 p.m. Rockefeller Elementary School 700 East 17* Street, Little Rock For more information, please contact the Yes for Kids campaign at 975-2201.From the desk of. , . Lesle V. Caknine Date: August 24, 2000 To\nRe: Members of the School Board Technology Work Group and Technology Consultants The first meeting of the Technology Work Group has been called for September 12, 2000. As you know, we are required to update the District Plan and submit an updated version to the State Department of Education.''The consultants will also provide consultative services to the campuses based on individual building plans. We hope to have a draft copy ready for the Board's review in December. We also have negotiated the contracts for the consultants and the scope of work is outlined in the attached memorandum. The contract with ATS \u0026amp; R is much like engineering contracts\nthey will not only look at individual buildings but will assist in making the wide area network functional as we renovate and add to the existing system. They will be working with us to integrate multiple technology systems into a seamless network. Multiple systems mean the telephone, security, energy, fire alarms, etc. EDS will concentrate on the management and instructional side of the equation. We have only just begun to realize the time and efficiency savings that could be generated by the use of technology. Training will also enhance effectiveness, and that may be the most powerful aspect of having enhanced technology resources. We have provided you with information at this time for your review and consideration. I anticipate asking for your approv^ at the agenda meeting September 14. As you may know, we went through a very comprehensive on process of consultant selection and the administration is convinced that by utilizing the services of these two companies we will not only have an excellent plan, but we will have saved significant resource dollars. Darral Paradis, Don Stewart, or Lucy Neal will be glad to answer your questions regarding any aspect of the contracts.114 'K' Tl Memorandum co. Date\nAugust 24, 2000 To: From: Through Re: Little Rock School District Board of Directors Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Technology Consultant Recommendation Pursuant to the Boards June 22\"^ approval that allowed for negotiations with EDS and ATS\u0026amp;R as the Districts Technology Consultants\nthe District formed a committee to begin contract discussions with' the two companies. The committee consisted of Don Stewart, Darral Paradis, Lucy Neal, Gail Hester, John Ruffins, Doug Eaton, Sandy Becker and Kevin Crawford. The committee has met with EDS and ATS\u0026amp;R several times since June 22\"'* and has determined the following Scopes of Work and Contract amounts:  '  Scope of Work: The District intends to reconvene the community work group in order to update the Districts overall technology plan. Both EDS and ATS\u0026amp;R will consult with the work group in this effort as indicated in the attached diagram. The technology plan will be the central focus of all work to be performed by the consultants. Key work, components of the plan have been identified on the diagram and assigned to the consultants. These assignments and their associated s cop e of work are summarized b elow\nEDS 1. 2. Software: Advise the District on software applications suitable for instructional applications that can be delivered through the internet, distance learning, LAN (local area network), intranet and any other systems. Hardware: Provide recommendations on hardware needed to accomplish technology goals. Technical Support: Recommend methods of providing ongoing technical 4. 5. support for the plan. 6. Training: Advise the District of a plan for technology training of all staff Implementation Plan: Assist the District in writing an implementation plan that aligns to the technology plan, the technical support plan and the training plan. Other: Conduct research in order to identify alternative funding resources. I .. 0.ATS\u0026amp;R 1. Physical Infrastructure: Review building (data cabling, voice cabling, video cabling, Gommunications bonding /grounding systems) and electrical 2, infrastructure and provide technical specifications, budgets and implementation schedules in order to support the Districts technology plan. WAN (wide area network): Establish WAN requirements and capacities for 3. interconnecting District facilities for voice, data, video, fire alarm, security and energy management systems. fiitemet Services: Review existing state internet provider services and evaluate alternatives. Contract Amounts: Lump sum fixed fee amounts were negotiated with each company to include all necessary expenses, company are as follows: The amounts for each EDS: EDS contract amount is $209,848 composed of 2331 man hours of which 949 will be on-site hours. ATS\u0026amp;R: AST\u0026amp;R contract amount is $250,000 composed of 1996 man hours of which 1548 will be on-site hours. The attached analysis provides these amounts as a percentage of total' expected expenditures the District will be maldng over the next five years for technology and facility projects respectively. To provide an example for relative comparison of these percentages, the District will usually spend between 6 and 7% of a general construction budget for an architect. The percentage can be as high as 10% for an engineer. We believe that it is essential to properly plan for the Districts infusion of technology. We do not have in-house expertise or manpower to properly review, plan and implement courses of action available. These consultants provide the District with these resources. Your approval is requested for the scope of work and contract amounts as presented. 2Technology Consultant Cost Analysis Technology Projects Dedicated Millage Technology Projects______ Proposed Technology Bond Projects - Funded Total Technology Projects Technology Consultant Fee - EDS Consultant Fee as a Total of Technology Projects Facilities Projects Dedicated Millage Facilities Projects___________________ Proposed Facilities Bond Projects - Funded____________ Energy Efficient Lighting - alternative funding___________ Total Facilities Projects Technology Consultant Fee - ATSR Consultant Fee as a Total of Facilities Projects $4,445,000 $10,897,125 $15,342,125 $210,000 1.37% $23,068,486 $108,518,865 $6,259,403 $137,846,754 $250,000 0.18%I District Priorities i. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan I -n~i  i II. Technology in. Campus Leadership IV. Financial Plans 'S 'U B 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan A. Policies - First Comprehensive Revision since 1983 B. Middle School C. Marketing and Communication D. Nfeighborhood Schools 1 i I i I ! -i' isliiis E 1 I I I II. Technology I I A, WAN- Communication I B. Technology Labs C. Training i B - III. Campus Leadership A. Qjality Indicators------ B. Participatory Decision-Makii^ ' C. Collective Accountability [Academic Progress] V 44 LX B IV. Financial Plans A. MGT B. Campus and District Needs- C Transpoitation D. Security ------------------- E. Technology 1Question 1. Where have we been? n. Where are we now? in. Where do we need to go? Academic Progress I. Improved Teaching and T .earning A. Instructional Work Plan B. Academic Indicators 1 n. Safe Schools * in. Graduation Rate/Dropout Rate IV. Campus Leadership/Accountability B Instructional Work Plan 1. Curriculum Standards and Grade and Core Course Benchmarks 2. Development/Early Implementation of Prek-3 Literacy Plan 3. ISBF Project In^lementation 4. Curriculum Catalog and Handbook 5. Aligned LRSD Programs With Smart Start Initiative 3Instructional Work Plan 6. Professional Development for Middle School Implementation 7. Arkansas Scholars Prograi 8. SEDL Partnership to Enhance Parent Involvement Programs 9. Quarterly Criterion-referenced Tests i E 117 (J J. Academic Indicators I. SAT-9 Growth Scores n. Core Indicators /NSF m. National Merit Scholars IV. Scholarships V. Activity Participation VI. Parent and Community Involvement E Academic Indicators Comparison of Scaled Reading Score* 4 I i Academic Indicators Comparison of Scaled Math Scores Stantord t AehtcvMnoflt Test. Fall iMa _______ LRSD and NtflonaJ Norm_______ s 10 llB\u0026amp;Q. ______ GfOdOLWl L_BN\u0026lt;Nonn  E 14% Academic Indicators Ceralndioaters/NSF PoreantefChanga Samaitar 1998 2nd Samastar 1999 Suoeassful Shidants 13% 11% 1 Academic Indicators National Merit National Achievement Semifinalists Finalists 1998-99 7 I 1997-98 24 13 6 B 5 Academic Indicators Scholarships Accepted 1998-99 $7,002,776 1997-98 $6,248,188 Academic Indicators Athletic Participation Junior High High School Total 1998-99 2678 1793 4471 1997-98 2050 1447 3497 28% Increase B Academic Indicators 1998-99 1997-98 Volunteer Hours Partners in Education 237,596 204 187,580 186 6I. Safe Schools Re-Establishing Behavioral Standards n. ALES in. Results E 1 2. 3. ResiJts Only one expulsion in 1998-99 (109 in 1997-98) 97.6% did not have a reportable discipline sanction 22.6% reduction in reportable sanctions m Dropout Rate I. Programs II. Accelerated Learning Center in. Results E 7Results Drop Out Rate 1 MO v't 1998-99 785 (AXfId, J 1997-98 926 4X tj 15% decrease IE Campus Leadership and Accountability I. Standards n. Quality Training ni. Accountability IV. Involvement E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan A. Review and revision of administrative regulations B. Refinement/updating of compliance plan E 8 Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities II. Technology A. B. C. D, Staff training Secondary labs support/utilization Secondary direct grade entry/ grade book Instructional/assessment software E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities III. Campus Leadership A. Accountability and incentive system B. Training and technical assistance C. Cluster coordinating committee D. Revised principals evaluation system E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities rv. Instruction A. B. Implementation of K-12 curriculum standards/benchmarks Adopt/implement an instructional c. D. framework New ESL programs/services Delivery of professional development El 9Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities IV. Instruction E. New student assessment plan F. New program evaluation plan G. Enhancement of parent involvement programs G Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities V. Cjperations A. Implementation of MGT recommendations action plan B. Millage campaign G Construction, maintenance and housekeeping review Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities V. Curations D. MitchellXGarland and facility use planning E, Prepare for opening of new Stephens School B 10Issues MJ 1 i I. Making Quality Universal n. Safe Schools/Leaming Climate HI. Dropout/Graduation Rates rV. Campus Leadership/Accountability  B 11 CHALLENGE GRANTS FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION OMB No. 1810-0569 Form Exp.: 8/96 Public fBporiino burden tor this collaciion al intormtion is gslimaled lo averag, 24 hours per response, incluaina Iha lima lot nd maintainm/f thb Hata anad oaeavenlAaiaeae ... .1 .u.. .1 - - .U_ __ . . . ... * . ......-'w..w..wia^wa-T\u0026gt;iwwapoiidpu nd maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send reviewing instructions, sesrching existing data sources, gathering comments regarding the burden eny other aspect of this collection of  ......wwerwai w\u0026gt; tiiuiiiiaiiuii. esaiiw vuiiiiiisnis rsgaroing me ouroen estimate or anv t 1. oili'm 'J-- II' Education. Inlormation Managem.nt .nd Compliance Division .ne Office of Manaoement and Budoat. Paoarwork Reduction Prmert ii8irk.neeQi. n noeno  ~ ~ ------------a---------------------- ... ezspoi iinaiii ui cuuveUUII. lUIOfinBlIOn utfice Management Budget. Paperwork Project 11810-0569)\nWashington. D.C. 20503. Washington. D.C. 20202-4S51\nand to This application should be sent to: No. 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633, ROB 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725__________________ 3. Legal Applicant (local educational agency) Legal Applicant Name Little ROCk SchOOl District 1. Application No. 2. Employer Identification No. 71-6014717 4. Project Director Name and Title Address (Complete) 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Address (Complete) Congressional District(s) 2 Telephone: 501 Not Yet Selected Program Contact: Marvin Schwartz Grants Writer Little Rock School District 810 West Markham, LR, AR 72201 324-2014 Fax\n501 Area Code 5. Federal Funds Requested: 324-2032 Number 6. Corrsortium Members (other than Legal Applicant  Fill in number of each. 1st Year $1.115.009 2nd Year $939.995 3rd Year $1.004.865 4th Year $1,021.295 Sth Year $1,083,705 TOTAL $5.164,869 Other LEA SEA 1 Library 1 Museum 2 Institution of higher ed. __Other non-profit 1 For-profit firm 5 Other r. Duration of Project Starting Date\nEnding Date: JO/15/96 1Q/14/Q1 8. Student Population Directly Benefiting from the Project Total Number of Months: 60 9. Application Title 25,000 ___________________Little Rock School District Technology in Education Program 10. Brief Abstract of Application\n(Do not leave this blank) The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing siud program will increase technological capacity in the public schools and the of professional development and technological training for educators. 2) incieasea access to technol. spools and conunumty sites, and 3) the involvement of students and families in innovative technology-based educational  w?rk Ss increased through new computer installations at schools and ^bUc access computer work s tes city libraries, conunumty centers, housing projects, a museum, and a local university The general theme for the applications of science in the areas of energy, economics, life sciences and student achievement in the areas of community. Project goals 2) increased access to technology at 11. Certification By Authorizing Official The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the data in this application are true and correct and that the filing of the application has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant. N: Henry P. Ui 11 trains linnatiirp ' signature Superintendent Title June 20. 1996 Date 501/324-2000 Telephone TITLE PAGE FORMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION PROGRAM Table of Contents ABSTRACT. ,2 NARRATIVE .3 1. PROGRAM VISION .3 2. STUDENT NEEDS .4 3. PROGRAM ACTIVITY .5 A. Consortium Members....... B. Staff Development.......... C. Connectivity.................... D. Curriculum Development E. Program Management.... F. Evaluation........................ ..6 ..1 ..8 10 14 15 4. PROGRAM IMPACT 16 5. BENEFITS TO STUDENTS 17 6. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18 7. NEW LEARNING COMMUNITIES 20 LIST OF CONSORTIUM MEMBERS ,22 PROJECT PERSONNEL 24 Job Descriptions............................. Horizon Research, Inc. Personnel 24 28 BUDGET 30 LIST OF APPLICATION AUTHORS 53 ATTACHMENTS .54 Program Organization Chart.............................. Horizon Research, Inc. Corporate Capabilities Letters of Support................................................ .55 56 ,61 1Abstract The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing student achievement in the areas of math and science. In its five-year initial phase, the program will increase technological capacity in the public schools and the community by coordinating a comprehensive public-private partnership. The partnership will focus on three broad components to achieve the project goal. These include: 1) new levels of professional development and technological training for educators, 2) increased access to technology at schools and community sites, and 3) the involvement of students and families in innovative technology-based educational activities. Program partners with expertise in each component area will assist in development and implementation. Professional development will be guided by input from teacher training departments of area universities and the state Departments of Education and Higher Education. Professional development in utilization of new technology will be coordinated with telecommunication organizations and the state public school computer network. Access to technology will be increased through new computer installations at schools and computer work sites at city libraries, community centers, housing projects, a museum, and a local university. Computer programs and educational activities will be developed in coordination with a local museum, library, medical center, a federal research center, and university science departments. To maintain a local sphere of interest for students, the general theme for the technology-based curriculum will focus on Arkansas applications of science in the areas of energy, economics, life sciences and the environment. The program will impact four groups of people: 1) Students will benefit by accessing existing computer network programs and new project-designed curriculum. Improved student skills in technology will increase achievement in all school areas\n2) Teacher benefits from technology training include more effective classroom teaching and continued exploration of computer networks for interaction with other professionals\n3) Parents will receive training to support student success in schoolbased technology. Programs in computer basics and parent involvement will focus on cooperative technology projects with students\n4) The community will have access to multiple sites where trained staff and computer work stations will be available. Parents will use these sites to work with their children on school projects or to pursue adult learning and exploration via computer networks. The LRSD Technology in Education Program will be established in eight (8) elementary schools in Year 1, then expand over the five-year program to reach approximately 24,900 students at all District elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. Teachers and principals will engage in staff development as their schools initiate involvement in the program. LRSD matching support to the program will feature school-based equipment purchases through federal Title I funds and technical staff. Program staff will be LRSD employees, though program administration will be directed by a full consortium advisory committee. Program evaluation will be conducted by an external organization. 2Narrative 1. Program Vision The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing student achievement in the areas of math and science. This goal is aligned with National Goals 2000 and Arkansas Educational Goals (Act 236 of 1991) which focus on raising mathematics and science achievements to a level where students are first in the world. This ambitious undertaking will be achieved through the implementation of a comprehensive technology plan that integrates student, educator, and community components. Increased attainment in math and science was selected because competencies in those areas, such as problem solving and critical thinking skills, are vital to the overall educational development of students. Verbal and reading skills are incorporated into those areas, adding to the students total educational achievement. Accordingly, the LRSD Technology in Education Program is directly aligned with state and national standards for math/science education. The Statewide Systemic Initiative, which incorporates professional development activities known as the Arkansas Crusades, serves as the foundation of the LRSD program. The program mission for Little Rock public schools is create successful learning environments for every student, promote professional growth for teachers involving math/science content and instructional strategies, and provide access to adequate instructional materials including math/science equipment and technology in all math/science classrooms. The outcome of this activity brings students into a new realm of information and raises their capacity to seek out and apply their knowledge in innovative educational projects. The LRSD program will create a vision of: 1. math/science literacy for all in an evolving technological society 2. math/science as an active, constructive, cooperative process 3. math/science involving experimentation, investigation, analysis, inquiry and problem solving 4. math/science curriculum that includes interdisciplinary content connection and real-world application 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Further, program activity will achieve the following goals: Foster excitement in students for learning math/science and create a life-long interest in science Develop and implement an innovative, integrated curriculum based on national and state standards in math/science Offer professional development to all teachers in math/science content, learning theory, effective teaching strategies, critical thinking skills, and use of appropriate technologies, manipulatives, and investigative materials Equip every classroom so all students have appropriate tools and experience to develop math/sciendfic literacy Direct math/science education toward proficiency and understanding and demonstrate student progress toward specific outcomes through authentic assessment Increase the number of students enrolled in science courses and increase the number of students taking math and science every year in high school Encourage business and higher education partnerships to benefit students as future employees 39. Ensure traditionally underrepresented underserved students benefit from teaching which implement technology and iimovative teaching strategies 10. Involve parents, administrators, and the community to create positive perceptions and attitudes about math/science 11. Encourage the teaching of math/science as a inquiry employing experimentation and mathematical analysis 2. Student Needs The LRSD operates 51 school buildings, including elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. K-12 eru-ollment is 24,922 for the 1995-96 school year. Black students comprise 66.4% and white students 33.6% of the total student body. Census data on Little Rock, however, reveals a 64.7% white population and 34% black population. These figures illustrate the challenge faced by the LRSD to establish itself as the educational institution of choice for all citizens. Scores on the fall 1995 SAT8 exam, illustrated below, identify a core problem for the District in racial disparity in test scores and academic achievement. While overall averages project a district-wide student performance level at or near the national norm (50th percentile), a far more revealing insight is gained when scores are presented by race. Across the District, black students are scoring in the niid-30th percentile while their white peers are scoring in the low-70th percentile. National Percentile Rankings Stanford 8 Achievement Test - Fall 1995 Grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 % 9 10 11 Average Total Reading Total Math Language/Englis Science Social Science 43 39 44 49 46 48 34 42 41 45 43.1 42 51 58 55 69 54 43 35 39 41 48.7 49 48 53 58 59 56 45 49 50 46 51.3 40 52 48 54 60 53 42 45 44 45 48.3 51 59 60 49 49 47 52 44 51.38 Basic B 33 .29 40 40 40 40 33 30 34 34 35.3 Battery W 69 68 73 77 ? 76 75 68 66 71 71 71.4 Complete Battery B 27 28 38 40 41 38 32 30 ^34^ --\u0026gt;32.^.:^ 34 W 68 69 73 79 79 76 69 68 74 4 n' 11.1 Adding to the problem of low academic achievement among minorities is an unbalanced racial enrollment at most LRSD schools. Because school assigrunent is based on attendance zones, predominantly minority neighborhoods are served by schools with high minority student enrollment. Particularly in inner city neighborhoods, black student population averages 80 percent and higher. Among the eight schools identified for Year 1 program activity, black student population is as follows: Bale - 70%, Brady - 63.45%, Cloverdale - 84.77%, RightseU - 95.89%, Rockefeller - 63.79% Watson - 79.50% Western HiUs - 66.03% Wilson-79.17% A large number of LRSD students come from low income households, as reflected in a 49.5% eligibility for the free and reduced lunch program and 18.5.% participation in Title I programs. Black students comprise a disproportionately high percentage of these low income groups. A large section of downtown Little Rock is included within the Pulaski County 4Empowerment Community, the federal economic development program for urban areas with high poverty rates. Data from the Pulaski County EC reveals that 14.6% of Little Rock and 32% of the EC live below poverty levels. Median income for Little Rock is $26,889 compared to $14,241 for the EC. A low income household is not a barrier to education in itself, but strong student performance is significantly more difficult to achieve when a students home life is economically restricted. A high percentage low income LRSD students reside in public housing. They are raised by single females with high dependency on social services. Teen pregnancy, youth crime and violence, and low rates of adult literacy and high school completion are the norm in their environment. In such homes, parents are generally ill prepared to assist their childrens school work. Because of their own lack of education, parents often are uncomfortable dealing with schools and teachers. As a result, parent involvement at school and at home is very low. Basic reading material in the home is a rare commodity. Home-based technology is virtually nonexistent. The impact of these negative socio-economic factors are much like those experienced by students with physical disabilities or for whom English is a second language. Numerous barriers to learning are the result. Yet the educational needs of inner city minority students are not significantly different than those of their more affluent peers. They are simply more extreme. Like all children, they need: Teachers who understand the capacity of technology to reach and motivate students with distinct barriers to learning\nwho are well informed of new learning initiatives and model programs, and who are well prepared to implement technologybased educational initiatives. Classrooms equipped with access to appropriate instructional technology. Curriculum that integrates technology into core learning strategies: motivates students to explore a new realm of educational experiences\nand links educational experiences to their immediate community and the world. Community based resources, particularly adult mentors and demonstration sites, that encourage student exploration and expanded learning. A community that demonstrates its support of student achievement through strong parent involvement in schools\nand that coordinates public affairs and public services to establish comprehensive programs for all citizens. The needs of LRSD students reflect the needs of the community as a whole. The need exists for a strategic process that utilizes contemporary technology and human resources to fulfill long term individual and social potential. The LRSD Technology in Education Program offers that opportunity. 3. Program Activity Activity to accomplish program goals and achieve the program vision will be accomplished through three broad components: 1) staff development, 2) connectivity, and 3) curriculum development. This section will identify those specific activities and consortium member responsibilities within the overall program strategy, identifying in broad terms what each partner will do and how they will do it. More specific description of the impact and results of those activities is included in later sections. Finally, this section will conclude with an overview of the program management and the roles of the advisory committee, staff, and evaluation component. 5LRSD Technology in Education Program will impact 387 educators at all 49 District schools according to the yearly schedule provided below. Total educators Year 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Total schools in program 8 17 26 35 49 49 # schools added each year 8 9 9 9 14 49 (teachers + principals) 96 70 70 70 81 387 Elementary schools added each year # schools 8 6 6 6 10 36 # teachers 88 54 54 54 56 306 Secondary schools added each year # schools # teachers 3 3 3 4 13 7 7 7 11 32 A. Consortium Members  Arkansas Department of Education (DoE): State agency responsible for certifying teachers and curriculum  Arkansas Department of Higher Education (DoHE): State agency implementing the NSF Systemic Initiatives (Math/Science Crusades)  Arkansas\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":17,"next_page":18,"prev_page":16,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":192,"total_count":319,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":5},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":292},{"value":"Sound","hits":20},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":13},{"value":"StillImage","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":41},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":21},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":16},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":6},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":4},{"value":"Bell, Lorenzo, 1925-2001","hits":2},{"value":"Brown, Myers; Johnson, Ahnekii","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":254},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":210},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":166},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":127},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":105},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":88},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":74},{"value":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":6},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":7},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","hits":1},{"value":"Borders, William Holmes, 1905-1993","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":263},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":257},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":249},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":233},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":9},{"value":"United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":4},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":258},{"value":"Georgia","hits":15},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":10},{"value":"Alabama","hits":9},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":5},{"value":"","hits":4},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":3},{"value":"Florida","hits":3},{"value":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2000","hits":73},{"value":"1999","hits":69},{"value":"2001","hits":67},{"value":"2002","hits":65},{"value":"1996","hits":62},{"value":"1994","hits":58},{"value":"1995","hits":58},{"value":"1997","hits":55},{"value":"1992","hits":53},{"value":"1993","hits":53},{"value":"1998","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":46},{"value":"1991","hits":44},{"value":"2004","hits":43},{"value":"2006","hits":34},{"value":"2005","hits":32},{"value":"1990","hits":24},{"value":"1989","hits":19},{"value":"2007","hits":14},{"value":"2013","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1980","hits":10},{"value":"2010","hits":10},{"value":"2012","hits":10},{"value":"2016","hits":10},{"value":"1983","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":9},{"value":"2009","hits":9},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"2015","hits":9},{"value":"2017","hits":9},{"value":"2018","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1978","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":8},{"value":"1967","hits":7},{"value":"1970","hits":7},{"value":"1974","hits":7},{"value":"1977","hits":7},{"value":"1979","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1982","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1986","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1962","hits":6},{"value":"1964","hits":6},{"value":"1965","hits":6},{"value":"1968","hits":6},{"value":"1971","hits":6},{"value":"1972","hits":6},{"value":"1973","hits":6},{"value":"1976","hits":6},{"value":"1987","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1966","hits":5},{"value":"1969","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1951","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1953","hits":4},{"value":"1954","hits":4},{"value":"1955","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1957","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2021","hits":4},{"value":"1900","hits":3},{"value":"1901","hits":3},{"value":"1902","hits":3},{"value":"1903","hits":3},{"value":"1904","hits":3},{"value":"1905","hits":3},{"value":"1906","hits":3},{"value":"1907","hits":3},{"value":"1908","hits":3},{"value":"1909","hits":3},{"value":"1910","hits":3},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1921","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1860","max":"2033","count":1494,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":143},{"value":"filing","hits":63},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":18},{"value":"reports","hits":18},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":14},{"value":"transcripts","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":12},{"value":"sound recordings","hits":12},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"photographs","hits":8},{"value":"web sites","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":263},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":31},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":10},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":4},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","hits":7},{"value":"Teaching with Historic Places","hits":6},{"value":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","hits":4},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":3},{"value":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":2},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Papers","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":257},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":8},{"value":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","hits":7},{"value":"United States. National Park Service","hits":6},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":2},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":2},{"value":"Guilford College. Library","hits":2},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":2},{"value":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":311},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":312},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}