{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_52","title":"Rev. John Cross","collection_id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc","collection_title":"Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Oral History Project Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-07-24"],"dcterms_description":["Rev. John Cross discusses serving as an Army Chaplin during World War II in France and Okinowa, then pastoring in Virginia before leading Sixteenth Baptist Church in the early 1960's. He was the pastor when Sixteenth Street Church was bombed in 1963."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","16th Street Baptist Church Bombing, Birmingham, Ala., 1963","American Veterans of World War II"],"dcterms_title":["Rev. John Cross"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://bcriohp.org/items/show/52"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_154","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation"],"dc_date":["1997-07-15"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/154"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nArkansas Department of Education's Semiann'ucll Desegregation Monitoring Report . ' OFFICE OF EDUCATION LEAD PLANNING AND DESEGREGATION   TABLE OF CONTENTS Monitoring Overview . . ...................................................................... ii SECT/ONA Monitoring Process .. A-1 SECTION B Enrollment/ Attendance Data ............................................. B-1 SECTIONC Test Data ....................... . ..................................................... C-1 SECTION D Staff .. SECT/ONE Policy and Program Information . SECTION F Budget Information . ....... D-1 . ... E-1 .. F-1  I   TABLE OF CONTENT (page 2 of 2) SECT/ONG Discipline .................................... . . . G-1 Referrals Suspensions . Exclusions Expulsions SECTIONH Perceptual Data SECTION I Majority to Minority Transfer . SECTION.I ECOE . G-6 . .... G-220 ..... G-323 G343                              ............................ H-1 . . . . . . . 1-1 . . . . . J-1 i\n I'-   MONITORING OVERVIEW During the 1996-97 school year, the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education selected monitoring teams for the Pulaski County School Districts to monitor these districts in accordance with the Department's Implementation Plan. Monitoring teams were assigned to intensively monitor the following Cycle One Schools: Little Rock School District (10) Baseline Elementary, David O'Dodd Elementary, Fair Park Elementary, Forest Park Elementary, J.A. Fair High School, Jefferson Elementary, Parkview Magnet High, Pulaski Heights Elementary, Terry Elementary, and Wilson Elementary. North Little Rock School District (7) Belwood Elementary, Boone Park Elementary, Glenview Elementary, North Heights Elementary, Park Hill Elementary, Pike View Elementary, and Redwood Elementary. Pulaski County Special School District (5) Jacksonville High, North Pulaski High, Oak Grove Jr./Sr. High, Sylvan Hills Jr. High and Sylvan Hills High. Note All parties to the Pulaski County desegregation suit were invited to participate in the monitoring Process for the announced visits on October 8, 1996 and on January 8, 1997 for the unannounced visits. iii  I Section A OFFICE OF EDUCATION LEAD PLANNING AND DESEGREGATION    MONITORING PROCESS A. MONITORING SCHEDULE The monitoring teams visited schools in accordance with an established schedule of announced and unannounced visits. Announced visits were scheduled from February 26, 1996 to May 10, 1996. Monitors conducted monitoring visits using instruments developed to align with the established criteria for the Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (ECOE). Monitors completed classroom observations, a principal's interview, and a document review process at each school. The school document review process was refined by the establishment of the Tri-District Data Collection Committee and the development of a common terminology document for the fourteen qualitative data elements identified on pages 3 8-41 of the Implementation Plan, and pages 4-5 of the Allen Letter. Accordingly, the ADE identified and monitored the following: 1. Evidence that policies, procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student's assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement is used to facilitate the desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the A-1 I   percentage of non-black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling are designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students is non-discriminatory. 8. Evidence that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served. 9. Evidence that personnel are recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregated school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricular activities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. 11. Evidence of diverse representation on appointed district wide and school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not disproportionate to the student population. 13. Evidence of success related to Majority to Minority Transfers 14. Evidence that magnet schools are an effective inter-district remedy for racial balance.  The following questions and descriptive data charts show the results of the Department's monitoring for the above components during the announced and unannounced visits. A-2 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,.,:, ..  // . . . . .~.~ i~?:,~~ :::.::.. /\n}P'' :.::.: ...... .. .... : .. ~\n.. .-.-.- Section B Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District 1B.    ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE DATA The Arkansas Department of Education, according to the Implementation Plan, must collect the following Attendance/Enrollment data from the three Pulaski County School Districts. 1. Enrollment by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional programs. 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional program for each magnet school. This information is presented in the enrollment/attendance section on the following page. 3. Number of non promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and non transported. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed February 1,1997. B-1 I Section C Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District and the Psychological Corporation.    TEST DATA The Arkansas Department of Education according to the Implementation Plan, must collect the following test data on the three school districts in Pulaski County: 1. Arkansas Minimum Pcrfonnance Test results by race, gender, grade, and socioeconomic status (SES). 2. Number of eighth graders failing to attain mastery after the first, second and third administration of tests by race, gender, SES, and school. 3. Number of eighth graders that are non promotes for failing to attain mastery after third administration of tests by race, gender, SES, and school. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed February 1,1997. 4. Metropolitan Achievement Test - 6th Edition or other national nonncd tests as may be adopted by the ADE. Results should be given by race, gender, grade, school SES. and teacher. Because the ADE no longer uses the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test and the Metropolitan Achievement Test, results from these assessments do not exist. However, since 1991-92 the ADE has collected test data by using the Stanford Achievement Test-8. Scores for 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 have previously been reported in the I 994 Interim Monitoring Report, the February 1995 Semiannual Report and the July 1995 Semiannual Report. Scores for the Spring of 1994-95, tbe Fall of 1995-96, and the Fall of the 96- 97 school years arc outlined on the following page. 5. Number of 11th and 12th graders by race, gender, school and guidance cow1sclor who take the PSAT, SAT or ACT. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed Fehruarv 1.1997. C-1 I 90 80 70 60 50 40 .' 30 20 10, 0    BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE BM 35 37 30 BF WM RACE AND GENDER 84 WF SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 F 87.0% l[IlI!]SPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED The teacher administering the test was 8. Deaton. COST, F=FREE C-2 60 50 40 30 20 10    DAVID O' DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 50 50 42 fl 36 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 RC 8.0% NE 12.0% o~-------------~ F 80.0/4, BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER If fiili]SPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was Y. Goldmon. C-3 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 , 10 0    FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 45 BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER WF SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 F 93.8/o RC 6.3% lillililSPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED The teacher administering the test was S. Branch. COST, F=FREE C-4    FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 100 90 80 70 60 50 , 40 30 20 10 ,' COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 93 94 0\"'----------------~ BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER jffiITilSPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was T. Hudson. C-5 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 66.3% RC 5.1 Ofo F 28.6% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 70 63 60 50 40 ,' ,' 27 25 30 ,' , 23 20, 10 ,' o~-------------~ BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER ID]]]SPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was D. Armstrong. C-6 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 F 89.0% RC 7~if 3.7% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 90 80 70 60    JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 88 90 88 88 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 50 ,:,,,39 38 35 3 NE 57.8% 40 30 20 10 o~--------------~ BM BF WM WF 37.5/o RA C E A N D G E N D E R NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, j. _ffi_II _IlS__P_R_IN__G_9 _5_ _F_A_L_L 95 FALL 96 __j _. CROC=SRTE,FD=UFRCEEED Teachers administering the test were T. Hammond, K. Pittenger, \u0026amp; R. Williams. C-7    PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE ' 83 38 43 41 BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER l[Il]Il]SPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 WF The teacher administering the test was C. Piggee. C-8 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 66.3% RC 5.1 Ofo F 28.6% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 87 84 35 36 39 / BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER 81 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 45.5/o F 32.7% IIIIIII]SPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teachers administering the test were K. Kelly and S. Fountain. C-9    TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD 90 80 70 STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 , - SES BASED COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 60 , , 46 50 NE 50 55.7% 40 30 20 10 c o~--------------,----~ BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER lmsPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 WF 5.1 Ofo F 39.2% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teachers administering the test were K. Studdard, D. Powell and S. Cox. C-10    WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 90 79 80 70 60 , , 50 , , 40 , , 30 , , 2 20 , 10 0\"--------------~ BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER I [!Ill]]SPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIERCITY 1996/11'% F 67.6/c, NE NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teachers administering the test were J. Carr and H. Jenkins. C-11    BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 90 80 70 60 - 50\n40 , 30 20, ~ 10 82 66 0\"----------------____,J BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER The teacher administering the test was B. Hartwick. C-12 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97NE RC s.01o 50.0% F 45.0% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 50 40 30 20 10, 34 37 36 BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER l[[ill]SPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 45 WF The teacher administering the test was M. Cherry. C-13 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 66.3% RC 5.1% F 28.6/o NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 ' ' COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE - 28 - - - 23 BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER IIIIIIIlSPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 WF SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 F 78.3% NE The teacher administering the test was H. Allen. NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE C-14    NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 90 80 70 60 50 ,'_,,,38 36 40 , 30 20 10 59 59 0\"------------------J BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER lmsPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was D. Snowden. C-15 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 66.3% RC 5.1% F 28.6/o NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY= Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 60 22 15 18 10 11 11 BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE RC 38.5/o F 53.8% If fiTIIlSPRING95 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teacher administering the test was C. Melton. C-16 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 68 72 75 BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY  1996/97 RC 5.5% NE 45.5/o 49.1% lillJIJSPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED The teacher administering the test was D. Crites. COST, F=FREE C-17 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0    REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 5 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE SES BASED ~-------------~ON FREE 66 40 38 BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER j!IIIillSPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 RC 4.5% NE NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE The teacher administering the test was L. Chancellor. C-18    JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE , , , BM BF WM RACE AND GENDER II T!IIIlSPRING95 FALL 95 FALL 96 60 57 51 WF The teacher administering the test was L. Black. C-19 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY N~996/97 F RC 22.ao1o 5.8% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    NORTH PULASKI HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 70 60 50, 30 , - 3a--39 51 51 32 47 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 82.3/o 20 , - 10 ,' F 10.9% RC 6.8% 0\"---------------_____J BM BF WM WF RA C E A N D G E N D E R NE=NOT ELIGIBLE Il lllilllSPRING95 FALL 95 FALL 96 I ' RC=REDUCED The teacher administering the test was F. Newkirk. COST, F=FREE C-20    OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 7 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 60 50 40 30 , 20 ,,, l 10 _, BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER IIJlllillSPRIN9G5 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was V. Abrams. C-21 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 93.4/o F ~\"cfo 0.9% NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 60 50 40 , 30, 20 10 56 28 27 28 o~------------~ BM BF WM WF R A C E A N D G E N D ER lnsPRING 95 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was R. Graham. C-22 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE 92.1 Ofo F 7.9% I NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE    SYLVAN HILLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 7 70 60 50 _, , 40 _, ' ' 30 _, 20 _, 10 0 , COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE SES BASED ,r--------------~ ONFREE 65 - 26- 28 31 . 36 35 37 BM BF WM WF LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 NE R1C F 0.3% 24.7% RAC E A N D G E N D E R NE=NOT ELIGIBLE lllllllIISPRING9 5 FALL 95 FALL 96 IRC=REDUCED Th e t eac h er a d m1. n.1 sten. ng t h e test was C . Baker. COST ' F=FREE C-23 ' 70 60 50 40 30 20 10    SYLVAN HILLS HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD STANFORD TEST COMPLETE BATTERY - Grade 10 COMPOSITE SCORE PR OF MEAN NCE 63 56 54 36 35 35 , / 2 SES BASED ON FREE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY 1996/97 RC _ 85.0% - , RC f2.6 2.4/o 0\"-------------------/ BM BF WM WF RACE AND GENDER [lilllillSPRIN9G5 FALL 95 FALL 96 The teacher administering the test was P. Cook. C-24 NE=NOT ELIGIBLE, RC=REDUCED COST, F=FREE Section D Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District   STAFF The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following staffing data on Pulaski County School Districts: I. Number of full time equivalent (F .T. E.) classroom teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. 2. Number ofFT.E school-based administrators by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. 3. Number ofF.T.E. counselors by race, gender, school, years of experience. 4. Number of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. 5. Number ofF.T.E. librarians by race, gender, school, years of experience. 6. Number ofF.T.E. department heads by race, gender, school, years of experience. 7. Number ofF.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience. 8. Number ofF. T.E. central office positions by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed February 1,1997. D-1  I Section E Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District   POLICY AND PROGRAM INFORMATION The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following program and policy information on the Pulaski County Districts: 1 . Administrative chart indicates titles, names, and reporting responsibilities.  I 2. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit criteria for course offerings and special state funded programs including a. Magnet Schools b Compensatory Education c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 3. Student assignments policies, rules and regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment b. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular activities E-1    e. Student Rights and responsibilities f. Library usage g. Student records 4. Copies of current negotiated agreements with all employee groups. This information was reported in the Semiannual Monitoring Report filed February 1.1997. However, all policies updates since February 1, 1997 are reported as follows E-2    POLICY AND PROGRAM INFORMATION (Continued on next Chart) 1996-97 Summary of the Three School Districts in Pulaski County   Policy LRSD NLRSD PCSSD District bas Administrative Chart indicating titles, names, Yes Yes Yes responsibilities and reporting responsibilities. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit Yes Yes Yes criteria for course offerings and special state funded * * programs. The District has Policies and Regulations for Magnet Schools. Yes No No The District has Policies and Regulations for Compensatory Yes Yes Yes Education Programs. * The District has Policies and Regulations for Majority to Yes Yes Yes Minority Transfers. The District has Policies and Regulations for Transportation. Yes Yes Yes The District has Student Assignment Policies or Regulations. Yes Yes Yes NOTE: The Asterisk(*) denotes that this policy has been undated. E-3    POLICY AND PROGRAM INFORMATION (Continued from previous Chart) 1996-97 Summary of the Three School Districts in Pulaski County Policy LRSD NLRSD PCSSD The District has Policies, Rules, Regulations and written Yes Yes Yes Administrative Directive Governing. A. Class Assignment Yes Yes Yes B. Testing Yes Yes Yes C. Guidance and Counseling Yes Yes Yes D. Extracurricular Activities Yes Yes Yes E. Student Rights and Responsibilities Yes Yes Yes F. Library Usage Yes Yes Yes G. Student Records Yes Yes Yes The District has made available copies of current negotiated Yes Yes Yes agreements with all employee groups. NOTE: The Asterisk(*) denotes that this policy has been undated. E-4 Section F Sources: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District   BUDGET INFORMATION The Implementation Plan requires the Department to collect the following financial reports quarterly or monthly if available: 1 . Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 2. Transportation cost and funding source. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory Education Program costs. 5. Magnet school cost. Note: The financial information contains actual expenses through March 31, 1997 for the three school districts in Pulaski County This information follows for each school district in Pulaski County. F-1  I Budget Information as of March 31, 1997 OFFICE OF EDUCATION LEAD PLANNING AND DESEGREGATION    F. BUDGET INFORMATION The Allen Letter, the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement dated September 28, 1989 (Settlement Agreement) and the Implementation Plan detail specific monitoring responsibilities regarding financial information and various desegregation financial obligations of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to the three school districts in Pulaski County. The financial monitoring responsibilities detailed in the Allen Letter are presented in this section of the July 15, 1997 Monitoring Report. The Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plan state that the ADE is financially responsible for the following: desegregation compensatory education payments\npayments in lieu of formula\npayments for operating the six original magnet schools in the LRSD\nM-to-M incentive payments for sending and receiving schools\nMagnet and M-toM transportation costs\n$20 million in loans to the LRSD\nattorney's fees\n$75,000 annually to the Magnet Review Committee\nand $200,000 annually to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). SOURCES: The ADE General Finance Section and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-2 Program Cost as of March 31, 1997 .    F. BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Financial information for FY 96/97 is presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter and the Settlement Agreement. The information for FY 96/97 reflects each district's expenses as of March 31, 1997. The schedules included in this portion of the Budget Section contain information on Total Program Costs, Cost per Student information, Total Program Costs for Elementary, Junior High and High Schools, and Teacher and School Administrator Costs. A zero listed in any expense category funded by federal or desegregation funds indicates that no costs for the school were budgeted to be funded by restricted federal funds or special desegregation funds. The financial information for each district reflects budgeted increases in total expenses in each of the three school districts in Pulaski County for FY 96/97 . Total expenses for the LRSD are budgeted to increase 11.6 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. NLRSD's total expenses are budgeted to increase 18. 7 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. Total expenses in the PCSSD are budgeted to increase 12.3 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. The enrollment figures for the LRSD as of October 1, 1996 showed an increase of of O .4 percent for FY 96/97. Enrollment for the NLRSD indicated an increase of 1.8 percent for FY 96/97 according to the enrollment figures as of October 1, 1996. The enrollment figures for the PCS SD showed a decline in the FY 96/97 enrollment of October 1, 1996 of 1.2 percent. The LRSD's cost per student figures are budgeted to increase 11.2 percent in FY 96/97. The NLRSD's cost per student figures are budgeted to increase 16.6 percent in FY 96/97. The cost per student figures in the PCS SD are budgeted to increase 13. 6 percent in FY 96/97. The increases in the cost per student figures for FY 96/97 in each of the districts correspond to the increases in total cost for each of the districts and fluctuations in enrollment for FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-3    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) The LRSD budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $44,989,746, of which $27,670,103 will be eligible for ADE desegregation funding. The district should received funding from the ADE for desegregation in accordance with the Settlement Agreement totaling approximately $22,706,311. The NLRSD budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $1,863,866 and should received ADE desegregation funding totaling approximately $2,120,796. Of the amount expected to be received by the district in FY 96/97, only $1,823,776 of the total amount relates to expenses for FY 96/97 because the district was reimbursed $297,020 in FY 96/97 for transportation costs incurred from FY 91/92 through FY 95/96. The PCS SD budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $12,554,647 and should receive funding for desegregation from the ADE totaling $7,395,116 . All of the information received from the school districts has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. All of the districts are utilizing the funds received from the ADE for desegregation purposes according to records from the districts. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-4    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 43,097,892 24,284,703 5,208,938 188,063 1,992,486 1,682,813 3,839,344 5,808,915 5,288,655 10,403,236 2,191,930 77,792 104,064,767 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 20,200,260 8,246,193 1,270,286 935 1,265,373 762,885 627,095 258.597 0 0 166,353 82,667 32,880,644 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 39,358,671 11,785,762 4,328,212 108,956 1,503,298 1,215,886 2,951,468 2,319,795 0 0 1,019,512 330,213 64,921,773 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; Stale This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Oeseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; Stale This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Oeseg This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. Total Category Al 03/31197 The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school district as of March 31, 1997. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. F-5  DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL Enrollment FY 95196 FY 96197 Percent Variance Cost per Student FY95196 FY 96197 Percent Variance Total Program Expense FY 9!\u0026gt;'96 FY 96197 Percent Variance SOURCES:  PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROGRAM VARIANCES FOR FY 96/97 ENROLLMENT COST PER STUDENT TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE 24,154 24,250 0.4% 5,905 6,565 11.2% 142,640,518 159,201,043 11.6% 8,802 8,963 1.8% 5,169 6,027 16.6% 45,497,622 54,015,933 18.7% 20,285 20,047 -1.2% 4,921 5,591 13.6% 99,828,066 112,075,972 12.3% For reporting purposes, the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures verified and published by the ADE are the figures used. For reporting purposes, the October 1, 1996 enrollment figures verified and published by the ADE are the figures used. The difference in the FY 96/97 enrollment and the FY 95196 enrollment expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in enrollment for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in enrollment for FY 96/97. The average cost per student for the district for FY 95/96. The average cost per student is calculated by dividing total program costs by total enrollment. The average cost per student for the district for FY 96197. The average cost per student is calculated by dividing total program costs by total enrollment. The difference in the FY 96/97 cost per student and the FY 95/96 cost per student expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in the cost per student for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in the cost per student for FY 96197. Total expenses for the school district for FY 95/96. Total budget for the school district for FY 96197. The difference in the FY 96/97 total budget and the total cost for FY 95/96 expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in the total budget for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in the total budget for FY 96197. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. F-6  LRSD Program Cost as of March 31, 1997    F. BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Little Rock School District (LRSD) The following is a summary of the LRSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual as ofMarch 31, 1997. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 1 schools. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 1 schools. Cost per student information is based on total budgeted costs for FY 96/97 and is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 1 school programs . Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses for FY 96/97 are budgeted to increase 11. 6 percent from $142,640,518 in FY 95/96 to $159,201,043 for the current fiscal year. Elementary school operating costs are budgeted to rise from $78,593,013 in FY 95/96 to $89,623,223 or 14.0 percent for FY 96/97. Operating costs for junior high schools are budgeted to increase $2,883,769 or 8.9 percent from $32,542,205 in FY 95/96 to $35,425,974 in FY 96/97. Operating costs for high schools are budgeted to increase 8.4 percent from $31,505,300 in FY 95/96 to $34,151,846 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Little Rock School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-7    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Little Rock School District (LRSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment increased 0 .4 percent in FY 96/97 from 24,154 in FY 95/96 to 24,250 in FY 96/97. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools increased from 13,348 in FY 95/96 to 13,525 in FY 96/97. Junior high school enrollment declined 2.4 percent from 5,623 in FY 95/96 to 5,491 in FY 96/97. Enrollment in the district's high schools increased from 5,183 in FY 95/96 to 5,234 in FY 96/97 . Cost per Student Rate The district's cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 11.2 percent in FY 96/97 from $5,905 in FY 95/96 to $6,565 in FY 96/97. The elementary cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 12.5 percent in FY 96/97 from $5,888 in FY 95/96 to $6,626 in FY 96/97. The junior high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase from $5,787 in FY 95/96 to $6,452 in FY 96/97. The high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 7.3 percent in FY 96/97 from $6,079 in FY 95/96 to $6,525 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Little Rock School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-8    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Little Rock School District (LRSD) (Continued) Desegregation Expense In FY 96/97, the district budgeted $44,989,746 in total desegregation costs with $27,670,103 being eligible for funding from the special desegregation payments made by the ADE. The district should receive approximately $22,706,311 in desegregation funding from the ADE in FY 96/97. All of the information received from the LRSD has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. The district is utilizing the funds received from the ADE in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for desegregation purposes . SOURCES: The Little Rock School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-9    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET INCENTIVE TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 3,6  2,16  1,779,5  3 381,702 13,781 16,811 179,936 37,824  0,622 0 0 166,264 5,001 6,66  ,566 6001002 HALL HIGH 2,576,110 824,178 176,782 6,383 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,583,453 6001003 MMINJR.HlGH 0 855,222 183.440 6.623 0 0 0 2n.1se 2,253,098 0 79,904 2,836 3,592,879 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 880,256 168,811 6,817 0 0 0 217,955 2,640,807 0 82,23 2,919 4,019,810 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 603,663 129,525 4,676 0 0 0 149,519 1,667,908 0 56, 19 2,002 2,613,912 6001007 DUNBAR JR, HIGH 1,782,804 776,109 166,-471 6,010 1,111 78,475 149,979 192,168 0 0 72,512 2,573 3,228,212 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 1,690,266 630,902 135,325 4,886 25,670 63,793 116,227 156,214 0 0 58,945 2,092 2,884,320 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 1,817,653 786,123 168,619 6,088 0 0 42,734 194,647 0 0 73,448 2,607 3,091,919 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 1,365,835 594,850 127,592 4.607 31,111 60,147 120,660 147,287 0 0 55,577 1,972 2,518,638 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 1,956,193 747,066 160,242 5,785 39.675 75,539 112,194 184,977 0 0 69,799 2,477 3,353,949 6001017 BALE ELEM 736,707 339,485 72,616 2,629 70,867 34,327 89,908 84,058 0 0 31,718 1,126 1,463,643 6001018 BRADY ELEM 759.053 353.505 75,825 2.736 66,641 35,744 62,481 87,529 0 0 33,026 1,172 1,477,716 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 933,428 489,700 105,038 3,792 35,403 49,515 8,990 121,251 0 0 45,753 1,624 1,794,584 8001021 CARVER ELEM 0 604,864 120,740 4,684 0 0 0 149,767 1.498.142 0 58,513 2,006 2,445,718 8001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 541,095 219,313 47,042 1,698 33,285 22,176 70,527 54,303 0 0 20,491 727 1,010,657 8001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 794.164 440,643 96.446 3,482 26,751 45,465 10,259 111,333 0 0 42,010 1,491 1,592,044 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 380,544 61.625 2,947 02,660 36,476 0 94,224 0 1.381,946 35,554 1,262 2,109,240 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 259,371 55,634 2,009 48,594 26,226 0 64,221 0 882,573 24,233 860 1,363,721 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 312,446 67,018 2,420 0 0 0 77,363 972,060 0 29,192 1,036 1,461,555 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 617,736 312,446 67,018 2,420 54,844 31,593 6,173 77,363 0 0 29,182 1,036 1,199,821 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,001,026 497,711 106,756 3,854 54,574 50,325 17,110 123,235 0 0 46,501 1,650 1,902,744 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 703,741 373,534 60,121 2,893 57,743 37,769 16,123 92,468 0 0 34,699 1,239 1,400,550 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 244,349 52,412 1,892 31,722 24.707 0 60,502 0 816,233 22,630 810 1,255,457 6001035 ML KING ELEM 55,679 551,768 116,356 4,273 36,772 55,793 1,282,961 136,625 0 0 51,554 1,830 2,295,631 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 740,241 454,650 97,520 3,521 50,093 45,971 17,070 112,573 0 0 42,478 1,508 1,565,625 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 228,326 48,975 1,768 55,665 23,087 0 56,534 0 766,500 21,333 757 1,202,965 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 778,139 268,384 57,567 2,078 31,460 27,137 103,392 66,453 0 0 25,075 890 1,361,575 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 1,380,920 656,939 140,910 5,067 136,539 66,425 220,456 162,661 0 0 61,378 2,178 2,833,  93 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 501,717 107,616 3,885 0 0 0 124,227 1,371,201 0 46,876 1,664 2,157,166 6001044 WILSON ELEM 791,654 344,492 73,892 2,668 90,650 34,633 47,105 85,298 0 0 32,186 1,142 1,503,920 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 518,034 232,332 49,834 1,799 39,666 23,492 62,706 57,526 0 0 21,707 770 1,007,870 6001047 TERRY ELEM 991,567 515,737 110,623 3,994 0 0 11,240 127,698 0 0 48,166 1,710 1,610,755 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 1,106,821 500,716 107,401 3,878 35,000 50,629 14,092 123,979 0 0 46,762 1,660 1,990,956 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 0 337,482 72,386 2,613 104,860 34,124 0 63,562 0 1,441,403 31,531 1,119 2,109,082 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 502,142 168,269 40,363 1,456 30,203 19,037 77,314 46,616 0 0 17,590 624 923,636 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 587,777 266,361 57,137 2,063 48,613 26,935 99,203 65,957 0 0 24,888 663 1,160,037 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 1,118,765 482,690 103,534 3,736 84,688 48,807 109,641 119,516 0 0 45,098 1,600 2,118,077 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 724,496 464,664 99,668 3,598 81,207 46,984 102,756 115,053 0 0 43,414 1,541 1,683,381 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 587,091 242,346 51,982 1,677 35,411 24,505 22,673 60,006 0 0 22,643 604 1,049,336 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 560,222 274,392 58,856 2,125 72,468 27,745 80,037 67,941 0 0 25,637 910 1,170,333 6001057 MABEL VALE ELEM 833,730 401,57  86,135 3,110 71,604 40,605 54,635 09,431 0 0 37,519 1,332 1,620,675 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 696,158 310,4  4 66,566 2,404 32,048 31,300 10,266 76,867 0 0 29,005 1,029 1,256,199 8001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 607,491 436,624 93,653 3,361 100,676 44,149 13,465 108,110 0 0 40,794 1,448 1,849,791 6001060 WATSON ELEM 618,501 443,634 95,157 3,436 71,739 44,657 99,069 109,845 0 0 41,449 1,471 1,729,158 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 1,366,758 639,914 137,256 4,956 51,256 64,704 103,614 158,445 0 0 59,788 2,122 2,588,815 6001062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 1,461,533 468,670 100,527 3,629 6,688 47,389 33,644 116,044 0 0 43,788 1,554 2,283,466 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 2,098,239 830,186 178,070 6,429 0 0 27,  00 205,557 0 0 77,565 2,753 3,426,199 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 2,515,866 927,325 198,906 7,181 0 0 57,449 229,609 0 0 86,641 3,075 4,026,052 NIA METRO HIGH 1,081,745 0 0 0 35,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,117,151 NIA ALT LEARNING CTR 41,538 0 0 0 0 0 309,965 0 0 0 0 0 351,503 NIA ISH ELEM 13,788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,768 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 43,097,892 24,284,703 5,208,938 188,063 1,992,486 1,682,813 3,839,344 5,808,915 10,403,236 5,288,655 2,191,930 77,792 104,064,767 The district has Incurred expenses as of March 31, 1997 totallng 65.4 percent of the total FY 96/97 budget of $159,201,043. See the note secllon on the nu! page for explanations of 1he categories. SOURCE: The Little Rock School District Fmtincf!I Officf!I. F-10   NOTES FOR LRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE SCHEDULE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; Stale Federal Deseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; Slate Federal Oeseg Total Category At 03/31/97 SOURCE: This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, magnet expense, incentive expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site as of March 31, 1997. The Li/lie Rock School District Finance Office. F-11     LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET INCENTIVE TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 880,258 188,811 6,817 0 0 0 217,955 2,640,807 0 82,243 2,919 4,019,810 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 541,095 219,313 47,042 1,698 33,285 22,176 70,527 54,303 0 0 20,491 727 1,010,657 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 794,164 449,643 96,446 3,482 28,751 45,465 19,259 111,333 0 0 42,010 1,491 1,592,044 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,001,028 497,711 106,756 3,854 54,574 50,325 17,110 123,235 0 0 46,501 1,650 1,902,744 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 740,241 454,650 97,520 3,521 50,093 45,971 17,070 112,573 0 0 42,478 1,508 1,565,625 6001044 W1LSON ELEM 791,654 344,492 73,892 L,668 90,650 34,833 47,105 85,298 0 0 32,186 1,142 1,503,920 6001047 TERRY ELEM 991,567 515,737 110,623 3,994 0 0 11,240 127,698 0 0 48,186 1,710 1,810,755 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 587,777 266,381 57,137 2,063 48,813 26,935 99,203 65,957 0 0 24,888 883 1,180,037 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 587,091 242,346 51,982 1,877 35,411 24,505 22,673 60,006 0 0 22,643 804 1,049,338 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 2,098,239 830,186 178,070 6,429 0 0 27,400 205,557 0 0 77,565 2,753 3,426,199 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE 8,132,856 4,700,717 1,008,279 36,403 341,577 250,210 331,587 1,163,915 2,640,807 0 439,191 15,587 19,061,129 The district's Total Program Budget for the fiscal year 96/97 is $159,201,043. See note section for Total Program Operating Expense as of March 31, 1997 for explanations or the funding categories, expense categories and totals. SOURCE: The Little Rock Schoof District Finance Office. F-12  LEA# 6001001 6001002 6001003 6001005 6001006 6001007 6001009 6001010 6001011 6001013 6001017 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030  6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 6001061 6001062 6001063 6001064 NIA N/A N/A  SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTPERSTUDENTFORTOTALPROGRAMS Y 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH 1,777 8,614,545 439,905 1,003,672 10,058,122 HALL HIGH 823 5,111,112 0 0 5,111,112 MANN JR. HIGH 854 1,378,174 0 4,265,825 5,643,999 PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,519 0 4,828,367 6,246,886 BOOKER ELEM 603 973,113 0 3,137,532 4,110,645 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 775 3,783,313 199,752 612,576 4,595,641 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 630 3,673,332 187,112 535,992 4,396,436 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 785 4,047,511 0 527,133 4,574,644 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 594 3,090,817 184,286 513,642 3,788,745 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 746 4,345,878 225,354 545,523 5,116,755 BALE ELEM 339 1,701,229 130,686 335,297 2,167,212 BRADY ELEM 353 1,747,174 131,940 293,014 2,172,128 MCDERMOTT ELEM 489 2,308,282 160,261 283,949 2,752,492 CARVER ELEM 604 974,727 0 2,853,601 3,828,328 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1,246,255 91,288 210,329 1,547,872 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,151 146,606 273,735 2,456,492 FRANKLIN ELEM 380 613,240 181,270 2,443,526 3,238,036 GARLAND ELEM 259 417,971 305,541 1,621,230 2,344,742 GIBBS ELEM 312 503,502 0 1,778,493 2,281,995 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 312 1,576,535 109,278 190,876 1,876,689 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,245 205,411 300,830 2,961,486 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 373 1,817,416 162,045 232,634 2,212,095 MITCHELL ELEM 244 393,763 102,152 1,490,408 1,986,323 ML KING ELEM 551 951,442 175,279 2,471,252 3,597,973 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013,587 711,596 269,459 2,994,642 RIGHTSELL ELEM 228 367,943 92,854 1,390,174 1,850,971 ROMINE ELEM 268 1,635,786 107,285 291,248 2,034,319 WASHINGTON ELEM 656 3,357,503 320,190 737,570 4,415,263 WILLIAMS ELEM 501 808,507 0 2,506,587 3,315,094 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,234 150,556 267,932 2,325,722 WOODRUFF ELEM 232 1,178,151 97,276 237,035 1,512,462 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,652 0 314,951 2,784,603 FULBRIGHT ELEM 500 2,636,018 160,947 304,641 3,101,606 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 337 543,846 264,581 2,468,670 3,277,097 BADGETT ELEM 188 1,066,875 91,049 224,925 1,382,849 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391,615 131,953 283,125 1,806,693 CHICOT ELEM 482 2,579,662 198,310 432,089 3,210,061 CLOVERDALE ELEM 464 2,013,096 182,178 417,037 2,612,311 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 242 1,316,087 70,687 172,426 1,559,200 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 274 1,283,155 107,986 276,259 1,667,400 MABELVALE ELEM 401 1,907,423 208,967 317,134 2,433,524 OTTER CREEK ELEM 310 1,590,217 114,234 188,416 1,892,867 WAKEFIELD ELEM 436 2,039,338 435,712 262,235 2,737,285 WATSON ELEM 443 2,013,951 148,534 389,505 2,551,990 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 639 3,103,716 220,946 561,882 3,886,544 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 468 2,990,820 136,526 295,864 3,423,210 JAFAIR HIGH 829 4,721,199 0 490,814 5,212,013 MCCLELLAN HIGH 926 5,363,357 0 607,848 5,971,205 METRO HIGH N/A 1,475,600 76,908 0 1,552,508 ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 75,772 0 532,484 608,256 ISH ELEM N/A 14,500 0 0 14,500 TOTAL BUDGET 24,250 107,043,856 7,167,441 44,989,746 159,201,043 The district as of March 31, 1997 has incurred expenses totaling $104,064,767 or 65.4 percent of their total Y 96/97 budget.  See the nole section on the nex1 page for explanations of the categories. The LiH/e Rock School District Finance omce and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-13 !co:~~ ,~\nnu II 5,660 6,210 6,609 7,107 6,817 5,930 6,978 5,828 6,378 6,859 6,393 6,153 5,629 6,338 7,068 5,471 8,521 9,053 7,314 6,015 5,959 5,931 8,141 6,530 6,596 8,118 7,591 6,731 6,617 6,761 6,519 5,407 6,203 9,724 7,356 6,792 6,660 5,630 6,443 6,085 6,069 6,106 6,278 5,761 6,082 7,315 6,287 6,448 N/A N/A N/A 6,565    NOTES FOR LRSD COST PER STUDENT FORTOTALPROGRAMSFORFY9~97 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96/97 This category consists of bt.\ndgeted expenses relative to regular programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. Cost Per Student Category FY 96/97 SOURCE The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing the school's total budget for FY 96/97 by their enrollment as of October 1, 1996. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-14  LEA# 6001005 6001023 6001024 6001030 6001038 6001044 6001047 6001052 6001055 6001063 SOURCE:  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 I FUNDING SOURCES II II ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; [\nJ SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,519 0 4,828,367 6,246,886 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1,246,255 91,288 210,329 1,547,872 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,151 146,606 273,735 2,456,492 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,245 205,411 300,830 2,961,486 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013,587 711,596 269,459 2,994,642 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,234 150,556 267,932 2,325,722 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,652 0 314,951 2,784,603 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391,615 131,953 283,125 1,806,693 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 242 1,316,087 70,687 172,426 1,559,200 JA FAIR HIGH 829 4,721,199 0 490,814 5,212,013 TOTAL BUDGET 4,6\"A ,::,fJ,344 1,508,097 7,411,968 29,895,609 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-15  I COST PER STU FY 96/97 7,107 7,068 5,471 5,959 6,596 6,761 5,407 6,792 6,443 6,287 6,369  LEA# 6002070 6002072 6002077 SOURCE:  NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 96197 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 507 2,657,559 149,684 103,353 2,910,596 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 605 3,128,508 167,893 122,289 3,418,690 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 329 2,399,123 196,333 83,539 2,678,995 TOTAL BUDGET 1,441 8,185,190 513,910 309,181 9,008,281 As of March 31, 1997, the district had incurred junior high school expenses totaling $5,514,663 or 61.2 percent of the total junior high school budget for FY 96/97. See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-32  COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,741 5,651 8,143 6,251  LEA# 6002075 6002076 I SOURCE:  NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96197 I FUNDING SOURCES II ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,371 7,639,264 278,058 290,540 8,207,862 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,369 7,739,774 357,363 292,842 8,389,979 TOTAL BUDGET I 2,740 II 15,379,038 I 635,421 I 583,382 I 16,597,841 As of March 31, 1997, the district had incurred high school expenses totaling $10,329,243 or 62.2 percent of the total high school budget for FY 96197. See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. I The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-33  COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,987 6,129 6,058    NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 LEA# SCHOOL TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 140,243 30,911 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 520,352 57,733 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 276,070 30,962 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 409,955 58,265 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 287,293 31,012 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 465,091 31,050 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 273,784 33,432 TOTAL SALARY EXPENSE 2,372,788 273,365 Teacher Expense At 03/31197 The district's total teacher and school site administrator salary expense as of March 31, 1997 was $12,595,099 or 38.3 percent of the district's total expense for the same period of $32,880,644 . The district's teacher and school site administrator budget for FY 96/97 totaled $22,776,143 or 42.2 percent of the district's total budget for FY 96/97 of $54,015,933. Teacher salary expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997. Administrator Expense At 03/31197 Total Category At 03/31197 SOURCE: School site administrator expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997. The totals represent the total teacher and school site administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997 . The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. F-34 TOTAL 171,154 578,085 307,032 468,220 318,305 496,141 307,216 \",\" '\",153 PCSSD Program Cost as of March 31, 1997    F. BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) The following is a summary of the PCSSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual as ofMarch 31, 1997. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 1 schools. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are presented for the Cycle 1 schools. Cost per student information is based on total budgeted cost for FY 96/97 and is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 1 school programs Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses are budgeted to increase 12.3 percent in FY 96/97 from $99,828,066 in FY 95/96 to $112,075,972 for the current fiscal year. Elementary school operating costs are budgeted to rise from $54,103,532 in FY 95/96 to $61,439,373 or 13.6 percent in FY 96/97. Operating costs for junior high schools are budgeted to increase $3,491,504 in FY 96/97 to $24,685,317 from junior high school costs for FY 95/96 of $21,193,813. Operating costs for high schools are budgeted to increase 5.8 percent from $24,530,721 in FY 95/97 to $25,951,282 in FY 96/97. SOURCES The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section F-35    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment as of October 1, 1996 declined 1.2 percent in FY 96/97 for a total enrollment of20,047 as compared with total enrollment as of October 1, 1995 of20,285. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools decreased 2.5 percent for FY 96/97 from 11,313 in FY 95/96 to 11,029 as of October 1, 1996. Junior high school enrollment declined 2.1 percent in FY 96/97 from 4,339 in FY 95/96 to 4,249 as of October 1, 1996. Enrollment in the district's high schools increased 2. 9 percent in FY 96/97 from 4,633 in FY 95/96 to 4,769 as of October 1, 1996. Cost per Student Rate The district's cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 13. 6 percent in FY 96/97 from $4,921 in FY 95/96 to $5,591 in FY 96/97. The elementary cost per student rate is budgeted to increase from $4,782 in FY 95/96 to $5,571 in FY 96/97. The junior high school cost per student rate is budgeted to rise 19. 0 percent in FY 96/97 from the FY 95/96 junior high cost per student rate of $4,884 to $5,810 in FY 96/97. The high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase from $5,295 in FY 95/96 to $5,442 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-36    F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (Continued) Desegregation Expense In FY 96/97, the district has budgeted $12,554,647 in total desegregation costs. The ADE's desegregation funding to the district for FY 96/97 should total approximately $7,395,116. All of the information received from the PCS SD has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. The district is utilizing the funds received from the ADE in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for desegregation purposes . SOURCES: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-37   PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM 636,997 203,119 63,476 1,598 75,890 19,409 1,926 94,349 21,983 6003092 BAKER ELEM 603,652 219,700 68,657 1,728 566 20,993 139,449 102,051 23,777 6003093 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 1,208,663 502,271 156,962 3,951 87,949 47,993 224,805 233,307 54,359 6003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 979,164 433,873 135,587 3,413 66,225 41,457 0 0 0 6003095 CLINTON ELEM 1,100,951 460,819 144,007 3,625 98,862 44,032 228,882 214,052 49,873 6003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 691,651 302,606 94,566 2,381 46,935 28,914 0 0 0 6003100 FULLER ELEM 696,891 234,900 73,407 1,848 102,277 22,445 115,385 109,111 25,422 6003102 HARRIS ELEM 728,698 209,337 65,419 1,647 70,493 20,003 36,315 97,238 22,656 6003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 1,131,406 505,035 157,825 3,973 145,353 48,257 23,129 234,591 54,658 6003104 LANDMARK ELEM 836,349 348,205 108,815 2,739 96,379 33,272 113,364 161,742 37,685 6003105 LAWSON ELEM 666,815 203,119 63,476 1,598 40,358 19,409 0 0 0 6003106 TOLLESON ELEM 795,679 366,168 114,429 2,881 342 34,987 0 0 0 6003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 751,618 241,119 75,350 1,897 78,526 23,039 118,135 112,001 26,095 6003110 ROBINSON ELEM 747,455 263,917 82,475 2,076 1,908 25,218 823 122,591 28,563 6003111 SCOTT ELEM 376,872 87,743 27,420 690 33,225 8,384 26,318 40,756 9,496 6003112 SHERWOOD ELEM 812,030 287,407 89,816 2,261 141 27,462 0 0 0 6003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 772,294 291,552 91,111 2,294 168 27,859 0 0 0 6003116 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 1,212,293 301,665 140,985 3,549 253 39,323 22,712 24,462 48,826 6003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 1,192,595 244,381 114,213 2,875 504 31,856 20,746 19,817 39,554 6003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 1,763,014 389,438 182,006 4,582 29,413 50,765 389,407 31,579 63,033 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 1,674,622 402,373 188,052 4,734 554 52,451 30,922 32,628 65,126 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 2,336,156 451,804 211,153 5,315 5,166 58,895 0 0 0 6003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 1,536,418 386,205 180,495 4,544 1,110 50,344 512,280 31,317 62,509 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 2,001,371 424,548 198,415 4,995 20,043 55,342 25,922 34,426 68,715 6003127 ROBINSON HIGH 1,045,810 202,803 94,781 2,386 9,860 26,436 17,833 18,445 32,825 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 1,859,743 374,194 174,882 4,402 5,818 48,778 3,345 30,343 60,565 6003129 CATO ELEM 879,984 374,459 117,019 2,946 82,452 35,780 0 0 0 6003130 PINEWOOD ELEM 813,597 375,150 117,235 2,951 61,116 35,846 0 0 0 6003135 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 476,470 223,154 69,737 1,756 45,937 21,323 342,755 103,657 24,151 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 1,902,199 363,569 169,916 4,277 23,346 47,393 0 0 0 6003137 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 637,850 263,227 82,259 2,071 0 0 0 0 0 6003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 877,594 312,970 97,804 2,462 17,691 29,904 0 0 0 6003140 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 1,862,859 424,086 198,199 4,989 17,156 55,282 19,198 34,389 68,641 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 865,313 274,279 85,714 2,158 62,453 26,208 779 127,404 29,684 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 798,467 315,042 98,452 2,478 0 0 1,539 146,338 34,096 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 1,040,989 200,956 93,918 2,364 296 26,196 62,681 16,295 32,526 6003146 BATES ELEM 1,024,083 320,569 100,179 2,522 174,480 30,631 111,915 148,906 34,694 N/A SCOTT ALTERNATIVE 20,059 0 0 0 53 0 360,903 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 39,358,671 11,785,762 4,328,212 108,956 1,503,298 1,215,886 2,951,468 2,319,795 1,019,512 The district has incurred expenses as of March 31, 1997 totaling 57.9 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget of $112,075,972. SOURCE: See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-38  LEGAL TOTAL 7,120 1,125,867 7,701 1,188,274 17,607 2,537,867 0 1,659,719 16,154 2,361,257 0 1,167,053 8,234 1,389,920 7,338 1,259,144 17,703 2,321,930 12,206 1,750,756 0 994,775 0 1,314,486 8,452 1,436,232 9,251 1,284,277 3,076 613,980 0 1,219,117 0 1,185,278 15,814 1,809,882 12,811 1,679,352 20,416 2,923,653 21,094 2,472,556 0 3,068,489 20,246 2,785,468 22,256 2,856,033 10,632 1,459,811 19,617 2,581,687 0 1,492,640 0 1,405,895 7,823 1,318,763 0 2,510,700 0 985,407 0 1,338,425 22,232 2,707,031 9,615 1,483,607 11,043 1,407,455 10,535 1,486,756 11,237 1,959,216 0 381,015 330,213 64,921,773   NOTES FOR PCSSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE SCHEDULE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Oeseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Oeseg Total Category At 03/31/97 SOURCE: This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site as of March 31, 1997. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-39     PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 1,674,622 402,373 188,052 4,734 554 52,451 30,922 32,628 65,126 21,094 2,472,556 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 2,336,156 451,804 211,153 5,315 5,166 58,895 0 0 0 0 3,068,489 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 2,001,371 424,548 198,415 4,995 20,043 55,342 25,922 34,426 68,715 22,256 2,856,033 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 1,859,743 374,194 174,882 4,402 5,818 48,778 3,345 30,343 60,565 19,617 2,581,687 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 1,902,199 363,569 169,916 4,277 23,346 47,393 0 0 0 0 2,510,700 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE 9,774,091 2,016,488 942,418 23,723 54,927 262,859 60,189 97,397 194,406 62,967 13,489,465 The district's Total Program Budget for the fiscal year is budgeted at $112,075,972. See the note section for Total Program Operating Expense for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-40  LEA# 6003090 6003092 6003093 6003094 6003095 6003099. 6003100 6003102 6003103 6003104 6003105 6003106 6003108 6003110 6003111 6003112 6003113  6003116 6003117 6003120 6003122 6003123 6003125 6003126 6003127 6003128 6003129 6003130 6003135 6003136 6003137 6003139 6003140 6003141 6003142 6003143 6003146 NIA  SOURCE: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 96197 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG HOMER ADKINS ELEM 294 1,582,187 164,277 211,279 BAKER ELEM 318 1,509,052 15,645 352,823 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 727 3,275,527 241,668 762,119 BAYOU METO ELEM 628 2,718,495 200,893 0 CLINTON ELEM 667 2,927,569 252,828 738,623 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 438 1,890,149 146,701 0 FULLER ELEM 340 1,801,402 209,251 416,518 HARRIS ELEM 303 1,632,895 142,111 323,447 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 731 3,160,161 313,977 511,458 LANDMARK ELEM 504 2,203,568 214,148 510,706 LAWSON ELEM 294 1,556,741 93,937 0 TOLLESON ELEM 530 2,204,965 26,074 0 OAK GROVE ELEM 349 1,868,992 162,841 411,219 ROBINSON ELEM 382 1,867,043 18,956 192,550 SCOTT ELEM 127 804,443 56,939 64,016 SHERWOOD ELEM 416 2,040,148 20,466 0 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 422 1,929,018 20,761 0 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 653 2,905,343 32,126 444,858 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 529 2,655,904 26,025 370,428 FULLER JR. HIGH 843 4,155,048 203,098 1,069,798 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 871 4,152,972 42,851 598,654 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 978 4,895,917 48,115 0 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 836 3,492,566 41,129 1,157,074 OAK GROVE HIGH 919 4,422,214 183,850 616,803 ROBINSON HIGH 439 2,132,440 76,026 288,701 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 810 3,952,934 39,850 408,288 CATO ELEM 542 2,360,279 185,131 0 PINEWOOD ELEM 543 2,302,217 171,112 0 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 323 1,280,169 111,492 726,107 N. PULASKI HIGH 787 4,018,771 176,604 0 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 381 1,694,436 0 0 OAKBROOKE ELEM 453 2,213,010 107,559 0 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 918 4,504,405 201,401 624,235 TAYLOR ELEM 397 2,018,141 159,701 200,111 PINE FOREST ELEM 456 2,096,695 0 230,369 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 435 2,301,579 21,401 375,191 BATES ELEM 464 2,424,886 317,694 464,409 SCOTT ALTERNATIVE 0 122,406 0 484,863 TOTAL BUDGET 20,047 95,074,687 4,446,638 12,554,647 The district as of March 31, 1997 has incurred expenses totaling $64,921,773 or 57.9 percent of their total FY 96197 budget. See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories . COST PER STU TOTAL FY 96/97 1,957,743 6,659 1,877,520 5,904 4,279,314 5,886 2,919,388 4,649 3,919,020 5,876 2,036,850 4,650 2,427,171 7,139 2,098,453 6,926 3,985,596 5,452 2,928,422 5,810 1,650,678 5,615 2,231,039 4,210 2,443,052 7,000 2,078,549 5,441 925,398 7,287 2,060,614 4,953 1,949,779 4,620 3,382,327 5,180 3,052,357 5,770 5,427,944 6,439 4,794,477 5,505 4,944,032 5,055 4,690,769 5,611 5,222,867 5,683 2,497,167 5,688 4,401,072 5,433 2,545,410 4,696 2,473,329 4,555 2,117,768 6,557 4,195,375 5,331 1,694,436 4,447 2,320,569 5,123 5,330,041 5,806 2,377,953 5,990 2,327,064 5,103 2,698,171 6,203 3,206,989 6,912 607,269 N/A I 112,075,972 II 5,591 The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-41 I    Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg NOTES FOR PCSSD COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 96/97 This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96/97 This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. Cost Per Student Category FY 96197 SOURCE: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing each school's FY 96/97 total budget by their enrollment as of October 1, 1996 . The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fis ca/ Services Division of the ADE. F-42  LEA# 6003122 6003123 6003126 6003128 6003136 SOURCE:  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES I ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 871 4,152,972 42,851 598,654 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 978 4,895,917 48,115 0 OAK GROVE HIGH 919 4,422,214 183,850 616,803 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 810 3,952,934 39,850 408,288 N. PULASKI HIGH 787 4,018,771 176,604 0 TOTAL BUDGET 4,365 21,442,808 491,270 1,623,745 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category.  I COST PER STU TOTAL FY 96/97 4,794,477 5,505 4,944,032 5,055 5,222,867 5,683 4,401,072 5,433 4,195,375 5,331 23,557,823 5,397 The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-43    PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 96/97 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 61,439,373 54.8% 5,571 5,591 (20) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 24,685,317 22.0% 5,810 5,591 219 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 25,951,282 23.2% 5,442 5,591 (149) PCSSD PROGRAM COST PCSSD COST PER STU 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU VARIANCE SOURCE: 6000 5800 5600 5400 5200 FY 96/97 Program costs consists of the total budget for FY 96/97 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of the program budget to the total district budget of $112,075,972 for FY 96/97. The total program budget for FY 96/97 to the total number of students in the program category. The total budget for FY 96/97 of $112,075,972 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1996 of 20,047. The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-44  LEA# 6003090 6003092 6003093 6003094 6003095 6003099 6003100 6003102 6003103 6003104 6003105 6003106 6003108 6003110 6003111 6003112 6003113 6003129 6003130 6003135 6003137 6003139 6003141 6003142 6003146 NIA SOURCE:  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10101196 STATE FEDERAL DESEG HOMER ADKINS ELEM 294 1,582,187 164,277 211,279 BAKER ELEM 318 1,509,052 15,645 352,823 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 727 3,275,527 241,668 762,119 BAYOU METO ELEM 628 2,718,495 200,893 0 CLINTON ELEM 667 2,927,569 252,828 738,623 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 438 1,890,149 146,701 0 FULLER ELEM 340 1,801,402 209,251 416,518 HARRIS ELEM 303 1,632,895 142,111 323,447 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 731 3,160,161 313,977 511,458 LANDMARK ELEM 504 2,203,568 214,148 510,706 LAWSON ELEM 294 1,556,741 93,937 0 TOLLESON ELEM 530 2,204,965 26,074 0 OAIS GROVE ELEM 349 1,868,992 162,841 411,219 ROBINSON ELEM 382 1,867,043 18,956 192,550 SCOTT ELEM 127 804,443 56,939 64,016 SHERWOOD ELEM 416 2,040,148 20,466 0 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 422 1,929,018 20,761 0 CATO ELEM 542 2,360,279 185,131 0 PINEWOOD ELEM 543 2,302,217 171,112 0 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 323 1,280,169 111,492 726,107 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 381 1,694,436 0 0 OAKBROOKE ELEM 453 2,213,010 107,559 0 TAYLOR ELEM 397 2,018,141 159,701 200,111 PINE FOREST ELEM 456 2,096,695 0 230,369 BATES ELEM 464 2,424,886 317,694 464,409 SCOTT ALTERNATIVE NIA 122,406 0 484,863 TOTAL BUDGET 11,029 51,484,594 3,354,162 6,600,617 At March 31, 1997, the district has incurred elementary school expense totaling $36,580,355 or 59.5 percent of the total elementary school budget of $61,439,373. See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. COST PER STU TOTAL FY 96197 1,957,743 6,659 1,877,520 5,904 4,279,314 5,886 2,919,388 4,649 3,919,020 5,876 2,036,850 4,650 2,427,171 7,139 2,098,453 6,926 3,985,596 5,452 2,928,422 5,810 1,650,678 5,615 2,231,039 4,210 2,443,052 7,000 2,078,549 5,441 925,398 7,287 2,060,614 4,953 1,949,779 4,620 2,545,410 4,696 2,473,329 4,555 2,117,768 6,557 1,694,436 4,447 2,320,569 5,123 2,377,953 5,990 2,327,064 5,103 3,206,989 6,912 607,269 NIA 61,439,373 5,571 The Pulaski County Special Schoof District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-45   LEA# 6003116 6003117 6003120 6003122 6003140 6003143 SOURCE:  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR. HIGH PROGRAMS FY 96197 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 653 2,905,343 32,126 444,858 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 529 2,655,904 26,025 370,428 FULLER JR. HIGH 843 4,155,048 203,098 1,069,798 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 871 4,152,972 42,851 598,654 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 918 4,504,405 201,401 624,235 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 435 2,301,579 21,401 375,191 TOTAL BUDGET 4,249 20,675,251 526,902 3,4~~.'=' At March 31, 1997, the district has incurred junior high expense totaling $13,079,230 or 53.0 percent of the total junior high budget of $24,685,317. See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. COST PER STU TOTAL FY 96/97 3,382,327 5,180 3,052,357 5,770 5,427,944 6,439 4,794,477 5,505 5,330,041 5,806 2,698,171 6,203 5,317 C,810 The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. F-46   LEA# 6003123 6003125 6003126 6003127 6003128 6003136 SOURCE:  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL JACKSONVILLE HIGH 978 4,895,917 48,115 0 4,944,032 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 836 3,492,566 41,129 1,157,074 4,690,769 OAK GROVE HIGH 919 4,422,214 183,850 616,803 5,222,867 ROBINSON HIGH 439 2,132,440 76,026 288,701 2,497,167 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 810 3,952,934 39,850 408,288 4,401,072 N. PULASKI HIGH 787 4,018,771 176,604 0 4,195,375 TOTAL BUDGET 4,769 22,914,842 565,574 2,470,866 25,951,282 As of March 31, 1997, the district has incurred high school expense totaling $15,262,188 or 58.8 percent of the total high school budget of $25,951,282. See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,055 5,611 5,683 5,688 5,433 5,331 5,44? The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal SeNices Division of the ADE. F-47     PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 LEA# SCHOOL TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES I TOTAL 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 1,143,978 118,280 1,262,258 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 1,573,533 151,901 1,725,434 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 1,365,749 149,044 1,514,793 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 1,189,768 123,797 1,313,565 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 1,222,222 116,645 1,338,867 TOTAL SALARY EXPENSE 6,495,250 659,667 7,154,917 The district's total teacher and school site administrator salary expense as of March 31, 1997 totaled $29,118,564 or 44.9 percent of the district's total expense for the same period of $64,921,773. Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries is budgeted at $56,079,997 or 50.0 percent of the total budget for FY 96/97 of $112,075,972. Teacher Expense At 03/31/97 Teacher salary expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997. Administrator Expense At 03/31/97 Total Category At 03/31/97 SOURCE: School site administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school at March 31, 1997. The totals represent the total teacher and school site administrator expense for each Cycle 1 school as of March 31, 1997 . The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-48 I Transportation Cost as of March 31, 1997    F. BUDGET INFORMATION 2. Transportation cost and funding source. Transportation costs as of March 31, 1997 are presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter. The districts' transportation cost information includes expenses by funding source as ofMarch 31, 1997. LRSD Transportation The LRSD's total transportation costs at March 31, 1997 were $7,400,868 and are budgeted for FY 96/97 at $8,912,967. The district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs at March 31, 1997 were $2,191,930 and are budgeted for FY 96/97 at $2,886,793. The ADE paid the district $4,644,961 in FY 96/97 for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97 Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs. NLRSD Transportation The district's total transportation costs were $1,436,639 as of March 31, 1997 and are budgeted at $2,109,410 for FY 96/97. The district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation expense totaled $166,353 as of March 31, 1997 and is budgeted at $369,312 for FY 96/97 The ADE paid the district $664,242 in FY 96/97 for Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 91/92 through FY 96/97. PCSSD Transportation The district's total transportation expense as ofMarch 31, 1997 was $5,347,724 and is budgeted at $7,646,557 for FY 96/97. The district's desegregation transportation expense as ofMarch 31, 19197 totaled $1,019,512 and is budgeted at $1,781,205 for FY 96/97. The ADE paid the district $1,500,209 in FY 96/97 for Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-49    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES RATIO OF LOCAL \u0026amp; TRANS EXPENSE TO LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 5,208,938 0 2,191,930 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,270,286 0 166,353 1 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 4,328.212 0 1,019,512 Funding Categories TRANSPORTATION 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 AS OF 03/31/97 TOTAL TOTAL EXPENSE 7,400,868 7.1% 1,436,639 4.4% 5,347,724 8.2% Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Oeseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. Oeseg This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Total Category At 03131197 This category consists of the district's total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997. Ratio of Transportation Expense to Total Expense At 03131197 SOURCES: This category indicates the percentage of the district's total expense as of March 31, 1997 attributable to the transportation function. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. F-50    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD SOURCES: AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 BUS DRIVER REPLACEMENT OUTSOURCING SALARIES PARTS TOTAL 5,916,207 630,524 0 6,546,731 0 478,037 45,496 523,533 0 1,791,708 260,798 2,052,506 Outsourcing costs as of March 31, 1997 accounted for 79.9 percent of the total transportation expense of $7,400,868. Bus driver salaries, exclusive of any bus driver salaries included in the outsourcing fee, accounted for 8.5 percent of the total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997. The district does not incur replacement part costs because this is included in the outsourcing costs. The district does not outsource its transportation function\ntherefore, the district does not incur any expense for this category. Bus driver salaries as of March 31, 1997 accounted for 33.3 percent of the total transportation expense of $1,436,639. Replacement parts accounted for 3.2 percent of the total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997. The district does not outsource its transportation function\ntherefore, the district does not incur any costs for this category. Bus driver salaries accounted as of March 31, 1997 for 33.5 percent of the total transportation expense of $5,347,724. Replacement parts accounted for 4.9 percent of the total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997 . The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. F-51 . . -:e:t -- ::===::::=====:=- =:::\n:-:- LRSD Transportation Cost as of March 31, 1997    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 LRSD TRANSPORTATION AS OF 03/31/97 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 I LEGEND LOCAUSTATE FED DESEG TOTAL Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Oeseg This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. Oeseg This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. SOURCE: Of the total transportation expense at March 31, 1997, outsourcing costs were 79.9 percent of the total transportation expense, and bus driver salaries, exclusive of any bus driver salaries included in the outsourcing expense, were 8.5 percent of the total transportation expense. The district does not incur expenses for replacement parts because this is included in the outsourcing fees . The Little Rock School District Finance Office. F-52 I 5,208,938 0 2,191,930 7,400,868 NLRSD Transportation Cost as of March 31, 1997    NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 NLRSD TRANSPORTATION AS OF 03/31/97 LEGEND 1500000 1000000 500000 0 LOCAUSTATE 1,270,286 FED 0 DESEG 166,353 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL 1,436,639 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. SOURCE: Of the total transportation expense at March 31, 1997, bus driver salaries were $478,037 or 33.3 percent of the total transportation expense, and replacement parts were $45,496 or 3.2 percent of the total transportation expense. The district does not have outsourcing costs . The North Uttle Rock School District Finance Office. F-53 PCSSD Transportation Cost as of March 31, 1997  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 PCSSD TRANSPORTATION AS OF 03/31/97 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 FUNDING SOURCES LEGEND LOCAUSTATE FED DESEG TOTAL 4,328,212 0 1,019,512 5,347,724  Funding Categories  Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Oeseg This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Oeseg SOURCE: This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total transportation expense at March 31, 1997, bus driver salaries were $1,791,708 or 33.5 percent of the total transportation expense, and replacement parts were $260,798 or 4.9 percent of the total transportation expense. The district does not have outsourcing costs . The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. F-54 Legal Fees as of March 31, 1997    F. BUDGET JNFORMA TION 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. Legal fees are reported by funding source and type of service for each of the three districts in Pulaski County. Legal fees are as of March 31, 1997 by funding source. The LRSD's legal expense totaled $265,855 as of March 31, 1997. The NLRSD's legal expense was $83,602 as of March 31, 1997. The PCSSD's legal expense totaled $439,169 as of March 31, 1997 . SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. F-55  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 OIL_ _________ _____, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER jmDelozier, M.   FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME Delozier, Mary RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF 'MIi WF OM OF GENDER EXP WF 25 2 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 1 G-23 6 5  NUMBER OF REFERRALS BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER mllRice, O IBPrice, B   FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM GENDER EXP Price, Beatrice BF 12 4 Rice, Opal WF 25 1 2 Total referrals for this grade: 7 Grade 2 G-24 OF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0    NUMBER OF REFERRALS FAIR PARK ELEMEMTARY: LRSD 8 BM BF WM WF Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME Turner, Marilyn Carter, Charles lsum, Margaret Wade P!PJWade ~lsum, M mcarter, c imTurner, M RACE\u0026amp; GENDER BF WM BF BM Total referrals for this grade: 9 YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF EXP 29 5 1 15 1 20 1 3 1 Grade 3 STUDENT RACE AND GENDER G-25  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 7 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ------------ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lffll Branch, S mmJames, C   FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP James, Charlotte BF 26 5 2 1 Branch, Samuel BM 25 1 1 Total referrals for this grade: 10 Grade 4 G-26 3 2  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 3 -- -- - BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER ~Branch, S lffilCarter, C RSherwood, S   FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count RACE\u0026amp; YEARS TEACHER NAME BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Sherwood, WF 30 1 Sherry Carter, Charles WM 15 1 Branch, Samuel BM 25 1 1 Total referrals for this grade: 4 Grade 5 G-27  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 3 3 2 2 1 QIL..- __________ __, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER mcarter, c mmPowell, R  FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97)  Teacher Student Count RACE\u0026amp; YEARS TEACHER NAME BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Powell, Rosie BF 8 2 2 Carter, Charles WM 15 1 Total referrals for this grade: 5 Grade 6 G-28 7 6 5 4  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 6 ... ..... . . - BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER ~Machen, J lffllGwin, L mmBauman, S   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Bauman, Susan WF 19 3 Gwin, Lisa WF 10 3 Machen, Janet WF 19 1 Total referrals for this grade: 7 Grade 2 G-29  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 Qk:...._---------~ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER jnmGestaut, H lfflJGuin, C   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) TEACHER NAME Gestaut, Helen Guin, Charlotte Teacher Student Count RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP WF WF 20 9 1 3 2 Total referrals for this grade: 6 Grade 3 G-30  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 3 3 2 1 O~----------~ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lffllGiusti, D mm!Clements, C   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WWI WF OM OF GENDER EXP Clements, Carolyn Giusti, Deborah WF WF Total referrals for this grade: 3 G-31 18 3 1 2 Grade 4  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 o~----------- BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER ffiHWilson, G ffl!l!IHudson,T   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME Hudson, Terry Wilson, Gloria RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP WF BF 4 32 5 2 3 2 2 1 Total referrals for this grade: 15 Grade 5 G-32 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER QQMartin, M mil Mevawala, B Rlemle, N   FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Lemle, Nettie BF 16 1 1 Mevawala, WF 4 1 1 Barbara Martin, Malinda BF 26 6 3 4 Total referrals for this grade: 17 Grade 6 G-33  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 15 10 / r: ... ... ,.,,-\n,-\n,-\n,.,,-\n,-\n,-\n,-\n,-\nJ', 5 I / / Ir:-:, 0,000000Q00~ ~ )( )' o I/ BM  Jennings lillIIJames ~Jamell \u0026amp;Jackson Im Heavin nmE nderlin mEarleywine  6 BF WM 15Q!Cox-Phillips wmCookus 1 I .IJJJJJ.l.l'/1/ WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF IMJf VVF OM OF Cookus IMJf 6 Eng. 4 1 Cox-Phillips VVF 19 Sp. Ed. Earleywine VVF 21 Eng. 2 Enderlin VVF 18 Math Heavin VVF 7 Music Jackson BF 13 Comm. Jamel! VVF 21 Sp. Ed. James VVF 2 French 2 Jennings VVF 14 Science 4 3 3 Total referrals for this grade: 47 Total referrals for this page: 26 Grade 10 Page 1 of 2 G-34 10 8 6 4 2 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 7 BM BF []]]Willis s Richardson BBWage m Thompson EJTaylor ~Rains @Lewis wmPalmer WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF NAME GENDER EXP Palmer Lewis Rains Taylor Thompson Wage WalkerRichardson Willis G-35 BM 18 Soc. St 2 BF 0 Comm. 2 WF 25 Eng. BM 3 Music WF 26 Eng. 2 2 WF 14 Spanish BF 3 Math BF 12 Art Total referrals for this grade: 47 Total referrals for this page: 21 3 3 Grade 10 Page 2 of 2    NUMBER OF REFERRALS J  A  FAIR HIGH LRSD  Earleywine Discipline Referrals (96-97) 27 mmCo x-Phillips T e a C h e r s t u d e n t C 0 u n t 25 ~Cookus !iiiiii!iii f ..... - BB Callaway TEACHER RACE\u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF NAME GENDER EXP itmBurr a Bostic Armstrong BM 0 Science 1 1 II 1111111111  ---- . - ~Boone Beyah BF 17 Voe. 1 20 Ill oo!Beyah  WfflArmstrong Boone BF 0 Science 16 8 1 ,...., ..,.,..,....!,..,. 15 ..,. ....., ..... ...... ...,. . .. 15 ,,,. ......,. ..., . ................... .. j-~{: ~ ~:_~:_ :_ .,. . ,. . , . Bostic BF 18 Soc. St. 1 ,: ,: ~'.'.l~'.'.I~'.-_  ..  .......... ..,.. . ,. Burr WF 24 Admin. 1 , ..,.. . ... ~::::::::::::  , .,. ... .., 10 .. .,. . ,. ,,,., . , .,. . ...,. ....,. .... ....,. ...,. , . Callaway BF 24 H. Ee. 1 1 ...... ,. ,. ., .., . ., .. .. ., .. .. .....,. ...... ...............,.. ..,. .. ,-..,: ................ .... .,. . ........... ..,. ... ,: .... -- .,. Cookus VVM 6 Eng. 1 .,. .,. .,. .... 5 ....,. ....,. .... .,. ....,. ..., .,. ,..,. .Jl '\"..,,.a.. .Ill,..~. .... .., ., . ....... Cox-Phillips WF 19 Sp. Ed. 2 1 ..,. ..,.. ....,, . ., ... .. ........ .... \"'\"\"\"'~~... .- ,: ....,,: 1 .... ,:,:.-, j',  1 \" 0 / Earleywine WF 21 Eng. 5 2 0/ BM BF WM WF / Total referrals for this grade:235 Grade 11 Total referrals for this page: 43 Page 1 of 4 STUDENT RACE AND GENDER G-36 50 40 30 20 10 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 45 33 BM BF  Jacobs mmHu llum ~Heavin ea Harrison ttmGray EJFinch mFeldman IZ!Eskola !miEl nderlin WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER  TEACHER NAME Enderlin Eskola Feldman Finch Gray Harrison Heavin Hullum Jacobs G-37  J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP WF WM WF WF BF \\/1/M WF WF BF 18 27 9 16 16 13 7 10 Student Count SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF Math 8 3 Math 2 4 Math 9 5 3 3 Admin. 4 3 Eng. 4 7 Math 2 Music 5 2 Math 4 2 Science 7 6 Total referrals for this grade:235 Total referrals for this page: 85 Grade 11 Page 2 of 4 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 23 BM  Rains [Il]I]Nahlen 26 ................M....o rey :-:::::::.:- \u0026amp;McAfee mMays ........... m]Lewis mJohnson @James ........... imJamell 5 _:::::::::\n:\n2 BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF Jamell WF 21 Sp. Ed. 3 1 James WF 2 French 10 18 1 Johnson WM 15 Soc.St. 1 Lewis BF 0 Comm. Mays BF 20 Voe. 2 McAfee WF 11 Science Morey WF 19 ISSP 2 Nahlen WF 14 Voe. 2 6 Rains WF 25 Science 3 Total referrals for this grade:235 Grade 11 G-38 Total referrals for this page: 56 Page 3 of 4   NUMBER OF REFERRALS Willis 30 ITIIIlWilliams sWilder 25 TEACHER NAME ea Richardson :mm111m: Shells 25 mWage Stewart ....2. 0- -- aThompson Taylor =:=:= .-.: ::: ..: - ~Taylor 20 Thompson @Stewart ................. WWShells Wage Walker- Richardson 15 Wilder Williams 10 Willis 5 0 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER G-39  J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Te a C h e r s t u d e n t C 0 u RACE \u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM GENDER EXP BM 5 Soc. St 2 BF 0 Comm. 2 BM 3 Music 3 WF 26 Eng. 5 WF 14 Span. 4 5 BF 3 Math 3 3 WM 17 Math 2 3 BM 16 Soc. St. 6 5 BF 12 Art 3 Total referrals for this grade:235 Grade 11 Total referrals for this page: 51 Page 4 of 4- n t OF  NUMBER OF REFERRALS ITIIFI1e ldman 25 sEnderlin \u0026amp;Delamar mcox-Phillips 19 El Callaway 20 mBurr 16 QQJBoone .............. filfflArmstrong 15 10 5 0 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) TEACHER NAME Armstrong Boone Burr Callaway Cox-Phillips Delamar Enderlin Feldman G-40 Teacher Student Count RACE\u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF GENDER EXP BM 0 Science 1 BF 0 Science 7 2 WF 24 Admin. BF 24 H. Ee. WF 19 Sp. Ed. 2 3 BM 12 ISSP WF 18 Math 1 7 1/1/F 9 Math 6 3 Total referrals for this grade:126 Total referrals for this page: 38 Wfl/i WF OM Grade 12 Page 1 of 4 OF 15 10 5 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 14 14 BM BF DIII1Jamell ~Jacobs BHullum mHobbs BHeavin mHarrison WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF Glassco Hall Harrison Heavin Hobbs Hullum Jacobs Jamell G-41 BF 21 Sp. Ed. BF 15 Eng. 6 3 WM 13 Math 2 2 WF 7 Music 2 WF 16 Jo urn. 4 WF 10 Math BF Science 2 WF 21 Sp. Ed. 3 Total referrals for this grade:126 Total referrals for this page: 30 Grade 12 Page 2 of 4 15 10 5 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 12 7 BM BF WM IIIlilR ains ~Pickering BPalmer mNahlen ITDJMorey mMays IZ!Lewis lllfilJames 8 0 WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF \\NM. VVF OM OF James VVF 2 French 3 Lewis BF 0 Comm. Mays BF 20 Voe. Ed. 2 Morey VVF 19 ISSP Nahlen VVF 14 Voe. 2 3 Palmer BM 18 Soc.St. Pickering VVF 21 Eng. 2 6 2 Rains VVF 25 Science Total referrals for this grade:126 Total referrals for this page: 27 Grade 12 Page 3 of 4 G-42 15 10 5 0  BM NUMBER OF REFERRALS 15 11 BF WM Willis IBIWilder m Richardson Taylor ~Steele ooShells mmRu therford 1 WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER  TEACHER NAME Rutherford Shells Steele Taylor WalkerRichardson Wilder Willis G-43  J. A. FAIR HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF WM 11 Voe. BM 5 Soc. St. 7 3 2 WF 14 Sp. Ed. BM 3 Music 2 BF 3 Math 3 17 Math 3 3 BF 12 Art 3 Total referrals for this grade:126 Total referrals for this page: 31 Grade 12 Page 4 of 4  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 1 O\"-----------___/ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; GENDER Muench, B WF Total referrals for this grade: 1 G-44 YEARS EXP 27 Student Count BM BF WM WF OM OF 1 Grade 2  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 1 QIL._ __________ __,, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lffllWheeler, D mcrutcher, C   JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Crutcher, Cheryl BF 24 1 Wheeler, D BF 31 1 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 3 G-45    NUMBER OF REFERRALS JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) 1 Teacher Student Count 1 TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Itzkowitz, C WF 25 1 0\"--------------' BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER Im mItz kowitz, c Total referrals for this grade: 1 Grade 4 G-46  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 o~----------- BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER mWilliams, R mlPittenger, K   JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count RACE\u0026amp; YEARS TEACHER NAME BM BF WM WF OM GENDER EXP Pittenger, K. WF 27 1 Williams, R. BF 10 2 Total referrals for this grade: 3 Grade 5 G-47 OF  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 12 /1  Howell,D rnmHenry,S 10 ~!l!l!l!  .. ............................ Goss,J B!IFicklin,L itmFarlow,M .......... . ............................... [D]Elrod L 8 ' ~Boosey,F 8 ooBiggs,L fill!IAcklen, R ,: ........ 6 : .... .................... 5 4 2 .... :m~m~ .... . ........ ...... .. . --  . --- .... 4 I .... :,\u0026gt;0001 ::,000( ..... ................... :,\u0026gt;0001 ::,000( :,\u0026gt;0001 ::,ooo\u0026lt; J000 _) J0O0O0O  :::\u0026gt;000 1 1 r,,l00Q !l 000 000 7 999 JC JC J[ J[ 0 / BM BF WM WF OM OF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) TEACHER NAME Acklen,R Biggs,L Boosey,F Elrod,L Farlow,M Ficklin,L Goss,J Henry,S Howell,D G-48 Te a C h e r s t u d e RACE\u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM GENDER EXP BF 30 Biology 1 BF 11 Drama, Comm. I 2 WNI 24 Comm., Acting 'NF 14 Dance BF 19 Music BM 2 Math 1 'NF 6 Speech, Drama 1 BF 30 English 4 'NF 18 Speech, Drama 2 Total referrals for this grade: 56 Total referrals for this page: 30 BF 2 1 1 2 2 n t C 0 u WNI 'NF OM 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 Grade 10 Page 1 of 2 n t OF 1 14 12 10 8 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS / Treadway,P rnrnTaylorC, Tate,H I/ 13 BPerry,R  itmlusk,J Ellem,L  ................................ .... mKelley,J ............ J D :::.::.::\n. ..................o..o.. ...o..n..e...s..,. ............. WI(,N: ,._[jjlr:[jjlr:[jji.,.la ,: \"\" imJennings,C r:r:r: .. , r: r: r: r: r: r: r: r: r: BM BF WM .. , r, r, WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD TEACHER NAME Jennings,C Jones,D Kelley,J Lem,L Lusk,J Perry,R Tate,H Taylor,C Treadway,P G-49 Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF WF 24 Bus., Computer BF 3 Math 2 BM 32 Biology 6 3 3 OM 6 Naval Science WF 5 German WM 14 Music BF 22 Math WM 19 Voe. Ed. WF 19 Comm. 2 Total referrals for this grade: 56 Total referrals for this page: 26 Grade 10 Page 2 of 2 12 10 8 6 4 2 0    BM ,r--NU_M_BE_R_OF_R_EF.--_--_E _RR_AL_S- -, PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD ~Jones,D Discipline Referrals (96-97) mJennings,C .........t.3..J..a..c..k..s. on,C  Howell,D 1IIIFI1u lbrightD, .........~..F..i.c..k..l.i.n..,.L \u0026amp;Elrod,L mcarpenter,C aBiggs,L 3 mBailey,P mmAc klen,R 0 0 BF WM WF OM OF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER TEACHER NAME Acklen,R Bailey Biggs,L Carpenter,C Elrod,L Ficklin,L Fulbright,D Howell,D Jackson,C Jennings,C Jones,D G-50 Teacher Student Count RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF lflM,, WF OM OF BF 30 Biology WF 17 English BF 11 Comm. WF 26 History 5 2 2 WF 14 Dance 2 BM 2 Math 2 3 WF 21 Resource WF 18 Speech, Drama WF 5 Trig., Cal. WF 24 Bus., Comp. BF 3 Math 1 2 Total referrals for this grade: 48 Total referrals for this page: 28 Grade 11 Page 1 of 2 8 6 4 2 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS BM msTate,H . ~Richardson,D  Raque,C mmPic ard, R sPerry,R  IIIIMurray,D mLyle,L 8Lusk J I mKready,S oo! Kamara,L WfflJustice, M 1 BF WM WF OM OF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF WM INF OM OF Justice,M Kamara,L Kready,S Lusk,J Lyle,L Murray,D Perry,R Picard,R Raque,C Richardson,  Tate,H G-51 INF BF INF WF WM WF WM WM WF BM BF 21 29 26 5 7 14 10 3 4 22 Dance History Eng. German Spanish Art Music Science, Physics Eng. Math Math Total referrals for this grade: 48 Total referrals for this page: 20 2 3 Grade 11 Page 2 of 2 12 10 8 6 4 2 0    BM _N_UM_B_ER_O_F_RE~FE___R__ RA_LS ~PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD  Elrod,L Discipline Referrals (96-97) 8 BF WM ITIIDIla niell,T Cross,K \u0026amp;Carpenter,C mBurke,B aBrown K ' ~Black,D ooBiggs,L  lm!IAcklen,R 2 1 WF OM STUDENT RACE AND GENDER Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS NAME GENDER EXP SUBJECT BM BF \\/1/M WF OM OF Acklen,R BF 30 Biology Biggs,L BF 11 Comm. Black,D \\/1/M 25 History 6 3 3 Brown,K WF 9 Math Burke,B WF 18 Music Carpenter,C WF 26 History Cross,K BF 32 French Daniell,T \\/1/M 12 Health Elrod,L WF 14 Dance Total referrals for this grade: 57 Total referrals for this page: 21 Grade 12 Page 1 of 3 G-52 20 15 10 5 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 7 =~{~{~~~{~~ =)J}:=)_J\")=: f _ .. ._. ......_.. ..- ---------- ---------- :-:-:-:-:- --- - .. -- ==-=-=-=-= ::::::\n::_ .. BM - . -- .. 9 ........... . ... ......         ............... . .... ........ ... . . .. BF WM 6  Kready,S rnrKni ng, G Kelley,J \u0026amp;Kamara,L IBJackson,C aGoss,J ~Fuller,D oo Fulbright, D IW!Ficklin,L 2 2 WF OM STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF NAME GENDER EXP Ficklin,L Fulbright,D Fuller,D Goss,J Jackson,C Kamara,L Kelley,J King,G Kready,S G-53 BM 2 Math 3 WF 21 Resource WF 21 Chemistry WF 6 Speech, Drama 2 WF 5 Trig., Cal. BF 29 History BM 32 Biology 4 WF 17 Art WF 26 Eng. 10 3 5 Total referrals for this grade: 64 Total referrals for this page: 36 Grade 12 Page 2 of 3 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 BM 9 7 Walker,F mmTreadwayP, Taylor,C \u0026amp; Richardson, D mPicard,R ETIJPerry,R ~Murray,D @Lyle,L filWLee,C BF WM WF OM STUDENT RACE AND GENDER   PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER RACE \u0026amp; YEARS SUBJECT BM BF WM WF OM OF NAME GENDER EXP Lee,C WM 3 Chemistry Lyle,L WM 7 Spanish 2 Murray,D WF Art 6 3 3 Perry,R 'NM 14 Music Picard,R 'NM 10 Science, physics Richardson, D BM 4 Math Taylor,C 'NM 19 Voe. Ed. Treadway,P WF 19 Comm. Walker,F BF 31 Home Ee. 2 Total referrals for this grade: 64 Grade 12 Total referrals for this page: 28 Page 3 of 3 G-54  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 0 ~---------- BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER jaMoore, A   TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Moore, A BF 34 1 Total referrals for this grade: 1 Grade 1 G-55  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 1 o~-------------' BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER !ffl:lSmelko, S mChesser, J   TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS GENDER EXP BM BF WM WF OM OF Chesser, Jo WF 22 1 Smelko, Sherry WF 22 1 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 2 G-56 2  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lffllStuddard, K BPowell, D   TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) T eac h er ~1 11ri~n1 r.. n 11 1n t TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Powell, Darryl BM 2 1 1 Studdard, Katie WF 2 1 Total referrals for this grade: 3 Grade 5 G-57 7 6 5 4  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 6 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER IHEIReeves, K mERichardson, T   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Richardson, WF 4 3 Teresa 2 Reeves, Kimberly WF 4 3 1 Total referrals for this grade: 9 Grade 2 G-58  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 o,.____ ________ __, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER !Heard, C   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Heard, Cheryl WF 10 1 2 Total referrals for this grade: 4 Grade 3 G-59  NUMBER OF REFERRALS BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER lmSmith, B   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Smith, Barbara WF 23 2 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 4 G-60 10 9 8  NUMBER OF REFERRALS . a ..... ~ - \"\" ~--- BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER mcarr, J m.mJenkins, H   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Jenkins, H WF 4 3 2 Carr, J WF 4 3 1 Total referrals for this grade: 9 Grade 5 G-61  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 0 \"-------------\" BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER jmMorris, J   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Morris, JoAnn BF 10 2 Total referrals for this grade: 2 Grade 6 G-62  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 1 o-----------~ BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER I a Heffington, J  WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Heffington, Janell WF 21 1 2 Total referrals for this grade: 3 Music G-63  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 2 2 1 0 ,c__ _________ ____,, BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER Im mFr eeman, J   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE \u0026amp; YEARS BM BF WM WF OM OF GENDER EXP Freeman, Jennifer WF Total referrals for this grade: 3 G-64 1 2 1 Resource 3 2  NUMBER OF REFERRALS 3 BM BF WM WF STUDENT RACE AND GENDER !lfflGaines, V lm!IWest, S   WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD Discipline Referrals (96-97) Teacher Student Count TEACHER NAME RACE\u0026amp; YEARS GENDER BM BF WM WF OM OF EXP West, Susan WF 16 1 1 Gaines, Vivian BF 33 2 1 Total referrals for this grade: 5 Spec. Ed. G-65 4 Cl) c....u.. ..3 Q) 4- Q) 0::: 2 0 2 .... Q) ..0 E ::, 1 z 0 BM  BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 1 1996-97 2 1 WM Student Race and Gender Page 1 of2 HARTWICK, BARBARA J. PURIFOY, FONDA L. II SHUFFIELD, MARY E. 111T1UR1N ER, ANTHONY D. Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: PURIFOY, FONDA L. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: SHUFFIELD, MARYE. Discipline referral counts: Teacher : TURNER, ANTHONY D. Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: 2 BM: 1 BM: BM: 2 6 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: B BF: 0 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 20 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 10 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: M YrsExp: 0 WM: 1 WF: 0 1 0 G-66 12 (/) 10 ro L... L... -Q) 8 Q) ~ - 6 0 L... Q) .c 4 E :::J z 2 0 BF BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 1 1996-97 10 2 BM WF Page 2 of2 WM DECKER, PEGGY J. Student Race and Gender  ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY II LEE, GLORIA II RATLIFF, KRISTIE A. Teacher: DECKER, PEGGY J. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 Discipline referral counts: BM: 3 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 Discipline referral counts: BM: 3 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: LEE, GLORIA TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 Discipline referral counts: E3M: 6 BF: WM: 0 WF: 2 Teacher: RATLIFF, KRISTIE A. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 3 Discipline referral counts: BM: 10 BF: 0 WM: 1 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 22 1 1 2 G-67 4 Cl) (1J t: 3 Q) '+- Q) 0::: c52 L Q) .a 1 E 1 :::i z 0 BF  BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 2 1996-97 3 2 2 BM WF Student Race and Gender BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R.  HARTWICK, BARBARA J. II LEE, GLORIA Ill SHIMEK, BECKY K. Teacher: BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R. TchRace: W Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. TchRace: W Discipline referral counts: BM: 3 BF: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA TchRace: B Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: Teacher: SHIMEK, BECKY K. TchRace: W Discipline referral counts: BM: 2 BF: Referral counts for this grade: 7 0 0 0 1 TchGender: F WM: TchGender: F WM: TchGender: F WM: TchGender: F WM: G-68 0 0 0 0 0 YrsExp: 2 WF: 0 YrsExp: 18 WF: 2 YrsExp: 5 WF: 0 YrsExp: 1 WF: 0 2 9 Cl) 8 ~7 '- 26 (I) .0,:.:_::5 4 04 '- _253 E2 :::, 21 0 BF BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 3 1996-97 3 1 BM WF WM Student Race and Gender ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY  HARTWICK, BARBARA J.  IVY, ALYSSA D.  LEE, GLORIA Teacher: ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY Discipline referral counts: Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: IVY, ALYSSA D. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this grade: BM: 0 BM: 0 BM: BM: 0 1 TchRace: B BF: TchRace: W BF: 2 TchRace: W BF: 4 TchRace: B BF: 3 10 TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 WM: 0 WF: 2 TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 WM: 0 WF: 4 TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 WM: 5 WF: 8 TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 WM: 0 WF: 6 5 20 G-69 4 If) cu t: 3 Q) 4- Q) Cl:'.'. 'o 2 L.. Q) .0 E 1 :::, z 0 2 BM BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 4 1996-97 2 Student Race and Gender Page 1 of 2 BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R.  COX, PATRICIA A. II HAYMES, CLARENCE M. Ill PURIFOY, FONDA L. Teacher: BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R. TchRace: W TchGender : F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: COX, PATRICIA A. TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: 2 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: HAYMES, CLARENCE M. TchRace: W TchGender: M YrsExp: 6 Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: PURIFOY, FONDA L. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 20 Discipline referral counts: BM: 2 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 6 0 0 0 G-70 5 en ~.4.. . Q) '+- Q) 3 0:: '+- 0 ai2 ..0  1 z 0 4 BM BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 4 1996-97 1 WM Student Race and Gender CAMMACK, STACI A. HARTWICK, BARBARA J. n IVY, ALYSSA D. n LEE, GLORIA Teacher: CAMMACK, STACI A. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: IVY, ALYSSA D. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: 4 BM: 3 BM: 3 BM: 3 13 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: B BF: 0 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 WM: WF: 0 0 G-71 Page 2 of 2 4 Cl) (U t: 3 -Q) Q) 0::: 2 c52 L.. Q) .0 E 1 :::, z 0 BM COX, PATRICIA A. Teacher: COX, PATRICIA A. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY Discipline referral counts: Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this grade: BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 5 1996-97 3 WM Student Race and Gender  ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY iii HARTWICK, BARBARA J.  LEE, GLORIA TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 BM: BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 TchRace: B TchGender : F YrsExp: 5 BM: 0 BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 BM: 2 BF: 0 WM: 1 WF: 0 TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 BM: 0 BF: 0 WM: 3 WF: 0 3 0 6 0 G-72 4 Cl) co t: 3 .(.1). .. (1) 0::: 02 L.. (1) 1 .Cl E 1 ::, z 0 BM BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 6 1996-97 1 1 1 1 WM Student Race and Gender Page 1 of 2 BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R. ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY  PURIFOY, FONDA L. Ill STOKES.TOYA Teacher: BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Teacher: ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY TchRace: B TchGender : F YrsExp: 5 Discipline referral counts: BM: 0 BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Teacher: PURIFOY, FONDA L. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 20 Discipline referral counts: BM: O BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Teacher: STOKES, TOYA TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: O BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 1 0 4 0 G-73 10 9 Cf) 8 ro L.. L.. 7 ~ Q) 6 0:::: '+- 5 ..............4.. 0 L.. Q) 4 ..c E 3 :J z 2 0 BF Teacher: HARTWICK, BARBARA J. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LEE, GLORIA Discipline referral counts: Teacher: TURNER, ANTHONY D. Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BELWOOD ELEM. 60-02-053 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 6 1996-97 BM WF Student Race and Gender Page 2 of 2 WM HARTWICK, BARBARA J. LEE, GLORIA ~ TURNER, ANTHONY D. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 18 BM: 1 BF: 4 WM: 3 WF: 8 TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 BM: 4 BF: 3 WM: 0 WF: 6 TchRace: B TchGender: M YrsExp: 0 BM: 0 BF: 0 WM: 2 WF: 0 5 7 5 14 G-74 10 V) 9 co 8 '- '- Q) 7 '+-- Q) 0::: 6 '+-- 5 0 '- 4 Q) ..a 3 E :::, 2 z 0 BF  BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 1 1996-97 8 8 BM WF Student Race and Gender ADAMS, MELISSA D.  BATTON, CARLA A.  CLARK, LYNNE E.  DIBEE, JULIE A. Teacher: ADAMS, MELISSA D. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 Discipline referral counts: BM: 8 BF: 1 WM: 0 WF: 2 Teacher: BATTON, CARLA A. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 Discipline referral counts: BM: 4 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: CLARK, LYNNE E. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 13 Discipline referral counts: BM: 4 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: DIBEE, JULIE A. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 0 Discipline referral counts: BM: 8 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: WILKINS, DONNA M. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 6 Discipline referral counts: BM: 8 BF: 0 WM: 4 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 32 4 2 G-75 Page 1 of2 WM  WILKINS, DONNA M. BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 1 1996-97 Page 2 of2 4~------------------------------------------~ en cu t:: 3 ~ Q) 0::: 'a 2 L... Q) ..0 E 1 ::J z 0-+------- BF 2 1 1 1 1 1 BM WF Student Race and Gender LYBARGER, CINDY L.  NORWOOD, CAROL R. II REDUS, ROCHELLE D. II WILSON, MAVIS V. Teacher : LYBARGER, CINDY L. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 6 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: NORWOOD, CAROL R. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 7 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: REDUS, ROCHELLE D. TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: WILSON, MAVIS V. TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 19 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 1 WM: 0 WF: 2 Referral counts for this page: 4 1 0 2 G-76 BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 2 1996-97 Page1 of3 9~------------------------------------------~ Cl) 8 ~7 26 Q) 0-:: 5 04 L-. i3 2 21 0-+-----'-------'------+--- BF 7 BM WF WM Student Race and Gender CLARK, LYNNE E.  GREENE, DEBRA K. - WILKINS, DONNA M. - WILSON, MAVIS V. Teacher: CLARK, LYNNE E. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 13 Discipline referral counts: BM: 7 BF: 0 WM: WF: 0 Teacher: GREENE, DEBRA K. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 Discipline referral counts: BM: 4 BF: WM: 0 WF: 2 Teacher: WILKINS, DONNA M. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 6 Discipline referral counts: BM: 3 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: WILSON, MAVIS V. TchRace: B TchGender : F YrsExp: 19 Discipline referral counts: BM: 5 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 19 2 G-77 4 en ci'i 3 I... I... Q) '+- Q) a::: '52 I... Q) ..0 E 1 1 1 :J 1 z 0 BM Teacher: COTTRELL, MELISSA L. Discipline referral counts: Teacher : EVANS, MARILYN A. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: LYBARGER, CINDY L. Discipline referral counts: BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 2 1996-97 1 1 COTTRELL, MELISSA L. Student Race and Gender a EVANS, MARILYN A. MASTERSON, DEBORAH A. NORWOOD, CAROL R. TchRace: W TchGender: F BM: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 TchRace: W TchGender: F BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 TchRace: W TchGender : F BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 a LYBARGER, CINDY L. YrsExp: 5 WF: 0 YrsExp: 1 WF: 0 YrsExp: 6 WF: 0 Teacher: MASTERSON, DEBORAH A. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 12 Discipline referral counts: BM: BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Teacher: NORWOOD, CAROL R. TchRace: W TchGender : F YrsExp: 7 Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 Referral counts for this page: 5 0 0 0 G-78 Page 2 of 3 72 68 64 60 56 52 (/) r.o.. 4. 8 -a34 4 ~ 40 0 36 a3 32 ~ 28 ~ 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 BF BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 2 1996-97 26 ...,..... BM WF Student Race and Gender Page 3 of3 2 WM BONE, KERI J.  POGUE-DUFFIE, JEANNE M.  WILLIAMS, MELISSA F. Teacher: BONE, KERI J. Discipline referral counts: BM: 17 Teacher: POGUE-DUFFIE, JEANNE M. Discipline referral counts: BM: 68 Teacher: WILLIAMS, MELISSA F. Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: 26 111 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 2 TchRace: W BF: 8 10 TchGender: F YrsExp: 4 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 2 WM: 32 WF: 4 TchGender: F YrsExp: 5 WM: 2 WF: 16 34 20 G-79 BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 3 1996-97 Page 1 of 3 4~------------------------------------------~ en co t: 3 '$ 0::: '52 ,._ Q) ..Q 1 1 1 1 E 1 ::::l z 0-+--- BM DALE, JOANN Teacher : DALE, JOANN Discipline referral counts: Teacher: ELDRED, SHARON L. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: EVANS, MARILYN A. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: FURLOUGH, LORETTA J. Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: BM: BM: 1 BM: 1 4 Student Race and Gender ELDRED, SHARON L. II EVANS, MARILYN A. Iii FURLOUGH, LORETTA J. TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 17 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 15 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchRace: W TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchRace: B TchGender: F YrsExp: 19 BF: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 0 0 0 G-80  BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 3 1996-97 Page 2 of 3 4----------------------------------------------, en 3 ro L.. L.. 2 Q) 0:::: c52 L.. Q) .0 E :::, Z1 Q---1------ 1 2 2 BF BM WF Student Race and Gender HARRINGTON, DOROTHY J. NORWOOD, CAROL R. Teacher: HARRINGTON, DOROTHY J. TchRace: B TchGender: F Discipline referral counts: BM: 0 BF: WM: 0 Teacher : NORWOOD, CAROL R. TchRace: W TchGender: F Discipline referral counts: BM: 2 BF: 0 WM: 0 Teacher: PARKER, WENDELL TchRace: B TchGender: M Discipline referral counts: BM: 1 BF: 0 WM: 0 Referral counts for this page: 3 1 0 G-81 II PARKER, WENDELL YrsExp: 22 WF: 2 YrsExp: 7 WF: 0 YrsExp: 1 WF: 0 2 36 32 28 en ~ 24 L.. .Q_) Q) 0::: 20 ._ 17 0 a3 16 .0 E z:: :i 12 8 4 0 BF  BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 3 1996-97 34 24 19 8 BM WF Student Race and Gender Page 3 of3 4 WM CLARK, LYNNE E. HUGHES, ELIZABETH A.  WILLIAMS-SMITH, JAJUAN Ill WILSON, MAVIS V. Teacher: CLARK, LYNNE E. Discipline referral counts: Teacher : HUGHES, ELIZABETH A. BM: 8 Discipline referral counts: BM: 19 Teacher: WILLIAMS-SMITH, JAJUAN C. Discipline referral counts: BM: 24 Teacher: WILSON, MAVIS V. Discipline referral counts: BM: 9 Referral counts for this page: 60 TchRace: W BF: 4 TchRace: W BF: 17 TchRace: B BF: TchRace: B BF: 2 24 TchGender: F YrsExp: 13 WM: WF: 8 TchGender : F YrsExp: 2 WM: 4 WF: 34 TchGender: F YrsExp: 0 WM: 2 WF: 2 TchGender : F YrsExp: 19 WM: 0 WF: 4 7 48 G-82  -------~------ 4 (/) cu t: 3 Q) '+- Q) ct: 02 ,_ Q) .0 1 E 1 ::, z 0 1 1 BM BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 4 1996-97 1 Student Race and Gender Page 1 of 3 BAKER. KATHERINE A. 0 NORWOOD. CAROL R. m REDUS. ROCHELLE D. 11R1OBIN SON. DEWAYNE Teacher: BAKER, KATHERINE A. Discipline referral counts: BM: Teacher : NORWOOD, CAROL R. Discipline referral counts: BM: Teacher : REDUS, ROCHELLE D. Discipline referral counts: Teacher: ROBINSON, DEWAYNE Discipline referral counts: Referral counts for this page: BM: BM: 4 TchRace: B BF: 0 TchRace: W BF: 0 TchRace: B BF: 0 TchRace: B BF: 0 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 4 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender : F YrsExp: 7 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: F YrsExp: 1 WM: 0 WF: 0 TchGender: M YrsExp: 0 WM: 0 WF: 0 0 0 G-83  BOONE PARK ELEM. 60-02-054 NLRSD DISCIPLINE REFERRALS GRADE 4 1996-97 Page 2 of 3 13~------------------------------------------- 12 11 .c!!o!. 10 t: 9 Q) Q) 8 0:: 7 '+- 0 6 I.... i 5 E 4 z:: , 3 2 BF Teacher: DENNIS, JAMESETTA Discipline referral counts: Teacher: HARPER, KIMBERLY A. Discipl\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eOffice of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_151","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation"],"dc_date":["1997-07-15"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/151"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nExecutive Summary\n   -- ----------------------, EXECUTIVE UMMARY RC D JUL 1 6 1997 OfIfC EO f __jESEGREGMAOTN\\O\\TNO RING A Status Repor1 on Desegregation: The Three School Districts in Pulaski County ... Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation: A Division of Technical Assistance     ------- on Overvew Executive Summary  The Arkansas Department of Education, according to the Implementation Plan, must collect data or review the following: A. Monitoring Schedule B Enrollment/ Attendance * C. Test Data D. Staff* E. Policy and Program F. Budget G. Student discipline H. Perceptual Data * I. Majority to Minority Transfer J Extended COE Monitoring The asterisk indicates that this information was reported in the February 1997 Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report. 1   Q OveNiew Executive Summary  The Arkansas Department of Education monitored all Cycle One schools in the Pulaski County Schools Districts in accordance with the Department's Implementation Plan during the 1996/97 school year.  The Cycle One schools included fifteen elementary schools and seven high Schools.  All parties to the Pulaski County Desegregation Settlement Agreement were invited to participate in the monitoring process. Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation 2     Unannounced ontoring Schedule DATE VISITED SCHOOL VISITED SCHOOL DISTRICT Februrary 10, 1997 Jacksonville High School PCSSD February 10, 1997 North Pulaski High School PCSSD February 14, 1997 Parkview Magnet High LRSD February 17, 1997 Glenview Elementary NLRSD February 28, 1997 Belwood Elementary NLRSD March 3, 1997 Pulaski Heights Elementary LRSD March 10, 1997 Park Hill Elementary NLRSD March 10, 1997 Terry Elementary LRSD March 23, 1997 Redwood Elementary NLRSD March 24, 1997 Boone Park Elementary NLRSD March 27, 1997 North Heights Elementary NLRSD March 31, 1997 Oak Grove Jr/Sr High PCSSD April 1, 1997 Wilson Elementary LRSD 3   Unannoumce Momtoring Schedule (Page 2 of 2) / RESULTS OF TIIE FOURTEEN QUALITATIVE ELEMENTS EVIDENCE IN TIIE ALLEN LETTER YES NO NIA I. Evidence that policies, procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate 5 17 desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are 17 5 progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without 22 bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the 22 desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non- 22 black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 5 17 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non- 22 discriminatory.  - ---------  4  60 50 40 30 20 10 0   ------- ta Cycle One Schools : LRSD Stanford 9 Achievement Results: Basic Battery 51.2 52.2 52.4 50.9 43.2 Fall 96: Composite Score PR of Mean NCE Baseline Elem.  David O'Dodd Elem.  Fair Park Elem.  Forest Park Elem. DJ. A. Fair High Jefferson Elem.  Parkview Magnet High  Pulaski Heights Elem. Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. Note: Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a I Finding: Jefferson, Parkview, Terry and Pulaski Hei! 5 1 \"average.\" ment at or above this range.  50 40 30 20 10 0   Test Data aJ Cycle One Schools: NLRSD Stanford 9 Achievement Results: Basic Battery 41.7 45.4 45.3 29.9 2 Fall 96: Composite Score PR of Mean NCE Belwood Elem Glenview Elem.  Park Hill Elem.  Redwood Elem.  Boone Park Elem.  Pikeview Elem. North Heights Elem. Note: Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 meaning \"average.\" Finding: None of the Cycle One schools in NLRSD performed within this range. 6  60 50 40 30 20 10 0   Data Cycle One Schools : PCSSD Stanford 9 Achievement Results: Basic Battery 46.9 46.9 45.2 46.4 48.6 48.6 Fall 96: Composite Score PR of Mean NCE Jacksonville High North Pulaski Heights High Oak Grove Grade 1 O  Oak Grove Grade 7  Sylvan Hills Jr.  Sylvan Hills Sr. Note: Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 meaning \"average.\" Finding: None of the Cycle one schools in PCSSD demonstrated achievement above the 50th percentile. 7    Po icy and Pr _,ram Update  The Little Rock School District updated policies and regulations related to student entrance/exit criteria, and compensatory/remedial programs.  The North Little Rock School District updated policies related student entrance/exit criteria.  The Pulaski County School District did not report policies updates during this reporting period. 8 --------- PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 43,097,892 24,264,703 5,208,938 188,063 1,992,486 1,682,813 3,839,344 5,808,915 5,288,655 10,403,236 2,191,930 77,792 104,064,787 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 20,200,260 8,248,193 1,270,286 935 1,285,373 782,685 627,095 256,597 0 0 186,353 82,687 32,880,644 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 39,356,871 11,785,782 4,328,212 108,958 1,503,298 1,215,888 2,951,488 2,319,795 0 0 1,019,512 330,213 64,921,773 Funding Caagorle Local \u0026amp; State Thia category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Dessg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. ExpenM Cat.gorle Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Thia category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Dessg Thia category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. Total Cat.gory At 03131197 The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school district as of March 31, 1997. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County.   ---------------------- - 9   PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 5,208,938 0 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,270,286 0 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL '4,328,212 0 Funding CategoriN Local \u0026amp; Slala Federal Thia catego,y 1ndudes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestncted federal sources This catego,y 1ndudes funding from restncted federal sources wluch must be eccounted for S9tArately from the General Fund Daseg Th, catego,y consists of funding for desegregation purposes DESEG 2,191,930 166,353 1,019,512 RATIO OF TRANS EXPENSE TO TOTAL TOT AL EXPENSE 7,400,868 7.1% 1,436,639 '4.4% 5,3\"7,72\u0026lt;1 8.2% TRANSPORTATION AS OF 03/31/97 EltpenM CategoriN 8000000 Local \u0026amp; Stale This catego,y C011S1Sotsf transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestncted local, state and federal sources This catego,y consists of transportat10r1c osts funded by restncted federal sources Oaseg This catego,y C011S1Sotfs transportation costs incurred relative to desegregat10r1p rograms funded by desegregation sources Total Category Al 03131/97 This catego,y cons11ts of the d1stnct's total transportation expense as of March 31, 1997 Ratio of Transportation ExpenM to Total ExpenM Al 03/31197 SOURCES Th11 catego,y indicates the percentage of the d11tnct's total expense as of March 31, 1997 attnbutable to the transportation funcllOrl. The F1n811CO8 ff,ces of aach of the school dlstncts ,n Pulaski County. 10 6000000 \u0026lt;4000000 2000000 0    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEGAL EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 188,063 0 TT,792 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 935 0 82,667 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 108,956 0 330,213 Funding Categort. Local \u0026amp; Stats F8dflral Dest,g This categoryi ncludesfu nding from local sources,r egular state sources, and unrestncted federal sources This category tndudes funding from restncted federal sources winch must be accounted for separately from the General Fund Thia category consists of funding for desegregation purposes ExpenM CategoriN Local \u0026amp; State F8dflral Total Category At 03131197 This category consists of legal expen- incurred relabve to programs funded by unrestncted local, state and federal sources This category consists of legal expenses funded by restncted federal sources Thia category consists of legal expen- incurred relablle to desegregabon programs funded by desegregat1011so urces This category constSts of the d1stnct's total legal expense as of March 31, 1997 Ratio of Legal ExpenM to Total ExpenM At 03131197 SOURCES This category Indtcates the percentage of the total d1stnct expense as of March 31, 1997 attnbutable to legal fees. The Finance OfflC8S of each of the school distncts ,n Pulaski County 11 RA TIO OF LEGAL EXPENSE TO TOTAL TOTAL EXPENSE 265,855 03% 83,602 0.3% \u0026lt;139,169 0.7% LEGAL !500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 AS OF 03/311117    PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEA# 60-01 60-02 60-03 Total Deseg Expense Comp Ed Expense COMPENSATORY EDUCATION AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 TOTAL DESEGREGATION COMP ED DISTRICT EXPENSE EXPENSE LITTLE ROCK 17,119,599 3,870,984 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,134,712 885,690 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 6,620,988 2,362,306 The total desegregation expense as of March 31, 1997 eligible for funding by the State. Compensatory Education expense as of March 31, 1997. Comp Ed Pmts Compensatory Education payments made by the ADE to the district in FY 96/97 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. of Comp Ed Exp to Deseg Expense Ratio of Compensatory Education expense to total desegregation expense as of March 31, 1997. COMP EDPMTS PERCENT OF FROM ADE COMP ED EXPENSE IN FY 96/97 TO DESEG EXPENSE 2,527,936 22.6% 0 78.1% 0 35.7% COMP ED EXPENSE 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 AS OF 03/31/97 SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. 12    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# SCHOOL STATE FEDERAL DESEG 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 0 0 2,253,098 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 0 2,640,807 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 0 1,667,908 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 0 1,498,142 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 0 972,080 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 0 1,371,201 TOTAL MAGNET EXPENSE 0 0 10,403,236 Funding Cat.gone Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. I TOTAL 2,253,098 2,640,807 1,667,908 1,498,142 972,080 1,371,201 I 10,403,236 Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately MAGNET EXPENSE AS OF 03/31/97 Deseg from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. 3000000 2000000 1000000 ExpenH Cat.gorlea o Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of expenses incurred relative to magnet programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of magnet program expenses funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of expenses incurred relative to magnet programs funded from desegregation sources. Total Cat.gory At 03/31197 SOURCES: The totals in this column represent the total expense for each magnet school as of March 31, 1997. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and tha Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 13  I I 500 400 300 200 100 0    - -- - ------- uarter 1-3 Referrals Cycle One Schools: LRSD 408 BM BF 189 396 245 B Baseline Elem. O'Dodd Elem.  Fair Park Elem. D Forest Park Elem. DJ.A. Fair High Jefferson Elem. Parkview Magnet Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. 14 WM 108 WF 32 OM OF 6 2 0 1.0% w 17.7% --- -------    DiscpIn uarlter 1-3 Referral Cycle One Schools: NLRSD 1328 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Belwood Elem. Boone Park Elem.  Glenview Elem. D N. Heights Elem. D Park Hill Elem. D Pike View Elem. Redwood Elem.  15 BM BF 1290 495 WM 332 B 62.2% WF 755 w 37.8% OM OF 0 0  2000 1500 1000 500    Discipline: uarters 1-3 Referrals Cycle One Schools: PCSSD 1832 BM BF WM WF OM 2331 910 2851 1045 0 OF 0 0------------- B 45.4/o  Jacksonville High N. Pulaski High  Oak Grove Jr/Sr High  Sylvan Hills Jr.  Sylvan Hills High w 54.6% ---------------------- 16 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20      uarters 1-3 Suspension: Cycle One Schools: LRSD 148 BM BF WM WF OM OF 44 47 36 21 229 70 69 6 1 2 B 0 ------------------ Baseline Elem. David O'Dodd Elem. D Fair Park Elem. D Forest Park Elem. DJ. A. Fair High Jefferson Elem.  Parkview Magnet High Pulaski Heights Elem.  Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. 17 0 0.8% w 19.9%  Discipli     arters 1-3 Suspension: Cycle One Schools: NLRSD 182 200 150 100 27 50 0--------------- Belwood Elem.  Boone Park Elem. Glenview Elem. DN. Heights Elem. Park Hill Elem.  Pike View Elem. Redwood Elem. 18 BM 172 B 87.5% BF WM WF 74 26 8 OM 1 OF 0 0 0.4% w 12.1%     rl uarters 1-3 Suspension: Cycle One Schools: PCSSD 600 500 400 300 200 100 311 463 347 106 0-------------------' Jacksonville N. Pulaski  Oak Grove  Sylvan Hills Jr.  Sylvan Hills High 19 BM BF 459 188 WM WF 567 199 B 45.7% w 54.1 Ofo OM 3 OF 0 0 0.2%    Discipline: Quarters 1-3 Exclusions Cycle One Schools: LRSD 3 BM 3 2 2 1 0 ------------- D Baseline Elem. O'Dodd Elem. D Fair Park Elem.  Forest Park Elem. J. A. Fair High Parkview High Pulaski Heights Elem. Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. 20 BF WM 0 1 B 66.7% WF OM 0 0 w 33.3% OF 0   Discip     uarter 1-3 Exclusions Cycle One Schools: NLRSD 0 IL::~!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~7 Belwood Elem Glenview Elem. Park Hill Elem. Redwood Elem. Boone Park Elem. Pikeview Elem. ' North Heights Elem. i D Belwood Elem 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Glenview Elem.  Park Hill Elem.  Redwood Elem.  Boone Park Elem. DPikeview Elem.  North Heights Elem. 21     ascipl uar1ters 1-3 Exclusion Cycle One Schools: PCSSD 25 20 15 10 5 20 16 0----------- Jacksonville N. Pulaski  Oak Grove  Sylvan Hills Jr.  Sylvan Hills High BM 22 22 BF 11 WM WF 20 B 53.2% 9 w 46.8% OM 0 OF 0     ----------------~aJ Discipline: uarters 1-3 Expulsions: Cycle One Schools: LRSD 2 2 2 2 1 0---------------- Baseline Elem. David O'Dodd Elem.  Fair Park Elem. Forest Park Elem. DJ. A. Fair High  Jefferson Elem. Parkview Magnet High Pulaski Heights Elem. Terry Elem. Wilson Elem. 23 BM 3 BF WM 1 B 66.7% 2 WF 0 OM 0 w 33.3% OF 0  ~ -  Discipln-=-=. uarter 1-3 Expulsions: Cycle One Schools: NLRSD There were no Expulsions in Cycle one schools in NLRSD 0 Belwood Elem 0 Glenview Elem. 0 Park Hill Elem. 0 Redwood Elem. 0 Boone Park Elem. 0 Pikeview Elem. 0 North Heights Elem. 0 ...---=----------------------, Belwood Elem Glenview Elem.  Park Hill Elem.  Redwood Elem.  Boone Park Elem.  Pikeview Elem. North Heights Elem. 24 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0   Discipline. Quarters 1-3 Expulsions: Cycle One Schools: PCSSD 13 BM 10 19 Jacksonville High  North Pulaski High  Oak Grove Grade 10-12 D Oak Grove Grade 7 -9  Sylvan Hills Jr. Sylvan Hills Sr. 25 BF 4 WM 13 B 60.5% WF OM 2 w 39.5% 0  If oF 0    Minority-to-Nlajority Transfer Cycle One Schools (1996-97) LRSD 99. 7% of students enrolled in Cycle One Schools in LRSD are M-to-M. 100% of the M -to-M enrollment is White and 0% of the M-to-M enrollment is Black. NLRSD 98.5% of students enrolled in Cycle One Schools in NLRSD are M-to-M. 61 % of M-to-M enrollment is White and 39% of the M-to-M enrollment is PCSSD 94.2% of students enrolled in Cycle One Schools in PCSSD are M-to-M. 100% of M-to-M enrollment is White and 0% of the M-to-M enrollment is Black. \"    Exten\nNloni oring Fourteen Qualitative Elements RESULTS OF THE FOURTEEN QUALITATIVE ELEMENTS EVIDENCE IN THE ALLEN LETTER YES NO NIA 1. Evidence that policies, procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate 5 17 desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are 17 5 progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without 22 bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the 22 desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non- 22 black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 5 17 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non- 22 discriminatory. Note: Evidence was collected by conducting a triangulated process of interviews, classroom observations, and analysis of documents during on-site monitoring at the 22 Cycle aski County. 27 ex    E Fourteen Qualitative Elements RESULTS OF THE FOURTEEN QUALITATIVE ELEMENTS EVIDENCE IN THE ALLEN LETTER YES NO 8. Evidence that cwTicular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student 22 population served. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating 14 8 school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricular activities are developed and implemented to 22 identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. I 111. Evidence that diverse representation on appointed districtwide and school-based committees. 21 1 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not disproportionate to the student 22 population. 13. Evidence of success related to Majority to Minority transfers. 13 9 14. Evidence that magnet schools are an effective interdistrict remedy for racial balance. Note: Evidence was collected by conducting a triangulated process of interviews, classroom observations, and analysis of documents during on-site monitoring at the 22 Cycle One schools in Pulaski County. 28 NIA 22 i I I I I\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eOffice of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1166","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-07-10/1997-12-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and 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/1166"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING July 10, 1997 AUG 2 ~ 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, July 10, 1997, in the Board Room of the administration building at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Micheal Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Judy Magness Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Designee Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Colleen Kidda, Teacher Ex officio, ALC Tiffany Mays, Student Ex officio, Central High I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call\nall members of the Board were present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING July 10, 1997 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following action items: I. Proposed Budget for Annual School Election II. Superintendent's Contract ACTION AGENDA In compliance with Arkansas law, (Ark. Code Ann 6-13-622) the Board of Directors is required to approve a proposed budget for the 1998-99 school year, and a tax rate levy sufficient to provide such funding. This must be published not less than 60 days prior to the annual school election. The proposed budget was prepared by Mr. Milhollen and administration recommended approval. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the proposed budget, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Berkley moved for the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel issue. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. The Board returned from executive session at 6:10 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT Mr. Berkley made a motion to extend Dr. Roberts' current contract to December 31, 1997. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Ms. Strickland made a motion to offer a contract to Dr. Les Carnine for the position of superintendent of schools. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Immediately following adjournment, Dr. Carnine and Board members signed the contract. APPROVED: '7 -.\n2LJ-Cf'7 I\u0026lt;, ~ ~ Micheal Daughe ~ ecretaryC PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1998, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1999 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Amendments No. 40 and No. 74 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and of Arkansas Code Ann.  6-13-622 (1993 Rep!.), has prepared, approved, and hereby makes public the proposed budget of expenditures together with a supporting tax rate as follows: 1. Salary Fund Expenditures $ 64,331,159.00 RECEIVED 2. Instructional Expense $ 19,533,734.00 3. Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Expense $ 11,162,134.00 4. Pupil Transportation Expense $ 10,464,500.00 AUG 2 s 1997 5. Other Operating Expense $ 26,847,025.00 6. Nonbonded Debt Payment $ 360,676.00 OFFICE OF 7. Bonded Debt Payment $ 6,827,445.00 DESEGREGATION MONITORING 8. Building Fund Expense $ .00 9. Dedicated Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation $ .00 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures the Board of Directors proposes a total school tax rate (state and local) of 41.40 mills on the dollar of the assessed value of taxable property located in this School District. The proposed tax includes the uniform rate of 25.00 mills (the \"Statewide Uniform Rate\") to be collected on all taxable property in the State and remitted to the State Treasurer pursuant to Amendment No. 74 to the Arkansas Constitution to be used solely for maintenance and operation of schools in the State. As provided in Amendment No. 74, the Statewide Uniform Rate replaces a portion of the existing rate of tax levied by this School District and available for maintenance and operation of schools in this District. The existing rate of tax levied by this School District is 41.40 mills composed of 32.00 mills specifically voted for maintenance and operation and 9.40 mills voted for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing indebtedness. The surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other school purposes. In accordance with the provisions of Amendment No. 59 to the Arkansas Constitution and Act No. 848 of 1981, the proposed tax levy applies to real property ( exclusive of real property owned by public utilities and regulated carriers). The tax rate applicable to personal property and to all property (real and personal) owned by public utilities and regulated carriers will be the rate computed in accordance with the provisions of Amendment No. 59 and Act No. 848. - The total proposed school tax levy of 41 .40 mills represents no increase over the current tax rate. Given this 10th day of July, 1997. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, July 24, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The Vice President, Judy Magness, presided. A brief budget work session was conducted prior to the call to order of the regular meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland RECEn,~o SEP\n1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board Vice President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Five members of the Board were present\nMr. Berkley and Mr. Riggs were absent. Tiffany Mays, Central High School student ex officio, was also present. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of June 26, and a special meeting conducted on July 10, were presented for the Board's approval. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the minutes, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT The Superintendent presented citations to Central High School teachers who participated in a Goals 2000 grant staff development project, directed by Dr. Brenda James. The following teachers were present to accept their citation: Paulette Blevins, Tandy Cobb, Melissa Donham, Marion Easter, Kathy Gates, Gracie Mays, Dorothy McDonald, Angel Nash, Ellen Teeter, and Barbara Wilder. Other teachers who completed the training include: Beverly Broadnax-Thrasher, Sandy Deitz, Sarah Dixon, Karen Hammons, Gwen Hardin, Gary Hufford, Melinda Kalb, Doris Nash, Carolyn Pittman, Julia Post, Marilyn Rutledge, Annice Steadman, Flora Thompson, and Christopher Threatt. In addition, Linda Watson, Lloyd Sain, David Spillers, and Frank James were recognized for serving as consultants on the project. Dr. Roberts presented plaques to Rett Tucker and Baker Kurrus in recognition of the leadership roles they have assumed during the past year. Mr. Tucker serves as the president of the Central High Museum project and co-chairs the 40th anniversary recognition ceremonies. He also serves on the board of the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools. Mr. Kurrus serves as president of the Alliance board and volunteers on several LRSD committees, including the strategic planning committee and the student assignment work team. Tiffany Mays who recently graduated from Central High School served as the student ex officio representative on the Board for the month of July and was presented with a citation for her service. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES TRUCE Program Presentation - Little Rock Rotary Club Mr. John Ostner provided a brief report on the success of the TRUCE (Teens Resisting Unhealthy Choices Everyday) Program. The Board was given copies of the membership figures for the 1996-97 school year and a list of participating business sponsors. He asked for the Board's endorsement to expand the program to include junior high school students in theLRSD. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page 3 D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden reported on ODM participation in the Vital Link program this summer. Several businesses in the Heritage West building participated in Vital Link and all of them reported having positive and successful experiences. She expressed appreciation to Debbie Milam and Deana Keithley for their assistance in coordinating the Vital Link activities. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter, newly elected president of the CTA, introduced himself and expressed confidence that efforts to establish a more positive working relationship between the teachers' union and the District administration would be successful. 3. Joshua Intervenors Joy Springer noted concerns regarding the student rights \u0026amp; responsibilities handbook revisions, specifically the proposed changes to the due process section. Dr. Roberts asked the Board to table action on the handbook until the committee could work through some of the concerns and questions that still exist in the revisions. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty presented a brochure from the Office of Emergency Services and asked the public to be aware of requirements to have addresses clearly visible on the outside of homes. He also remarked that his son will be attending Pulaski Heights Jr. High School next year. Ms. Gee commented on the response to a question she had asked in the budget meeting prior to the regular meeting: the recently negotiated pay increases for teachers would also be granted to other employees in the District. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page4 Ms. Magness attended a reception at the Student Employability Center that operated this summer as a part of the state Employment Security Division office. The center is run by students who provide training for other students in employability skills, i.e. how to fill out applications, how to dress appropriately for an interview, how to respond to interview questions, etc. The Center is funded by grants from the City of Little Rock and the New Futures Initiative. Ms. Magness also thanked the Southwestern Bell Pioneers service organization for painting maps of the United States on school playgrounds. She and Mr. Berkley had visited Rightsell School this week while the volunteers were working on the map. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS None. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Common Ground Proposal Franklin Elementary School submitted a proposal in the amount of $42,000 to the Common Ground Program for a project to improve academic performance and citizenship of students through a wide range of behavior management activities. The Board was asked for authorization to maintain the grant submission. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the submission, Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. B. Resolution: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System Picked Up Contributions and Purchased Service The Board was asked to approve a resolution authorizing the District to participate in the \"picked-up\" contributions program. Employees who are active Arkansas Teacher Retirement System members may opt to have their retirement deductions made from taxable income prior to federal and state income tax deductions. This option will allow members to take home more of their wages. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the resolution, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. C. ESEA, Title 1, 1997-98 District Plan The Board was asked to authorize submission of the 1997-98 ESEA, Title I District plan. The funding allocation is $4,202,821 based on 11,081 eligible students. Ms. Gee made a motion to approve the submission. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page 5 D. ESEA, Title VI, 1997-98 Application The Board was asked to authorize submission of the 1997-98 Title VI application to the Arkansas Department of Education. The funding allocation, in the amount of $135,197, is based on enrollment of eligible public and private school students in the LRSD. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the submission. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. E. Technology Literacy Challenge Grant A technology Literacy Challenge Grant application was submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education on the deadline date, July 15. The Board was asked to approve maintaining the submission. The proposal seeks $94,000 for a one-year initiative\ncontinuation funding is expected to be made available over a 5 year period. No matching fund commitment is required. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the grant submission. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Implementation of Registered Volunteers Program (Act 1012 of 1997) Act 1012 of 1997 allows local school districts to establish registered volunteer programs to provide additional personnel to supervise extracurricular or interscholastic activities under the direction of a certified staff member. The Board was asked to approve the formation of a registered volunteers program in the LRSD for the 1997-98 school year, with initial costs for background checks and training to be paid from the secondary school budget. Dr. Victor Anderson responded to questions from the Board. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the implementation of Act 1012, registered volunteers program. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. G. Second Jleading: Appropriate Use of Computer Networks Policy Act 801 of the 1997 Legislative Session requires the Board of Directors to adopt a policy concerning student and staff use of District-owned computers in accessing the Internet. The law also requires the policy be incorporated into the written student discipline policy if there is punishment for students who misuse District-owned computers. The policy was passed on first reading at the regular meeting in June with an amendment to include \"normal district progressive disciplinary sanctions\" in the policy statement. Dr. Daugherty  moved to approve the policy on second reading. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page6 H. Second Reading: Strategy Five Policy Proposals Members of Strategic Planning Team 5 met monthly to facilitate implementation of the community partnership portions of the strategic plan. This group drafted three proposed policies, Partners in Education, School-based Mentoring Programs, and Relations with Community Organizations, which were approved on first reading at the regular meeting in June. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve these three policies on second reading. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. I. Approval of Student Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook Action on approval of the student rights \u0026amp; responsibilities handbook was tabled by consensus. It will be included as an action item in August. J. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR J. A. Fair High Apple Computer/printer Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Aubrey Hough for Science Dept. Instructional Technology Star NX-1000 Printer Mr. W. J. Fitzhugh K Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the recommendations, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. L. Financial Reports Financial reports were provided prior to the regular meeting during the budget work session. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the reports. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 24, 1997 Page 7 VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Budget Update All budget information was presented in the work session prior to the regular meeting. B. Discussion: Progress Report on Annual Goals The Board briefly reviewed the annual goals, but did not take any action. Dr. Roberts reported that the work teams will be asked to present their reports to the Board at special meetings scheduled on August 14 and 18. Dr. Roberts will then present his recommendations from the work team reports at a special meeting on August 25. The Board will then be given an opportunity to review the recommendations before taking action in September. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS - None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY None. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, Ms. Strickland moved for adjournment at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 8'  d---'g -'i '(  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 5, 1997 RECEnfED SEP 4 1997 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Tuesday, August 5, 1997, in the superintendent's office of the administration building at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. Judy Magness, Vice President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: John Riggs, IV Micheal Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Magness called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Five members of the Board were present, Mr. Riggs and Dr. Daugherty were absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The special meeting was called for the purpose of adopting a resolution requesting the Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners to reduce the number of polling places for the Little Rock School District annual school election, scheduled for September 16, 1997. .. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 5, 1997 Page2 ACTION AGENDA In compliance with Arkansas law, (Act 545 of 1997) the Board of Directors was asked to approve a resolution petitioning the Pulaski County Election Commission to reduce the number of polling places in the September school elections. By doing so, the District anticipates saving approximately $20,000 in election costs. A copy of the resolution which further explains the law and the requirements is attached to these minutes. Ms. Gee made a motion to adopt the resolution. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Ms. Strickland. APPROVED: $-Jz-q1 Resolution 1997 School Board Elections WHEREAS, Act 545 of 1997 passed by the Arkansas General Assembly amends Arkansas Code Annotated 6-14-102, related to school board elections\nand WHEREAS, Act 545 states that \"In any election year, if no more than one (1) candidate for school district director or member of the county board of education presents a petition or notice in writing to the county board of election commissioners as required by 6-14- 111, and there are no other ballot issues to be submitted to district electors for consideration, the board of directors of any school district may, by resolution duly adopted, request the county board of election commissioners to reduce the number of polling places\"\nand WHEREAS, only one candidate has filed a petition in each of the three school election districts which are up for election this year, and there are no other ballot issues\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County adopts this resolution to request the county board of election commissioners to reduce the number of polling places. Secretary Adopted LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 14, 1997 RC 1997 OFRCEOF REGAT/DN MONITOR/~ The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, August 14, 1997, immediately following the regular agenda meeting, at the administration building at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. Judy Magness, Vice President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Magness called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Six members of the Board were present\nMr. Riggs was absent. Kamie Smith, 11 th grade student ex officio from Fair High School, and Ann McLennan, 2nd grade teacher ex officio from Badgett Elementary School were also present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 14, 1997 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following items: I. Ratification of Personnel Contracts II. Student Reinstatement Petitions ill. Work Team Reports ACTION AGENDA Ratification of Personnel Contracts Brady Gadberry provided a brief summary of the personnel agreements and asked for the Board to approve the negotiated contracts. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the contracts, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. Student Reinstatement Petitions The Board convened an executive session for the purpose of reviewing student disciplinary reports. Dr. Watson submitted 17 petitions for reinstatement and recommended various placements for the students involved. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the administration's recommendations and Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The students and recommended placements for the 1997-98 school year are listed in the chart which follows: PREVIOUS RECOMMENDED STUDENT'S OFFENSE PLACEMENT PLACEMENT NAME Joseph Blue Physical Assault/Staff ALC/JJC Dunbar Jr. High Phillip Chandler' Possession/Weapon ALC/JJC Regular High School Jabari Cummins Inciting to Riot Central Central/Other High School Deon Earnest Inciting to Riot Central Central/Other High School Edmar Higgins Verbal Abuse/Staff Central Sr. HighALC James Hubbard Verbal Abuse/Staff Central Sr. HighALC Shamil\u0026lt;a Hudson Physical Assault/Staff ALC/JJC Jr. HighALC Latricia Logan Possession/Weapon McClellan McClellan Valarie Logan Possession/Weapon Mabelvale Jr. High Jr. High ALC Calvin Love Physical Assault/Staff Central Sr. HighALC Brandi Maclntrush Verbal Assault/Staff ALC Dunbar Jr. High Kevin Morrison Arson Central/Metro Central High Mashieka Murphy Possession/Weapon Fair/JJC Fair Chris Royster Verbal Abuse/Staff Hall Hall Shawnrita Sain Physical Assault/Staff Central Regular High School Louis Shelton Verbal Abuse/Staff Forest Heights Jr. HighALC Jasper Vick Verbal Abuse/Staff Parkview Sr. High School MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 14, 1997 Page 3 WORK TEAM REPORTS: The Curriculum-Reading \u0026amp; Mathematics work team report was presented by team leader, Sharon Davis and committee members, Gene Parker and Dennis Glasgow. The School Revitalization work team report was presented by team leader, Marian Lacey and other committee members, Selma Hobby and Carol Green. The Incentive School work team report was presented by Sadie Mitchell, Margaret Gremillion, Ethel Dunbar, Lillie Scull, Lionel Ward, Sharon Brooks, and Anne Mangan. The Alternative Education \u0026amp; Discipline work team reports were presented by Jo Evelyn Elston, Linda Watson, Everett Hawks, and Lee Ann Byrd. Additional reports will be presented to the Board on August 18, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. Dr. Roberts will present recommendations from these reports to the Board on August 28, 1997. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. APPROVED: 2 -\n).. f-9 ( Micheal Daughe ~ .. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 18, 1997 RECEIVE SEP 4 1997 DES OFFICE OF 'EGREGATION MONITOR/NG The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Monday, August 18, 1997, at the administration building at 810 West Markham\nLittle Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs Judy Magness Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strick.land MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Five members of the Board were present\nMr. Berkley and Dr. Daugherty were absent. Ann McLennan, 2nd grade teacher ex officio from Badgett Elementary School was also present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 18, 1997 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of hearing the final work team reports. No official board action was taken. WORK TEAM REPORTS: The Classroom-Community Links work team report was presented by team leader, Carol Green, and committee members, Selma Hobby and Julie Rhodes. The Leadership \u0026amp; Staff Development work team report was presented by team leader, Betty Raper, and team members, Robert Robinson, Marion Woods, and Skip Gardner. The Technology work team report was presented by team leader, Lucy Lyon, and committee members, Lillie Carter, Skip Marshall, Rich Kennedy, Paul Smith, and John Ruffins. Patrick Kennedy, Central High School student, also presented a video demonstration. The Student Assignment work team recommendations were presented by team leader, Baker Kurrus. Dr. Roberts will present recommendations from these reports to the Board on August 28, 1997. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 :00 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Ms. Strickland. 8 APPROVED: f-J-f-97 Micheal Daughe~ecretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 RECF''' SEP 2 6 1997 OFFICE OF IISEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, August 28, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, John Riggs, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, John Riggs, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. II. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of July 24, and special meetings conducted on August 5, August 14, and August 18, were presented for the Board's approval. Mr. Berkley requested a correction to the minutes of July 24. That correction was noted and Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the amended minutes. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 7-0.  REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT The Superintendent presented a citation to Dionne Bennett who was recently selected as the 1997 Sallie Mae First Class Teacher. Ms. Bennett, a science teacher at Mann Magnet Junior High School, received $1,500 cash and a trip to Washington, D.C. Larry Berkley and Micheal Daugherty, school Board members, were recognized by the Arkansas Schools Boards Association for completing fifteen hours of inservice training. Six hours of training per year is required under Act 767 of 1987. B. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator for the District recognized recently formed partnerships between schools and community businesses. Those partnerships include: Arkansas Youth Symphony Orchestra and Booker Arts Magnet School, represented by Cheryl Simmons-Carson and Lou Alley KLRE Radio Station and Booker Arts Magnet School, represented by Cheryl Simmons-Carson and Lou Alley KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, represented by Charlotte Daniel, Dorsey Jackson and Cathy Reid, partnering with Carver Magnet School, represented by Diane Barksdale and Yana Scott Loomis, Fargo \u0026amp; Company, represented by Mike Teeter, in partnership with Chicot Elementary, represented by Jane Harkey Safety \u0026amp; Environmental Associates, Inc., represented by Keina Jennings, in partnership with Chicot Elementary, represented by Jane Harkey Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page3 SUPERINTENDENT'S PRESENTATION: Work Team/Desegregation Recommendations - Dr. Roberts reviewed recommendations contained in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, dated August 28, 1997. He will ask the Board to approve the recommendations included in this report at the regular Board meeting in September. District attorneys will gather comments from all parties to the desegregation lawsuit, and their input will be considered before submitting the document to the court. A copy of the report is attached to these minutes. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES City Board member Joan Adcock introduced L.O.V.E (Let Our Violence End) program directors, Robert Holt and R. B. Smith. The L.O.V.E. program teaches teamwork and selfesteem and provides jobs and training for young people in an effort to curb violence and gang activity. They made a presentation of their program goals and objectives and asked the Board to consider donating the old Eastside School to the L.O.V.E. program. Students who participated in the presentation included Derrick Almon, Romy Chambliss, and Antoine Perkins. Community member Shirley Marshall also stated support for the program on behalf of the residents near Eastside. The Board recessed at 7:35 and reconvened at 7:55 p.m. Dr. Daugherty did not return from recess. D. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Office of Desegregation Monitoring No report. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter reported that CT A representatives and members were pleased with the negotiations process this year, especially with the fact that all groups were under three-year contract agreements. Two items especially popular with the membership were the direct deposit of paychecks, and technology training for teachers. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page4 IV. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Riggs expressed personal pleasure in the fact that school is back in session and that it seemed to be a smooth opening with the exception of a few transportation problems. He congratulated Ms. Magness, Ms. Gee and Ms. Strickland who were unopposed for positions on the Board. Each of these Board members will serve three more years on the Board and will be sworn in at the September 18 meeting. Mr. Riggs also commented on the impact of the recommendations made in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, which was the basis for Dr. Roberts' presentation earlier in the agenda. The Board's decision to approve these recommendations will impact the children in our city for many years. Mr. Riggs asked the Board to remain prayerful\nto ask for strength, courage and wisdom. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Sandy Becker representing the Panky Community Improvement Association asked the Board to extend the deadline for the required improvements to property in Panky that was previously deeded by the District. He also thanked the Board for continuing to implement Strategic Plan recommendations, especially those from Action Team 5. Enos Jones asked the Board to consider the current requirements for volunteer coaches. He provided copies of the Arkansas Law and AAA rules which address the issue. Debbie Vail expressed concern regarding transportation problems. Her daughter attends Dunbar Jr. High and has been late several times this school year and last. Terri Watkins also reported problems with late buses. Her son has missed first period classes several times this year, She has reported problems to Laidlaw, but doesn't feel that her problem is being resolved. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page5 Gary Banks and Larry Oberste representing Pepsi Bottling Company, expressed support for Ray Gillespie and the LRSD Athletic Program and proposed establishing a partnership to benefit LRSD students involved in athletic programs. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Student Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook The Board had been provided copies of recommended revisions to the current Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook. Dr. Roberts recommended postponing action until further discussion could be held with committee members. The Board agreed by consensus to table action until the meeting of September 18. B. Central High School Right of Way Easement The city of Little Rock requested a Corporation Dedication Deed, which would grant a small amount of property on the northeast comer of the Central High School site to allow the city to widen the curb radius at the intersection of West 14th \u0026amp; Park Streets. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the request, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. C. Criminal Background Checks for New Non-Certified Employees Under Act 1314 of 1997, the State requires criminal background checks for all new noncertified employees, full and part-time. This background check would currently cost approximately $39 per employee, and would include fingerprinting and a background investigation by the FBI. Brady Gadberry was present to respond to questions from the Board. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the District paying for the entire cost of conducting the background check for the current (1997-98) school year. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Ms. Gee casting the \"no\" vote. D. Proposed School Closing for Central High School Events \u0026amp; Activities Dr. Roberts asked the Board to approve closing all high schools in the District on September 25, 1997, the day that commemorates the 40th anniversary of the integration of Central High School. He has petitioned the Arkansas Department of Education to consider that day as an excused absence for students. In addition, students in other grade levels would be granted an excused absence if parents provide a written request. Students and staff members of the District would be encouraged to participate in the scheduled activities. Ms. Magness moved to approve the Superintendent's recommendation\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page6 E. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEP ARTMENT ITEM DONOR Forest Park Elementary Cash to purchase Forest Park PTA computers ($10,742.) Brady Elementary 200 Folding Chairs Bradv PTA Hall High Books for ESL students Carolyn Newbern Air Conditioner for the Home Depot Field House K. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the recommendations, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. L. Financial Reports Financial reports for the month of July were incomplete at the time of the meeting. They will be provided for approval at the September meeting. (Dr. Daugherty returned at 8:45 p.m.) VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The update was printed in the agenda. There was no additional information provided. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page7 B. Budget Update Dr. Roberts reported that he would consider asking the Board to meet for discussion of the budget sometime during the month of September, before submission to the Arkansas Department of Education on September 15. He would like to include some budget projections from the work team recommendations in the final budget submission. In reference to the request to consider donating the Eastside building to L.O.V.E. or any other community group, Dr. Roberts asked the Board to give the administration an opportunity to review the options regarding sale or use of the building before making any decisions or promises. There have been several inquiries as to the possible sale or lease of the property and he would like to be able to recommend the best options for the District. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS VIII. None. DISCIPLINARY Dr. Daugherty made a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of conducting student and employee disciplinary actions at 9:00 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Watson, student hearing officer, requested the Board's approval for reinstatemet of several students who had been previously suspended or expelled from the District. Each of these students will be placed under strict probation for a period of one school term. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the recommended placements. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Students who are being reinstated and their recommended placements are listed in the table which follows. STUDENT Danielle Freeman John Grant Andre Harris Herbert Harris Diana Hill Kevin Holmes Shavonne Palmer LaTan a Rice Rondi Smith PREVIOUS SCHOOL Central Hi Central Hi Central Hi RECOMMENDED PLACEMENT am am REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 28, 1997 Page 8 The Board recessed briefly and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. to consider an employee's appeal of District disciplinary actions. (Dr. Daugherty excused himself from the hearing.) Jonathan Miller had been an employee of the Plant Services Department and was represented in this hearing by Attorney Alvin Clay. The District was represented by Clay Fendley. Mr. Miller had been an employee of the District for over 12 years. He was accused of being in possession of a handgun on District property. The incident occurred after the regular school/work day during an athletic event at Quigley stadium. His attorney, Mr. Clay, asked the Board to give Mr. Miller another opportunity, and Ray Gillespie, District Athletic Director, testified on his behalf. Mr. Miller was working for Mr. Gillespie at the time of the incident. Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, testified that he had brought the charges against Mr. Miller and that there were charges filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court related to the altercation. The incident had been reported to Bobby Jones, Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security for the District on the morning after the incident. Dr. Roberts recommended that the Board suspend Mr. Miller, without pay, pending the final outcome of the charges that are pending in Circuit Court. Mr. Miller would then have the option of coming back to the Board to ask to be reinstated if he is cleared of the charges in Circuit Court. Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend Mr. Miller indefinitely, without pay. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT The Board returned from executive session at 9:30 p.m. Ms. Magness moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Berkley, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 9-(g-q1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 11, 1997 SEP 2 6 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, September 11, 1997, immediately following the regularly scheduled agenda meeting, at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Micheal Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 5:47 p.m. Six members of the Board were present\nDr. Daugherty was absent. Carthoria Johnson, teacher ex officio from Bale Elementary School was also present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 11, 1997 Page2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of approving the 1997-98 budget submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. ACTION: Board members were provided copies of a budget summary earlier this week. They were also given a copy of the full budget submission prior to the meeting. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions. Dr. Roberts reminded the Board that the budget can be modified further after submission to the State. He asked the Board to consider a budget work session sometime within the next few weeks. The Board agreed to conduct a work session on October 9, in conjunction with the regular October agenda meeting. Ms. Magness moved to approve the submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Berkley. APPROVED: q -{ 8 ,q ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 RECEIVED OCT 2 9 1 97 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, September 18, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. This meeting was rescheduled from the usual 4th Thursday to the 3rd Thursday to accommodate plans for the 40th anniversary programs commemorating the integration of Central High School. The President, John Riggs, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Micheal Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESE T: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Les Carnine, Superintendent Designee Carthoria Johnson, Teacher Ex-officio Yolanda Baskins, Student Ex-officio Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, John Riggs, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 6:20 p.m. and Dr. Mitchell arrived at 7:00 p.m. Judge Chris Piazza was present to administer the oath of office to Little Rock School District Board members Judy Magness, Pat Gee, and Sue Strickland. Ruth White Tucker, re-elected to the Pulaski County Special School District Board, and Ernie Davis, re-elected to a position on the Pulaski County Board of Education, were also sworn in by Judge Piazza. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page2 II. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of August 28, 1997, and a special meeting on September 11, 1997, were presented for the Board's approval. Ms. Magness moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT The Superintendent introduced Greg Harris and Barbara Byrd, teachers at M. L. King Elementary School. They were recently recognized for their programs to teach economics to elementary students by the Bessie B. Moore Arkansas Awards program. Kiffany Pride was also awarded an honorable mention, but was unable to attend the Board meeting. William Reid, owner of Reid-Vining Jewelers, was recognized for restoring two silver trophies that have been on display in the Central High School trophy case for many years. Age had blackened and corroded these trophies, dated 1908 and 1910. He presented the restored trophies to Principal Rudolph Howard. Dr. Roberts presented a certificate ofrecognition to Sharon Brooks, principal of Rightsell Incentive School. Ms. Brooks recently hosted U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and his staff on a tour of Rightsell, which included a visit with students and a live broadcast from the school's media center. Ms. Brooks was commended for the work she does at Rightsell, for the high expectations set for staff and students, and for her strong leadership abilities. Marion Woods was introduced to present certificates to the first graduates of the Mahl on Martin Professional Development Leadership class. The District received a Goals 2000 grant to fund this staff development program. The graduates are: Stacy Blacknall Marian Jackson Mary A. Smith Marilyn Bostic Mary Lawson Eunice Thrasher Sharon Bryant Ken Milton Janis Tucker Luverda Clay Debra Murray William Vann Carmelia Crawford Mike Peterson Nona Whittaker Donna Hall Julia Post R. J. Williams Gregory Harris Bemestine Rhodes Clarice Woodley Rory Hill Lillie Scull Karen Worsham Laureen Isom REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page 3 The final citations were presented to Carthoria Johnson, teacher ex-officio from Bale Elementary and Yolanda Baskins, student ex-officio from Hall High School. B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Baker Kurrus, representing the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, spoke in support of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan proposed by Dr. Roberts and presented to the Board in August. Odies Wilson, vice president of the Alliance Board, also addressed the board and asked them to make a commitment to the process of educating the children in our community by voting in favor of the proposed desegregation and education plan. He announced that the Alliance would work with the Chamber of Commerce over the next few weeks to develop a city-wide reading initiative. Jim Hathaway, representing Fifty for the Future, expressed support for the revised Plan and asked the Board and administrators to focus on strong fiscal management of the District. To promote stability, he suggested hiring additional, qualified staff and reorganizing the current staff to make operations more efficient. Speaking on behalf of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Hubert Barksdale read a resolution adopted by the Chamber Board. He also introduced Paula Patterson, the newly appointed Chairman of the Chamber Education Committee. D. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden was present and spoke briefly to the Board. ODM has not been monitoring in the LRSD this year, therefore there are no issues or concerns to report at this time. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter remarked on the cooperative efforts of the task force which has been working to coordinate technology training for over 600 employees who have expressed interest in this area. He also reported receiving several calls from teachers who want to participate in activities at Central High School on September 25, and he asked the Board to consider allowing all employees the opportunity to attend. He concluded his presentation by remarking that he had worked with the faculty at Metropolitan who were concerned about implementation of an alternative program at that school. He introduced Laurie Prather, who teaches at Metropolitan. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page4 Ms. Prather stated that the faculty and staff is not opposed to locating an alternative program at Metro, but that they are concerned about how the students would be served. She stated the faculty feels that they had been left out of the planning process and should have been consulted earlier. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PTA Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty congratulated Ms. Magness, Ms. Gee and Ms. Strickland on their re-election\nall three were uncontested for their seats on the Board. He also introduced Dr. Dwayne Jackson who attended the meeting. Ms. Gee remarked that, although she was unopposed, she did not take the election for granted. She promised to continue to work towards a more cooperative and unified Board. Mr. Berkley also congratulated the re-elected Board members and stated that he was looking forward to the next year. Ms. Magness introduced her family and thanked them for their support of her service on the Board. She stated that she appreciated the opportunity to serve three more years and thanked district employees for the great beginning of school. She recognized the Alliance and Chamber of Commerce Board and thanked them for their contribution to the success of the past year. Ms. Strickland introduced her husband and thanked him for supporting her in her efforts on the Board. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page 5 IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS V. Maureen Rose from Waste Management of Arkansas was present as Murfee Green, a character who promotes recycling education programs. She provided copies of educational materials WMA will distribute to our students promoting recycling. Dick Burchett introduced himself as a supporter of Metropolitan and the program offered there. He questioned the Board about the selection of Metro as a site for new alternative learning programs. Mr. Burchett stated that his wife is a teacher at Metro and that he lives in Bryant. Sandy Becker, chair of Strategic Planning Team 5, School and Community Partnerships, stated support for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan proposed by Dr. Roberts. He welcomed Dr. Carnine to the District and pledged his support in the coming year. Mr. Becker encouraged the Board to continue to support the Strategic Planning process and continue to bring new opportunities to the students. The Board took a briefrecess and reconvened at 7:30 p.m. ACTION AGENDA A. Election of Officers Mr. Riggs opened the floor to nominations for the position of President of the Board. Mr. Berkley nominated Ms. Magness. Dr. Mitchell moved that the nominations be closed and that Ms. Magness be elected by acclamation. The vote was unanimous. For the position of Vice President, Ms. Strickland nominated Mr. Berkley. Mr. Riggs moved that the nominations close, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Riggs nominated Dr. Daugherty for the position of Secretary. He moved that the nominations close and that Dr. Daugherty be elected by acclamation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Approval of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Dr. Roberts presented a summary of the modifications to the Plan which had been provided to the Board at the August 28 Board meeting and urged the Board to approve the Plan for submission to the Court. He indicated that approval of this Plan by the Court would restore a common sense approach to educating the children of Little Rock and would result in a significant increase in the levels of parent and community involvement in the schools. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page6 Mr. Riggs made a motion to approve the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and authorize our attorneys to file the plan and any necessary supporting documents with the district court within the time allowed by the district court's order approving the plan development period. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A transcript of the Board member's comments regarding the approval of this Plan for submission is attached to these minutes. C. Approval of the 1996-97 Annual Report The District's 1996-97 Annual Report was printed as a part of the agenda and Suellen Vann, Director of Communications, was present to respond to questions. She reminded the Board that under Arkansas law, this report must be filed by October 1 of each year. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the report. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Approval of the Student Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook Dr. Roberts briefly reviewed changes that had been incorporated into this year's Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer, and members of the handbook committee were present to respond to questions from the Board. Ms. Gee moved to approve the handbook, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0 . Dr. Daugherty left the meeting and was not present for the remainder of the meeting. E. Goals 2000 Grant Application An application for a Goals 2000 grant had been submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education for a September 12 deadline. The Board was asked to approve maintenance of that submission. The grant would provide continuation funding for two professional development programs established in 1996 with Goals 2000 funding. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the submission. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. F. Ratification of Aides \u0026amp; Custodians Contract The Board was provided with information on the negotiated contract with District Custodians and paraprofessionals. Mr. Gadberry was present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the contract agreements. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. G. Consolidated Application for Special Education and Related Services, 1997-98 The 1997-98 application for special education funding was presented for the Board's approval. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the application for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page7 H. Resolution: Arkansas Public Schools Week Suellen Vann, Director of Communication, presented a resolution in support of the Arkansas School Public Relations Association celebration of Arkansas Public Schools Week, October 5-11, 1997. This year's theme is Everyone's Business ... Everyone's Future. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the resolution, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The resolution was approved, 6-0. I. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The motion carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR McClellan High $100.00 cash First Commercial Bank Chicot Elementary $102.00 cash Loomis, Fargo \u0026amp; Company Franklin Incentive RCA VCR Connie Simpson Sears VCR Ellistine Gaddy Dell Computer System Arkansas Democrat Hall High Air Conditioner for Best Buy Field House Fulbright Elementarv Microwave/CBI class Easy Cash Pawn Shop Wilson Elementary Frigidaire Refrigerator Valerie Pearsall/Rich Roy Pulaski Heights Jr. High Four IBM Computer Arkansas Community systems, assorted Foundation software and accessories Eight IBM Computer PHJHPTA systems with uogrades Otter Creek Elementary Five IBM hard drives, Steve Aurillio, Alltel keyboards and monitors Mabelvale Elementary Apple II GS Computer Les \u0026amp; Jerri Sue Finch - REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page 8 J. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommendations, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K. Financial Reports Financial information for the months of July and August were presented in the Board agenda. Mr. Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services, responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the reports as presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Budget Update The Board did not hear a budget update, but scheduled a budget work session for October 9, 1997. B. Board Goals Update The Board reviewed the status of the goals established May 22, 1997. Mr. Berkley and Ms. Magness will develop a strategy to begin reviewing and revising the Board policy manual over the next few months. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY The Board convened an executive session for the purpose of hearing a student disciplinary petition. Dr. Linda Watson presented a student reinstatement petition for Latesha West, who had been expelled from Southwest Jr. High School during the 1996-97 school year. Latesha had enrolled at the P.C. Juvenile Justice Center and had earned passing grades in that program. Dr. Watson recommended reinstatement on strict probation to a district junior high school. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the administration's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 18, 1997 Page9 ADJOURNMENT The Board returned from executive session at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Riggs moved for adjournment, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: /0. ).J. o/7 Riggs: Daugherty: Magness: Daugherty: Magness: Berkley: LRSD Board of Directors Meeting September 18, 1997 TRANSCRIPT - BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS on Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Recommend by Superintendent Don Roberts MOTION: I move we approve the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and authorize our attorneys to fi le the plan and any necessary supporting documents with the district court with in the time allowed by the district court's order approving the plan development period. Second. Is there any discussion? There is. I've looked at all the information that different groups have provided for us, I've talked with Dr. Roberts about the different things within the Plan, and I definitely support the Plan, but I don't want us to forget that there was a reason for this deseg. order in the first place. That there were problems that faced this district and this country that people were not willing to acknowledge or deal with and unfortunately it took going to court in order to get people to comply, and in order to do the right thing. And rather than do the right thing, some of the parents took their kids out of our schools. But even with that we still continue to educate kids in this district. By voting for this I'm not saying that I disagree with the efforts of Mr. Walker and individuals like him, because it was individuals like Mr. Walker that made the difference. It was his effort, and efforts of people and attorneys like him that began the change. But, after awhile after you've fought dragons for so long, when you go out you're looking for dragons even when there aren't any left. We are fortunate to have had Dr. Roberts for this last year. He's really made a difference. We look forward to the work of Dr. Carnine. But I don't want this Board, because we are going to be judged by what we are implementing here tonight. We can say last year - year before last that we didn't have anything to do with the old deseg plan. But this is ours and we are going to be judged by this. So it's going to be up to us to make sure that the things in here are implemented and done according to what the judge directs us to do. But again, I don't take anything away from the individuals who had to go out and fight to get individuals within this district, at one point, to comply and do the right thing. And, you know, as I said, I do support this. Thank you. Any other discussion? Mr. Berkley. I appreciate your comments Dr. Daugherty. I think we have to keep in mind that the whole purpose for the original desegregation litigation was to assure and demand equitable education. And we are in a different place than we were when this was initiated as a nation and as a city, and I want to say that I have never experienced anything in the schools that I've been to, the people I've talked to, anything other than a total commitment to that issue. Board members, teachers, principals, the superintendent, everybody who I've talked to realizes that it is a moral, ethical, right thing to do, and I congratulate Dr. Roberts on the development of this plan and on the community input that was required to develop it and I absolutely support it. LRSD Board of Directors Meeting September 18, 1997 Page 2 Magness: Mitchell: Magness: Riggs: Thank you. Dr. Mitchell I simply want to say again that the best recruitment tool that the District can have is one where we are providing quality education for the children that we serve regardless to where they live and how they look. I'm just pleased that we now have something to submit to the court that really focuses on what we should be doing - - providing educational opportunities for the children and I'm glad that it's not detailed as to how it's going to be done, Dr. Roberts, because frankly, that's one of the things that impeded our progress before, that we were too specific, too detailed, I mean, in whatever you wrote in the plan the people expected for you to do it whether it worked or not. Or it if didn't work, you had to prove it didn't. And so in order for us to be effective at the schools, to provide the activities to devise the activities to use whatever educational programs that would better meet the needs of the children in that particular setting, that I think this is the best way to present it, and not go into any specific details so I support it and I'm glad that we are now focusing on what we ought to be doing and not just throwing out bait to try to lure people to the district. But show that our students are important . . . (End of tape 1 - remainder of Dr. Mitchell's comments are inaudible.) Mr. Riggs I certainly agree with the other Board members on what they've said about what we're trying to do tonight. I particularly empathize and understand some of the comments Dr. Daugherty made about the people in the past who have fought for the rights of our children and those people to me are heroes. The other thing that he said, that we have to be cognizant of, and I caution this Board or talk to you or maybe I will talk to you for the next year anyway - is that when we agree on this plan, if we pass this plan tonight, we are making a contract with the community to follow this, and they are going to hold us accountable, and not only do you make a contract for yourselves, but you make a contract for all the Boards that follow you. I've sat up here at this dais before, with Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Gee, and wondered who it was that put that past plan in place, and I can even remember some Board members saying \"Well, we didn't vote on it, so we're not going to do it.\" and we landed in Court. We accepted that, didn't we? That Board member's not on this Board right now. But I want to caution you about that, and as part of Board leadership the Board members that follow us -- that needs to be part of our policy that we teach them the obligations they have. You can't allow Board members to come onto this Board and not know the obligations that we are making for them tonight and for the next several years. So, particularly our three new Board members who are going to be here for at least three years, I want to encourage you to keep that thought in mind as you get new Board members on this Board, that part of their education process has to be that we show them the obligations that they have as a member of this Board. Lastly, I just want to say to this Board we are at a historic crossroads. Although we've had a lot of hoopla in town about what's going to go on in the city this week and next week, I believe ten years hence and probably twenty years hence a lot will be forgotten about the 40th anniversary of the desegregation of Central High. But the steps you take tonight, I think, will be remembered .. because you're taking, in my opinion, taking a good school district - one of the best in Arkansas - and making it a world class school district. And I think those are historic steps. LRSD Board of Directors Meeting September 18, 1997 Page 3 Magness: Thank you. Any other comments? That was well said. Thank you all for your comments. We do have a motion on the floor - to approve the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and authorize our attorneys to file the plan and any necessary supporting documents with the district court within the time allowed by the district court's order approving the plan development period. All those in favor (Unanimous vote.) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT September 26, 1997 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: SEP 2 6 i~~' Off\\C0r OtSEGR~Gfi.i\\Oi4 t/lOtliOR\\Wl I am enclosing minutes of LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on August 28 and September 11, 1997. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 REC IVE-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS oc 2 9 t!l97 mliCECF MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 15, 1997 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Wednesday, October 15, 1997, at 810 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. Judy Magness, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley John Riggs, IV Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Micheal Daugherty Pat Gee Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Magness called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Four members of the Board were present\nDr. Daugherty, Ms. Gee and Ms. Strickland were absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING \"ft\n:1T~'UI1!~\\S The meeting was called for the purpose of reinstating students who had been suspended or expelled previously and for conducting student disciplinary appeal hearings. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 15, 1997 Page2 ACTION: Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer, presented information on the recommendation for expulsion from Central High School of student Antoine Shephard. Dr. Watson had upheld the school's recommendation and Antoine's mother, Ms. McDonald, asked to appeal that decision to the Board. Antoine (and his brother, Corey) had been involved in a major fight at school on September 30, 1997, and had both been charged with inciting to riot. Dr. Watson had recommended placement in the Juvenile Justice Center, Step-One Alternative Program. The superintendent recommended upholding the schools petition for expulsion and concurred with the alternative placement recommended by Dr. Watson. Mr. Riggs made a motion to uphold the administration's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Ms. McDonald withdrew her request for a hearing on Corey Shepherd's expulsion recommendation. The Board was also presented with a list of students who were recommended for placement in alternative settings, but who had not requested a hearing before the Board. Additional information was requested from the Student Hearing Officer before action by the Board. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr .Riggs. (1d~ ,( /m-Ld',Y -l'dc---=: ~J~Magness, President APPROVED: lo -\n3. 1: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 REC IVED NOV 2 5 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, October 23, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Judy Magness, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Marva Pearson, Teacher Ex-officio Hanna Dolle, Student Ex-officio Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Ex-officio members of the Board were also present: Hanna Dolle, student at McClellan, and Marva Pearson, teacher at Baseline. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of September 18, and a special meeting on October 15, 1997, were presented for the Board's approval. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Roberts introduced Daryl Newcomb, a teacher at Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School. Ms. Newcomb was recently selected by Entergy Arkansas as an Outstanding Teacher of the Year for 1997. She was also named as a finalist for the 1998 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. A superintendent's citation was presented to Claudia Rodgers, physical educ~tion teacher at Dunbar Junior High School. Ms. Rodgers was recently honored by the Association of Teacher Educators as the Outstanding Cooperating Teacher of the Year. Dr. Roberts presented a citation to Frances McCorkle in recognition of her selection as a participant in the Fulbright Memorial Fund Teacher Program. Ms. McCorkle will visit Japan for three weeks next fall. Representatives from Centro Hispano were honored for volunteer hours contributed to help Chicot Elementary School families during the opening of school this fall. Karen Latch, teacher at Williams Magnet Elementary School, received a Superintendent's citation for recently being named as a recipient of the Arkansas Retired Teachers Association Parsons-Burnett Scholarship. The $1,000 award is for continuing education. The superintendent recognized a number of people who contributed to the Central High School Fortieth Anniversary recognition programs. Central staff members Rudolph Howard, Nancy Rousseau and Brenda James were present to accept citations of appreciation for the time they contributed to making the events a success. Mr. Howard also received a certificate of appreciation from the White House Communications Agency in recognition of his assistance to the presidential staff. Vicki Saviers, Cynthia East, Billie Rutherford, and Jeannie Andrews, PT A officers at Central High School, were recognized for the time they devoted to planning the many activities that were scheduled at Central over the last month. Doug Eaton and staff members at Plant Services were recognized for their extra efforts in ensuring that all of the maintenance projects were completed before the Central High School anniversary events. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 3 Several months oflandscaping projects were coordinated by Jerry Compton of ServiceMaster Management Services. ServiceMaster donated $10,000 to make improvements to the front lawn at Central High School\nthe district matched this amount and much of the work was done by volunteers from Merlin E. Seamon Associates, Master Gardners, and 4-H Club members. Southwestern Bell and its employees were given citations recognizing their donation of $100,000 worth of Internet access wiring at Central High School. Members of the Southwestern Bell Pioneers and the Communications Workers of America volunteered their time to install the wiring during their off hours. The final citations were given to the ex-officio Board members for the month of October\nMarva Pearson, teacher from Baseline Elementary, and Hanna Dolle, student from McClellan High School. The final presentation was to Board member John Riggs, who was recognized for his year of service as president of the board. The other members of the Board presented him with a gavel. B. PARTNERSHIPS Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator for the District, recognized recently formed partnerships between schools and community businesses. Those partnerships include: ITT Technical Institute, represented by Kevin Standiford and Dr. Pat Honeycutt, partnering with McClellan High School, represented by Patricia McMurray and Jodie Carter Little Rock Hilton, represented by Sandra Anthony, Anrianne Beck and Tracy Bennett, partnering with McClellan High School, represented by Patricia McMurray and Jodie Carter ITT Technical Institute, represented by Kevin Standiford and Dr. Pat Honneycutt, partnering with Metropolitan Vocational Center, represented by Michael Peterson Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page4 C. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden thanked Dr. Roberts for serving as superintendent during the past year and for providing positive leadership for the District. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin spoke on behalf of the faculty at Metropolitan, some of whom are opposed to placement of the ALE program on the Metro campus. He stated that the community would be opposed to having alternative education students at that site and that some of them would probably transfer their students out of the district. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. D. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty acknowledged that there were concerns about placement for students with disciplinary problems and students who merely had problems learning in the regular classroom setting. He stated that the proposed alternative programs were geared to address the needs of the individual students. Dr. Mitchell issued a challenge to parents and teachers to form partnerships to provide children with the things they really need in order to succeed in learning. She stated that children do best in school when parents, teachers and the community cooperate as a support team. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Riggs thanked the Board for allowing him to serve as president for the past year. He congratulated three people who have recently been publicly recognized for outstanding service to the school district\nMarian Lacey for receiving the Milken Award, Diane Vibhaker for being recognized by the Arkansas Times as a \"hero\", and Don Roberts who has worked with the Board over the past year to ensure that they had a productive year while searching for a new superintendent. Mr. Berkley congratulated Mr. Howard and the Central High School staff for providing a positive focus on Little Rock schools during the recent national media focus. Ms. Magness thanked the staff and volunteers at Central High School for the work they had done over the past few months preparing for the 40th year commemoration events. Ms. Magness had attended a coffee at Wilson Elementary School, read to first grade students at Watson Elementary School, and attended a sixth grade musical production at the PT A open house at Jefferson Elementary. She complimented the good behavior of Dunbar band students who marched in the red ribbon parade, and thanked Mike Peterson and the Culinary Arts students at Metro for hosting the October agenda meeting. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Todd Skaggs introduced himself as a former culinary arts student at Metro. He spoke in opposition to placing alternative education students at the Metro campus. Michael Drake spoke in support of the Pankey property deed extension. He is a member of CANDO, an alliance of fourteen west Little Rock churches, which has pledged their support to the building of a Pankey Community center. Sandy Becker thanked the Board for continuing their support of the Pankey community in their efforts to build a community center. He serves as pastor of a church in that community. Wali Caradine, with Architectural Innovations Group, is working with the Pankey Community to develop the plans for building a community center. He provided information on plans that must be approved by the city planning commission. Ray Walters serves as a mentor to students at Metro. He asked the board not to approve plans to place an alternative program at Metro. Rick Evans teaches at Metro and expressed concerns about placement of ALE students at the Metro campus. He stated that area students and those from Bryant and Bauxite would pull out of the Metro Vocational programs if alternative students were assigned to attend there. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page6 Tracy Hairston, a student in the Metro extended day program, asked the Board to consider other placement for the ALE students. Larry Lee stated that training provided at Metro is not available anywhere else. He suggested that the students at Metro attend there because they want to be there and that Metro would not \"work\" for ALE students who are forced to attend the programs or who do not have a choice about where they are assigned. David McCree teaches radio and television broadcasting at Metropolitan. He asked the Board not to assign ALE students to Metro programs in the middle of the school year and stated that courses offered there require that students be there from the beginning of the semester. He stated that vocational education does not have a good reputation and that the public perception of having an ALE program will impact negatively on the success of Metro. Selma Douglas addressed the board as a 43-year resident of the Pankey community. She provided historical information on the land that has been proposed for development as a community center site. Robert Savary, who serves on the Metro Board, stated that proposed changes to the Metro program will be a detriment to the school's success. He asked the Board not to approve the recommended ALE programs. V. ACTION AGENDA Mr. Riggs asked the Board to reorder the agenda to allow Item \"F\" to become Item \"A\" on the action agenda. There were no objections to his request. A. Resolution: Beacons/School-Based Community Centers Dorothy N ayles, representing New Futures, made a brief slide presentation to update the Board on a proposal for operating school-based community centers. The Board was asked to adopt a resolution supporting the school-based community center concept which promotes collaboration with the City of Little Rock, the Department of Health, the Department of Human Services, New Futures for Youth, and the Pulaski County United Way. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the resolution, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A copy of the resolution is attached to these minutes. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 7 B. Central High Architectural Conservation Planning Grant The Board was asked to approve submission of a planning grant to the Getty Grant Program of Los Angeles. The application request is in the amount of $25,000 for planning restoration and architectural conservation of Central High School. Ms. Gee moved to approve the submission. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. The Board elected to take action on items C, D, and E with a blanket motion C. National Science Foundation Grant A grant application was submitted to the National Science Foundation to establish a fiveyear program to increase enrollment in upper level mathematics and science courses. First year applicants are allowed up to $200,000 for start up activities and recipients are allowed to apply for up to $800,000 in years two through five. The Board was asked to approve the submission. D. Vital Link Grant The Board was asked to approve the submission of an application to the Little Rock Education Commission for financial support in the amount of $35,000 for the Vital Link Program. This funding would pay transportation costs for the summers of 1998 and 1999. E. Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Applications As a recipient of federal funds, the district is required to implement a comprehensive drug abuse prevention program in grades K-12. The 1997-98 allocation will be in the amount of $166,696.00, and the Board was asked to approve the application for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. Mrs. Elston was present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve items C, D, and E. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Resolution: Arkansas Drug Free Youth and Red Ribbon Campaign In support of the National Red Ribbon Campaign for Drug Free Youth, the Board was asked to adopt a resolution endorsing Red Ribbon Week and urging all citizens to make a commitment to drug free education and to the future of our children. Dr. Mitchell moved to adopt the resolution. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A copy of that resolution is attached to these minutes. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 8 G. Pankey Community Center - Approval to Amend Deed An amended deed for property previously transferred to Pankey Community Improvement Association, Inc. was presented for the Board's approval. The PCIA asked the Board to extend the requirement to construct a building for educational and/or community center purposes to January 1, 2000. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the deed amendment. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A copy of the amended deed is attached to these minutes. H. Service Learning Sites A listing of Service Learning Sites recommended by the Arkansas Division of Volunteerism was presented for the Board's approval. In addition to approval of the sites listed, the Board was asked to approve Central High MuseumNisitors Center and Advocates for Battered Women as Service Learning Sites for LRSD students. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the service learning sites listing. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. I. Alternative Learning Environment Proposal for 1997-98 The Superintendent asked the Board to approve Alternative Learning Environment sites at the Alternative Learning Center, Forest Heights Jr. High School, Metropolitan VocationalTechnical Education Center, Penick Boys Club, and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Dr. Roberts responded to questions from the Board. Dr. Daugherty, Mr. Berkley and Mr. Riggs spoke in support of the motion\nMs. Gee spoke in opposition. Ms. Strickland made the motion to approve the proposal, seconded by Mr. Berkley. The motion carried 6-1, with Ms. Gee casting the \"no\" vote. The Board took a briefrecess at 8:45 p.m. and returned at 8:50 p.m. Dr. Daugherty did not return from recess. J. 1997-98 Budget Submission The Board was asked to approve draft 7 of the proposed 1997-98 budget which was reviewed extensively at the work session on October 9, 1997. The revised figures included recommendations from the work groups, computer technology training time for teachers, and increased funding for the ALE programs. A $2,000,000 draw from the settlement loan fund was reflected in the submission. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the revised budget. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page9 K. Interim Millage Adjustment The board was asked to approve a resolution setting the personal property and real property rates at 41 .40 mills. The State of Arkansas requires the Board of school districts in Pulaski County to certify their applicable tax rates to the County Clerk prior to the regular November quorum court meeting. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the resolution, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion carried 6-0. L. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried 6-0. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR VIPS Program $1,000 for Vital Link Entergy Corp McDermott Elementary $9,000 for construction McDermott PT A of a retaining wall Pulaski Heights Elementary Kenmore Refrigerator \u0026amp; Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Sidney Ogden 12 x 12 carpet Computer/Monitor/ Ms. Mildred Cooper Printer/Software 100 primarv chairs Pulaski Heights PT A Chicot Elementary $240 cash to fund field Anonymous trips M. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the recommendations, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 10 N. Financial Reports Financial information for the month of September was presented in the Board agenda. Mr. Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services, responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the reports as presented. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Articulation Agreement - ITT Technical Institute An agreement with ITT Technical Institute was reported for the Board's information. Through this agreement, students will receive advanced college credit for 1st year Drafting and Design, 2nd year Engineering, Drafting and Design, and 1st and 2nd year Electronics Technology courses taken at Metropolitan. B. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update for the month of October was printed in the Board's agenda. There were no additional questions. C. Board Goals Update The Board goals, established May 22, 1997, were provided for review. There were no additional questions or comments. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY Dr. Linda Watson presented a student appeal petition for an expulsion recommendation from Central. The student, Brandon Davis, was represented by Attorney Michael Booker. Clay Fendley from the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm was present for the District. Brandon was charged with inciting to riot for an incident involving a group of students at Central High School on September 30, 1997. Witnesses to the incident were present: Andrea Smith, Security Guard, Little Rock Police Resource Officer Mobley, and Eric Brandon, teacher and coach at Central. In addition, Rudolph Howard, principal and Brenda James, assistant principal, were present. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 23, 1997 Page 11 All of the witnesses indicated that the incident was, or appeared to be gang related. Brandon denied any participation in gang activity at Central and denied that he had participated in the fight. Brandon's mother, Sharon Davis, was present and asked the Board to reinstate Brandon to Central High School. Keith Richardson was also present to speak on Brandon's behalf and to appeal to the Board to allow Brandon to return to school. Although the school administration agreed that Brandon had not participated in the actual fighting, they determined that he had been a party to the escalation of the fight by flashing hand signals that were, or appeared to be, gang-related. The Superintendent recommended the Board uphold the administration's request for expulsion. Ms. Gee moved to discuss the matter in executive session. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Mr. Riggs casting the \"no\" vote. The Board returned from executive session at 10:35 p.m. to report that no action had been taken. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the administration's recommendation for expulsion. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion. Mr. Riggs and Ms. Gee spoke in opposition to the motion\nMr. Berkley spoke in support of the expulsion recommendation. The motion for expulsion passed by a vote of 4-2, with Ms. Gee and Mr. Riggs casting the \"no\" votes. On another student disciplinary action, Dr. Watson presented a request for reinstatement for Tommy Glaspie. Tommy had been expelled from Southwest Jr. High School in February 1997. He completed the 1996-97 school term at the Pulaski County Juvenile Detention Center. He presented a request for reinstatement to the Little Rock School District for placement in the 10th grade. Based on the information presented, Dr. Watson recommended reinstatement on strict probation, with assignment at McClellan High School. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the reinstatement petition. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Dr. Mitchell moved for adjournment at 10:43 p.m., seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimouslv. ~?J~ -M-i-ch-e-al-D-au-gh-erty-,-~.-~.e.. ,,_e_~ Resolution A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL-BASED COrv1:MUNITY CENTER CONCEPT\nDIRECTING THE CONTINUANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN PARTNERSIDP WITH THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors continues to support the development of quality programming for the youth in our City\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors continues to promote the development of collaborative efforts with the City of Little Rock, the Department of Health, the Department of Human Services, New Futures for Youth and the Pulaski County United Way\nand Whereas, the School District supports the utilization of existing resources, i.e. public school facilities and existing programming to develop community-based initiatives that strengthen school, family and community linkages\nand Whereas, the School-Based Community Center concept is a comprehensive, year-round, after-school, neighborhood-based, safe haven for children and family support, located in public school buildings and operated by community-based organizations\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Little Rock School District Board of Directors supports the concept of School-Based Community Centers and directs the Superintendent to work with the City of Little Rock, the Department of Health, the Department of Human Services, New Futures for Youth and the Pulaski County United Way to develop ideas for programs, funding, and operation of these community-based centers in the public schools. Little Rock School District Board of Directors 1 ( ' w ~ )?h_.\"[?f-c~/ Micheal Daughi,\u0026amp;cretary Whereas, Arkansas' youth have a right to be educated in an environment conducive to learning\nand Whereas, all schools and administrative buildings of the Little Rock School District are designated as Drug Free Zones\nand Whereas, programs such as D.A.R.E., Just Say No, T.R.U.C.E., Peer Helpers and Student Assistance which promote drug awareness and prevention for youth, have been implemented in Little Rock public schools\nand Whereas, during the week of October 25-31, 1997 special emphasis will be placed upon drug free youth with the observance of National Red Ribbon Week\nand Whereas, a joint effort must be made by parents, schools, and the community working together toward a common commitment for preparing our children to be tomorrow's leaders, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District endorses National Red Ribbon Week and urges all citizens to make a commitment to drug free education and to the future of our children. Adopted this 23rd day of October, 1997. I , :?zz/4,~e: -C,4s,z?r5 Micheal Daugherty, Secretary LTITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT October 28, 1997 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: REC!Ei,,eo OCT 2 9 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/Na I am enclosing minutes of LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on September 18 and October ,5, 1997. Please let me know ,f you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~ Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Enclosures 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000  - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 RECEIVED JAN 1 2 199U OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONrJORU The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, November 20, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Judy Magness, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Pat Gee John Riggs, IV Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Les Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Jeanette Stephenson, Student Ex-officio Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call. Dr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell were absent. The Ex-officio student representative Jeanette Stephenson, student at Parkview, was also present. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of October 23 were presented for the Board's approval. Ms. Magness requested a correction to the minutes, which was noted. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the minutes as edited. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: Ms. Magness recognized Lillie Carter, principal of Pulaski Heights Elementary School, who introduced the P. H. music teacher, Leeta Robertson, and kindergarten teachers, Ms. Willis and Ms. Neal. Kindergarten students performed a \"pipe\" demonstration of musical notes sounded by varying lengths of plastic pipe. A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Carnine presented a citation to Ms. Gail McKinnon, AP English teacher at Hall High School. Ms. McKinnon was recently selected to serve a second year as chief reader for the SAT II: Writing Essay in Wilmington, Delaware. Jodie Carter, principal of McClellan High School, was called to accept a certificate of recognition from the Arkansas Famous and Historic Tree Program (AFHTP) for a flowering dogwood which was planted on the campus of McClellan in 1970 during the first \"Earth Day.\" This tree, named the Marylou Andreelli Tree in honor of its' donor who was a McClellan Humanities teacher, was recently registered as official #0004 in the AFHTP. Gwen Efird, coordinator of Health Services, presented plaques and certificates of recognition to school nurses who were nominated for their commitment to students in the District. The first year nurse award was presented to Patricia Brown, who serves students at Bale Elementary and Southwest Jr. High. Stevie Cherepski was the recipient of the School Nurse of the Year Award. Ms. Cherepski provides nursing services to students at M. L. King Elementary School. In addition, six nurses were presented with certificates of recognition for their nomination in the school nurse of the year program. They were: Ann Callaway, Garland Elementary School\nBeverly Heron, Terry Elementary and Parkview Magnet Schools\nCarla Kelley, Henderson Health Science Magnet Jr. High School\nMarsha Mahan, Romine and Western Hills Elementary Schools\nLavelle Rollins, Franklin Elementary School\nand Uvita Scott, Booker Magnet Elementary School. The final citation was presented to the ex-officio student representative to the Board for the month of November, Jeannette Stephenson, from Parkview Magnet High School. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Dan Farley, representing Arkansas Friends for Better Schools, made a presentation recognizing Diane Vibhaker as a Public School Hero. Ms. Vibhaker was selected for the numerous volunteer services she provides to the District and for her commitment to public education in the city.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page 3 B. P ARTNERSIDPS Lee Ann Matson represented the VIPS office for recognition of newly established partnerships between area businesses and schools. The following school/business partnerships were presented for the Board's approval. All About Travel in partnership with Fulbright Elementary School, represented by Mac Huffman Baptist Medical Center, represented by Colleen Woodruff, Sandra Brown and Missy Nesterenko, in partnership with Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Junior High School, represented by James Washington and Mickey Bates Dr. Beatrice Reed, Optometrist, was present to accept a certificate recognizing her partnership with McClellan Business/Community Magnet School, represented by Jodie Carter and Wanda Baskins FOXY 99.5 Radio Station, represented by Jeff Hedman, in partnership with McClellan Business/Community Magnet School, represented by Jodie Carter and Wanda Baskins Aristotle Internet Services, represented by Tara Perrin, in partnership with Washington Magnet School, represented by Jennifer Lindsey Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. C. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIO NS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden had no formal report, but welcomed Dr. Carnine to the District. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter, president of the CTA, welcomed Dr. Carnine to Little Rock and remarked that he felt positive about their first two meetings. He stated that teachers were looking forward to technology training, scheduled to begin in January. He noted concerns from the building level, including: 1) implementation of direct deposit of payroll\n2) the inadequate pool of substitute teachers\nand 3) the number of grievances which had been filed recently with the CT A.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page4 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council Doris Williams thanked the Board for supporting the PTA Council and for attending Council meetings whenever possible. D. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Gee congratulated Essie Middleton and Becky Rather for the successful 6-7 grade transition meeting which was held on November 9, at Forest Heights Jr. High School. She also remarked that the recent Board retreat was very beneficial. Ms. Gee also made a statement regarding the number of complaints she had received regarding the poor service by Laidlaw this year. She wanted parents to be assured that the District was aware of their concerns and would be looking at a number of options for transporting students next school year. Ms. Strickland thanked Ms. Magness for facilitating the Board retreat and stated that it was a wonderful way for Board members to communicate better with each other. Ms. Magness was wearing a Baseline Elementary sweat shirt and stated she had visited that school to observe the Success for All program. She had also visited Gibbs Magnet Elementary School's international festival which focused on Bolivian culture and featured food, dress, and lifestyle displays. She also commented on the success of the transition meeting at Forest Heights Jr. High School, and thanked the City of Little Rock Board of Directors who attended the recent joint meeting with the District Board. Ms Magness had prepared a summary report on the Board retreat which was distributed to other Board members.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page 5 IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES V. V. The National Dunbar Alumni Association presented plans for improvement of the Dunbar Magnet Jr. High School campus. Elise Argue, president of the Dunbar PTSA, and Dr. Erma Glasgow Davis, president of the National Dunbar Alumni Association, requested the District's financial support for the project, which is estimated at approximately $53,000. The Alumni association is contributing $10,000 to the PTSA for the project, which they hope to have completed by July 1999, when the National association meets in Little Rock. Chris Cooper presented the landscape plans and explained the proposal for improvements in the landscaping and structural modifications to the sidewalks and irrigation system. Zenobia Harris, parent, and Victoria Boykins, student, spoke in support of the proposal and asked for the Board's consideration. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Don Campbell spoke to the Board regarding the District's practice of prohibiting suspended and expelled students from getting credit for school assignments. He provided letters supporting his request for the Board to reconsider the portion of the handbook which addresses this issue. ACTION AGENDA A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried 5-0. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEP ARTMENT ITEM DONOR Baseline Elementarv $450 for field trips Waste Management of Ark. Mann Magnet School Miscellaneous clothing Sheila Ballard items for the Drama Dept. Athletic Department $1,500 Randy Johnson/Alltel Corp. McClellan Community School $100 to Teachers of Sidney A. Moncrief Tomorrow  - REGULAR BOARD l\\1EETING November 20, 1997 Page6 M. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the recommendations, Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 5~0. N. Financial Reports Financial information for the month of October was presented in the Board agenda. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the reports as presented. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Truancy Report Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, provided a report on truancy during the first nine week period of this school year. She also provided background information on the truancy center previously operated by the District, and current efforts to reduce truancy. The Dropout Center coordinates efforts to have students picked up by the LR Police Department and delivered to the nearest secondary school. B. Discipline Report Linda Watson provided a summary report oflong term expulsion and alternative school placements for the current school year. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY None.  - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 20, 1997 Page? ADJOURNMENT The Board adjourned at 7:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Riggs, seconded by Ms. Strickland. 1fb.1!7:.p?!i.~ APPROVED: /3-, IC-17 I JI.. , ?\nu.~, /~ ,{_ ~ Micheal Daugherty, ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 ECEnteo JAN 2 7 199B OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, December 18, 1997, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Board President, Judy Magness, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Les Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Fatimah McKindra, Student Ex-officio Gordon McIntyre, Teacher Ex-officio Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call. Dr. Daugherty arrived at 6:18 p.m.\nMs. Strickland was absent. The ex-officio student representative, Fatimah McKindra from Central High School, and ex-officio teacher representative, Gordon McIntyre, were also present. READING OF MINUTES: The minutes from the regular board meeting of November 20, 1997, were presented for the Board's approval. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: Students from the Rockefeller Show Choir, directed by Ms. I. J. Routen, performed for the Board. The children were dressed in their pajamas, robes and slippers, and sang several non-traditional Christmas songs. A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Carnine presented citations to the ex-officio representatives to the Board for the month of December, Fatimah McKindra, from Central High School, and Gordon McIntyre, from Brady Elementary. B. P ARTNERSIDPS Debbie Milam recognized representatives of area businesses and schools who had recently established partnerships. The following school/business partnerships were presented for the Board's approval. Jostens Learning, represented by Jim Hardwick, in partnership with Chicot Elementary School, represented by Jane Harkey and Leola Fields Barnes \u0026amp; Noble Booksellers, represented by Kathy Johnson, in partnership with Mabelvale Elementary School, represented by Donna Clark Party City, in partnership with Romine Elementary School, represented by Karen Greenlee Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. C. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIO NS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Skip Marshall had no formal report, but brought holiday greetings on behalf of the ODM staff. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Clementine Kelley attended the meeting representing the CT A. She had no formal report but brought season's greetings to the Board and administration. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page3 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. D. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Gee wished fellow Board members a happy holiday and thanked the student performers for their presentation. She encouraged everyone to move forward to become the best they can be. Dr. Daugherty expressed disappointment in the recent fire that occurred at Franklin Incentive School. He asked the Board to consider implementing a reward system to encourage citizens to come forward and name the person or persons responsible for this fire and other vandalism damage to District property. Ms. Magness thanked District staff members who responded promptly to the fire at Franklin\nmany people worked over the weekend to ensure that school could be in session Monday morning. She had recently attended the Forest Heights Junior High School Career Day activities. Ms. Magness thanked the student groups who performed at the recent Arkansas School Board's Association convention, and commended Marian Lacey for representing the District in a presentation at that same convention. She extended a special thank you to the Chamber of Commerce for inviting Board members to the recent annual meeting and luncheon. IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Jerry Cohen from MEMS Ambulance Service made a brief presentation highlighting some of the educational activities that MEMS provides for our students. Students are allowed to tour ambulances, and paramedics provide safety and educational activities to prevent drinking and driving. MEMS employees also work with the medical professions students at Metro to encourage further education in the paramedical field. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page4 V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Don Campbell asked the Board to respond to his presentation at the November Board meeting asking for assistance in allowing suspended and expelled students to make up their course work. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Dwight D. Eisenhower 1997-98 Professional Development Grant The Board was asked to approve maintenance of the December 1 submission of the 1997- 98 Title II, ESEA, D. D. Eisenhower grant proposal. Funding from this grant would provide professional development in math, science, and social studies activities in the amount of $141,798. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the submission. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. B. Adult Education Direct \u0026amp; Equitable Proposal A request to the Arkansas Department of Education for funding in the amount of $56,623 to serve educationally disadvantaged adults will be submitted upon approval by the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the submission, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion carried, 6-0. C. Adult Education Institutional/Correctional Proposal The Board was also asked to approve a grant submission to the Arkansas Department of Education in the amount of $56,241 to fund adult education services to institutionalized/ correctional adults. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the submission. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Approval of AP Art History Course/Parkview Magnet The principal and staff of Parkview Magnet High School requested the Board's approval of the addition of an AP Art History course at Parkview beginning with the 1998-99 school year. The course would follow the curriculum established by the College Board and would compliment other visual arts specialty courses at Parkview. Dr. Anderson responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Riggs made a motion to approve the course. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page 5 E. Age Requirements for Compulsory Attendance Under the terms of Act 1230 of 1997, the enrollment age for students in Arkansas is set as five (5) years of age on or before September 15, instead of the current date of October 1. There is a provision in this act that allows school districts in the state having 50% or greater student population eligible to receive free or reduced lunches, to elect to use any other date between September 1 and October 1. Upon approval by the Board, the LRSD will file for this waiver to maintain the current enrollment date of October 1. Other Districts within Pulaski County have also elected to maintain the October 1 enrollment date. Mr. Riggs moved to approve submission of the waiver application. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. F. Grant Application: Arkansas Abstinence Education (Project FATE) G. Grant Application: Avon Kids Care Breast Cancer Awareness Crusade The Project FATE grant application would provide $35,000 for implementation of an early intervention program in sexual abstinence at Otter Creek Elementary School for 5th grade female students and their parents. Otter Creek is partnering with the Southwest Community Center and the McClellan Community School to implement this program. The Avon Breast Cancer Awareness and Education Grant requests $48,637 for the development of a program for female students at Forest Heights and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. The application would include a partnership with the city-wide Healthy Family Celebration, the Witness Project, the Encore Program at the YWCA, the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Arkansas Department of Health, CARTI, and St. Vincent's Infirmary Medical Center. Mr. Riggs requested that these two grant applications be approved by a combined motion. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. H. Waiver from State Standards for Senior High Athletic Eligibility A proposal, submitted by Ray Gillespie, Director of Athletics, petitions the Arkansas Department of Education to approve a waiver from recently adopted standards for academic requirements for participation in competitive interscholastic activities. The request for a waiver is to be filed with a plan to implement a supplemental instruction program for students who fall within the guidelines. That plan was presented in draft form for the Board's approval. Assistant Superintendent Victor Anderson was present to respond to questions from the Board. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve submission of the plan and waiver application. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page6 I. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Mr. Riggs. The motion carried 6-0. Donated items are listed in the chart which follows. DONATIONS SCHOOLJDEP ARTMENT ITEM DONOR Bale Elementary NC Color Video Alan Robinette and Monitor and VCR Brentano's Bookstore Mabelvale Jr. High Seven office chairs Joy Ballard/Superior Federal Bank Rightsell Elementary Four NCR Computer Rodney Slater, Secretary of processors, monitors US Department of and keyboards Transoortation Parkview Magnet High School 23 pairs of tennis shoes Derrick Fisher/LA Lakers and LRSD Athletic Deot. through \"Skechers\" Mitchell Incentive School $1,000 for purchase of Wal-Mart, Inc. dance and drill team costumes Pulaski Heights Jr. High Microwave Oven A vis Mitchell Mabelvale Jr. High $50.00 gift certificate Wal-Mart/Baseline store $25 .00 gift certificate Wal-Mart/Landers store J. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve personnel items printed in the agenda. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommendations. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. K. Financial Reports Financial information for the month of November was presented in the Board agenda. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the reports as presented. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING December 18, 1997 Page? VI. REPORT AGENDA Bond Fund Status Report As requested by the Board, a Bond Fund report was printed in the meeting agenda. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions from the Board. The Board asked Mr. Milhollen to provide additional information and a brief oral report at the next meeting. Desegregation Update As requested, the District enrollment report as of December 15, 1997, was printed in the agenda. Ms. Acre was present to respond to questions. She was asked to prepare an enrollment comparison as of October 1 for each year for the next meeting. Board Goals Update The Board goals were printed in the agenda. There was no additional discussion. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY None. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7: 15 p.m., Mr. Riggs made a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session at 8:15 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. ADJOURNMENT The Board adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Riggs, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. APPROVED: / - .\n\u0026gt;__~ -Cj 8\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":"aar_amg_202610","title":"Birmingham News sleeve BN0067699","collection_id":"aar_amg","collection_title":"Alabama Media Group Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":["Almond, Mark"],"dc_date":["1997-07-07"],"dcterms_description":["Scribblers - Smithsonian Scholars / VIP reception for Smithsonian Scholars / Limit of 4 / 1 scholar and 2 guests / Civil Rights Institute / 520 16th Street North / Odessa Woolfolk / Cathleen Lewis / Teresa Johnson / David H. Shayt / [Work order included]"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Montgomery, Ala. : Alabama Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights"],"dcterms_title":["Birmingham News sleeve BN0067699"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/amg/id/202610"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1660","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-07-03"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Standards","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)"],"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/1660"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["56 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1689EALR NO. 97-1700EALR MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. APPELLANTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 APPELLEES APPELLEES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors complain on appeal of the district court's approval of the ODM budget in the face of their objections, and its refusal to appoint additional ODM monitors. But the bases for the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the budget were unsound. There is no evidence in this case that any perceived racial \"achievement gap\" or statistical racial disparity in disciplinary treatment is caused by current discrimination. Rather, the testimony in this case, and in others across the nation (and accepted by other federal courts), is that such disparities are the result of various socioeconomic factors. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget. This appeal also arises, in part, from an unsuccessful attempt by the Joshua Intervenors to force the district court's intervention -- in the name of monitoring the Pulaski County school districts' Desegregation Plans -- into matters which are purely internal to the PCSSD and which are not, indeed should not be, affected or governed by the Desegregation Plans. The district court properly declined to grant the Joshua Intervenors' motion for ODM monitoring at the PCSSD's Robinson High School when the motion raised only individual personnel matters. Further, notwithstanding the Joshua lntervenors' motion, and in accordance with the district court's urging that the parties continue to work with the ODM, an ODM assessment of Robinson was carried out without necessity of court order and the personnel matter was resolved by proper utilization of the PCSSD's policies and procedures. The district court did not err in denying the Joshua Intervenors' motion which, in any event, is now moot. The PCSSD respectfully requests oral argument in this appeal. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .. .. .......... . ... . TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... . ........... . ...... . ........... . .. iii COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 9 ARGUMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM II. BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. The Joshua Intervenors' Complaints Concerning the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE \"ROBINSON\" MOTION .. . . . ... .. .... .... ... . . ..... ....... . ... 21 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784 (D. Del. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 18, 20 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985) .......................... 12-14, 19 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LRSD vs. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 ............... 13, 15, 19, 20 Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL I. Appellants' Issue No. 1 relates solely to the LRSD's incentive schools, and is not addressed by the PCS SD. II. WHETlIER THE DISTRICT COURT'S HANDLING OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED TO ALLOW INCREASED MONITORING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER MANDATES OF THIS COURT? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) III. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995) Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, (D. Del. 1995) Tasby v. Woolery. 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) 901 F. Supp. 784, IV. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION SEEKING ODM MONITORING AT ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL SHOULD BE AFFIRMED? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) lV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The ODM Budget On December 13, 1996, the Josh,1a Intervenors filed their objections to the ODM budget and requested additional ODM monitors based, primarily, upon a perceived need due to a racial \"achievement gap\" and purported racial disparity in discipline throughout the districts. J. App. 252. The district court, however, approved the ODM budget as submitted. J. Add. 17. This appeal followed notwithstanding testimony by court appointed experts, Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg, that the achievement gap is the result of socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination, and that these same socioeconomic factors play a deciding role in disciplinary actions across the nation. LRSD App. 264, 451-52, 543-45. 1 2. The Robinson High School Motion Prior to the filing of the budget objections, the Joshua Intervenors, on November 1, 1996, filed their motion to request ODM monitoring of Robinson High School or, in the alternative, for PCSSD to show cause. J.App. 225. Paragraph 2 of the motion states: \"Most of the complaints relate to the administration of the principal, Ralph Hoffman, and the apparent support he has been given by the Superintendent of Schools, Bobby Lester, and the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District.\" J.App. 225. Mr. 1 PCSSD's appendix, submitted herewith, is cited as \"PC App. 11 Some of the materials included therein were filed with the district court on July 2, 1997. See PC App. 107-09. The Joshua Intervenors' appendix is cited as \"J.App. 11 , and the Little Rock School District's appendix as 11LRSD App. 11 I I Hoffman had previously been a principal in the Little Rock School District before becoming I principal at Robinson. Id. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The PCSSD responded on November 26, 1996 stating that th~ Joshua lntervenors' motion was improper because: \"It is, at bottom, primarily a complaint about one employee and therefore a personnel matter. By bringing its motion, Joshua has compromised the traditional steps to be taken in investigating and evaluating complaints concerning a single employee and they have effectively compromised the PCSSD's ability to appropriately and fairly respond to the allegations.\" J.App. 241-242. The PCSSD response continued at paragraph 8. Id. at 242. Indeed, it is Joshua who has compromised a personnel matter and which has precipitously and prematurely aired allegations which have not been fully investigated and for which it apparently has no documentary support, all as indicated in paragraph 11 of its motion. Thereafter, the District Court denied the Joshua Intervenors' motion (J. Add. 5-6) and stated in part that: \"The Court considers the allegations against the principal at Robinson High School an individual personnel matter which should be dealt with by the PCSSD according to its own processes. However, the Court encourages the parties to continue using the resources of the ODM to assist in resolving this issue .\" J.Add. 6. This appeal followed. During the pendency of the appeal, the ODM interceded at Robinson and ultimately issued its own report. PC App. 1-8. The PCSSD conducted its own investigation and followed its own written personnel policies. Mr. Hoffman resigned effective June 6, 1997 and is no longer employed by the PCSSD. PC App. 9. On June 10, 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1997, the PCSSD appointed Mr. Herb Brooks, an African-American and long time principal at Fuller Junior High School, as the new Robinson principal. 3. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan Most of the issues alleged in the Joshua Intervenors' motion concern complaints about discipline and discipline related issues. (See generally, Joshua Motion beginning at J.App. 225.) The Joshua Appendix includes portions of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The Plan includes provisions, among others, that dictate the resolution of issues such as discipline. For instance, with regard to the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, the Court approved plan states: J.App. 322. J.App. 323. J.App. 325. The Assistant will work with all departments to establish procedural guidelines which provide that desegregation issues will be raised and resolved as appropriate both in system-wide planning and in each school building. With advice from legal counsel, and working through the Office of Desegregation, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation provides for the District's compliance with civil rights laws and court orders, and will see that the Office of Desegregation recommends corrective action as needed. The Office of Desegregation has worked, and will continue work, directly with principals to insure equity at the building level. It is further a function of the District's Office of Desegregation to include: Receiving, processing and preparing responses to civil rights inquiries, regardless of source, and preparing internal evaluations of operations or activities where discriminatory practices are alleged, which includes 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J.App. 325 reporting the results of the investigations to the supervisor of the operation or activity involved and to the Superintendent of Schools. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan further provides that: J.App. 380 Id. at 380. Disciplinary records are kept on each student concerning suspensions and expulsions that note the reasons for punishment, the teacher or staff member involved, and the school, race, and sex of the student disciplined. Collection and assessment of this information allows the school principal, parents, and others to analyze the reasons for suspension by race and sex, and to determine if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems that require attention. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services shall submit a discipline report to the Superintendent, School Board and the Office of Desegregation at the end of each semester along with specific recommendations or suggestions for reducing the disproportionality. 4. The PCSSD Discipline Management System Among the goals set forth in the PCSSD Plan are the development of a \"district-wide school-based discipline management system\" . Id. at 312. This school based management system was to be developed with input from teachers, parents, and administrators. Id. On January 24, 1995, counsel for the District submitted to counsel for all of the other parties copies of the \"Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual\" . PCSSD App. 10. Thereafter, the court having received no objections or comments, the Discipline Management Manual was filed with the District Court on February 15, 1995 pursuant to the Desegregation Plan. PC App. 11. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page one of the Discipline Management System sets forth information concerning the procedure that students and parents should utilize for the filing of grievances, which information could be obtained either from the principal or from the pupil personnel office. PC App. 13. Included in the introduction to the Discipline Management System are the following comments: PC App. 16. Few would argue that maintaining good discipline is a necessary precondition to establishing a school or classroom climate that is conducive to learning. That is a given. The real question is how to establish that discipline in such a way as to support learning and encourage growth in all the students. This presents no challenge to the teacher for 90 % of the students. The remaining ten percent of the students require more, not because they are bad or unteachable, but because they are growing up in a society that is more challenging than the socialization they receive. Also, they appear not to have the usual supports available to them (i.e., parental concern or support). As the society for which the children are being prepared becomes more complex, the percentage of children coming to school less than prepared for learning is bound to increase. It is a challenge that must be addressed. The major role of the school principal has changed from that of providing a place for teachers to teach to that of providing a climate for learning and an enthusiasm for the learning process. This includes creative attention to issues of discipline and a safe and orderly environment in the school and classroom. The manual goes on to state that: Despite all efforts at prevention, discipline problems inevitably occur. When a discipline problem does occur, the teacher needs to address the problem as quickly as possible. The first step is to implement the consequence associated with the rule violation as agreed to in the social contract. Being careful of nonverbal 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 21 . gestures and indicators, the consequence should be implemented quickly and without a great deal of fuss. When violations occur with great regularity, the class ought to be asked to assess the rule and see if something could be adjusted to reduce the number of occurrences. The manual is direct regarding the issue of suspension and expulsions: PC App. 22. Teachers are asked to explore and develop consequences that minimize the loss of school time for the student. Suspensions and expulsions should be considered only when every other avenue of correction has been exhausted, in keeping with the regulations established in the student handbook. This concept is reinforced elsewhere in the manual. PC App. 23. The campus administrators are asked to utilize the various levels of referrals to keep the student in school or to minimize the out-of-school time of the student short of expulsion. 5. PCSSD School-Based Discipline Management Program While the manual is a broad conceptual consensus outline developed by a biracial committee, the development of a discipline management program is individual for each campus: Each individual campus is encouraged to express its individual character in the development of the DMP. This manual expresses how the DMP should be organized. This version is offered as a model that seems to meet most of the goals set out for a discipline management plan. Under the leadership of the principal, each school community is expected to devise a plan that is uniquely theirs and that they can implement. It is expected to have a consensus of those involved in the planning process. It is also expected to address the mission of that school in regard to the discipline 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 27. management and how that school intends to carry out that mission with fairness and justice for all the students in its care. * * * The expectation of the campus DMP is that each year will bring about a decrease in the disparity between the white and black student populations in terms of disciplinary actions in that school. The data from school year 1994-1995 will be used as the benchmark in the evaluation of the impact of each campus DMP. Discipline-related data from the 1992-1993 school year is included in appendix 2. This data was used by the Discipline Management Committee to develop this document. The manual contains a procedure for assisting individual campuses whose progress lags behind those of other District campuses: PC App. 28. At the discretion of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services and the Division of Instruction, a special team will be recruited from the staff of another school with similar problems which is making good progress. This team, under the supervision of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services, will assist that staff in identifying the causes for the lack of progress and the ways these causes can be addressed. Toward the end of the manual, it is observed that: PC App. 32. The diversity of the school populations that the schools now serve requires the schools to rethink the issue of appropriate school behavior and to create a climate in which academic achievement can become a reality for all students. School appropriate behavior must be examined in light of the various cultural and racial groups comprising the school. Equity is an issue that must be considered in the conceptualization of alternative strategies. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. The PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline The Joshua Intervenors, by their Robinson motion as well as their motion objecting to the ODM budget (and requesting additional OCM monitors), bypassed the procedures for challenging disciplinary action set forth in the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline (the \"Handbook\"). PC App. 67-74. The Handbook, the reading of which must be acknowledged in writing by each student and his or her parent or guardian, (PC App. 68), provides two distinct grievance procedures: (1) those related to a student or parent filing a grievance under the desegregation policy set forth in the Handbook (PC App. 71); and (2) a complaint procedure for students or parents when a student is involved in a disciplinary ruling. PC App. 72. The Joshua Intervenors, however, did not utilize these procedures and filed their motion directly with the district court requesting relief. Joshua never employed the PCSSD's policy and procedures as set forth in the Handbook. 7. The \"Suspension Index\" for Assessing Discipline Outcomes A general \"suspension index\" has been developed by Dr. Charles Achilles, who served as an expert witness in the Wilmington, Delaware case and whose methodology was endorsed by Dr. Walberg in this case. (LRSD App. 373-375, 381-384). The index allows comparison of one district's suspension rate for minorities to other districts and to the national average. The PCSSD's index and Robinson's are both lower than the nationwide index of 2.0. The suspension indices for the past five years for the PCSSD system-wide have decreased from 1. 77 to 1.45 and for Robinson alone, have ranged from 1.88 to 1.35 for 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the same years.2 These indices are lower than those of school districts which have achieved unitary status. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors have appealed a number of rulings of the district court, to wit, the court's approval of the ODM budget and denial of their motion relating to Robinson High School. The Joshua Intervenors complain that their objections to the ODM budget were not properly considered, and that their request for additional ODM monitors should have been granted. The purported bases for their objections and requests are the \"achievement gap\" between white and minority students, and the alleged racial disparity in disciplinary treatment of minority students. Neither bases, however, withstands scrutiny. The testimony of experts appointed by the court in this case, and similar testimony in other cases where school districts have achieved unitary status, show that socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination are the real reason why school children achieve at different rates and why some children are disciplined. In accepting this testimony, federal courts have found that, notwithstanding racial disparities, a school district may be in good faith compliance with its desegregation plan. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget over the objections of the Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors also challenge the district court's denial of their motion for ODM monitoring of Robinson High School. The court's denial, however, was soundly based 2 See nn. 6 \u0026 9, infra. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon a finding that Joshua was complaining about an individual personnel matter which should be left to the district to deal with according to its policies and procedures. The principal al:lout whom the Joshua Intervenors complained, in fact, resigned after the PCSSD was allowed to carry out its own business. Additionally, ODM did monitor Robinson High School and made recommendations to the administration and the school community. In essence, the Joshua lntervenors' motion and appeal are moot but, in any event, the district court did not err in denying their motion. ARGUMENT The focus of a District Court charged with monitoring implementation of a comprehensive remedial desegregation decree must be, as explained more fully infra, on the proper system-wide implementation of the components of the decree. Particularly when the decree, or in this instance the agreed Plans, contain discrete due process provisions for resolution of individual complaints or concerns, the District Court should have no reason to involve itself in individual student or patron complaints, or individual personnel matters, when the institutional process already exists to deal with those. Indeed, in any large institutional setting, there will always be some concern or outcome disagreement even if a remedial device, such as the Desegregation Plans agreed upon here, are implemented not only in good faith but even with near precision. For these and other reasons set forth below, the District Court's orders were correct and should be sustained. By their appeal, the Joshua lntervenors take issue with a number of the district court's orders, including (i) treatment of their requests for additional ODM monitors and objections 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the ODM Budget and (ii) denial of the Robinson motion. In support of their argument that the orders should be reversed, tbey point this Court to a number of \"facts\" which the district court either allegedly ignorrc or misinterpreted.3 Included are allegations of discriminatory treatment of black students in certain areas, primarily discipline, both systemwide and at PCSSD's Robinson High School, allegations which Joshua lays predominantly at the feet of the now resigned principal, Mr. Hoffman. J. App. 225. I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS This Court, in approving the Desegregation Plan in 1990, noted that it was the \"duty of the court, when fashioning a comprehensive remedy, to prescribe a level of relief . . . that will achieve integration to the maximum practicable extent. \" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). That is what has been done here, and the PCSSD has implemented the remedy, the Desegregation Plan, as well as the Discipline Management System required by the Desegregation Plan. The problem, however, is that the Joshua Intervenors do not look to whether the plan has been implemented, achieving integration to the maximum practicable extent; rather, they focus not on implementation but outcomes which are not legally required. The Joshua lntervenors must recognize, as have courts in other jurisdictions when faced with 3 Some of these \"facts\" bear little or no relationship to the Joshua Intervenors' requests or objections. For present purposes, and given the nature of the record submitted by Joshua with this appeal, it is impossible for the PCSSD to refute the discrete individual allegations made concerning individual students. However, as we explain infra, under the law it is unnecessary for the PCSSD to do this. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I unreasonable expectations, that a desegregation plan cannot cure all of societies' ills, nor is it designed to do so: [T]here is nothing in the law which does or couk require equality in the results of educational services. . . . No school policy and no court order can assure any particular level of success in public schools any more than in any other aspect of life. Individual students will flunk, become disciplinary problems, drop out or otherwise fail to meet expectations for reasons wholly unrelated to race, ethnicity, and environment. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985)(\"Keyes XIV\")4. Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the ODM budget and the concomitant request for additional ODM monitors -- based upon their complaints concerning achievement gaps and allegedly racially disparate disciplinary actions -- were properly considered; the district court, however, did not err in approving the budget over the objections. As discussed below, a number of school districts nationwide have been granted unitary status in the face of less achievement under a desegregation plan than that exhibited by the PCSSD. Indeed, they were granted unitary status where there was an adjudication of liability, but where any disparities were found to be, not the vestiges of dual systems but, rather, of outside factors. Here, the PCSSD was released in 1989, pursuant to the PCSSD Settlement Agreement, from all liability for issues which had been raised, or which could have been raised. The Joshua Intervenors specifically agreed that there would be no further litigation other than proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or of the Desegregation Plans. PC App. 75-79. Thus, the PCSSD's obligations were only forward 4 For a complete procedural history of the Keyes litigation, see Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274, n.1 (D. Colo. 1995). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I looking, and it has fully complied with its obligations to the Joshua Intervenors and to the children it educates -- both minority and white -- to desegregate its school district according to Plan. A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates While there may, indeed, be statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, such disparities do not mean that the PCSSD has not properly implemented the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, other school districts across the country have achieved unitary status in the face of greater statistical disparities. 5 For example, in Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995), the court granted the Denver school district's motion to terminate jurisdiction in a longstanding desegregation case. It did so notwithstanding statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, noting that these differences -- among others -- are longstanding and seemingly intractable, but the mere existence of such differences does not identify them as 5 As noted by Judge Posner in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *18 (7th Cir. 1996), \"[a]ffirmative decrees are a formula for protraction.\" Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have provided new guidance for the district courts in bringing school desegregation cases to a close. See, ~. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992)(the district court's duties in the final phases of a desegregation case are to determine whether there has been compliance with the desegregation decree since it was entered and whether the vestiges of past discrimination were eliminated to the extent practicable). The constitutional authority of the federal courts does not include the power to posit any particular affirmative achievements. While the PCSSD relies upon the consistent outcomes of other significant desegregation cases across the nation, this Court should not interpret such reliance as any lack of resolve or commitment of the PCSSD to continue implementation of its Plan and to realize the best desegregation outcomes attainable, whether or not legally required. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vestiges of the prior dual system. \"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic facts, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\" Id. at 1300. Similarly, in Coaliti.on to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784, 817 and n.38 (D. Del. 1995), the Delaware district court, granting unitary status to the Wilmington, Delaware school districts, found that the disciplinary codes were not applied in a discriminatory manner and expressly rejected as \"skewed\" any statistics \"which do not account for the fact that a small core of students account for a large percentage of the disciplinary instances, i.e., the fact that black students may account for a greater proportion of suspensions than their proportion in the general student population is essentially meaningless if only a handful of black students is responsible for multiple suspensions.\" In Coalition, Dr. Charles Achilles, an expert, employed \"suspension indices\" accepted by the district court to test whether discipline was disproportionately applied to black students. He compared those numbers with the suspension data from the 1993 Office for Civil Rights data, and determined that the national suspension index for black students is 2.0, whereas the Wilmington black suspension index was 1.81.6 901 F. Supp. at 817. Applying Dr. Achilles' methodology, and using the 1995-96 suspension data for the PCSSD, the PCSSD has a suspension index of 1.45, well below either the Wilmington schools or the 6 The \"suspension index\" for black students is derived by dividing the percentage of black students suspended by the percentage of black enrollment. Dr. Achilles also looked at external data sets (i.e., the behavior of black students outside the districts, independent of the school districts). He also checked \"consistency\" to determine if the behaviors and the suspensions seemed to be consistent and, finally, he tested the \"discretion of the person in charge of the discipline\" to see whether discretion influenced the suspension indices. 901 F. Supp. at 817. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I national norm. Indeed, its index has been well below the national norm for the past five years. 7 Most recently, the Seventh Circuit, in ruling !U response to nine consolidated appeals, found racial disciplinary quotas to violate equity \"in its root sense.\" Commenting in the quota context, but fully applicable to the statistical complaints of the Joshua Intervenors here, the court stated: They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically underpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *33. The incidents touted by the Joshua Intervenors are selective with respect to certain schools and certain individual students, and do not reflect the PCSSD's systemwide good faith compliance with the disciplinary provision of the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, the Pupil Personnel Annual Report Summaries indicate that for the past few years, disciplinary actions 7 Using Dr. Achille's formula of dividing the percentage of minority suspensions by the percentage of minority enrollment, the PCSSD has calculated the following system-wide suspension indices: 1995-96: 1994-95: 1993-94: 1992-93: 1991-92: 48 % minority suspensions + 33 % minority enrollment = 1.45 48% minority suspensions + 31 % minority enrollment = 1.55 51 % minority suspensions + 30 % minority enrollment = 1. 70 49 % minority suspensions + 29 % minority enrollment = 1. 69 48 % minority suspensions + 27 % minority enrollment = 1. 77 Utilizing PC App. 80-99. 15 I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1659","title":"Court filings: District Court, supporting documents","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-07-02"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joe T. Robinson High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","School management and organization","School discipline","Students","Student suspension","Student expulsion"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, supporting documents"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1659"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["140 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 R Ec1:111,:D JUL 2 - 1997 DESEGRJFF!CE OF TION MONiTORJNG NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Please take notice that the PCSSD is filing the following documents as part of the record in this case: 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Climate Analysis Process and Climate of Robinson High School, both performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring this Spring. 2. A portion of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting of the PCSSD dated May 13, 1997. 3. Letter dated January 24 , 1995 from counsel for the PCSSD to all other counsel in the case. 4. Pertinent portions of the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, 1996-97, Secondary Edition . 5. Portions of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989, including pages 19 and portions of the attached PCSSD release. 6. Pertinent portions of the 1995-96 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 7. Pertinent portions of the 1994-95 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report ' describing discipline outcomes. 8. Pertinent portions of the 1993-94 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 9. Pertinent portions of the 1992-93 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 10. Pertinent portions of the 1991-92 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 11. Letter dated May 16, 1997 from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to Mr. John W. Walker regarding climate analysis at Robinson High School. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ' ,,-?\"' / By  ,, , ~-----1, -( -- --- M. Samuel Jones III (16060) Attorney~ for PU-Hiski County 8.peci--arschool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 2, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ODM CLIMATE ANALYSIS PROCESS The ODM climate analysis process occurred in six steps: 1. Collecting and Analyzing Archival Data To develop a statistical picture of Robinson High School, ODM examined archival data that included attendance zone maps, census tract demographics. enrollment reports, school profiles. quarterly discipline records, and extracurricular participation rates. We also studied the school CO E. (Creating Opportunities for Excellence) staff, student, and parent survey results. 2. Site Observations A team of ODM monitors formally visited Robinson twice, and individual monitors returned to the school on other occasions for interviews and observations. We observed a total of 44 classes, representing eleven disciplines (such as math, social studies, etc.) and four activities (such as basketball. cheerleading, etc.). We stayed in individual classrooms from 30 to 60 minutes or lo nger. noting the physical environment (such as visuals. facilities, seating patterns, etc.). instructio nal approaches, and the nature of student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions. \\Ve also watched the interplay among students, staffs, and administrators during the morning bus arrival, class changes, and lunch. Additionally. we observed student interaction during one home basketball game when the boys and girls varsity teams played Lonoke High School. 3. Interviewing School Staff. Students, and Parents ODM interviewed randomly selected staff, students. and parents. We asked interviewees about their perceptions of interactions among various groups at Robinson and about their opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of the school. :\\1onitors conducted one-on-one interviews with 39 randomly selected students (approximately l ')0/o of the student body). Over half of the student interviewees ( 54%) were white and 460 \\\\ ere black Based on a random drawing, monitors identified and interviewed 16 staff members (31 % of th e total staff). Blacks comprised 31 % of staff interviewees and whites 69%. We talked to teachers. cafete ria workers, office staff, and paraprofessionals, as well as the principal and assistant principal. 0 OM conducted parent interviews by phone. We randomly generated a list of 43 parents. representing both black and white parents from various geographic areas within the Robinson attendance zone. The list also included the parents of majority-to-minority transfer students who lived in adjacent school districts. Overall, 26% of the parents we interviewed were black and 7 4% were white. - 4. Organizing the Finding, After gathering information from the various sources, we grouped our findings into broad categories (such as geography, leadership, etc.) Each individual monitor assumed responsibility for various categories and converted the data into a series of comprehensive summaries. 5. Reaching Conclusions Working in concert, the ODM monitors drew conclusions by identifying patterns across the data summaries and drawing connections bet.veen various pieces of information. We focused most of our conclusions on broad themes rather than individual behaviors and incidents. 6. Making Recommendations Finally, ODM developed a series of recommendations based directly on our findings. We attempted to make the recommendations as broad as possible in order to address more than one specific finding. The recommendations are applicable to the Robinson High School community as well as the PCSSD central administration. and are offered as suggestions for improving the school environment not only at Robinson, but at other schools in the district. CLIMATE OF ROBlNSON HIGH SCHOOL Strengths (Identified by Staff, Students, and Parents)  The students themselves. especially their comradery and good interpersonal relations Diversity of the student body (race. socioeconomic status. geographic are:i) Small size of school and local community Racial integration of the school An environment that is safe  Many involved parents Parents feel welcome at the school Teachers who care about their students and work hard Positive relationships between the students and staff Some strong relationships among staff members The academic program Block scheduling Sports  A strong program for students with special needs A strong administration An administration that has improved the academic program and established a safe environmem Strong discipline Additional Strengths (Identified by ODM) Well-maintained facility that is attractive and welcoming Orderly environment Students who are friendly and respectful Cooperative administration, staff, students, and parents Most classes are racially integrated Some good teaching practices Additional factors that have contributed to the climate at Robinson High School Geography The Robinson attendance zone is far ranging and very diverse, with a student enrollment that also includes M-to-M transfer students from various neighborhoods. \\\\-rule such diversity is a strength of the school, it is also a potential barrier to maintaining a cohesive school community. Expectations The principal expected to have the latitude to make changes as he saw fit. The pn11cipal believed he had been hired to increast! order at Robinson High. Prior to his arrival. the school had experienced disc1pli11e problems. racial conflict, and loss of e11rollmelll. The staff did not expect sweeping changes. Staff seemed pleased wiih the increased order and discipline established in the las! !WO and half years, bm they were not so pleased w1th other changes i11st1wted by the principal. The adve11t of block scheduling caused greaI co11stematio11. While there was general support for the co11cept, staff felt they did not have mough say i11 the decision. Issues related to the scheduli11g of athletics and spint teams caused a rremendous rift between some staff. parents, and rhe adm1msrraao11. The principal' s values and Robinson s traditions represented a culture clash. The prmcipal sought ro increase the emphasis on academics a11d achrevemenc, b111 many teachers believe he did so at the expense of Robinson rradiuons. Sports have been very important lO Robinson studellls. parents. and teachers. Attendance at sporting evellls was often the on(v school-related acuvrty reported by parents m our imervrft'r11s. i\\,fany members of the school community perceived the pnnc1pal as anti-athletic. One student said she thought the admi11istration was trying to /Um Robi11so11 imo \"something rt is not . ..  The PCSSD did not plan for change at Robinson High If the district had made effons to help facilitate the leadership rransrtion at the school. many of the current problems could have been avoided or at least m111imi:ed The dismct should have worked closely with the prrnc1pal to help acquaint him with the traditional culture and values at the school. If the district expected the pri11c1pal to make changes at Robinson, they should have articulated this charge to the staff and parents as well. Leadership The principal' s leadership style was perceived as autocratic by many of the staff, students, and parents. Many staff members felt they were not involved in the decision-making process within the school. , Trust has become frai.tile or non-existent between some individuals and groups. Wt! rept!at11dly ht!ard comments that reveall:!d various levels of distn1st between the administration and many staff members. as well as among some staff A minimum of infonnal inter:iction between the principal and many of the school's students, staff, and parents has contributed to perceptions that the principal was generally distant and aloof Some pi:!ople told us that the principal was seldom in the halls or cafeteria to mingl11 with st11dents and staff Others hi:!li11ved that the prmcrpal was oftm away from the school during the day or that he declined to participate in some school activities. especially athletic events. The few opportumtiesfor informal imeraction wrdened the distance between the principal and members of the school community. A lack of general collegiality has characterized the relationship between the principal and most staff members, contributing to a general lack of cohesiveness that has inhibited communication. understanding, trust, respect, shared work goals, and mutual support. Th11 school's admimstrators and faculty have not bonded well either as professional colleagues or as informal associates. Building positive relationships is work that requires time, attention. shanng, and muwal support on the part of all involved. Some staff. students, and parents have sensed a racial undercurrent at Robinson and perceived that racial prejudice has been a negative factor in some interactions. They be!il:!ved that racial prep1dice has impeded objective decision-making and caused inequitable trearmem of soml:! individuals and groups. Problem Solving ).\"o mechanism has been in place at Robinson to anticipate problems and head them off Small problems and disagreements between the administration and staff members were not addressed early on, so some small problems escalated into much larger ones. Few. if any outlets, were available for the adrninimation and staff to vent frus-trations and concerns without going through the formal grievance process. 01her rhan 1he Jonna! gnevance process, 111dividuals who were dissansfied had few opnons for ventmg 1hetr frustrations or solving 1he1r problems. Eventually neganw feelings compounded mlSt de1enorated. anger 1tscalated, and a tense atmosphere prevaJ/ed; some individuals l:!ven acted on a desire /0 retaliate. Many staff members perceived that central office administrators did not give adequate attention to the problems developing at Robinson nor did they provide direction and support for solving problems until they had grown to enonnous proportions. No staff development or any other kind of meaningful intervention was initiated early on to assist the school's administrators or staff in resolving the problems they were facing. Even !hough leaders at both Rohinson and the central office were aware !hat the school was experiencing serious difficulties, they did not quickly move lo objectlvely analy:e the problems or set about fixing them. Professionalism Many members of the staff manifested inappropriate professional behavior by individually soliciting parent and student involvement in their controversy with the principal. 'v(aJ1y srajj members, parents, and swdents were distressed by the pressure they received to take sides on issues. Some starf members have shown favoritism to certain students and parents. Some swdents and parents 1:xpressed 1ea/011sy, resenrment. and a sense that everyone co11/J11 't expect fair, 11qwtable rrearment. They perceived that some people were shown javonusm based 011 race or soc10economrc status. Instructional Quality Teachers exhibited uneven instructional performance. We found some classes that were well orgam:ed with motivarional teachers and involved studems, hlll in too many other classes we smv disengaged st11d11111s and teachers who were not presennng mformat1011111 an engagmg way. In a few cases. we found teachers who had a poor grasp of rhe basic comem of the course they were teach111g.  A number of te:ichers made poor use of instructional time. We saw maJTy teachers that seemed to be havlllg some rro11b!e adj11sring to the longer class periods afforded by block scheduling. The extended time period should have allowed for more ac11ve swdenr leam111g. but some teachers were su!l spending an ho11r or more lecwnng. In some classes. teachers S.:f!med 10 \"coast\" durmg the last 30 mmwes of class rime, usmg nomma!!y re/el'CI!ll matena/s 10 .fill nme. While teachers sel!med 10 be srn,gg!ing to .fill class lime wuh meaJ1mgf11I !eannng act1v111es, some pare ms comp/al/led that swdents did not have enough learning nme during the school day, and that the teachers did not have llme to adequately exp/am new concepts. Some classes were lacking in order and control. Whzle most classes were orderly, af(?W were dramatic excep110ns. We noted classes where no one seemed to be in charge: consequem!y, no learning could rake place. Student Behavior Some srudent behaviors may indicate a backlash against school rules that students have perceived as too restrictive. For example. fo//(J'Wing their lunch period, students left the cafeteria in a deplorable state. Much of the mess appeared to be the result of conscious neglect. We saw uneaten food, large m,mbers of unused napkins strewn on 1he floor, half-filled plastic cups, and ketcfn,p smeared across tables and chairs. Cafeteria workers said some swdents Jon 't appear 10 feel it's /heir responsibility to pick up after themselves when lunch is over. Although we saw adults supervising in the cafeteria. few of them encouraged student to bus their own 1ab{es before leaving. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Work to establish an atmosphere of collegiality and the re.1liry of teamsmanship among the entire staff Collegialiry ,s fosr2red by a number of factors, including agreement 011 common values aJ1d goals: respect for the ideas and comnhutions of fellow workers: /2adersh1p that elicits and s11pporrs a s2ns2 of teamsmanship: and opporwmtiesfor i11forma/ interaction that allows co-workers to feel comforrahle wirh 011e anorher and develop a ge1111i11e se11se of connectedness a11d caring 2. Bring together existing school organizations (such as staff committees, student council, equity committee, etc ) to squarely confront both the perception and reality of racism and other prejudices and work to eliminate them. Recog11i:mg that prejudice and bigotry are teamed, use inservice rraining. swdent workshops, open andjrank disc11ssio11, multicultural opporru11ities in the curriculum, staff retreats, behavior modeling, and all other available means to eliminate biased behavior and atti wdes. 3. The PCSSD should de\\e!op both a fonnal system for regularly assessing school climate and a process for delling with conflict within a school community.  The key to a posime school envrronment is wg,lmu monitoring of the factors that comprise the climate and addressing problems before they escalare. !11 addition. an organi:ed approach to d2aling wirh co11J7icts wirhm individual schools will help solve probl2ms before they are playd out in the evening news. 4. The district administrar;on should support a summer retreat for the Rci:inson staff led by a skilled, outside professional. A summer rerreat or series of retreats will allow the Robinson stafj an opporru111ry to reflect m1d leamfrom recent experrences. 1dennfy changes they need to make, and commll to overcoming the problems that have divided them. 5 All stakeholders at Robinson (parents, students. administration, support staif. facuity. and PCS SD administrators) should work together to deve!cp a vision for the sc:1001' s short and long tenn future. 6 Develop and implemem a staff development program on communication skills Bnng in tramers 1~1th a proven track record in the area of orgam:auonal a11d crosscultural communrcanon. Thrs r;,pe of tramrng should be an ongoing actmry ratha than the one shot,. i11oculat1on approach. 7. Provide more staff training on effective time management and varied instructional approaches for the 90 minute periods offered through block scheduling. 8. Consider collaborating with the staffs of other secondary schools in central Arkansas who have had a history of successfully implementing block scheduling. 9. Plan additional staff development for teachers who need skill development (such as classroom management techniques). Io. rn selecting the next principal. take care to match the vision. strengths. needs. culture. and expectations of the school community with the skills. style. vision. and expectations of the prospective principal. 11 . The school PTO and Equity Committee should jointly establish a plan of act ion to deve!op a more inclusive school community 12. The staff should involve student representatives in the fonnulation of school-based rules and policies. 13 . Staff members and srudent leaders should present a united front to encourage the student body to exhibit more responsible beha,ior toward maintaining a clean school en,ironment. P.2 A.DDENDVM  BOARD OF EDUCAUON MEETING MAY13, 1997 !;!,_EMENT4,RY ELFCTIQNS Wendy Case Resource To Be Assigned Nicole Robinson ElemcntarY To Be ASSigned SECONDARY ELfCTJONS Richard Allen Bishop Jacksonville Jr. High Art Rel'.)lacing: Richard Alan Llsemby Transferred to Social Stu.dies BESIGNATJQNS Brenda Groce (Priroa.ry) Temporary Oakbcook.e Elemenwy Andrea Knapp (Kindergarten) Temporary Sherwood Elemenwy Julie Rasmuson (Biology/Chemistry/Coach) Robinson High Ralph Hoffman (Principal) Robinson High School Searcy. AR; Certification: Special Ed. BA  Harding University at Searcy ,AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Warren, AR; Cettification: Elementary BS  U of A at Pine Bluff, AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Mtn. View, AR; Certification: Art K-12 BS Hardini University at Searcy, AR Experience: Two and ooc half (2-1/2) years outside the District \u0026ginning: August 14, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 6, 1997 EOWARO L . WRIGMT i I 903-t 977) ROBERT S LINOSEY WRIGHT. LINDSEY 8: JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 tl 91J.!991J RONALD A MAY IS AA.C A. SCOTT JR .;AMES M MOODY JOM N G LILE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 7 2 20 I 3699 GORD(\" t;RATHER. JR TERR)' THEWS DAVID .JWELL ROGER ..., GLASGOW C OOUGLAS BUFORD. JR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS JR JOI-IN R flSDALE KATMLYN GRAVES '-t SAMUEL JON ES ill JOHN -N IL.LIAM SPIVEV IU LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON. JR EDGAR J TVLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER. JR BEVERLY BAS SETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L SCHLUMBERGER SAMMY( L TA.VLOR WALTER E. MAV Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Christopher Heller Stephen Jones John W. Walker Richard Roachell Ann Brown Elizabeth Boyter ( 501 ) 371-0808 FA.X 1!5011 376,9442 OF COUNSEL ALS TON JENNING S GEORGE E LUSK J R January 24, 1995 A.N,.,.( I-IIR A I GIB S ON CRECORV T .JON ES M ~EIT,_. '4QRR ISON BETTINA E BRO'o'fNSTE JN H.-.LiER \"'4 CS P.-.OOEN ROGER O ROWE NA \"CY BELLHOUSE MAY JQl-+N O DAVIS .. UOY S IMMONS HE'-IRY K IMBERLV WOOO T'JCKER '4ARK L PRYOR RAY F COX JR H-'RRY 5 ,..URST J R TROY A PRICE P'-i'qlC IA SI E V ERS LEHALLEN J A\"'4E5 M \"\"1000Y JR t\u003cATMRYN A PRYOR J '4AR,\u003c DAVIS C!..A IRE SNOWS HANCOCK l\u003c(V IN -H ,\u003c(NNEOY \"'4ARI( A ROGERS J ERRY J SALLINGS M TOCO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON M ICH AEL O SARNES STE.='HEN R i..ANCASTE\"' FRED ANDREW WOOD JUOV \"4 ROBINSON BETS Y MEACHAM AIN SLEY H LANG Re: Pulaski County Special School District Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed for each of you are copies of the Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual together with a copy of Memorandum of Unqerstanding between the District and PACT dated January 12,. 1995. Bill Bowles tells me that our desegregation plan requires, and that we previously indicated to the Court, that we would first develop this system, then share it with the parties and, assuming no significant opposition, then file it with the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures JlullJOS.030 Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY f- omuel Jones, \u0026 JENNINGS III HANDBOOK FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE ~~~~~~- /: : ' ----', .. \"------,.,i .. ',: . ' .. ~ 1996-97 SECONDARY EDITION  w z :J 0 w ~ a: 0 u.. a: w a.. c., z g \u003c( I u ~ w 0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT-STUDENT STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY Student Name Date The statement below must be signed and returned to the homeroom teacherw1thIn one (1) week after the student receives ,t. If. after one ( 1) week. the student has not returned the form. he will not be permitted to attend class until he does comply. We have read the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline and although we may not agree with all the regulations, we understand that the student must adhere to them while he ,s at school or In attendance at school sponsored activ1t1es. In the event that we are not entirely certain of some aspect of school policy, we w,11 contact the principal for clarification w1th1n one (1) week after receipt of that policy. Student Signature ParenVGuardian Signature Date State law (6-18-502. 6-18-505) requires documentation of student and parent receipt of student d1sc1pline polIcIes. This document will be included in the records packet for students transferring w1th1n Pulaski County Special School District .  TO THE STUDENTS: This document has been prepared for the purpose of outlining to you the expectations of the Pulaski County Special School District ,n regard to student conduct. The District recognizes that students are guaranteed full rights of c1t1zensh1p by the United States Const1tut1on; and these rights may not be denied except in accordance with due process of law. The District further recognizes that with these rights there are respons1bli1t1es which are designed to help all part1c1pants acquire the full benefits of the educational program, regardless of race. sex. creed or national origin. It 1s 1mposs1ble to list in this Handbook all of the rules and guidelines for student and staff use. Therefore. the contents of this Handbook should not be construed to limit or deny your rights and respons1b1ht1es on your own campus as a member of the student body or as a c1t1zen. Neither should the Handbook be construed as limiting or denying your principal the right and respons1b11ity to develop such necessary rules and regulations that are not 1ncons1stent with federal and state laws and Board of Education policies and regulations. Each student will receive a copy of the policy Handbook, and will be required to sign a statement of receipt. ii  Eddie Collins Assistant Superintendent Pup,! Personnel Services WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR STUDENT CONDUCT? Freedom 1s a constttut1onal nght. but it does not mean the absence of reasonable rules and regulations which serve to guide the actions of 1nd1v1duals. Along with freedom comes the respons1b1ltty to act In such a manner as to insure that all part1c1pants may en1oy the same freedom. To obtain the greatest possible benefit to the students, teachers. adm1n1strators, parents. Board of Education and ti'le entire community. 1t ,s essential that all work together to insure that all persons are treated equally and with d1gn1ty 1n respect to their rights and respons1b1htIes. Students Students have the respons:01hty to pursue their education tn the Pulaski County Special School O1stnct In a manner thats ows respect for other students. acuity members. parents and other c,tIzens. Students shot;ld be aware that they have a respons1b1'.1ty o cooperate with and ass,st tne school s a~ ,n the orderly and erf1c:ent conduct of he schoo1s by abiding by rules and regulations established by the Board of Education and r.e school of attendance. and implemented by teachers and school aom,nistrators. Each student 'S respors1ble for his own conduct at all times. Parents or Guardians Parents should carefully ,ead the pages of this handbook and assume a ,ead1ng role ,n ad IsIng their children of appropriate and inappropriate behavior at school. Parents should stress he r:,portance of a good educatton and conduct necessary to achieve ,t. Without the support of tne parents/guardians. this attempt o promote good c1t1zensh1p and success ,n ,,fe may not succeed and the student will be the one to suffer the consequences of struggling though 1fe ., 1 r:out benefit of an educauon. Arkansas Law 6-15-.116. 6- 5 . .1 7 establishes a penalty not to exceed 550 plus court costs and reasonable fees for any parent who fails to attend a student conference to discuss his child's failure to achieve mastery level periormance on a basic competency test at grade levels 6 and 8. Fa,lure on the part of the student's parents to attend the conference or o arrange another t,rr,e for he conference sub1ects them to the c1v1l penalty. Arkar,sas Law 6- 7-106 states that any person who shall abuse or ,nsult a public school teacher while hat teacher ,s performing normal and regular or assigned school respons,b1hlieS shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction be liable for a fine of not ,ess than 5100 nor rrore than S1 .500. o urauthor,zed person 1non-stt;dent) shall purposely en er or remain unlawfully tn a scnoot venIc:e or on the schaol premises. ICrim1nal respass - A.C.A 5-39-203) Teachers All eacrers are responsible for the superv,s,on of he bel-iav1or of all the students .n re sc,..col. This includes not only the s udents who are regularly ass:gred to the teacner. but all ot;,er students ~J1th ,1,hom the teacher comes 1n contact. Each teacher s expected to rna,nta1n the kind of atmospr,ere and decorum which will promote the learning crocess. and to ut11,ze sound :ecr-r1ques :ih1ch seem appropriate. These techniques ,nclude conferences mth students ar,o parents. referral o counse,ors at the school or referral to other supportive service personre of tre Oistnct rnurse. attendance caseworker. educational examiner. psycho1og1st). Wren re teacher 'S unable o assist the student to maintain proper controls of ,s benav1or. the stwdent s o be referred to the appropriate adrrnnistrator 1n the school.  , I School Administrators An administrator of each school will disseminate and explain to all students at the beginning of the school year, and will d1ssem1nate to each new student upon reg1strat1on. the rules and regulations currently in effect for that school. In developing rules and regulations the administrator Is expected to involve representatives. of the teaching staff. the student body and the patrons of the school. The administrator of each school is responsible for conducting continued inservice education for all personnel on a regular basis to interpret and implement established policies. Each principal. or the princ1pal's des,gnee. ,s authorized to assign students to detention. to work detail. to probation status and to suspend or to recommend the expulsion of students. The principal ,s expected to inform the parents or guardians of any student whose behavior ,s in serious conflict with established laws, rules and procedures. Superintendent The Superintendent ,s responsible for exercIsIng leadership ,n establishing all necessary procedures. rules and regulations to make effective t e Board of Education policies relating to standards of student behavior. * * * * * Board of Education The Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District. acting through the Superintendent. holds all school employees responsible for the supervision of the behavior of students while legally under the supervision of the school. The Board expects all employees to be concerned with student behavior and when and where unacceptable behavior occurs. to take appropriate action. * * * * * Nondiscrimination It ,s the policy of the Pulaski County Special School D1stnct to provide equal opportunities without regard to race, color. national origin, sex. age. qualified handicap or veteran ,n ,ts educational programs and act1vItIes. educational services. financial a,d and employment. Inquiries concerning application of this policy may be referred o: Director of Desegregat1on/EquIty Coordinator 925 East Dixon Road/PO. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 Telephone Number: 490-2000. Extension 205 In keeping with the requirements of federal la.v. state law and aoolicable court order, the District w,11 stnve to remove any vestige of d1scnm1natIon ,n the employment. assignment and promotion of personnel: ,n educational opportunities and services offered students: ,n student assignment o schools and classes: ,n student discipline. and, ,n location and use of fac1lit1es. Furttier. the D1stnct will make special efforts to employ and advance women. blacks and handicapped persons. (Board Policy Code AC) Any student. or parent, who feels aggrieved urder the aoove policy may secure 1nformat1on concerning filing grievance procedures from the principal of a D1str:ct scrool or from ttie office of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. * * * * * Student Procedure for Filing Sexual Harassment Complaints It ,s me policy of the district that none of ,ts s:L.dents 11111 be sub1ec:ed to sexual :iarassment 'Jy any school employee, including teachers and administrators. any ,olunteer or any v1s1tor 2  * * * * * Alternative School The Pulaski County Special School District has an Alternative Learning Center for students in grades 7 through 12. It Is designed to serve the needs of those students whose educational needs are not met by trad1t1onal programs. The primary goal of the program ,s to help students develop and maIntaIn the academic. social and behavior skills they need to function successfully ,n school and in society. Grievance - Due Process Students have the right to be Immed1ately informed of alleged vIolat1ons of standards of behavior as estaol,shed by Board poilcy and/or school regulations. and to be informed of appeal procedures. Students have the respons1b1l1ty to know and obey school rules. to express gnevances ma ool1te and hoso1table manner. and to give parents correct information concerning misconduct. Pnnc1oals and teachers have the respons1b11ity to follow Board established procedures ,n d1sc1plmary actions against students. Principals are responsible for nottfymg and confernng with parents and students m cases mvolvmg suspension and expulsion recommendations. Parents have the respons1b1l1ty to calf pnnc1pals for conference when needed. and to arrange with proper school authont1es for desired student hearings. * * * * * Student Complaints It a student and the parent of a student involved In a dIsc1plinary ruling wish to contest a d1sc1plinary ruling or a cond1t1on or ci "},{"id":"umc_awr_50539","title":"Board of Directors: Meeting, July 1997","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-07"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1956-1999\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","Labor movement"],"dcterms_title":["Board of Directors: Meeting, July 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50539"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1634","title":"Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-07"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary"],"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/1634"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, three Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; Court of Appeals, petition for additional time; Court of Appeals, entry of appearance; District Court, order  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECE~ /~r; - DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . J~1 ~ ;  - 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF PCS SD MOTION FOR ENLARGO!~{ijM'{'WJ !~friOO/NG INTER VENO RS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the response of th/ LRSD to the PCSSD motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning the \"pooling\" issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to reply. 2. Counsel for the LRSD has no objection to this extension of time. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997 in which to reply to LRSD's response to the PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By .. r. __ , M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special __ ,.,.School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ___ , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III a J: Es lfED JUL 7 - 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the motion of thEf Joshua Intervenors seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning - the PCSSD strike issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend and the issues raised in the Joshua's motion, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to respond. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (S01) 371-0808 By '-----;27-r. -~~ __ ,,-- M. Samue+ Jones ;rII (76060) - 1?-ttorn~ fok..../ Pulaski County \u003c_______~ School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 3 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 07 10 97 15:.?3 LJP I GHT, LI I l[1SE',' . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LI7TLE ROCK SCSOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SP~CIAL SC~OOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR i;-NLARGEMEN:' OF TIME PLAINTI:::'F DEFC:NDAK'I'S J::-JTERVEl\\ORS IJ:1;'7ERVEKORS ':'he P.1laski County Special School Jistrici: ( \"PCSSJ\") fol:' its motion states: , Prese:1i:l21 pending: be:'o::-e ~he Cour: :.s LRS'J' s :no~.:.or: for attorneys' feee and costs perta:ni~g to the 0 pool:~g'' issue. 2. So:;i.e of :.he issues raised ir1 :he LRSD' s CT',o~:on are s:milar to the :ssues ra1sed a~d pend:~g in ~RSD's ~sspcr.se to c~e PCSSD motion seeking an awa=d of atcor~eys' fees o~ the same issue. 7te reply to the response :s due on Mor.day, cu_y 14, 1997. 3. Due to the related nature of these pending ~otio~s, the PCSSD requests additional time to and !nc:ud::1g July 14, 1997 in which to respond to LRSD's motion. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has no cbjecticn to ~his exte~s:on of tiIT\",e. WHEREFORE, PCS SD prays for an exce:1sicr: of t:1r.1e to and includ:~g July 14, :997 in which to ree9ond to the ~~SD ~otion :or 15:2J .~E: ,lill/Ci3 - attorneys' fees and coats. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, :,I~DSEY \u0026 JE!\\-:-JIKGS 200 West Capitol Ave~~e suite 2200 Litt:e Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 '-- , .. - I \\ By ) ----:\u003e--..  \u003c- '- '- ';--_, ~- Samuel Jones rr:' (76060) Attorneys,,/ for ,..,.-Pulaski Coc.nty Sp_e_c_i_a ...] ,_/:Schcol Cistr.:.c'::. CcRT!FICATE CF SE~v:cs 1~ , 199~, a copy o! t~e fores=i~g was served by U.S. mail on t~e fol:owing. Mr. Joh~ W. Wal~er ~ctn W. wa:ker, F.A. 1 723 Brcaci,.;ay ~itt:e Roe~, AR 72201 Mr. Chr:s:oor.er Heller Friday, ~~d~edge \u0026 C~ark 2000 First Cc~~ercia~ Buildi~g Little Rock, Arka~sas 72201 ODM Heritage West Blcig., Ste. 510 201 Eas: Xarkham Stree~ Lit~le Rock, Arka~sas 722Cl ~r. Richard~- Roachell Koac~e:: anc Street F:rst Federa: Pla~a 401 ~- Caci:~:. s~~ce 524 Litc~e KoCk, ~r~a~sas 722~1 ~r . ::~ot~y Ga~ger Ass:sta~t At:or~ey Ge~eral 323 Cen'::.s= S;ree'::., Suite 20 ~it~le Rock, A=kaneas 72201 Mr. Stephe~ ~. ~ones 3400 :'CBY Tcwe1: 425 West Capitol A~enue Litt!e Rock, Ar~ansas 7220: I) M. Sa:r.ue:. :II -- ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~!lErJJ ~S DISTRICT COURT EAST::i,,'i Cc STRICT fa.RKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Plaintiff, * By.~.!~ vs. * No. LR-C-82-866  oep CLERK * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * JUL 1 5 1997 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG Intervenors. * QB.DER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") requesting an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the PCSSD strike issue. Also before the Court is a motion filed by the PCSSD requesting an extension of time in which to file a reply to the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") response to the PCSSD's motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the \"pooling\" issue. In both motions, the PCSSD requests an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997. The PCSSD has indicated in its motion that the LRSD has no objection and has orally indicated to this Court that the Joshua Intervenors have no objection to this request. For good cause shown, this Court grants the PCSSD's motions for extension of time. The PCSSD has to and including July 14, 1997, in which to file its response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the strike issue and its reply to the LRSD's response to the - PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the pooling issue. Jit 0 2 5. ,r/'- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS // day of July 1997. 'll/ ) , r . ,1 :;:/7 ~/4 11,,-/.._,J... UNITED STATES DISTRI~ JUDGE Tttl IXDME.0- OOEREO ON DOCKET IHET ~ C~E ~TH RULE 58 ANc;}J8~RCf \u003cMl 1 ~1  1 av ~ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue, states: 1. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is without merit and their petition should be denied. 2. The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). 3. The Joshua Intervenors' reliance on Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996) is misplaced. 4. The Joshua Intervenors do not meet the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\" as set forth in Jenkins and Schafer. Their limited participation in the post-judgment - litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was not in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. 5. The Joshua Intervenors' own petition for fees states that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 12 (emphasis added). 6. This is the position taken by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors at the strike hearing on August 28, 1996. 7. As argued by the Joshua Intervenors, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. The Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, F.3d (8th Cir. 1997). 8. The Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Schafer. 9. The Joshua Intervenors cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys fees in its entirety. 2 Respectfully submitted: WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 - ' ----- ' (; ~ By ----:--;i ~, . -:- - \\.__ . '---'-- M. Samuel Jone , III (76060) Claire Shows ancock ~013) Attorn~s. for the Pulaski County Special Scnoof District No. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July_, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samlle1-Jo,, III . i ) 3 -----/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE]VED \\JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is, simply put, without merit and their petition should be denied. ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). Their brief addresses only two paragraphs to the \"Predicate for Award,\" and they cite only two cases. Joshua Br. at 1-2. Their reliance on those cases, however, is misplaced. Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), stands for the proposition that -- with regard to fee awards -- a prevailing plaintiff does not necessarily lose its \"prevailing\" status even if it does not prevail on an issue so long as it was defending its remedy. The plaintiff's claims in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with the underlying claims. Id. at 11. The Joshua Intervenors pay mere lip service to the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\", and do not explain how their participation (limited as it was) in the post-judgment litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. Indeed, their position is belied by their own petition for fees, in which they state that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 1 2 (emphasis added). Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors made this plain at the strike hearing, as well. The - Court, referring to a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors the morning of the hearing stated, and Mr. Walker responded: THE COURT: And Mr. Walker -- I won't enunciate all that he [Mr. Walker] has responded to, in fact, I have not read it all carefully, but in essence, you are asking the Court not to intervene in this dispute because the teachers union and negotiations between employer and employee has never been really a part of the Settlement Agreement. And that the black children do not stand to be harmed any more than any other children. And yet, you do concede that this Court has jurisdiction -- MR. WALKER: No, we don't, Your Honor. * * * THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: There was no issue in the original case that sought to raise liability of the teacher's union with respect to the constitutional rights of black children, there is none. 2 - Transcript of Hearing, August 28, 1996, at pp. 16-17 (emphasis added). Mr. Walker later stated to the Court: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, understand our position. This has been presented to the Court as a conflict between two parties, the Teacher's Union and the School District. It does not involve at this particular point the Joshua Intervenors other than to the extent that Joshua would talce a position with respect to the Settlement Agreement. . . . Id. at 27. As argued by Joshua, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. Indeed, as this Court is aware, the Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, _ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996).1 The Joshua Intervenors did not have a dog in this fight. They cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. Given their present posture, it is surprising that they did not request attorneys' fees in the pooling dispute between the LRSD and the PCSSD, or the teacher retirement dispute between the LRSD/PCSSD and the ADE. The Joshua Intervenors could, and should have requested this Court's permission to absent themselves from proceedings on the strike issue, just as the PCSSD has done in the 1 In Schafer, the Eighth Circuit reversed that portion of the district court's judgment awarding attorneys' fees because the plaintiffs' were not defending their remedy, and failed to persuade the panel that the State continued to violate federal law. As the court stated: \"We must avoid creating a framework in which 'the decree institutionalizes the attorney, as well as the system.\"' 83 F.3d at 1012 (quoting Brewster v. Dukakis, 786 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1986). 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following . Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 5 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I ' / ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES .JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs, states: 1. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. 2. In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. 3. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it made a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered and order granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of the Eighth - Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" 4. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. 5. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCSSD's petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. 6. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically noted that LRSD did not request and was not - granted an extension, and that any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated  June 18, 1997. 7. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. That fee petition is untimely. 8. The LRSD stated grounds for not seeking an extension, to wit, that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible\" and that the \"LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" (LRSD Br. at 3) do not excuse the LRSD's failure to obtain an extension of time . 2 9. The LRSD's and PCSSD's cooperation follows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue and not when, as here, the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. 10. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to file a fee petition on the pooling issues, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. 11. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 12. The case of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), does not support the LRSD's claim for attorneys' fees. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, held that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they - were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. 13 . The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction that the issues in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit. 14. This distinction has been applied to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 15. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 3 16. Further, the proceedings relating to the pooling issues concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees and costs, in its entirety. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ___ ., ('(~ By( ___.TJ:.---\"- y~~-~~ M: Samuel JfnesUI)76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) , _}..~or the Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roach ell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 / Ms SamuelJ nes, III. _~ I / , _____ / 5 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES J\\JI_ l ,1 1997 omcE OF OESEGREGA110N MON\\10RING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in - response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. ARGUMENT I. THE LRSD's FEE PETITION IS UNTIMELY In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it make a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered an order - granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of - the Eighth Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCS SD' s petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically ruled: As PCSSD points out, this Court granted only PCSSD an extension of time to and including thirty (30) days after the Eighth Circuit issued the mandate regarding the pooling issues in which to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD did not request and was not granted a similar extension. Therefore, any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated June 18, 1997. Notwithstanding the express language in the Court's order that any such filing by the LRSD for fees in connection with the pooling issues would be untimely, the LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 2 The LRSD states that it is simply seeking the same time within which to file its fee petition as was previously granted the PCSSD, stating that it did not seek an extension for two reasons. Neither reason is persuasive. First, the LRSD states that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible. The LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" LRSD Br. at 3. While it is true that the LRSD and PCSSD attempt -- as they should -- to work cooperatively, that cooperation flows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue. That was certainly not the circumstance in this instance, where the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. Further, it is somewhat disingenuous of the LRSD to claim that it did not expect the PCSSD to file a fee - petition with respect to the pooling issue. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to do so, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 1 Second, the LRSD states that its \"right to recover fees in this case was firmly established only last month by an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Kansas City desegregation case. Jenkins v. State of Missouri,_ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997)(slip op., May 22, 1997)\" As discussed fully in Point II, infra, the LRSD's reliance on the Jenkins 1 Even if the LRSD had requested and been granted an extension of time to file a fee petition up to and including thirty days after the Eighth Circuit issued its mandate, the fee petition would have been due June 29, 1997, i.e., thirty days from May 30, 1997. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 3 - case is wholly misplaced. It provides no support to the LRSD, either as to the timeliness (or lack thereof) of its fee petition, or on the merits. II. THE LRSD IS NOT ENTITLED TO FEES ON THE MERITS The LRSD misconstrues the holding of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and misapplies it to the facts of this case. In Jenkins, the prevailing class plaintiffs were denied fees by the district court for their participation in the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court that culminated in Jenkins III (515 U.S. 70 (1995). The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. The Jenkins class plaintiffs had obtained orders at the district court level, and affirmed by the - Eighth Circuit, which related directly to the issues they won initially -- issues from which their prevailing party status flowed. The Court of Appeals held that even though they did not successfully defend their remedy at the Supreme Court level, they did not lose their prevailing party status. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and applied by the Fourth Circuit in multiple cases: Under Hensley, the first inquiry is whether the issues in the post-judgment litigation are inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit or whether they are distinct. The Fourth Circuit has applied this distinction to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 4 - 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895, *10 (citing Willie M. v. Hunt, 732 F.2d 383, 386 (4th Cir. 1994). The Eighth Circuit applied this distinction in Association for Retarded Citizens v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 482 (1996)(plaintiffs' post judgment activities so much greater than necessary for monitoring the decree, they amounted to the assertion of distinct, new claims for relief which could not be compensated on the strength of the plaintiffs' prevailing party status in the underlying suit). The facts and circumstances of this case do not fit within the Eighth Circuit's \"prevailing party\" ruling in Jenkins for two reasons. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. While the LRSD was the prevailing plaintiff in its suit against the PCSSD initiated in 1982, any past \"liability\" of the PCSSD was extinguished by the remedy afforded the LRSD in 1985, the Settlement Agreements (and releases), and the Desegregation Plan approved by this Court and by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Eighth Circuit noted: The remedy prescribed was intended to be a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past. If PCSSD or some other governmental entity commits another constitutional violation in the future which has an interdistrict segregative effect, the courts will of course be open and able to order an appropriate remedy on pr "},{"id":"gsl_borm_borm1997-1998","title":"Minutes, Board of Regents, 1997-1998, July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998","collection_id":"gsl_borm","collection_title":"Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_date":["1997-07-01/1998-06-30"],"dcterms_description":["Meeting minutes and agendas of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Digitization of this collection is a project of the Georgia Public Library Service, a unit of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, in association with the University System. The project is supported with federal LSTA funds administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005"],"dcterms_subject":["Education, Higher--United States--Administration","Universities and colleges","Schools","University System of Georgia. Board of Regents","Minutes (Records)","Agendas (Series)"],"dcterms_title":["Minutes, Board of Regents, 1997-1998, July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:gsl_borm_borm1997-1998"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/gsl_borm_borm1997-1998"],"dcterms_temporal":["1997-07-01/1998-06-30"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005. Office of Legal Affairs, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["minute books"],"dcterms_extent":["930 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1497","title":"Student handbooks, elementary school, 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-07"],"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--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","School attendance","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","School discipline","Student suspension","Parents","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["Student handbooks, elementary school, 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/1497"],"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":["300 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1667","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-30"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue"],"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/1667"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["80 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUN 3 n 1991 V I ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUE I. Attorneys' Fees. Federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. A prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it was, LRSD's pooling claim was not frivolous. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees should be denied. A. 42 u.s.c.  1988. Prevailing defendants in civil rights litigation may recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988. However, the Supreme Court has declared that a prevailing defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees only in very narrow circumstances. Eichman v. Linden \u0026 Sons, Inc., 752 F.2d 1246, 1248 (7th Cir. 1985), citing Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412 (: l~Vcndky\\lnd\\pcu-foc.bri (1978). \"A court may award prevailing defendants attorney's fees - under section 1988 only if the plaintiff's claim was 'frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or . . the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.'\" Flowers v. Jefferson Hospital Ass'n, 49 F.3d 391, 392 (8th Cir. 1995), quoting Christianburg, 434 U.S. at 422. Moreover, the prevailing defendant must affirmatively prove that the plaintiff's claim was \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.\" Marquart v. Lodge 837, 26 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 1994) (\"A survey of the Eighth Circuit's most recent decisions awarding attorneys' fees to 'prevailing defendants' in civil rights cases reveals that this Circuit has been unwilling to award attorneys' fees where the defendant is unable to prove that the plaintiff's case is meritless. 11 ) (emphasis in original). PCSSD's claim for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 fails for two reasons. First, while PCSSD may have prevailed on the pooling issue, LRSD remains the \"prevailing party\" in the case as a whole. In Jenkins v. Missouri, F.3d , 1997 WL 268815, *l (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that \"status as a prevailing party is determined on the outcome of the case as a whole, rather than by piecemeal assessment of how a party fares on each motion along the way.\" The court noted that \"(t)his is true of matters decided after judgment on the merits, as well as those decided before.\" Id. Thus, PCSSD is not a \"prevailing defendant\" under 42 u.s.c.  1988. PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees also fails because LRSD's pooling claim was not \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless\". (:\\hofrc\\/crdlcy\\1n,d\\pcw-foc .bri 2 LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement, although rejected by the this Court, was the only interpretation consistent with the language of the agreement and with the only contemporaneous explanation of the agreement. See Docket No. 2610. The Eighth Circuit described LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement as \"completely logical.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 436, 437 {1995). LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement was not \"frivolous\", and as a result, PCSSD cannot recover attorneys' fees even if it was a prevailing defendant. PCSSD also argues that it may be awarded attorneys' fees under Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308. State law governs the award of attorneys' fees only in diversity cases where the underlying claim was governed by state law. In federal question cases, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded unless authorized by federal law. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 259 n.31 {1975). The present case is a federal question case. This Court's original jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C.  1331{a), 1343(3) and (4) 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1983, 1988 and 2000d. Jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (6). See Docket Nos. 1947 and 2337. Because this Court's jurisdiction was and is based on federal law, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded under Ark. Code Ann.  16- 22-308. In Home Savings Bank v. Gillam, 952 F.2d 1152 {9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth circuit reversed an award of attorneys' fees based f:\\hancVcrdky\\Jr,d\\p:::u--fcc.bti 3 on state law where the district court's jurisdiction was based on a federal question. The court stated: Because established federal common law disfavors the award of attorney's fees in federal question cases absent an express congressional directive, we hold that the district court erred in applying Alaska's law on attorney's fees. Incorporation of state law occurs in federal question cases only in the absence of federal coJillDon law or statutory law. * * * Since the Supreme Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 95 s.ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the rule in federal courts had been that, absent an express statutory coJillDand, attorney's fees will not be awarded in civil cases. Id., at 1162 (emphasis supplied). PCSSD's reliance on TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994), is misplaced. Jurisdiction in that case was based on diversity. As the Supreme Court noted in Alyeska, \"A very - different situation is presented when a federal court sits in a diversity case.\" Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 259 n.31. Therefore, federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. Under 42 U.S.C.  1988, a prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it were, LRSD's claim was not frivolous. attorneys' fees should be denied. B. Timeliness. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for Included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed before this Court's Order dated March 16, 1994. PCSSD failed to request attorneys' fees within 14 days of that Order. Consequently, they r:\\horne\\fcrdlcy\\l r.d\\p::114-(oc .bti 4 have waived any right to fees for work performed before the March - 16, 1994. See Local Rule B-3. D. Work on Appeal. Also included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed on the two Eighth Circuit appeals of the pooling issue. In each case, PCSSD failed to timely file a request with the Eighth Circuit to recover attorneys' fees for its work on appeal. A substantial question exists as to whether this Court has authority to award attorneys' fees for work on appeal absent the issue being remanded by the Eighth Circuit. See Eighth Circuit Rule 4 7C. This is currently one of the issues pending before the Eighth Circuit in the State's appeal of this Court's award of attorney's fees to LRSD and PCSSD. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 19, Appeal No. 97- 1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that this Court stay any award of fees for work on appeal pending the Eighth Circuit's resolution of this issue. Moreover, PCSSD did not prevail on the first appeal of this issue. LRSD appealed this Court's March 16, 1994 order, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the order and directed this Court to \"take evidence regarding the purposes of the clauses at issue.\" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). Even if this Court finds that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable fee, PCSSD should not be compensated for work on this first appeal in which PCSSD lost. f:\\homeVcndlcy\\Jnd'9c-fec .bri 5 E. Reasonable Hourly Rate. In an Order filed December 12, 1996, this Court awarded attorneys' fees to PCSSD for the work of M. Samuel Jones and Claire Hancock at an hourly rate of $160.00 and $145.00, respectively. See Docket No. 2883. The State has appealed contending that these hourly rates are excessive. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 23, Appeal No. 97-1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Even so, PCSSD now asks for an even higher hourly rate for the work of attorneys Jones and Hancock. LRSD believes that the hourly rates awarded by this Court in its December 12, 1996 Order are reasonable and, unless reduced by the Eighth Circuit, should be applied in the present case should a fee be awarded. F. Lack of Detail. In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the Supreme Court stated that the \"fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.\" The Eighth Circuit has held that \" [ i] nadequate documentation may warrant a reduced fee.\" H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925 F.2d 257,260 (8th Cir. 1991). \"Incomplete or imprecise billing records preclude any meaningful review by the district court of the fee application for 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary' hours . II The Supreme Court in Hensley noted that \"at should identify the general subject matter expenditures.\" Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12. least counsel of his time In H.J. Inc., supra, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's 20% fee (;\\hon-c\\fcndlcy\\lnd\\p::sfc,c.bti 6 reduction based on inadequate documentation where the fee applicant's time records included numerous vague entries such as \"legal research\", \"trial prep\" and \"met w/ client.\" Similarly, the vast majority of PCSSD's time entries contain no description of the subject matter on which time was spent. This failure justifies a significant reduction in any fee awarded to PCSSD. II. Prejudgment Interest. As with its argument for attorneys' fees, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law and federal diversity cases to support its request for prejudgment interest. Federal law governs whether prejudgment interest may be awarded in federal question cases. See Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322, 1330 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The question of whether interest is to be allowed, and also the rate of computation, is a question of federal law where the cause of action arises from a federal statute.\"). Under federal law as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit, PCS SD' s motion for prejudgment interest is untimely and should be denied. See Reyher v. Champion International Corp., 975 F.2d 483, 489 (8th Cir. 1992). In Reyher, supra, the Eighth circuit held that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 apply to postjudgment motions for prejudgment interest. Id. Rule 59 requires that postjudgment motion be filed within 10 days of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). When a motion is untimely under Rule 59 ( e) , \"the district court loses jurisdiction over that motion and any ruling on it becomes a nullity.\" Id. f:\\horne \\fcn:tlcy\\lr'ld\\p:;:N-(ce.bri 7 Judgment was entered in favor of PCSSD on July 30, 1996. Docket No. 2724. PCSSD did not file its request for prejudgment interest until on or about June 5, 1997. Thus, PCSSD's motion for prejudgment interest is untimely under Rule 59 and should be denied. 1 III. Postjudgment Interest. As with the above issues, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law to support it claim for postjudgment interest. Post judgment interest on judgments of federal district courts is governed by 28 u.s.c.  1961. LRSD admits that it owes PCS SD post judgment interest on the July 30, 1996 judgment as provided in that statute. LRSD also admits that it has not yet satisfied the July 30, 1996 judgment. LRSD understood that it had an agreement with PCSSD to withhold payment of the judgment until after conclusion of LRSD's appeal. It was understood that postjudgment interest would accrue during this time. PCSSD and LRSD are currently attempting to determine the precise amount owed and are negotiating payment terms. IV. Prayer. LRSD prays that PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Prejudgment Interest be denied; that LRSD be awarded its costs and 1PCSSD may argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 governs its request for prejudgment interest rather than Rule 59. However, the Eighth Circuit noted in Reyher that Rule 60 \"cannot be used to impose additional affirmative relief.\" Reyher, 975 F.2d at 489 n.l. Therefore, Rule 60 cannot be used after the fact to award PCSSD prejudgment interest.  (;\\ha-nc\\fcrdlcy\\l r-.d\\pcM-(oc .bri 8 attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. f: \\home \\fcrd le y\\J nid\\pc:u- fee. bri Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 9 O9ristopher Heller (#BlP?3) ~ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (M182) 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 this X,\"!' day of r , 1997. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 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 !hJistopher Heller' '\\.o/1n C. Fendley, Jr. f:\\horn::Vcrdlc.y\\Jnd\\pc:u-fcc.bri 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION V. LITTLE ROCK $CHOOL DISTRICT and PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 No. 97-1350EALR APPELLANT APPELL:SES Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF : EXHIBIT SUMMARY A. WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises from the Pulaski County, Arkansas desegregation litigation. In response to motions brought by ihe three school districts in Pulaski County, by order entered January 13, 1995, the District Court found that the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the State of Arkansas and the three districts. The District Court's order was affirmed in part and reversed in part by this Court. ~ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1. et al., 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), reh'a denied {June 27, 1996). After this Court's mandate issued, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed motions in the District Court seeking an award of attorneys' fees and costs. By orders entered December 10, 1996 and December 12, 1996, the District Court awarded PCSSD and LRSD $36,464.00 and $43,083.32 respectively in attorneys' fees and costs. ADE appeals from these two orders. ADE believes that this appeal can be resolved on the briefs alone and therefore does not request oral argument. i TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMM.l\u003e.RY .AJ.\\ffi WAIVER OF O~ZU, ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT STATEMENT OF ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMM.l\u003e.RY OF ARGUMENT ......................... ......................... ARGUMENT A. B. ................................... Standard of Review The District Court Erred in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Under 42 U.S.C. 1988 .............. . C. The District Court Erred in Awarding PCSSD and LRSD Costs and Attorneys' Fees in Connection With Their Defense of ADE's Appeal and Their Prosecution of Their CrossAppeal of the District Court's i ii iii l 2 3 14 15 15 15 January 15, 1995 Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D. The District Court Abused its Discretion in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Discounted Rates Actually Charged the Districts During 1994 Through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CONCLUSION ................................... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM ................................... ii 24 25 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aleveska Pipeline co. v. Wilderness Societv, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982) Corder v. Brown, 25 F. 3d 833 (9ti:c Cir. 1994) DeGidio v. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990) Delta Special School District No. s v. State Board of Education, 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984) Fogertv v. Fantasv. Inc., 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994) Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1986) International Travel Arranaers. 1 nc. v. Western Airlines. Inc., 623 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1980) Jenkins v. state of Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432 (10th Cir. 1996) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. , , 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F. 3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) iii PAGE(Sl 15 20 I 23 15, 22 16 17 15 17 22 17 17 3 5, 19 22, 23 TABLE o~ AUTHORITIES (Cont.) CASES Patrick v. Staples, 780 F.Supp. 1528 (N.D. Indiana 1991) Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Board, 925 F. 2d 1069 ( 8th Cir. 1991) Wvcoff v. Hedcrepeth, 34 F. 3d 614 ( 8th Cir:. 1994) STATUTES Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308 42 u.s.c. 1983 42 u.s.c. 1988 OTHER AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a) Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C Local Rule B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts Of Arkansas iv PAGE{Sl 17 15, 23 16 PAGE(Sl 7 16 passim PAGE(Sl 19 19 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) appeals from orders entered on December 10 and December 12, 1996, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, the Hon. Susan Webber Wright, District Judge, in the action styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et .al., No. LR-C-82-866. In those orders the District Court ordered ADE to pay a total of $79,547.32 to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) in attorneys' fees and costs. Apx. 56-61. The District Court's jurisdiction was originally invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  133l(a), 1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1~83, 1988 and 2000d, and the Fou~teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1291 in that the District Court's December 10 and December 12, 1996 orders are collateral orders that are final with respect to all issues raised therein. ADE's notice of appeal was filed on January 8, 1997, and hence was timely filed under Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a) (1). 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES I. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. --42 u.s.c.  1988; --DeGideo V. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990);  --Delta School Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984); --Wycoff v. Hedgepeth, 34 F.2d 614 (8th Cir. 1994) II. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD for Work Performed Defending ADE's Appeal and Prosecuting LRSD's and PCSSD's Cross-Appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 Order. --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Fed. R. App. Proc. 39(a); --Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C. III. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees To LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon Their Attorneys' 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Actual Discounted Rates Paid by the Districts for Work Performed by Their Attorneys During 1994, 1995 and 1996. --Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989); --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Bd., 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1991) --International Travel Arranaers, Inc. v. Western Airlines. Tnc., 623 F. 2d 1255 ( 8th Cir. 1980) . 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal arising from the Pulaski County, Arkansas school desegregation litigation. The parties to this appeal are appellant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and appellees Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (PCSSD) and the L1ttle Rock School District (LRSD). In 1989 the State of Arkansas, the three school districts in Pulaski County, and two groups of intervenors agreed to settle the remedial aspects of the school desegregation litigation. The parties submitted to the District Court \"comprehensive settlement agreements covering both interdistrict and intradistrict desegregation measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the 'setclement plans.' They also submitted a separate but related document, called the 'settlement agreement,' settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas.n Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). This Court reviewed and approved the settlement documents and directed the District Court to approve the settlement plans and the Settlement Agreement as written by the parties . .IQ.. at 1394. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District Court entered an order on January 18, 1991, dismissing the State of Arkansas as a party to the case. 3 A. LRSD's and PCSSD's Motions to Enforce the Settlement Agreement In July of 1994 LRSD filed a motion asking the District Court to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. LRSD contended that the State breached the Settlement Agreement by enacting a law that shifted the responsibility for the payment of workers' compensation claims brought by school district employees from the State to each school district in the state. PCSSD joined in this motion. Later, in August of 1994, LRSD and PCSSD filed a second motion asking the District Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. In this motion, LRSD and PCSSD contended (a) that ADE improperly treated M-M Transfer students in calculating the amount of \"loss funding\" due the Pulaski County school districts; (bl that ADE improperly excluded certain funds, known as Education Excellence Trust Funds, in a multiplier that determined the amount of \"loss funding\" due the three Pulaski County school districts; and (c) that the manner in which the State planned to implement a statewide public school computer network violated the Settlement Agreement . After a four-day hearing, the District Court, by order entered January 13, 1995, granted in part and denied in part 4 LRSD's and PCSSD's motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement. B. The Appeal and Cross Appeals of the District Court's Januarv 13, 1995 Order The State and ADE appealed the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. PCSSD and LRSD cross-appealed, contending . that the District Court did not grant them full and appropriate relief on their motions. On May 15, 1996, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order . .s.ae. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). LRSD and PCSSD filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by this Court on June 27, 1996. No party sought from the Eighth Circuit an award of attorneys' fees or costs in connection with the appeal or cross-appeal, and no order awarding costs or fees to any party was entered by the Eighth Circuit. C. PCSSD and LRSD Seek Extensions of Time Within Which to File Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Under Local Rule Local B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, any motion by PCSSD or LRSD for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the District Court's January 13, 1995 order was due within fourteen days of the entry of the order, ~, on or before January 27, 1995. On January 26, 5 1995 PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion asking for an extension of time to file such a motion. The District Court extended the time to February 17, 1995. Apx. 66. On February 17, 1995, PCSSD and LRSD filed another motion'for an extension of time; asking that their motions for attorneys' fees not be due until after this court resolved ADE's appeal and the districts' cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. The District Court granted this motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until \"fourteen days after the appeal is decided or withdrawn\" to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 71. On May 29, 1995 (fourteen days after this Court announced its decision affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order), PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion in the District Court asking for a further extension of time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 72. The District Court granted that motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until June 28, 1996 to file their motions. Apx. 74. On June 28, 1996 PCSSD and LRSD again filed a motion asking for additional time to submit an attorney fee motion. Apx. 75. On July 1, 1996 the district Court granted the motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until 30 days after this Court's mandate issued to file a motion for attorneys' fees . Apx. 78. 6 On August 19, 1996 LRSD filed another motion seeking more time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 79. ADE filed an opposition to this motion on August 22, 1996. The District Court granted LRSD's motion on August 27, 1996. Apx. 82. D. PCSSD's Motion for Fees and costs On August 16, 1996, PCSSD finally filed its initial motion for attorneys' fees and costs. 1 In its motion the only basis PCSSD cited for its fee request was Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, which permits a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in a breach of contract action. Apx. 83-84. The affidavit filed in support of the motion provided no information concerning the billing rates of or the activities performed by the various persons who allegedly worked on b~half of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Apx. 85-88. On August 30, 1996, ADE filed its opposition to PCSSD's motion. ADE opposed the motion on the grounds, inter alia, that state law could not form the basis for a fee award to PCSSD, that PCSSD had failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Court to calculate a reasonable 1 While PCSSD's motion purported to seek \"costs\" in addition to attorneys' fees, the motion itself contained no information concerning such claimed \"costs.\" 7 fee award, and that the District Court lacked authority to compensate PCSSD for time its attorneys spent defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting PCSSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Three weeks later, on September 20, 1996, PCSSD filed a \"Supplemental Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees as to the State Defendants.\" In its \"Supplemental Motion\" PCSSD claimed that it was entitled to an award of fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The \"Supplemental Motion\" did not provide any further information concerning the hourly rates or activities performed by the attorneys, paralegals and document clerks that purportedly worked on behalf of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. On October 4, 1996, ADE filed a response to PCSSD's \"Supplemental Motion.\" In its response ADE argued, among other things, that PCSSD was not entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 or any other exception to the \"American rule,\" and that PCSSD's motion must still be denied for its failure to present evidence sufficient to enable the District Court to compute a \"reasonable\" fee award. On November 21, 1996, the District Court entered an order directing PCSSD to submit, within ten days, \"an affidavit documenting the time spent litigating these matters and the position or job title and hourly rates for 8 those who worked on the matters.\" The District Court further specified that \"the affidavit should set forth the activity performed and time spent by each individual.\" Apx. 133-34. On December 2, 1996, PCSSD filed a second affidavit signed by its attorney,  Sam Jones. Apx. 135. \"Attached to the affidavit were billing records that purported to show the time spent by attorneys, paralegals and document clerks on behalf of PCSSD. Apx. 139-170. In the affidavit, attorney Jones stated that his current normal billing rate was $175.00 per hour, but that during 1996 PCSSD was charged only $135.00 per hour for his time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that attorney Claire Hancock's current normal billing rate was $145.00 per hour, but that PCSSD was charged only $110.00 per hour for her time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that the time of Angell Jones, the Manager of the firm's Litigation Support Department, was currently billed at $75.00.per hour during 1996 (Apx. 136); the billing records attached to the affidavit showed, however, that Ms. Jones' time was billed to PCSSD at a rate of $55.00 during 1994. Apx. 139, 147. The billing records attached to the affidavit also showed, among other things, that PCSSD was billed $110.00 per hour for attorney S. Jones' time during 1994 (Apx. 139, 147), and included time spent by attorneys, paralegals and 9 document clerks for work performed in connection with PCSSD's defense of ADE's appeal and PCSSD's prosecution of its cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 148-165. E. LRSD's Motion for Fees and costs LRSD filed its motion for fees and costs on August 30, 1996. LRSD's motion sought an award of $42,520 in attorneys' fees (262 hours spent by attorney Chris Heller at a rate of $160.00 per hour and 6 hours spent by attorney Clay Fendley at a rate of $100.00 per hour) and $563.32 in other unidentified \"costs.\" Apx. 89. Like PCSSD, LRSD sought attorneys' fees for its attorneys' work defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting LRSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 95-132. The affidavit submitted in support of LRSD's motion stated that attorney Heller's current normal billing rate was $160.00 per hour and attorney Fendley's current normal billing rate was $100.00 per hour. Apx. 89. The billing records attached to LRSD's motion, however, showed that LRSD was only billed $105.00 per hour for attorney Heller's time from June, 1994 through at least November of 1995, and that LRSD was only billed $85.00 per hour for attorney Fendley's time through at least November of 1995. Apx. 103, 122, 125, 127-131. LRSD's motion also sought attorneys' fees for time spent by LRSD's lawyers on appeal. Apx. 125-132. 10 With respect to costs, the billing records attached to LRSD's motion showed that a total of approximately $4380 was billed to LRSD as \"expenses\" during the period from June of 1994 through November of 19952 (Apx. 103, 122, 127-129, 131- 32), but LRSD's motion did not identify which particular items of the total \"expenses\" LRSD wanted the District Court to direct ADE to pay. See generally Apx. 89-132. ADE filed its opposition to LRSD's motion on September 16, 1996. ADE objected to any award of fees for time spent on appeal, ADE pointed out that LRSD's request for $160.00 per hour and $100.00 per hour for time spent by attorneys Heller and Fendley was excessive and would result in a windfall to LRSD in light of the actual hourly rates paid by LRSD, and ADE pointed out that some of the allegedly \"compensable\" time spent by LRSD's attorneys was spent on matters unrelated to LRSD's litigation against the State and ADE. F. The District Court's December 10 and December 12. 1996 Orders On December 10, 1996, only eight days after PCSSD finally submitted an affidavit with billing records to 2 These total \"expenses\" included charges listed as \"binding expense,\" \"deposition expense,\" \"copy charges, 11 \"Lexis computerized research,\" \"messenger expense,\" \"postage,\" \"fax,\" \"express mail,\" \"filing fees,\" \"preparation expense, 11 \"meals,\" \"Westlaw computerized research,\" \"airline ticket,\" \"parking\" and \"taxi.\" 11 support its fee motion and before ADE had filed any response to it, the District Court entered an order granting LRSD's and PCSSD's motions for attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court found that LRSD and PCSSD were prevailing parties entitled to an award of-fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. The District Court awarded PCSSD $28,854.50 in attorneys' fees. The award was based, among other things, 3 upon billing rates of $110.00 per "}],"pages":{"current_page":436,"next_page":437,"prev_page":435,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5220,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}