{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1641","title":"Court Filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, court proceedings on settlement agreement, and incentive schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-02/1996-08-09"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, court proceedings on settlement agreement, and incentive schools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1641"],"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":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to clarify the court's orders of June 15, 1993, and July 14, 1993; District Court, response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, separate response of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for abstention; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) brief in support of response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for abstention; District Court, amendment and supplement to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, three motions for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for relief concerning incentive schools; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for relief concerning incentive schools and to Joshua's motion for implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to modify desegregation plan dated July 30, 1996  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 AUG ~ 1996 Office of Desegregation Moni1orm9 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN SEATS AND FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM SEATS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its Motion To Release Incentive School Kindergarten Seats and Four-Year-Old Program Seats, states: 1. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1995-96 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1996-97 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a partial listing of those recruitment efforts conducted by the district. Additionally, the information contained in the district's quarterly program planning and budget document status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing . .. 2. Although the recruitment efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant in the LRSD's four-year-old program as well as the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. 3. Taking into consideration the importance of reserving seats for the recruitment of white students, the LRSD made special efforts during the recruitment season to register as many new white students as possible into these programs. Since seats still remain vacant, LRSD submits that the vacant seats should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. By doing so, the district is not retreating from its obligation to continue to vigorously recruit white students into the designated schools. Rather, the LRSD is merely recognizing the importance of disparity elimination through early childhood educational opportunities. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the LRSD fouryear- old assignments and kindergarten assignments for the 1996-97 school year as of July 10, 1996. 5. The LRSD will continue its vigorous recruitment efforts and will determine what adjustments are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the impact of this action on future year enrollments can be minimized to the greatest extent possible. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves the court for an order permitting it to release the vacant seats at the kindergarten level in incentive schools as well as the vacant seats at the four-year-old program sits as reflected by the attached exhibit; that it be awarded all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. btbyll.RSD-lac.Fau, 2 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ( 501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher He Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release Incentive School Kindergarten Seats And Four-Year-Old Program Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 1st day of August, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 172 3 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 bllQ,ILRSD-Inc.F..., 3 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 bll,y\\LRSO.lnc.Four 4 November 1, 1995 To: From: Re: JULY Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather \u0026 Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment Report, 1st Quarter, 95-96 Developed ad for Kid's Directory featuring Incentive Schools, CARE, 4-year-old program and registration dates. Met monthly with PTA Council. Mailed letter to all white students on 4-year-old waiting lists offering available seats. Mailed 84 letters to ministers, including registration flyer. Sent memo to principals about open house dates. Sent memo to principals listing upcoming recruitment dates and opportunities. Participated in PTA Summer Leadership conference discussing public relations and newsletters. AUGUST Worked with Pat Price to develop, typeset and print new generic 4-year-old brochure. Spent two days placing registration posters throughout city at grocery stores, housing projects, medical offices. Department of Human Services, etc. Put individual school recruitment plan outlines on disks and offered to all schools who requested them. (Some wanted to continue using hard copy outlines and a typewriter.) Participated in Governor's Press Conference proclaiming Arkansas Public School's Week. Met with Quapaw Realty. Participated in PTA Council pre-schoo,l workshop. Met with McKay Realty. Gathered and delivered Parent Involvement information to five incentive schools. Participated in booth on LRSD at African American Heritage Celebration at Philander Smith College. Met with new magnet coordinator and principal at Henderson on recruitment ideas. Met with Rightsell on setting up Parent Involvement. Held Open Houses in all schools. Met with Franklin on recruitment. SEPTEMBER Held brainstorming/planning sessions ~ith new Director of Student Assignment. Secured home owners association lists from City hall. Sent memo to Principals on recruitment training session. Met with Geyer Springs recruitment ream. Gathered lists of names of recruitment team members from each school. Worked with Connie Whitfield, Advocates for Children, in identifying target neighborhood with low parental involvement and Kids at risk. Mitchell Incentive was selected. Worked with Rector, Phillips, Morris Realtors. Worked with ReMax Realty. Worked with Winrock Development Company, (Real Estate Developers) Worked with Janet Jones Realty Participated in two meetings with Pulaski County Parents (one South and one North of the river.) Revised Recruitment Timeline Calendar. Julie Wiedower represented office in Magnet meeting. Recruitment training meeting with principals (especially new principals) and recruitment team leaders. Met with Washington recruitment meeting. Met with Dodd recruitment team. Met with Parkview recruitment team. Revised recruitment timeline calendar. Conducted tours for 21 families from July through September. - - Jan. 5, 1996 To: From: Re: Oct. 2 Oct. 3 Oct. 3 Oct. 5 Oct. 5 Oct. 6 Oct. 10 Oct. 11 Oct. 11 Oct . 12 Oct. 16 Oct. 16 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 17 Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct. 18 Oct. 19 Oct. 19 Oct. 20 Oct. 23 Oct. 24 Oct. 25 Nov. 6 Nov. 6 Nov. 7 Nov. 7 Nov. 9 Nov. 9 Nov. 10 Nov. 10 Nov. 14 Nov. 14 Nov. 15 Nov. 21 Nov. 27 Nov. 27 Nov. 30 Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment activities, second quarter 95-96 Assist Henderson recruitment team Work with Incentive schools on reports due Work with Rector Phillips Morse Realty Participate in Arkansas Business Expo Work with Central recruitment team Assist Baseline recruitment team Attend PTA Council at Bale Attend program at Rockeferler Attend meeting on pre-registration brochure All individual school recruitment plans due Contact Connie Whitfield for parent involvement at Mitchell Meet with Booker recruitment team Meet with Rockefeller recruitment team Meet with Franklin recruitment team Assist Otter Creek recruitment team Assist Badgett recruitment team Meet with Dodd recruitment team Memo to principals requesting private school directories . Attend team meeting at McClellan Deliver information to McKay Realty Mail letters/ flyers to Neighborhood Associations. Assist Cloverdale Junior High team Assist Gibbs team Attend meeting with Mabelvale Jr. team Attend Henderson team meeting Assist Adkins, McNeill, Smith and Assoc. King recruitment team meeting Presentation to the \"Good Ole Girls Ne.t work\" Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Meet with Washington Team Assist Adkins, McNeill, Smith and Assoc. Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Attend PTA Council at Forest Park Meet with J.A . Fair recruitment team Bi-monthly recruitment survey due from all schools Evening meeting with 6th grade parents at Second Presbyterian Church. Assist Henderson recruitment team Assist Mann recruitment team Meet with Melissa Guildin, ODM Dec. 1 Dec. 1 Dec. 4 Dec. 5 Dec. 6 Dec. 7 Dec. 8 Dec. 12 Dec. 12 Dec. 13 Dec. 19 Presentation to Secretaries meeting on Magnet schools Assist Charlotte John realty Assist with two special tours at Mann Assist with two special tours at Forest Heights Assist with two special tours at Dunbar Assist with two special tours at Henderson Assist with two special tours at Pulaski Heights Attend PTA Council Washington Report to Biracial committee Assist Garland team Prepared Open House flyer for Garland Provided tours to 46 families during this quarter. June 3, 1996 To: From: Re: Nancy Acre, Director of student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment efforts for third quarter 95-96 Jan. 2 Held Registration training meetings with all school secretaries Jan. 8 Provided private school mailing labels to Magnet Review Committee, schools upon request. Jan. 9 Attend PTA Council at Mann Jan. 9 Participated in 6th grade recruitment for Junior High at Terry Jan. 9 Participated in 6th grade recruitment for Junior High at King. Jan. 12-13 Participated in Park Plaza Mall Show Jan. 15 Bi-Monthly recruitment survey due in from all schools. Jan. 16 encourage Jan. 16 the city. Mailed letters to all P-4s on waiting list to Kindergarten registration. Mail letters to churches and daycares throughout Jan. 16 Sent private school lists to all area schools. Jan. 16 Picked up PCSSD labels for incentive schools. Jan. 18 Held special tours for parents of 6th graders to Junior Highs. Jan. 19 Mailed 2,000 pre-registration brochures to private school students. Jan. 22 Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Schools Jan. 22 Met with Early Childhood Advisory Committee. Provided pre-registration information and posters. Jan. 23 Presentation to Charlotte John Realtors Jan. 23 Mailed registration brochures to 25,000 LRSD households. Jan. 23 Presentation to HIPPY parents at McClellan Jan. 23 Open House, Elementary Magnets Jan. 24 Open House, Secondary Magnets Jan. 24 Assist Wilson School Recruitment teams. Jan. 24 Provide Assistance to Caldwell Banker Realtors Jan. 29-Feb. 2 CHECK US OUT WEEK! Jan. 29 Open House, Elementary Area Schools JAN. 29 Display posters throughout the city. Jan. 29 Assist Fair Park Recruitment Team Jan. 30 Open House Secondary Area Schools Jan. 30 Presentation to HIPPY Horne Visitors Jan. 31 Participated in Dunbar Recruitment Program Jan. 31 Display posters throughout the city in housing projects, grocery stores, day care centers, etc .. Feb. 1 Feb. 5 Iniervice Secretaries on pre-registration Pre-registration open through Feb. 16. Feb. 5 - Feb. 6 Feb. 12 Feb. 13 Feb. 14 Feb. 19 Feb. 19 Feb. 20 Feb. 27 Feb. 29 Mar. 1 Mar. 7 Mar. 11 Mar. 12 Mar. 12 Mar. 12 Mar. 14 Mar. 15 Mar. 26 Mar. 27 Provided quarter. Assist Caldwell Banker Realty Give Biracial report Meet with Wilson Recruitment Team Attend Open House at Metropolitan Assist Rainey Realty Participate in Early Childhood Meeting Attend Parent Involvement meeting Participate in PTA Founders Day program Speak at Bayou Mete in PCSSD Work with Mccaskell Realty Attend opening of Chicot School Parent Involvement meeting Participate in Early Childhood Fun Fest at King Attend PTA Council at Rockefeller Attend meeting of AllianFe for our Public Schools Attend program at Booker Assist national Early Childhood tour Rockefeller Bimonthly recruitment report due from all schools. Assist Wilson recruitment teams. Meet with Alliance for Our Public Schools 46 tours to individual families during this June 5, 1996 To: From: Re: Apr. 2 Apr. 3 Apr. 5 Apr. 9 Apr. 10 Apr. 1() Apr. 15 Apr. 15 Apr. 23 Apr. 24 Apr. 30 May 1 May 7 May 7\u00268 May 8 May 13 May 14 May 16 May 19 May 20 May 22 May 29 June 4 Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Fourth Quarter, 95-96, as of June 4, 1996 Recruitment report presented to Biracial committee Meet with Selma Hobby on obligations Notify 4-year-olds of assignments Attend PTA Council at Woodruff Assist Atkins, McNeil Realty . Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend Parent Involvenent Meeting Participate in PBD audit Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realty Assist Dodd with recruitment Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Assist Caldwell Banker Realty Show and Tell in all LR schools Provide 25 Realtor packets for Atkins, McNeil Attend Parent Involvement Meeting Attend PTA Council at Carver Attend reception at Mann HIPPY graduation Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Assist Janet Jones Realty Make report to Biracial Committee Recruiters provided tours to 37 families during the first two months of this quarter. With each family the recruiters provide tours to an average of 3 to 4 schools, depending on the number cf children, grade levels, requests and time allowed. Most of our concentration is with residents moving into the city. Most local residents prefer to tour schools on their own time. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT 1996-97 Enrolled Waiting List / TOTAL 360 242 6021 118 59. 80% 870 58 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1996 -97 Enrolled Waiting Lis 18 18 ..  :5i4s 36 18 36 720 SCHOOL BL NBL TLT Vacancies %BLACK BL NBL CAPACITY FRANKLIN 70 5 75 25 93.33% 21 0 100 GARLAND 22 4 26 14 84.62% 11 0 40 MITCHELL 27 1 28 12 96.43% 12 0 40 RIGHTS ELL 24 2 26 14 92.31% 15 0 40 ROCKEFELLER 29 28 57 3 50.88% 44 0 60 TOTAL 172 40 212 68 81 .13% 103 0 280 - - - - -- - - HERSCHEL H . FRIDAY C1122 1114J WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A . JAMES W. MOORE IYRON M . EISEMAN , JR., P. A .  . BELL, P. A . C . ECHOLS , P. A . S A . BUTTRY, P.A . ERICKS . URSERY , P. A . H . T . LARZELERE, P. A . OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR ,, P. A. JAMES C. CLARK , JR ., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P . A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill. P. A . .,,.,,. LARRY W. BURKS , P.A. - A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON, P. A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT , P.A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P.A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111, P. A . DONALD H. BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON 11, P. A . BARRY E. COPLIN, P. A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR ,, P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P .A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH , P. A. ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill , P .A . THOMAS N. ROSE, P . A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P. A . DIANE S . MACKEY , P. A . WALTER M . EBEL 111, P. A . KEVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . FRIDAY, ELDR'EDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-3762147 August 2, 1996 RECEIVED AUG_, 1996 Office of Dase . gresation Monitorin9 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock~ AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack ! /; SCOTT' J , LANCASTER , P. A . M . QA/'ILE COPILEY , P . A . ROIERT I. BEACH , JR . , P.A. J . LEE BROWN, P .A . JAMES C . IAKER, JR . , P. A . HARRY A . LIOHT , P. A . SCOTT H . TUCKER , P . A . JOH.N CLAYTON RANDOLPH , P. A . OUY ALTON WADE , P . A . PRICE C , GARDNER , P . A . J . MICHAEL r!CKENS , P. A . TONIA P. JONES, P. A. DAVID D . WILSON . P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE , P.A . ANDREW T . TURNER DAVID M . GRAF CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C . FENDLEY, JR. ALLISON OR AVES JOHANN C . ROOSEVELT R . CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C . HICKMAN 9ETTY J . DEMORY IARBARA J . RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIELL. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL o, COUNIH WILLIAM J. SMITH 8 . S . CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P. A . WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR ., P. A . un11 OlfllCT NO , (5011 370-3323 Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time with regard to the above-captioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy to us. By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of record. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encl.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encl.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encl.) Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell) (w/encl.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encl.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encl.) Hon. Susan Webber Wright (w/encl.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVIS-ION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 1996 RECEIVED t I ! AUG :5 1996 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL Off ice ot Desegregation Monitoring . ...:... -. DEFENDANTS ~ , , ~ .,. ..... MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ~  .\u003c1 ~ . - -.....~-,., INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Extension of Time states: 1. On August 1, 1996, LRSD was served with Joshua's Response to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (\"Joshua's Response\"). Because of the issues raised in Joshua's Response, it is necessary for LRSD to prepare a Reply thereto. 2. Due to other obligations of counsel for LRSD, including LRSD's Response to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools due August 9, 1996, LRSD needs additional time to prepare its Reply. Accordingly, LRSD respectfully requests that it be granted leave to file its Reply to Joshua's Response on or before August 30, 1996. 3. Based on statements made by the Court in recent hearings related to the Court's docket, it appears this matter will not be scheduled for a hearing in the near future. Thus, the additional time requested by LRSD should not result in any prejudice to Joshua or undue delay of these proceedings . WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that it be granted leave to file its Reply to Joshua's Response to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on or before August 30, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John c. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial B.ldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD B Bar No. 81083 2 I I , i i .' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following peo~l~ by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this-~- day of August, 1996. 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 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Cistopher Heller 1 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRIG--T---l:JO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ij,O .. LR-C-82-866 AUG 2 1996 ~ : f'0,,,.,., Office of Desegregation Mornionuv PCS SD MOTION TO CLARI,B.Y-.!r,HE--,C..Q~'l'..-~)L 9~~RS OF JUNE 15, 1993 AND JULY 14, 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On June 15, 1993 the Court approved the District's proposed restructuring of its bonded indebtedness and on July 14, 1993, the Court approved the District's plan for its early retirement incentive program. By approving the motions, the Court likewise approved the District's establishment of its desegregation contingency fund designed to help the PCSSD survive the loss of state settlement monies. The stream of payments from the State expired during the 1995-96 school year. In each order, the District Court included language, as requested by the PCSSD, exempting the savings from certain teacher salary requirements under Act 34. Act 34 was declared unconstitutional in the Lake View case and it was replaced with Act 917 of 1995 which contains new and different requirements concerning teacher salaries, including an amendment to the minimum salary law. By this motion, the PCSSD seeks clarification as to whether and to what extent the 1993 orders 1 - should exempt the savings generated by the Court approved plans from the operation of the new Act 917. The savings It is reasonably clear that the savings generated from these two court approved programs are earmarked substantially, it not exclusively, for the District's desegregation activities. It is reasonably clear that the Court did not intend for these savings to be used for increases in teacher salaries and it is reasonably clear that the District told the Court in 1993 that they would not be used to fund increases in teacher salaries. The savings are nonrecurring revenues and the District Court has admonished all three school districts against using nonrecurring revenues to fund recurring expenses. The New Law Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1001 is the minimum base salary law as enacted by the Arkansas Legislature. Section 8 of Act 917 of 1995 amended the statute to require a minimum salary of $20,000 for employees holding a bachelor's degree with no experience and $23,000 for employees holding a master's degree and no experience. The Act further specified minimum salaries for these categories for each year ranging up to employees with 14 years or more experience. Further, the Act specifies minimum increments of $400 annually for teachers with between one and thirteen years of experience. If the PCSSD were to literally comply with these new statutory requirements, it would require an expenditure during 2 - 1996-97 of approximately $1,375,000 in additional funds for an average across the board raise for certified teachers only of 2.84%. The minimum salary law was part of Act 917, the principal feature of which was to provide the new state funding program to replace the system declared as unconstitutional in the Lake View case. Dr. Benny L. Gooden in his paper \"Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion\", dated June, 1996, has observed as regards these provisions that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities.  Unfortunately, there is probably little sound or reasonable basis for the expenditure levels which are contained in the act. Analysis at page 25. When the distribution of revenue earmarked for salaries was not part of the final provisions in the act, an expenditure requirement of the type found in Act 917 was retained. It is clearly inappropriate and will prove problematic if not impossible to evaluate for many school districts. In its present form, the provision is virtually meaningless and certainly bears no relationship to its purported purpose. It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Analysis at page 26. 3 The History On April 1, 1993, the PCSSD filed its motion seeking the court's approval of its early retirement program and a major restructuring of its bonded indebtedness. That motion stated at page 8 that: PCSSD needs to shield the savings in column 4 from the 56% clause in Act 34. It needs to use these savings instead as an additional source of funds to help compensate for the loss of settlement funds. At page 9 of the motion, the PCSSD promised the Court that: The money from the early retirement program and the savings from restructuring of the debt would be placed in a desegregation contingency fund to help PCSSD survive the loss of the settlement monies. on June 28, 1993, the PCSSD submitted a business case to the Court in support of the early retirement program headed: - \"Program Analysis for the Early Retirement Incentive Program\". The opening paragraph of the analysis stated in part that: The Early Retirement Incentive Program is designed to reduce personnel costs to reduce recurring expenditures. In its \"Forcefield Analysis\" section of the Business Case, the PCSSD first noted who the forces would be that would support the plan. In discussing the forces which might oppose the plan, the PCSSD observed to the Court that: Some employees may oppose the plan to the extent that it precludes application of the savings to salary increases. The District Court approved the PCSSD plan to refinance its current bonded indebtedness on June 15, 1993. In that order, the Court found that: \" the savings the PCSSD realizes from 4 - refinancing are exempt from the new revenue requirements of 1983 (Ex. Sess.) Ark. Acts 34; Ark. Code Ann. S 6-20-301, et seq. The District Court approved the early retirement incentive program on July 14, 1993 and likewise exempted the savings to be realized from it from the same statutory provisions. The clear import of this exemption is to restrict the PCSSD's use of those savings and to protect them from the operation of Act 34 which required that 56% of \"new revenues\" be paid out as teacher salaries. Of course, the Arkansas Legislature has replaced Act 34 with Act 917 of 1995. While Act 917 no longer contains the 56% \"new revenue\" provision, it has replaced that with different directives regarding the proportion of State aid that must be paid toward teacher salaries and has further amended the minimum - salary law to impose the new unfunded mandates as described above. Requested Relief To the extent that Act 917 should now be substituted for Act 34 as specified in the June 15, 1995 and July 14, 1995 orders, the PCSSD seeks the Court's clarification as to the effects of Act 917 upon the \"savings\" which the PCSSD has realized and has segregated. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this court amending and/or clarifying the June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993 orders given the passage of Act 917 of 1995. 5 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 --..---7 ,,,---; ( ~ By ~'; 7 . . _,~-'(___ ~ M. Samuel Jones II (76060) Attorney , for Pulaski County s~~~School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August __2-_-- , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons: 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. Stephen w. Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard w. Roachell Roachell and street First Federal Plaza 410 w. Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Sam el )Jones _, I I : __ / 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON Off SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; lCS of Dasegregaticn Monitoring CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; - ~- -- DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; --~.-- ~ ,,.  ~... .,....,. ..,_, ~ FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZARK SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE OF PCSSD TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS 1 INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its response to motion to intervene states: 1. While the PCSSD could assert significant objections to and grounds to defeat the motion to intervene, it has elected to waive them. Accordingly, the PCSSD interposes no objection to the motion to intervene. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court which simultaneously grants the motion to intervene, designates the intervening districts as full-time defendants in this action, and which subjects the intervening defendants as appropriate to the outstanding and future orders of this Court. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ___ ?\"-_,,.----+--------- M. (76060) At ski County Sp col District 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On Au "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1649","title":"Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state","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":["1996-08-02"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state"],"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/1649"],"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":["92 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. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT;  .; :, C-p,/'\\-f ~ : CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; Office of Oesa~regat:on M01111or,n9 DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE - - - -- ~- ---- - ... ,,--~~,._,_J \" SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZARK SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE RESPONSE TO THE ANSWER OF INTERVENOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS I. TO THE SECOND MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE INTRODUCTION As will be more fully explained below, the PCSSD will demonstrate how many features of the new funding system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application when applied to it and therefore violative of the Settlement Agreement. In their response to the PCSSD motion, the Intervenors ask that the U.S. District Court specifically find: \"[T)hat the features of the new funding formula of which the PCSSD is critical are fair and rational, of general applicability, and equitably afford equal oportunities to the students of the respective districts to which the state aid is or will be distributed; ... (Answer, at page 6). The PCSSD interprets the Intervenors request to include a court finding that the new funding scheme comports with the Settlement Agreement as well as with the equity requirements of the Lake View decision. For reasons which the PCSSD will review in some detail, the new funding scheme violates both of these provisions. In his definitive work, \"Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion\" (hereafter \"Analysis\"), Dr. Benny L. Gooden1 has effectively highlighted and explained the shortcomings of the new system of funding public education in 1Dr. Gooden is Superintendent of schools of the Fort Smith School District. His analysis was published in June, 1996 or some several weeks before the filing of the motion to intervene, and is attached as Exhibit A. The Fort Smith School District numbers among the 52 school districts seeking intervention. 2 Arkansas. Dr. Gooden's analysis centers around the State constitutional concepts of adequacy, equity and efficiency, concepts, as the Court will see, that are closely related to and intertwined with the settlement agreement tests of fair, rational, and of general application2  At page 29 of his Analysis, Dr. Gooden explains: In order to determine the actual increase in state aid for public schools, it is necessary to combine all the categories of funding distributed during 1995-96 and to compare this number with the appropriated and distributed amounts for 1996-97. The 1995-96 categories will include not only those funds distributed directly to local school districts but those transferred directly to other agencies on behalf of school districts for functions which will become a local responsibility during 1996-97 .... It is therefore conceivable that the actual difference in distributed state aid will be consumed within added categories as opposed to providing an increase in the state portion of the Base Local Revenue per student which is of benefit to all districts. Thus, in the PCSSD, the increases in formula funding projected by the State, when considered in conjunction with the unfunded mandates the State has imposed upon the PCSSD, cause the PCSSD to come out worse under the new funding scheme than the old when the entire picture is examined. In his summary, Dr. Gooden concludes as regards the new funding scheme that: It is conceivable that when this methodology is followed and new categories are analyzed for items such as debt service buy-out, facilities, student growth, etc., little or no real increase in revenue from state sources will be realized. 2The PCSSD still relies upon the provisions of the Settlement Agreement which obligate the State to continue the funding of certain programs. Certain of Dr. Gooden's factual conclusions are supportive of this proposition as well. 3 In view of the total analysis of school finance and in consideration of the issues of equity, adequacy, and efficiency, it appears that none of these essential components will be achieved through Act 917:  Adequacy appears unlikely in consideration of the declining commitment of state funds to support education with the subsequent loss of comparative school funds relative to neighboring states;  Equity appears unlikely in view of the failure of Act 917 to consider student needs and school district demographics;  Efficiency may be possible through a streamlined process which mathematically distributes funds by reducing categories and standardizing a means of calculating, but any system which requires \"Additional Base Revenue\" supplements to more than 200 districts to reach an arbitrary level can hardly be called \"efficient\". Gooden, at pages 35 and 36. These and other of Dr. Gooden's conclusions will be more fully explored below. Dr. Gooden has advised each school district to make its own analysis to determine just how it is affected under the new regime. The PCSSD has taken the following Gooden advice to heart: Comparisons of actual changes in state aid between 1995-96 and 1996-97 will be somewhat complicated and will require careful analysis on the part of each individual school district. It is clear that when a listing of state aid for each district is published for 1996-97 and a comparison is made to total state aid distributed to local districts during 1995-96, a large increase will be evident. However in order to determine the real difference, it is necessary to compute the payments which become the responsibility of local districts during 1996-97 in areas which were paid directly during 1995-96. Failure to fully describe all funds distributed for use by local schools in combination with school related payments made directly by the state will distort the 4 true picture. It is important for each local district to analyze required payments as outlined in Act 917 and to make a complete summary of categorical revenues received during 1995-96 in order to determine changes in revenue resulting from the implementation of the act. Gooden, at page 35. Act 917 contains provisions which dramatically change the foundation formula concepts which govern state aid and the treatment of revenue and expenditure responsibilities for each school district and for the state as a whole. Each of these conceptual changes has an overall and specific effect on Arkansas school districts, their programs, and their students. (Emphasis supplied.) Gooden, at page 9. II. TEACHER RETIREMENT At the time of the settlement, the State paid 100% of PCSSD's teacher retirement costs. That money was not, and has - never been, part of any kind of formula, never flowed through any formula, and therefore could never have been subject to any changes or revisions in any formula. On the other hand, if in fact the State calculated a sum of money to include in the new formula by utilizing students as compared to actual individual district costs3 , the PCSSD will demonstrate that this change is neither fair, rational nor equitable. Teacher retirement costs are calculated as a percentage function of district salaries. In districts such as the PCSSD which has high employee costs, basing teacher retirement funds on a per student basis cheats the PCSSD. Under this method, the 3Dr. Gooden confirms that the state in fact utilized this approach. See Exhibit A, page 15 (box). 5 PCSSD will receive approximately only 85% of its actual teacher retirement costs for 1995-96 and, in contrast, the Bryant School District, one of the intervenors, will receive approximately 122% reimbursement or a bonus of 22% more than its actual teacher retirement costs. It is important to note that the teacher retirement program has not been eliminated. The only thing that has been eliminated is the State's direct payment of the school districts' costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has already made the finding that the Pulaski County districts are \"employee heavy\" and \"employee expensive\". The comparisons the Intervenors seek to make are thus both irrelevant and, at least in the case of the PCSSD, wrong. The use of certified staff comparisons necessarily fails to take into account that some of the expensive desegregation programs utilized by the PCSSD employ non-certified staff such as the home school counselors. Dr. Gooden has addressed this phenomenon of the change in teacher retirement as well as others. As he states: Some of the major changes in the manner of funding Arkansas schools will require considerable adjustment and will similarly exert a major impact on certain school districts. However, the effects will not be uniform throughout the state as the staffing patterns, demographic makeup of student population, and other factors are considered. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 15. The PCSSD submits that if the effects are not \"uniform\" they cannot be regarded as \"general\" either. 6 In a provision which also substantially affects the PCSSD, Dr. Gooden has identified yet another problem: A significant and unanticipated problem associated with teacher retirement lies in retirement contribution for food service employees, adult education staff, and others who function in programs with a limited revenue source. No appropriation increase was provided for adult education in order to fund the required retirement match which was previously paid by the state nor was a line item appropriation provided for separate contributions. School food service employees participating in the retirement system will result in a 12 percent increased labor expense which should appropriately be borne by consumers of school lunches. In view of the fact that a significant number of school lunches are served free or reduced with no means of increasing income, (federal reimbursement is set at a fixed rate per lunch) it appears unlikely that the increased cost could reasonably be recovered through increased charges for paid lunches. Gooden, at page 15. Further, the conclusion he reaches as regards the Fort Smith School District applies to the PCSSD as well: The projected cost for making payments for the retirement matching on Fort Smith Public School employees during 1996-97 is projected to be $4,736,000. It is reasonable to assume that the pro-rated share of the total amount currently being appropriated statewide for retirement matching divided by ADM will result in proportionally less for Fort Smith than for many other districts. This is due in large measure to the higher salary levels enjoyed by our staff in comparison to their counterparts around Arkansas. Gooden, at page 15. III. SPECIAL EDUCATION The elimination of the weighting system for special education students unfairly penalizes the PCSSD for several reasons. It has proportionately more special education students than the state average and, therefore, appropriately received 7 - proportionately more state aid for their education under the old formula. In addition, the special education program of the PCSSD is superior, and more expensive, than the special education programs in most other districts. The PCSSD provides a more intensive level of physical therapy, a more intensive level of occupational therapy, a more intensive level of speech therapy than the average district and, pays these specialists more than does the average district. Thus, the elimination of the weights does not affect the Pesso \"to the same degree\" as other districts. Dr. Gooden apparently concurs with the position of the PCSSD on this issue. As he explains: Funding for special education has been distributed based upon the sum of pupil weights generated by the various categories of student placement. Students requiring services of high intensity have provided greater weights and subsequently more funding than those whose disabilities require a less intense service level. Beginning in 1996-97, funding to support special education is included in the base equalization amounts distributed on the basis of ADM without regard to the special education population or the level of services required in any individual school district. The great diversity between the composition of a disabled population among various school districts makes this category a great contributor to inequities resulting from provisions of Act 917. Districts with high concentrations of seriously disabled students will be at a distinct disadvantage when compared to districts whose student population does not include such severe disabilities. Gooden, at pages 18 and 19. IV. NEED BASED AID VERSUS HEAD COUNTS Basing State aid almost exclusively on a head count of students ignores reality. Such a system benefits districts that 8 pay low salaries because they will receive more money for teacher retirement than they actually pay. Such a system benefits districts which manage to avoid providing health insurance to large numbers of their employees as they will be paid more than their health insurance costs. Such a program benefits districts which are not desegregating or which otherwise do not transport large numbers of children because they will be paid more than their actual transportation costs. The new system also benefits districts which make little local effort to pass maintenance and operations millages because under the new system the State will come in and \"make up the difference\" to squeeze them within the equity guidelines. The new funding system ignores the high costs of special - education, ignores the high cost of desegregation, ignores the wide disparity among districts in salary requirements and, because of these reasons and others, cannot be regarded as fair and rational even if it is general. As Dr. Gooden explains: The first item requiring a paradigm shift for Arkansas educators lies in the dramatic departure of the school aid formula encompassed by Act 917 from an earlier format. Specifically, the prior formula distributed school aid to school districts in a large number of categories including general Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) based upon the weighted number of students; special education aid determined by the cumulative pupil weights reflecting the intensity of service requirement; transportation aid based upon a formula reflecting routes, students, and density; vocational aid reflecting the sum of pupil weights determined by the assumed relative cost of providing vocational programs; gifted and talented aid determined by the number of students served up to an established limit; and specific categorical aid for alternative programs, 9 summer school, limited English proficient students, and compensatory education. The school aid formula reflected by Act 917 in effect combines all the current aid provisions detailed above into one item of aid-per-student which is calculated based upon the simplest factor: Average Daily Membership (ADM). The concept of varying needs based upon the composition of the student population, the program of instruction provided, the geographic terrain, or other factors is not considered under the new formula. School districts with high wealth and/or high-cost students with regard to special education, limited English proficiency, costly vocational offerings, or extensive transportation systems may be expected to be adversely affected using this methodology. Gooden, at pages 9 and 10. Specifically, attempts to meet the Court-adopted standard of the Federal Range Ratio have led to an exacerbation of prior formula provisions contained in the \"second tier\" equalization funding. By including an additional funding category of \"Additional Base Funding\" supported by a line-item appropriation, the departure from an orderly formula distribution based upon wealth, student needs, and district characteristics has been lost. An additional problem associated with the implementation of this formula characteristic lies in the provision of a disincentive for local districts to increase millage rates when revenue increased through local taxation would be deducted from Additional Base Funding provided to more than 200 Arkansas districts. This unanticipated consequence is a serious defect which can only depress support for Arkansas schools by making it unlikely that many communities will tax themselves in order to supplant state revenue. one subtle yet significant effect of using simple ADM as opposed to Weighted Average Daily Membership (WADM) in order to adequately reflect the student need/service composition of each school district is that this procedure creates an illusion of greater wealth in those districts with extensive special education services and vocational programs. The effect of this phenomenon is not dramatically evident in school districts with only limited special education and vocational services. However, for demographically 10 complex districts with extensive offerings and student needs, there is a significant shift in apparent local wealth. Gooden, at page 10. V. LOSS FUNDING AND DECLINING ENROLLMENT The state's decision to eliminate loss funding from the new funding system came about after the State was ordered by the District Court to recalculate the method by which it paid loss funding to LRSD and PCSSD and to reimburse them for the shortages. As Dr. Gooden has observed: The most adverse effect of this methodology will be experienced by districts losing student population. Whereas the earlier method averaged daily membership for a three-year period to allow a gradual adjustment in funding if enrollment declined, Act 917 provides for no gradual reduction in aid. The effective result will be a loss of an amount equal to the Base Local Revenue Per student immediately when student enrollment declines. School districts in portions of the state losing enrollment may not survive this dramatic loss. Gooden, at page 10. Dr. Gooden concludes at page 37 that the elimination of averaging annual ADM in district's losing enrollment prevents gradual funding reduction and that a solution may be to provide ADM averaging for districts losing enrollment, a matter that should be given priority consideration. Gooden, at page 38. In sharp contrast to the elimination of loss funding is the fact that a form of student growth funding is retained by Act 917. As Dr. Gooden explains: The current formula provides for an adjustment during the current school year when enrollment has increased. Act 917 continues this concept by providing for an adjustment in aid from a categorical set-aside when the student popultion increases above that of the prior 11 year. The amount of of funding equals approximately $3,000 per student. This factor will be beneficial to rapidly growing school districts. Gooden, at page 21. Upon information and belief, the only school districts in Arkansas that are experiencing rapidly growing enrollment are either overwhelmingly white or are all white. On the other hand, and upon further information and belief, a statistically significant number of the districts that are experiencing enrollment decline are majority black or have substantial black populations including the PCSSD. Thus, in combination, the elimination of loss funding coupled with the continuation of growth funding has a racially discriminatory effect and cannot be said to be either fair or rational or of \"general\" application when the disparate impacts are demonstrated. For instance, as previously pointed out, the Bryant School District will receive a bonus of funds in excess of its actual teacher retirement costs. The Intervenors' contend that the PCSSD enrollment decline should result in less state aid because: \"This condition is no different in Pulaski County than throughout Arkansas.\" This ignores the fact that the PCSSD loses students to the Bryant School District. By paying the Bryant School District a bonus while at the same time penalizing the PCSSD, the new funding scheme simply better positions the Bryant School District to continue to attract and host families which move from the PCSSD or which elect to locate initially in the Bryant School District even when they work in Pulaski County. 12 VI. THE NEW FORMULA OVERALL In his introduction, Dr. Gooden posits the following: Should an orderly formula distribution not address the varying needs of Arkansas' school districts; should the means of distributing revenues not be simple and clearly understood by educators and the public; and should the level of combined local and state funds be less than is required to meet the educational needs of Arkansas students, the formula must be found inadequate and less than acceptable. Gooden, at page 7. Dr. Gooden has also found that: Although Act 917 includes references to \"Student Classroom Teacher Funding, Student Unit Funding, and student Needs Funding,\" the subtle wording effectively precludes the allocation of any state aid for these categories in the foreseeable future. The threshold of equity funding (Student Equalization Funding) which must be achieved is so high as to make it doubtful that any of these categories will be funded in our lifetimes. They were obviously added to the formula to confuse and/or calm those who were attempting to understand its provisions. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 11. Another feature of the new funding scheme which negatively impacts the PCSSD is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: While Act 917 provides assistance in the payment of bonded indebtedness to districts by utilizing a wealth index and provides for a line item appropriation for this purpose, the act also allows millage rates dedicated to the retirement of debt to be calculated in such a way as to reduce the minimum required level of local support below the stated 25 mill minimum. This formula provision excludes from consideration that portion of the school millage required to make annual payments on bonded debt after applying state debt service supplement payments. This characteristic creates an illusion of less wealth for those districts who have chosen to incur significant bonded debt and have dedicated major portions of local millage for these purposes. 13 This status is in sharp contrast to those districts whose voters chose to dedicate a portion of total millage for capital outlay purposes. Act 917 attempts to categorize capital outlay millage along with maintenance and operation millage and attempts to treat revenues produced as equals. This is a clear misrepresentation of facility funding plans adopted by local voters consistent with applicable statutes authorizing capital outlay taxes. Capital outlay millages approved prior to 1995 are restricted by statute for certain purposes and are not the equivalent of maintenance and operation revenues. Gooden, at page 12. Increases in the charged local millage under the old system were to the benefit, not the detriment, of the PCSSD. VII. COMPENSATORY EDUCATION/SUMMER SCHOOL The PCSSD is also adversely impacted in these areas as explairied by Dr. Gooden: Funding for compensatory education/summer school programs for 1996/97 and thereafter is included in the state equalization funding, distributed on the basis of ADM to all school districts. This is a departure from the previous method of distributing funds which considered the at-risk student needs reflected by the Title I formula as well as student achievement in basic skills. Gooden, at page 16. The Settlement Agreement provides that the ADE shall monitor the districts' implementation of compensatory education programs. The Settlement Agreement further provides at page 13 that: If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the Court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). The State has not sought the permission of the District Court to reduce the level of compensatory education funding previously paid to the PCSSD, which reduction is prohibited by 14 the Agreement in any event. Rather, as part of the changes it has enacted, it has simply included these funds as part of the ADM driven formula and will disburse certain funds to the PCSSD without regard to its needs. This will result in a reduction in the amount of money the PCSSD receives for compensatory education for which the State has neither sought nor obtained Court approval. VIII. VOCATIONAL AID Vocational education is a component of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The impact of the new system is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: Funding to support vocational programs in 1996-97 must be derived from state and local funds realized by school districts as Base Equalization Revenues. Unlike student-enrollment-based funding in the past, districts will receive the same amount of funding regardless of the number of vocational courses offered or the number of students enrolled in them. The previous system of providing state foundation funds relative to the weighted-pupil factors determined by the various vocational courses was repealed by Act 917. Gooden, at page 17. IX. MINIMUM SALARY LAW The new minimum salary requirements substantially interfere with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and the state provides no funds to fulfill this unfunded mandate. Dr. Gooden has observed that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities. Gooden, at page 25. 15 It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Gooden, at page 26. x. CONCLUSION Dr. Gooden has concluded that: The true measure of effectiveness in this funding formula revision will lie in analyzing the degree to which the tests of adequacy, equity, and efficiency are met. If all of these characteristics are not satisfied, the formula revisions contained in Act 917 are little more than an exercise in futility. Gooden, at page 7. The dramatic conceptual changes in the method of financing public education in Arkansas were enacted in haste and apparently without careful consideration of the three imperatives of educational finance: Adequacy, Equity, and Efficiency Act 917 of 1995 represents an exercise in cost-shifting and moves from a funding scheme based on needs to one which attempts to consider certain aspects of wealth without a balancing need--driven resource component. Gooden, at page 37. The cost shifting components of the new system violate the Settlement Agreement because these are programs for which the State provided funding in the past and for which the Intervenors acknowledge the State will provide no funding in the future. The State is obligated under the Settlement Agreement to provide funding to the PCSSD for these programs. The underlying basis of State aid, which simply distributes pro-rata based on numbers of 16 students, is not fair and rational, especially when applied to the PCSSD, because it ignores the substantially higher costs of the PCSSD in areas such as teacher retirement costs, special education, vocational education, and desegregation related expenditures. The defects identified in the new system as identified by Dr. Gooden are the reasons why the formula as a whole cannot satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should declare that the new State funding formula violates those provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require the State to continue funding the PCSSD for the programs described herein, that the changes wrought by the new system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application, that, at a minimum, the PCSSD programs should be funded at the percentage levels of the highest funded programs in other school districts in the state under the new system, for its costs and attorneys' fees and all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ .....,..'---',,---F\"\"'-'\"\"--------- M. I (76060) At laski County S ecial Sc oo District 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. 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 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 18 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 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 AR NSAS School Fun~ing _Plan __ ;;:~ .. ~ ... \":1..: 2.1 . :. ... l  l I I  EXHIBIT 4 Arkansas School Funding Plan An Analysis and Opinion by Benny L Gooden, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools June 1996 1 tForl ~mith Public Schools \"Iii\\-_~,~, ~~~~~~F~ort~S~mith~,A~rka~nsas~ _  V V .J Foreword Dramatic chl111ges in Arkansas school finance resulting from the passage of Act 917 of 1995 have gencr:ued considerable discussion regarding the overall concept of the acL its impact upon school districts of all sizes, and its potential to solve or cx.accrbatc the financial challenges facing Arkansas educators. In an anempt to analyu: the plethora of components contained in the act and in the incerest of identifying potential problems and possible solutions, I have prepared this opinion paper regarding Act 917 and its impact upon Arkansas sdlools. While the :ictual effecu arc different for each of Arkansas' schools distticts, I have utilized data for the Fon Smith Public Schools to illusauc the immedia1e impact of Act 917 provisions. ll is imponant to note uw the impact upon an urban school district With a significant industrial w: base will be dramatically differcru than the impact upon rural school disuicL~ with an a~cullur~l or eitc::iusively residential taX base. I..ikcwise. the student demographics and district financial mucturc will affect tllc ultim:ite outcome. ~b school district must thoroughly analyze its own !iituation utilizing and interpreting the financial data provided by the Ark.in.sas Department of Education as well as other local daia. This position paper is intended only for infonnation purposes and will hopefully provoke discussion lo encourage improvements to the financing of schools in Arkansas for the benefit of :ill students. Benny L. Gooden I. II. Conceptual Chaages ,-------------------9 Need-Based vs. Equal Aid Equity Comp~ ADMvs. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1650","title":"Court Filings: District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors opposing the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction","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":["1996-08-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors opposing the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction"],"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/1650"],"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":["71 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 .., 0 1 'C06  \\J - ' - .- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~t:~S 1,: '..:~CC F.HP..C!\\. CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS p 11. WESTERN DIVISION ~, ------;:c;,\"E'':?:''orcTi:_'~;: :.:::..:7\u003c: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-~-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. . I~ i YO f ;-,,., Olt1ce of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS  .... . ~ ---~---- ....~ ~\"'l' .. - i -~.. . -. ~-~ .... ..,,~ ....... ~  Memorandum of the Joshua Intervenors Oppos.thg the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction A. Introduction The LRSD seeks an order \"which withdraws federal court jurisdiction of this case and dismisses this case with prejudice.\" Motion, 5\\17\\96, at 2. This motion rests on a series of baseless assertions and otherwise unsound premises. It should, therefore, be denied. More specifically, LRSD first contends that the district agreed to implement the provisions of the settlements for only six years, absent a demonstration by the Joshua Intervenors of a failure of the system to comply with a term (or terms) of the settlement agreements. Motion, at 1; Memorandum, 5\\17\\96, at 1, 9, 16-17. Then, reasoning that \"[t]he Tri-District Plan was essentially the (settlement] Plans modified to address the constitutional infirmities identified by (Judge Woods], and that 1 constitutional infirmities identified by (Judge Woods], and that - \"LRSD implemented the Tri-District Plan during the 1990-91 school year,\" LRSD further contends that this six year period ended at the end of the 1995-96 school year. Motion, at 1; Mem., at 10-12. Lastly, LRSD argues that it has \"substantially (complied]\" with the settlement provisions. This assertion is based on what is termed an \"exhaustive audit of LRSD's desegregation obligations\" and a discussion of particular areas such as student enrollment and racial disparities in achievement. Motion, at 1; Mem., at 12- 13, 17-32. This memorandum addresses these and other premises of the LRSD submission. B. The Assertions About A Six-Year Plan The district asserts at page 9 of its memorandum that \"(u]nder the terms of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD agreed to implement the plans for six years. 111 The problem with this assertion is shown by the fact that there is no citation to any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Nor is there a citation in the memorandum, at any point, to a provision of any of the settlement documents limiting implementation to six years (absent noncompliance) . 2 1 LRSD refers to the \"Settlement Agreement\" of March 1989, as revised on September 28, 1989. See Mem., at 9. 2 The Settlement Agreement includes payment schedules and related criteria, applicable to LRSD, and covering various periods of time with various termination dates. These are (i) 1989-90 through 1998-99 (to LRSD) (at 15); (ii) 1990-91 through 1995-96 (to LRSD) (at 16); (iii) December 31, 2000 (period through which LRSD may show that composite test scores of bl_ack 2 I J LRSD asserts that at the hearing on May 13, 1996, this court - \"acknowledged that the Plans were to be implemented for a period of six years.\" Mem., at 14. This assertion, as shown by the transcript, is erroneous. Indeed, the court, after alluding to provisions referencing six years, welcomed motions to perfect the decree. 3 -  To be sure, the \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" contains the following provision: \"There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years ... (at 3).\" However, this language appears in a paragraph titled \"III. Incentive Schools\" -- one of 19 separately numbered paragraphs, in an \"Overview,\" each paragraph having a separate title. Id., at 2-6. In brief, the six-year provision refers to the incentive schools; it is not set forth as a general limitation on the duration of the entire plan. Moreover, intervenors' argument is consistent with the treatment of the six-year period by the Court of Appeals in its 1990 opinion considering the overall settlement. With respect to the LRSD plan, the court alludes to what it terms \"the initial six-year period\" only with reference pupils are 90 percent or more of scores of white pupils) (at 17). 3 See Tr., 5\\13\\96, at 6-7 (\" .... The reason for this hearing is that we are now in the sixth year, depending on how you count it, of the settlement of this case. And there are several places in the Consent Decree that mentions six years, although there is nothing in the decree that says that after six years the Court shall review the settlement and its effectiveness. But I have chosen to do this. [) I've invited the parties to ask the Court to modify the decree in areas in which . the parties believe it's not working or cannot work .... \") 3 I  to the incentive schools. 4 Lastly, the court states with regard - to the case generally: \"This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision -- monitoring, at least -- for a long time\" (emphasis added). Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at at 1383. LRSD's reliance on United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1987) is unavailing. See Mem., at 14-15. There, as the opinion shows, the parties dealt explicitly with the duration of the overall decree, first by specifying a three-year period, absent objection, and then, in resolving objections, by specifying a set date, or, alternatively, the date of the completion of a construction project. Id., at 1173-74. Overton is thus distinguishable by reason of the differences in the terms of the settlement. The Court of Appeals' characterization in Overton of the alternative formulation as one which \"left the decree open until certain other conditions were met, which were\" (834 F.2d at 1174) is relevant here. This, we submit, parallels the situation in this case. The agreements deal with certain subject matter areas, such as student enrollment and disparitities in achievement; they set forth goals of the remedial process, such as targets for the racial make-up of various categories of schools and \"the 4 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). 4 elimination of educational achievement disparities between black - and white students\"5 -- the \"certain conditions\" in Overton terms; and they describe manifold actions to be taken to achieve the goals. The focus here with regard to termination of jurisdiction is not on a particular date; it is on the adequate implementation of the agreed upon actions to attain the goals, including any revisions adopted by the court, 6 and the attainment of the goals (the \"certain conditions\") to the maximum extent practicable. 7 c. LRSD Has the Burden of Establishing Compliance with the Settlement Terms Turning to standards external to the settlements, LRSD contends that in the context of determining the duration of court 5 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 4. 6 See Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394 n. 8 and Order, July, 10, 1992 (adopting ODM recommendations). 7 The follow portion of the \"Introduction\" set forth in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (at 1) is relevant: \"The goals of school desegregation planning must be clearly focused and well understood. It is insufficient to establish as a single goal the physical movement of bodies and the rearrangement of boundary lines. An educational environment which encourages and provides academic and human growth for all students based upon their individual needs and talents must also be a goal of any adequate desegregation paln. (] The parties hereto seek to ensure that the schools and learning experiences throughout the school system are organized so that school practices, policies and procedures prevent unfair treatment or denial of opportunity for any child because of his or her racial, economic status or cultural identification. (] Immediately following this introduction, the parties have included an overview which sets forth the basic tenets and bases of compromise they consider essential to an interdistrict desegregation plan .... \"[The aforementioned \"Overview\" addressing 19 topics follows the Introduction.] 5 I  jurisdiction, the Joshua Intervenors have the burden of - establishing noncompliance with the settlement agreements. Mem., at 16-17. The district's reliance on Hazen v. Reagan, 16 F.3d 921, 925 (8th cir.1994) is unavailing. That case, and the earlier Eighth Circuit case on which it relies, address a special situation;~, a party seeks an adjudication that its adversary's performance is so deficient that it constitutes civil contempt. A far more appropriate approach to fill the void left by a gap in the agreements, and one consistent with the overall approach of the LRSD submission, 8 is to rely upon the standards normally applicable when this particular issue regarding burden arises in school desegregation litigation. This approach also finds support in the fact that the Court of Appeals described this court's responsibilities and authority in monitoring the agreements in traditional, and even expansive, terms.~, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1394 paras. 4, 8 (\"and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require\"), 9. The general rule is that a school district has the burden of establishing the predicate for the termination of court jurisdiction in one or more areas of the case. Freeman v. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 137 (1992);9 see also United States v. Fordice, 8 See Mem., at 17-32 (citing many federal court decisions addressing the duration of decrees in desegregation cases). 9 \"The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.\" 6 I ,i ... 120 L.Ed.2d 575, 599 (1992) (higher education) . 10 More generally, - assignment of this burden to LRSD is consistent with the standards for allocation of the burden of proof set forth by the Supreme Court in Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 208-10 (1973). In Keyes, a school desegregation case in which segregation had not been required or permitted by state law, the Court identified instances in which Denver school authorities had the burden of proof. For example, proof of intentionally segregative actions in a substantial part of the system was held to establish a prima facie case that actions having a segregative effect in other parts of the system were also motivated by race. See 413 U.S. at 208-09. 11 The Court explained the basis for this rule as follows: \"This burden-shifting principle is not new or novel. There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, 'is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence S 2486, at 275 (3d Ed 1940).\" See 413 U.S. at 209. The court then cited a variety of situations in which considerations of \"policy and 10  \"Brown and its progeny, however, established that the burden of proof falls on the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300 .... \" 11 \"In that circumstance, it is both fair and reasonable to require that the school authorities bear the burden of showing that their actions as to other segregated schools within the system were not also motivated by segregative intent.\" See 413 U.S. at 209. 7 I ' J fairness\" had been held to support a requirement that school - authorities explain actions or conditions. See 413 U.S. at 209- 10. Two considerations of \"policy and fairness\" warrant allocating to LRSD the burden of showing the requisite compliance with the terms of the settlement before the termination of the court's jurisdiction in one or more areas. First, the school district obviously has superior access to data and greater resources in terms of personnel. Second, both this court and ODM, the monitoring body which the Court of Appeals directed the court to establish, have repeatedly documented poor compliance by LRSD with the terms of the court-approved settlement. The court summarized its view in its Memorandum and Order of March 11, 1996. 12 See also Joshua's Enclosure One to this memorandum (containing the court's statement of March 1993, as well as other statements by the court regarding LRSD's poor compliance). ODM's documentation of ongoing poor compliance regarding the incentive schools -- where the Court of Appeals stressed the need for scrupulous compliance (921 F.2d at 1386) -- was recently summarized in the \"Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief 12 \"The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreement (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time.\" At 8-9. 8 /  Concerning the Incentive Schools\" (May 31, 1996), at paras. 2- 4  13 In conclusion, LRSD should be required to demonstrate, in a meaningful manner, compliance with the court-approved settlement terms. D. LRSD Has Not Established that It Implemented the Settlement in 1990-91 LRSD's contention, tied to its \"six years argument,\" that it should be credited with implementing the settlement in 1990-91, should be rejected. 14 In the first place, the Court of Appeals did not direct approval of the settlement \"[i]n general\" and \"also make certain other directions for the future of the case\" (921 F.2d at 1376) until December 12, 1990, several months into the 1990-91 school year. Joshua Intervenors should be held to be - entitled to a period of implementation during which all of the officials and agents of the LRSD were aware that the settlements had been approved by the courts. More significantly, LRSD relies basically on simply asserting that it implemented the Tri-District Plan in 1990-91. Mem., at 11-12. LRSD does note that the earlier plan included \"six Incentive -Schools\" (Mem. at 11), and suggests, implicitly, that its \"implementation\" of the Plan included this feature. 13 The motion also relied on the Joshua Intervenors' own monitoring reports which were provided, upon their completion, to LRSD officials. 14 Given our contention that the \"six years argument\" is baseless, this section of our memorandum sets forth an alternative position. 9 I  . ... However, Judge Henry Woods noted in an order of December 11, 1989 that LRSD's noncompliance regarding \"virtually every educational component\" which would justify the existence of all-black schools touched the \"approved portions of (its] own plan for the proposed 'incentive Schools.' ... \" (at 16, footnote omitted); and, as we have shown, ODM and the Joshua intervenors thereafter documented ongoing deficient compliance regarding the incentive schools. Surely such a skimpy showing would not support loping a year from the six year period -- even if this period had the significance asserted by LRSD. E. LRSD Has Not Established the Requisite Implementation of the Court-Approved Settlement LRSD contends that its internal audit and the analysis which it sets forth in its memorandum regarding particular areas of its operation demonstrate that it has substantially and in good faith complied with its desegregation obligations. These assertions are groundless. Preliminarily, Joshua Intervenors reiterate their reliance upon the statements by the court rearding the case generally, and ODM and Joshua findings regarding the incentive schools, one pivotal element of the approved settlement. Moreover, Joshua intervenor's \"Motion ... for the Implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" (July 2, 1996) (at para. 7) identified scores of ODM recommendations predicated upon findings of LRSD's inadequate compliance in many areas. 10 / .I . ... (1.) The LRSD Audit The LRSD audit15 is unpersuasive for many reasons. First. The audit relies heavily on \"Primary Leaders\" identifying the status of the implementation of obligations within their respective domains. At 6. It is only common sense that too many negative answers would jeopardize a leader's tenure in his\\her position. Second. The audit relies on making a dot with a pencil on an \"obligations scan sheet\" (at 6) -- a technique not suitable for addressing more complex obligations, or obligations affecting multiple schools. Third. The description of the asserted steps to move beyond the \"scan sheets\" (at 11) is far too sketchy to permit an assessment of its reliability. Were the \"committees\" composed of \"primary leaders\" called upon to scratch each others' backs -- so to speak? There are no more detailed descriptions of how this process worked regarding some significant obligations, showing how much time was taken, by whom, what evidence was reviewed, etc. Fourth. The audit does not deal in depth with significant areas of the case by advancing evaluations conducted in a professionally sound manner, or affidavits. These areas could have been identified by reference to Court of Appeals' 15 See \"Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations,\" May a, 1996, Exhibit 4 to the memorandum. 11 I J  opinions, 16 ODM reports pointing out compliance problems in - particular areas, or the court's statement about poor compliance in March 1993. How can the audit be viewed as significant, if it does not reflect the LRSD's coming to grips with the many findings of noncompliance by the court's monitoring body, and attempting to document a basis for favoring LRSD's conclusions. Fifth. The audit does not discuss comprehensively the \"Not Begun\" category (at 14), to explain, for example, how its existence is consistent with the request that the court's jurisdiction be terminated in its entirety. Motion, at 2. In the end it must be said that the audit provides little to help decide in a reliable manner whether LRSD representatives \"scrupulously and dilgently carry out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement (as relevant to LRSD) .... 11 Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394. (2.) The Particular Areas of the System's Operation The district elects to discusss for many pages \"how LRSD compares to school districts [which) have already achieved unitary status or to the nation as a whole.\" Mem., at 17. There are at least two problems with this approach. LRSD is silent about the extent to which any of these systems were by court order or voluntary agreement subject to the full panoply of provisions to which the LRSD is subject. Secondly, LRSD cites a sentence from Freeman v. Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 124, 16 See Little Rock School District, 921 F.2d at 1386 (programs in the incentive schools); Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991} (seven areas). 12 I j . .... regarding \"a critical beginning point .... \" Mem., at 17. However, - LRSD should also have cited the preceding sentence, which reads as follows: \"Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of ITS facts. Green. supra, 391 U.S. at 439 .... \" Freeman, supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 124 (emphasis added). The point is that in assessing whether a system has \"eliminated [the vestiges of past discrimination) to the extent practicable\", 17 the focus is on what is practicable in view of the facts in that school district. Under the standards which Little Rock cites, the system is not entitled to be excused on the issue of student enrollment because fewer of its schools are outside the applicable guidelines for measuring compliance than was the case in Savannah, Georgia if it is feasible in Little Rock to achieve compliance as to all (or additional) schools, or meaningful implementation of plan provisions designed to achieve compliance has not been attempted. (a.) Student Assignments LRSD devotes seven pages to this topic without identifying the schools in the district which are outside the applicable guidelines, or discussing other opportunities to enhance desegregation. Mem., at 17-24. It does not identify any plan provisions applicable to such schools or discusss the degree of their implementation. In short, LRSD does not show that it has achieved as much as can practicably be achieved. 17 Freeman v. Pitts, supra, 118 L.E.2d at 139, quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.Dowell, 498 u.s. 237, 249-50 (1991). I j I 13 LRSD notes that it \"has successfully recruited white - students and desegregated Rockefeller Incentive School.\" Mem., at 24. It ignores, however, the fact that the exhibit cited with reference to Rockefeller (Exhibit 5), shows that the other four incentive schools had the following proportions of black students in 1995-96: Franklin (93%), Garland (92%), Mitchell (97%), Rightsell (96%). Our motion of May 31, 1996 concerning the incentive schools supported, by reference to deficiencies in implementation documented by ODM, the view that this segregation was \"an entirely predictable result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and the nature of the deficiencies \" See Joshua motion, at paras. (3.), (4.) (a.) through (f.), (o.). The district does not discuss whether efforts have been made to promote desegregative transfers from the area elementary schools with the highest proportions of black students to the area schools with the highest proportions of white pupils. Given the current state of implementation of provisions regarding the incentive schools, an area where the Court of Appeals noted expressly the need for strict compliance with the agreements, LRSD is not entitled to entry of the order sought regarding student enrollment, whatever the number of indices it cites. (b.) Faculty and Staff As with other areas, the district's presentation does not confront ODM's findings regarding racial make-up and other staffing issues in LRSD. This is not consistent with the model 14 I .I for monitoring identified by the Court of Appeals in 1990. In its report of September 15, 1995 addressing the issue of the composition of teaching staffs at the elementarylevel in the three systems , ODM's recommendations included the following provision (at 11): 4. The districts should examine the distribution of black and white teachers in each grade level category in order to improve student access to classroom teachers of both races. As we have noted in this report, staff racial balance is not simply a matter of the total number of black certified employees in a building. The idea of racial balance must also encompass the distribution of those individuals within that building. The staffing of classrooms at each grade level category should reflect a conscious effort to furnish students with the greatest possible probability of experiencing teachers of both races throughout their school years. This recommendation rested, in turn, on ODM findings that there were (at 10): few black teachers at the early childhood level in all three districts. The distribution of black teachers across grade levels at some individual schools caused concern. Some schools lacked a significant number of black teachers to provide most students opportunities to have them as classroom teachers. While other schools had a larger number of black teachers, most were usually concentrated at the intermediate level. This pattern of racial representation can preclude large numbers of students from access to a black classroom teacher for a number of years. Regarding LRSD, ODM noted that the teaching corps included the following proportions of black faculty by level in 1994-95: early childhood (27%), primary (33%), and intermediate (44%). At 31. ODM also raised issues regarding particular Little Rock 15 I  schools. 18 The ODM report of May 10, 1996 detailed serious problems of staff turnover, both faculty and principals, at the incentive schools, a focal point of both the remedies and the courts. See ODM report, at 6-10. For example, of the 87 classroom teachers at the schools in 1995-96, 27 (31%) were new to these schools, although only five new classes had been added. At 6. ODM also questioned the assigning of five first-time principals to the incentive schools since 1990-91. At 9-10. ODM noted that the level of instability identified can not be squared with the governing standards. At 6. 19 Again, LRSD is silent on these issues raised by ODM. Also, 18 For example: Badgett (sharp disparity in the make-up of the staff at the different levels); Baseline (sharp disparity in the make-up of the staff at the primary and intermediate levels); Carver (same); Chicot (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years); Forest Park (same); Franklin (early childhood and primary levels are heavily white, and intermediate level identifiably black; \"staff remains predominantly white\"); Jefferson (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years); McDermott (\"staff remained predominantly white\"); Meadowcliff (no black teacher at the early childhood level for three years; black teachers concentrated at the intermediate level; \"staff remains predominantly white\"); Pulaski Heights (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years; sharp disparity in composition of teachers at the three levels); Rightsell (\"the staff has remained predominantly black\"); Rockefeller (decreasing number of black teachers over three year period; only 3 of 27 teachers were black persons in 1994-95); Terry (\"staff remained predominantly white\"); and Watson (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years; \"staff has remained predominantly white\"). 19 See also Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580, 598 (1st Cir. 1974), cert den., 421 U.S. 963 (1975) (noting \"a rate of faculty turnover at predominantly black schools far higher than than that at white schools\" contributing to a denial of equal educational opportunity). 16 I  while LRSD touts its inclusion of black persons in the governance of the system, It does not address the fact that seven of the eight elementary schools west of University Avenue have white principals. 20 We respectfully submit that it is these matters, and not the situation in Dallas, etc., which LRSD must address in this context. (c.) Racial Differences in Student Achievement The LRSD made an unambiguous commitment -- in 1989 and at later times, not 1954 (compare Mem., at 27) -- to eliminate the \"achievement disparity between black and white students on normreferenced and criterion-referenced tests. 1121 The superficial presentation made by LRSD on this \"crucial\" aspect of the settlement22 does not approach the showing required to warrant the termination of the court's jurisdiction. See Mem., at 27- - 29. 23 20 These schools are Fulbright, Jefferson, McDermott, otter Creek, Romine, Terry, and Williams. Brady does have an African American principal. Addressing such patterns is an important part of the task of eliminating forever the notion of a \"disfavored race.\" Freeman. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 131. 21 See LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, at 1., para. B.; Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, at 4 (Part XII). 22 See Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d at 256 (Court of Appeals identifies \"the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\" as one of the \"crucial\" elements of the settlement as to which \"no retreat should be approved\").; Order, May 1, 1992, at 6 (\"However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive and unsupported in light of two of the primary goals of the case, i.e., racial integration and student achievement.\") 23 Assuming arguendo that there is room for lower courts to take a different view on the impact of desegregation than Brown, 17 I J Consider a hypothetical school district seeking the - termination of court jurisdiction over the issue of student enrollment despite the fact that it has not achieved the goals of its plan, and in the face of monitoring reports showing that it has neither complied with provisions of its plan, nor exhausted the posibility of modifications to better attain its objectives. It is obvious that this district's actions would not warrant a holding either that it had achieved maximum practicable desegregation, 24 or substantially complied with governing standards. LRSD's position on this issue is no better. The following are among the many factors\\reasons further showing that LRSD's effort to end jurisdiction on this point must fail. First. The district's presentation is entirely devoid of a proposition which we doubt, particularly in this case, this record does not support the broad contentions advanced by LRSD. First. Doctors Walberg and Armor acknowledged that 52 social scientists had joined a statement filed with the Supreme Court, taking a more positive position, than the one taken by them, on the impact of degregation on achievement. See Tr. , , May 13, May 15, 1996. Second. Dr. Walberg agreed that he has~times expressed his view of the impact of desegregation on achievement as follows: sometimes it helps, and sometimes it hurts, and sometimes it doesn't do anything. Tr. , May 13, 1996. He has not studied whether these differences are due to differences in the quality of the implementation in the different instances. Id. Third. Dr. Orfield testified that Dr. Walberg has done no original research on the impact of desegregation, and that Dr. Armor has done little such research. Tr. , May 30, 1996. Dr. Orfield also testified about scholars who take a positive position regarding the impact of desegregation, including with regard to its role in providing a path into the mainstream of society. Id. 24 See Swann v. Charlotte Meklenburg Board of Educ., 402 u.s. 1, 26 (1971); Davis v. Board of School commissioners of Mobile County. 402 U.S. 33, 37 (1971). 18 I J  facts, except for Exhibit 12, which is not cited in the - memorandum, and undermines one of the system's principal arguments. See discussion, infra. There is, for example, no data on racial disparities in achievement in 1990-91 and 1995-96, allowing some conclusion as to the relative size of the gap \"then and now.\" There is no indication of any effort to determine whether some schools show greater progress in addressing the gap; or whether any such schools have been studied in depth to identify positive elements of their programs which could be replicated in other schools. There is no discussion of any effort to determine the impact of participation in early childhood programs. There is no evidence of any study to identify the specific areas of knowledge and skills which lead to the gap and the causes of these differences. There is no evidence of any effort to organize regular classroom instruction; extended day, week and year programs; or tutoring efforts to address the specifics of the achievement gap. There is no indication of any effort to comply with the promise regarding criterion referenced assessment. 25 25 Such an effort could include: identification of a body of knowlege and skills which this district desires that all students master, an effort to insure that all students are exposed to instruction allowing them the opportunity to master this material, and assessment, of various forms, determining students' mastery of this material. This differs from norm-referenced testing where a student's score is compared to the scores of the sample of students from throughout the country who were tested during the process of standardizing a test used throughout the nation. See also the testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield, Tr. , May 30, 1996 (need for broader forms of assessment; need for-longitudinal data following students over a period of years)~ 19 I  Second. In its Order of May 1, 1992 addressing the parties' - proposed amendments to the initial versions of the settlement, this court repeatedly considered the potential impact of actions with regard to improvement in the relative performances of black youth and reduction in the achievement gap. Order, at 10, 15, 16, 21-22, 23, 24, 30. The district ignores entirely this obvious starting point. Third. In Freeman. supra, cited by LRSD, the Supreme Court noted the f "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_601","title":"Program planning and budgeting process","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Program planning and budgeting process"],"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/601"],"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\nAUG 3 0 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Office of Desegregation I I PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS H August 1996 M H ^5 Little Rock School District PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING August 1996 to General Concept A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process (Process) improves the Districts ability to allocate its revenue rationally and, therefore, have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the District. Linking program objectives and program expenditures assures that money is being spent appropriately. This document serves as an explanation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) program planning and budgeting process. During the Process, the following will occur: q 1. The needs of the District, particularly legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans, will be determined. 2. Goals and objectives will be defined. 3. Programs to achieve those objectives, particularly those required by the desegregation plans, will be defined. 4. Performance standards and expenditures will be established and measured. q 5. Information for corrective decision-making will be prepared. q Organizational Structure for Planning and Budgeting Process q q q q q q q I. II. Key Players - The Superintendent leads the Process with direct support from the Cabinet. The Board is the ultimate decision-maker for the Process. Description - The Process is led by the Superintendent with direct support from the Superintendents Cabinet. The Process is coordinated by the Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) and the Manager for Support Services, who both serve on the Superintendents Cabinet. A. B. c. A Management Tool (described later in this document) serves as a Planning Budget Calendar. The Calendar allows the Board to continuously monitor progress of the Process. The Director of PRE is the lead planning person. He/she ensures that the planning process is conducted according to established time frames, provides technical assistance, coordinates the planning process, collects appropriate reports, coordinates the preparation of related documents, and advises the Superintendent and Board on the Process. In addition, the lead planning person is responsible for ensuring that all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the Process. The Director of PRE is to be assisted by a Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialist whose major responsibility is District wide planning. III. Outcome - An organizational chart that displays the current lines of authority and responsibility is attached (see Attachment 1). The primary planning and budget qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 2 IV. development tasks are finalized and included on a Project Management Tool by July (for the July Court submission). Time frame - The organizational chart is reviewed/revised by August to ensure that the configuration is the most effective and efficient arrangement. Necessary revisions and adjustments are made as needed. 4 Program Inventory Prior to the Needs Assessment period, which starts in September for the next budget year, the Program Inventory process begins in July\ncurrent desegregation and non-desegregation programs are identified. I. HI II. III. IV. Key Players - The Superintendent provides overall direction, and the Board reviews the findings. The lead planning person coordinates the collection of basic data and prepares the data into appropriate documents for use in goal setting and program modification and/or development. The Cabinet and staff collect the necessary data. Description - The list of current programs and services is revised if necessary. New programs and services are identified and merged with the Program Budget Document as necessary. Likewise, programs that are no longer in place or that have met legal obligations are removed from the Program Budget Document. The desegregation plan and court orders are reviewed to ensure all obligations related to compliance are operative. Primary and secondary responsible persons are identified for each program or service. Outcome - A Program Inventory Report is generated and used during the goals and objectives development process\nthe program addition, modification, and deletion-process\nand the budgeting process. Time frame - The Program Inventory process begins in July. A list of all desegregation and non-desegregation programs is compiled by August. The Program Inventory may be revised as needed. q q q q q q Program Evaluation Program evaluation provides an assessment of performance for decision-making purposes. q I. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent with assistance from the Cabinet, as recipients of the extended evaluations, use the information from the evaluation of programs q to guide programmatic direction and resource allocation. The lead planning person q II. q coordinates the program evaluation process. The Manager for Support Services provides assistance with supporting financial information. The Cabinet and staff prepare all reporting documents falling within their areas of responsibility. Description - Each program is evaluated through the Districts regular program evaluation component. As programs are developed and implemented, they contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Special evaluations may be directed by the Superintendent. q Programs may also be identified for fast-track evaluation on an as needed basis if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the District. qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 3 III. IV. Outcome - Program evaluation information enables the District to make programmatic decisions in the areas of program modifications, additions, and deletions and resource allocation, which are the result of careful planning and thoughtful analysis. Time frame - The program evaluation period for each budget year begins in July and continues through mid-November, leading up to the point of program development (i.e.. Business Cases). Program evaluations are conducted on programs that were operating during the most recently completed school year. Needs Assessment q The needs assessment is a process for comparing the current situation with the desired conditions. I. I Key Players - The Superintendent provides leadership and direction for the Needs Assessment process. The lead planning person coordinates the process. The Superintendent and the Cabinet identify the needs. directina the staff in the collection of assessment information. The Superintendents Cabinet is responsible for II. I Description - Utilizing a combination of district wide perceptual and objective instruments, data are collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Perceptual information is collected through broad-based input sessions such as Town Hall meetings and District Dialogue sessions. A. B. I c. q q q q At least three Town Hall meetings are conducted. One town hall meeting each for area schools, magnet schools, and incentive schools are scheduled. Every effort is made to locate strategically the sessions to encourage maximum participation. Additional Town Hall meetings may be scheduled if needed. One District Dialogue is conducted with principals, teachers, classified staff, and central office administrators. Additional District Dialogues may be scheduled if needed. An administrative work session is conducted to review and analyze various District wide reports and objective data. The following kinds of data are reviewed: 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. Stanford Achievement Test Results Planning, Research, and Evaluation Monitoring Reports Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Court Orders Audit School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results District wide Facilities Study/Report Proportional Allocation Formulas Study Program Inventoiy q q J lLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 4 D. A comparison between identified needs and the Program Inventory is conducted to determine whether or not programmatic gaps and areas of need exist. III. Outcome - The outcome of the administrative work session, town hall meetings, and district dialogue sessions is a list of needs. District desegregation and non-desegregation programs are also evaluated for needs information. The Superintendent and Cabinet identify program(s) in need of an extended evaluation. HI V IV. Time frame - The Needs Assessment process begins in September with a review of the types of data that will be collected. A Needs Assessment report is generated by the end of November based upon findings from the Town Hall Meetings, District Dialogues, studies or reports, and the results of program evaluations. Broad-Based Feedback Broad-based feedback is designed to provide feedback to the various groups who participated in town hall meetings and district dialogues (as a counterpart to the Needs Assessment process). Every effort is made to include other interested groups, if appropriate. HI 1. Key Players - The Board and the Superintendent will provide direction for broad-based feedback. The Director of Communications, with assistance from the lead planning person, I UI will develop a plan for disseminating information. II. Description - Broad-based feedback sessions are designed to provide planning and budgeting process information to the community and LRSD employees. Target populations are the same as those at the broad-based input sessions conducted in September and October. III. Outcome - Positive community support in recognition of the thoroughly planned budgeting process may be generated. IV. Time frame - Broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted the following March and April. Planning and Budget Goals The goal setting process guides all actions of the administration, expected outcomes for a specified period of time. The process defines the m I. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent provide leadership for identifying the mission and goals of the district. The Cabinet provides assistance and support by defining m II. objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. The goal setting process is coordinated by the lead planning person. Description - The Board conducts a work session. After reviewing the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory' Report, the Board: A. B. Reviews and revises, if necessaiy', the mission statement. Establishes written goals/objectives. The goals and objectives define what the district expects to realistically accomplish for the next fiscal year. Goals and objectives that conflict with the desegregation plan are not adopted. II HLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 5 n q q q q q q q q q C. D. E. Reviews and provides guidance related to proportional allocation formulas (materials and supplies, staffing, etc.). Establishes written priorities. These priorities guide staff in program modification, addition, or deletion, as well as help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting process. Considers strategies for funding shortfalls. The Cabinet works to ensure that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the established goals. in. Outcome - At the conclusion of the Board Work Session, the Board publishes: A. A written mission statement B. c. Written goals A list of priorities IV. The staff revises program objectives and evaluation criteria as needed for each program, and these are incorporated into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The goal setting process is dependent on the Needs Assessment and Program Inventory. The Board Work Session is conducted in mid-December. Program objectives and evaluation criteria are subsequently revised as needed by appropriate staff. Program Development If a service or program does not exist to support the needs of the District, it may be necessary to develop a program or modify an existing program. Any additions, modifications, or deletions are supported by a business case (see Attachment 2) as outlined in II, A below. I. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and guidance to ensure that goals are achieved by offering the best possible programs. The Cabinet will provide direction to staff in developing, modifyin\nIS. and implementing effective and efficient programs. The lead II. planning person will monitor and advise the Superintendent throughout the program modification and development phase. Description - Programs may need to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current programs may be modified to meet objectives. Some programs may be eliminated. The District establishes a framework for Program Development, framework includes, where appropriate, the following: The A. Business Case q 1. 2, q Executive Summary Background Problem Definition 4. Analysis of Alternatives q qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 6 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Recommended Alternative Objective Impact Analysis Resource Analysis Force Field Analysis General Implementation Plan B. I Appropriate changes to a Program Budget Document (see Planning Document in the Budgeting section) will be made as a result of program additions, modifications, or deletions. III. I ll IV. I V. Program Development - (i.e., program additions, modifications, or deletions) is conducted by staff with the appropriate Cabinet level official providing oversight to ensure that all tasks are completed in a timely manner. The Superintendent and the Cabinet review Program Development cases to ensure that commitments in the desegregation plan are not hindered by such Program Development. Outcome - A business case for each program that is added, modified, or deleted is written. As with existing programs, programs that are added or modified to satisfy a need include all of the elements for budget development and may be directly placed into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The Program Development phase begins in November and concludes in February. However, some programs may be identified or recommended for possible addition, modification, or deletion al an earlier or later date (or as part of an ongoing process, if appropriate). q q q Budgeting I. q q q II. Key Players - The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget. However, the Superintendent ensures that a balanced budget is developed that meets the needs and goals of the school district. The Manager for Support Services coordinates the budget preparation process, and the lead planning person ensures that the planning and budgeting components are linked appropriately. Budget managers provide input relative to his or her area of responsibility. The Manager for Support Services will produce the budget information. Description - Funds, personnel, and facilities are allocated based on the goals and objectives of the district. Directions for budget preparation are issued by the q III. Superintendent with assistance provided by the Manager for Support Services. These directions include the identification of all proportional formulas and exceptions. Outcome - A budget document is developed that satisfies traditional budgeting and accounting requirements with a program planning and budgeting component that links the program and budget allocations. Funding of desegregation requirements is a priority. q IV. Time frame - qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 7 I Month Task 1 I November December January Februarv March May July August Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels Budget managers begin to submit requests for next school year Begin budget development Continue budget development__________________________ Revise financial forecast\nPrepare Proposed Budget Prepare Tentative Budget Prepare Final Budget Board review and adoption of Budget\nSubmit budget to ADE Guidelines for Proposed. Tentative, and Final Budget Development I I The following guidelines help define the format and expectations, to the extent possible, of what is included in the Proposed, Tentative, and Final Budgets. I. Proposed Budget I I A. B. C. I D. The Proposed Budget should be at the detailed level. The Proposed Budget should reflect a revised budget for the current fiscal year. The Proposed Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The Proposed Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration and should show the budget impact at the function and object level. IL ll Tentative Budget A. B. C. D. The format of the Tentative Budget should be similar to the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Tentative Budget should be at the detailed level. The Tentative Budget should build upon the Proposed Budget. The Tentative Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. (Most items should be included at the detail level by this stage.) n i q 4LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING E. Page 8 The Tentative Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration, clearly showing the budget impact at the function and object level. I I V III. Final Budget A. B. C. D. The format of the Final Budget should be similar to that of the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Final Budget should be at the detailed level. The Final Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that the District intends to make during the fiscal year. These additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. The Final Budget should reflect what the District intends to deliver to the State Department of Education. Monitoring Reporting The Program Budget Document provides the means for monitoring program performance and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. I. II. III. Key Players - The Superintendent provides guidance for the maintenance of the Program Budget Document. Program Managers provide program information for their respective areas. The Manager for Support Services provides financial information for each program. The lead planning person coordinates the updating of the document. The Board and I Superintendent are the recipients of the reports to assist them in oversight and decision-making. The lead planning person coordinates the process and prepares the O' 4 4 4 Program Budget Document. Program Managers prepare all reporting documents within their areas of responsibility. Description - The Program Budget Document is the basis for monitoring and reporting and follows an established format and design. The Program Inventory provides the divisions within the Program Budget Document. Program managers, as primary leaders, are assigned responsibility for identified programs. Secondary leaders are assigned also. Program managers are responsible for accomplishing program objectives, for coordinating the required activities or strategies, and for the preparation and submission of the Program Budget Document. The document reflects both program performance and expenditures quarterly. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems may be addressed by corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed. Outcome - A Program Budget Document is maintained that becomes the basis for monitoring and reporting and also serves as a guide for interim decision-making. The result is a quarterly composite progress report on identified programs within the District, supported with expenditure information. 4LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 9 IV. Time frame - Reports are generated quarterly beginning with the first quarter of the fiscal year. Reassessment of Process and Organization HI q Planning and budgeting is a continuing process (see Attachment 3, Planning and Budgeting Cycle). As such, the Program Inventory' begins in July, while the Needs Assessment begins in September. A review/revision of the Program Inventory for the future budget year is completed by August. The Reassessment of Process and Organization begins in July of the current year and concludes by August of the following year. The review process requires an examination of the Process for possible changes that prove beneficial to the Districts Program Planning and Budgeting Process. The reassessment requires a review of the Districts organizational structure to ensure that it is of the best configuration to meet the Districts needs. The lead planning person reviews the process and makes recommendations for changes to the Superintendent, when appropriate. The lead planning person ensures that the planning process is implemented as designed and coordinates the activities. q q Management Tool The Management Tool is submitted to the Court by the end of each calendar month. The q q q q Management Tool serves as an instrument by which the District may monitor established timelines which are cardinal to the Planning and Budgeting Process. The Management Tool identifies the responsible person(s), activities, and timelines required ofand also serves asa Planning Budget Calendar. The Management Tool, in addition to the Program Budget Document, is an outgrowth of the concepts described throughout this document. Further, items of significant importance to the District, but not necessarily directly linked to Program Planning and Budgeting, may be added to the tool, at the direction of the Superintendent, to allow the District to monitor additional issues or topics. The Management Tool is numbered to coincide with the Fiscal Year budget for which it is associated. The eight major components of the Management Tool include the following: 1) Program Inventory\n2) Program Evaluation\n3) Needs Assessment\n4) Planning and Budget Goals\n5) Program Development\n6) Budgeting\n7) Monitoring and Reporting\nand 8) Reassessment of Planning Process and Organization. q q q q Summary One of the primary goals of the long-range planning and budget process is to instill in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the District a sense of fiscal responsibility, accountability and internal program evaluation by the District. Such tools as the Program Inventory, Needs Assessment, and quarterly reporting serve not only to strengthen the process, as outlined in the monthly calendar of critical events, but also to increase the communitys awareness of the Desegregation Plan, the commitments it contains and the Districts carefully thought-out process designed to meet those commitments. With commitment comes the responsibility of providing funds and ensuring that the funding levels are sufficient to support those programs that are determined by the planning and evaluation process to be effective toward achieving the desired goals. Increased use and refinement of the Districts Position Control Inventory System q q inQLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 10 software yields valuable data for program evaluation and budget decision making. Quarterly monitoring reports, by way of the Program Budget Document, are provided. This process, plus the program linkages serve as the basis for future funding decisions by the Board and the administration. The intent of these steps and procedures is to identify those programs which can either be modified or eliminated, thereby serving to demonstrate the level of fiscal responsibility needed to garner community support for future requests for fundin\nFurther, by achieving a 'o- greater staffing efficiency, reducing over-use of materials and supplies (i.e., through proportional allocations, etc.) and by directing the Districts resources toward those programs which demonstrate track records of success, the District will be able to reduce or eliminate its reliance q on non-recurring revenue sources. Accordingly, the long-range planning and budget process is the key component of the Districts strategy to address anticipated funding shortfalls. q q q q q q q q q q q q qq LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 11 q q ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Organizational Chart q Attachment 2: Business Case Format q Attachment 3: Schematic Planning and Budget Cycle q q q q q q q q * 1 q q q q q2  s s  B JI Ji fi S f a 5\" a 'a 5 cn O Little Rock School District Organizational Structure [ -0 o a Board of Diraclora ] E Or Don Roberts IrMoran Si4\u0026gt;ennlar\u0026gt;denl r \u0026gt; Leon Modesle Spacial Assislani to Superintendeni I I X I o IBA Assoc Supi Brady Gadberry Labor Relations TBA Manager for Support Services 1 TBA Asst. Supi Curriculum Support Leon Adams Federal Programs/ Granta * Margaral GramiHion Aaal SupI Elamanlary Sadie Milchelt Asam Superntartdanl Elementary Dr Victor Anderson Aaaid Superkitendeni Secondary O aa Suelien Vann Communications Director Dr Richard Hurley Human Resources Director Mark Milhollen Finanoal Servicas Gena Parker Reading/Foreign Ads Dr Lmda Walsort Acting Aast Supi Sludenl Hearing Principals 13 Schools Prmapali 17 Schools Principals 13 Schools n' Nancy Acre Student Assignment Director Or Pally Kohler Di of Exceptionai Children Director Charlia Naai Proouramanl Dannia Glasgow Sciance/Mathematica SuperviBor Lmda Young New Futures David Beason Information Services Principals S Incentive Schools Carol Green Vocational Education S Bechy Rather Parent I\u0026lt;ecru\u0026lt;er Coordinaior Jo Evelyn Elston PupiJ Services Director Doug Eaton Plant Services Mane A McNeal Social Studies Supervisor Paulelle Mailin Aduli Educiiliun n -J CO c o o n Ur Ed Jackson Planning Research \u0026amp; Ev-ikialton Diiectof Bobby Jonei Bacurity/Ritk Managemertl Catherine Gill Parent involvement Coordinator Johnny Neeley Alleiiialive (eaiiiing Conlei Marvin Schwartz Grama VAiler Mary Jane Cheatham Director of Transportalion Starling Ingram Staff De\u0026lt;Mlopmanl Director Ray G'lluspie Athletics Oebbia Milam Vokrnleart m Public Schools Morlin McCoy Food Services Director Pal Price Early Childhood Coordinator X 1 o n \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; n o Lucy Lyon Technology/Media Services Coordinator Manan Shead-Jackaon HIPPY SuperviBor -0 cr rsLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 13 STCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 ATTACHMENT 2 1. SHORT TERM PROJECT - BUSINESS CASE GLftDELlNES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE n 4 m n I. BACKGROUND A business case is a written presentation which identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making process on an issue facing the organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a staff paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same . . . decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered w'hen developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective. . . . present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale . . . SELL YOUR IDEA. EXECUTING SUMMARY n A. n n. RI n n The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. It is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the same formatting as the actual presentation. It should not contain the detailed data to support the topic. Keep it at a high level...what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. B. Background. 1. 2. Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. Background information. Background information should include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the situation is now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the situation should be noted along with their results and short comings. Problem Definition. nLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 14 R I 1. Problem statement. The problem section should be a concise statement which defines and describes the problem or situation. There may be a need to 2. R c. q q q q q D. n H E. 1 I I M q q convince the reader that a problem exists. Only one problem should be addressed at a time, avoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. Considerations. What seems to be the real problem? What are the causes of the problem? To what extent are they known? Who is affected? What is the magnitude of the problem? Who are the primary actors in the situation? Analysis of Alternatives. 1. 2. J. Process. Provide a written description of how you generated and analyzed your alternatives. Be sure to include the participants. Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. Be sure to describe the characteristics of each in factual terms. REMEMBER ... the do nothing alternative should always be analyzed as a possibility. Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in terms of impact: impact on objective, impact on requirements, impact on legal obligations, impact on personnel, impact on finances. The section should include a statement as to why the alternative was rejected. Each analysis should be brief, but should clearly make its point. While you should have supporting information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that in the selected alternative. Recommendation. 1. 2. Action recommended. The recommendation follows from the analysis of alternatives. The action recommended should be written in brief, clear, positive statements. Rationale. This section should provide the rationale for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. Objective. 1. 2. J. Objective of the recommendation. Define the objective of the recommended action, not the immediate physical outputs. Goal support. This section should include statements and examples of how this program recommendation will support specific, stated goals of the District. It is important to establish a direct relationship. Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. These will become a major component of your future plan. There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) b) c) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 15 4. F. d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria going to cost more than it will yield? Expected benefits. This analysis should include an explanation of the anticipated benefits and when they are expected to be realized. It should also identify the recipients of the expected benefits. Impact Analysis. 1. q 2. q q 3. 4. Program. Describe the impact of the program, both positive and negative. Call in the Expected Benefits above. If you execute this recommendation, how will it impact other programs...will something fall off the table[?] Who will be the primary actors impacted? Desegregation Plan. How will this recommendation impact the Desegregation Plan' Coun Orders. How will this recommendation impact court orders? Political factors. Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address them? implementation plan' Are your strategies in the q 5. 6. q q q G. q q q q q H. Risks. This section should include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. Timing. What are the major timing issues, and how will you deal with them? Resources Analysis. 1. 2. Personnel analysis. What is the projected impact on the head count and type of position before and after the recommendation? Include an estimate of support stafT required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? Training requirements should be included. Financial analysis. AH of the financial considerations should be examined at this a) b) c) point. All operating costs, including personnel and benefits, for each of the next 1-5 fiscal years should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. Force Field Analysis. q qLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 16 1. 2. Forces For. Who will be the primary supporters of the recommendation' Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? Forces Against. Who will be the primary detractors of the recommendation? Why will they oppose the recommendation? How can you minimize their influence or win them over? J. Confidentiality. You should determine if you want to include this section in material for public release. I. General Implementation Plan. q 1. q 2. 3. N4ilestones. The general implementation plan should include the milestone events for monitoring. This should not be a detailed project plan. Timelines. Each milestone event should have a timeline associated with it. Tasking. Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by q 4. name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the implementation plan q should be identified in terms of who, what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the implementation plan or an established standard reporting format. \" q quarterly basis. Status reports are usually submitted on a monthly or q 1 q q q q q J rLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 17 ATTACHMENT 3 q Planning and Budgeting Time Line q JUL AUG SEP OCT I NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR [ APR I MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGFW.1 INVENTORY q 2 PROGRW1 EVALllftnON T 3 NEEDS ASSESS^TEhfT q 4 GOALS q  f 5 PROGRAf.l DEVELOPMENT 6 BUXETING 7 I q MONITORING \u0026amp; REPORUNG I 8 REASSESSfAENT OF PLANNING PROCESS \u0026amp; ORGANIZATION q q q q q q q q q  4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4I I \u0026gt; 09 RECEIVF AUG 3 0 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Office of Desegregation Moimw.u.w I PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS August 1996 Jc.' Mp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with this court's order of August 26, 1993, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District's August 1996 Program Planning and Budgeting Process (\"The Grey Book\") and the Little Rock School District's August Program Planning and Budgeting Tool for FY 1996- 97 and FY 1997-98. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 BY: ^N C. FENDLEY, JR. Wo-3323 f:\\hanBUendlcyUnd\\KN-fiU30CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing a co .. the United States mail on this day of copy of same in\n, 19 : Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (MAILED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (HAND DELIVERED) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) f:'haTncV/cndkyUfd\\aM-fil.83O -2- Little Rock School District PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING August 1996 General Concept A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process (Process) improves the Districts ability to allocate its revenue rationally and, therefore, have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the District. Linking program objectives and program expenditures assures that money is being spent appropriately. This document serves as an explanation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) program planning and budgeting process. During the Process, the following will occur: 1. The needs of the District, particularly legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans, will be determined. 2. Goals and objectives will be defined. 3. Programs to achieve those objectives, particularly those required by the desegregation plans, will be defined. 4. 5. Performance standards and expenditures will be established and measured. Information for corrective decision-making will be prepared. Organizational Structure for Planning and Budgeting Process I. II. III. Key Players - The Superintendent leads the Process with direct support from the Cabinet. The Board is the ultimate decision-maker for the Process. Description - The Process is led by the Superintendent with direct support from the Superintendents Cabinet. The Process is coordinated by the Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) and the Manager for Support Services, who both serve on the Superintendents Cabinet. n A. B. c. A Management Tool (described later in this document) serves as a Planning Budget Calendar. The Calendar allows the Board to continuously monitor progress of the Process. The Director of PRE is the lead planning person. He/she ensures that the planning process is conducted according to established time frames, provides technical assistance, coordinates the planning process, collects appropriate reports, coordinates the preparation of related documents, and advises the Superintendent and Board on the Process. In addition, the lead planning person is responsible for ensuring that all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the Process. The Director of PRE is to be assisted by a Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialist whose major responsibility is District wide planning. Outcome - An organizational chart that displays the current lines of authority and responsibility is attached (see Attachment 1). The primary planning and budgetLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 2 development tasks are finalized and included on a Project Management Tool by July (for the July Court submission). IV. Time frame - The organizational chart is reviewed/revised by August to ensure that the configuration is the most effective and efficient arrangement. Necessary revisions and adjustments are made as needed. Program Inventory Prior to the Needs Assessment period, which starts in September for the next budget year, the Program Inventory process begins in July\ncurrent desegregation and non-desegregation programs are identified. I. Key Players - The Superintendent provides overall direction, and the Board reviews the findings. The lead planning person coordinates the collection of basic data and prepares the data into appropriate documents for use in goal setting and program modification and/or development. The Cabinet and staff collect the necessary data. II. Description - The list of current programs and services is revised if necessary. New programs and services are identified and merged with the Program Budget Document as necessary. Likewise, programs that are no longer in place or that have met legal obligations are removed from the Program Budget Document. The desegregation plan and court orders are reviewed to ensure all obligations related to compliance are operative. Primary and secondary responsible persons are identified for each program or service. III. IV. tr Outcome - A Program Inventory Report is generated and used during the goals and objectives development process\nthe program addition, modification, and deletion-process\nand the budgeting process. Time frame - The Program Inventory process begins in July. A list of all desegregation and non-desegregation programs is compiled by August. The Program Inventory may be revised as needed. A A Program Evaluation Program evaluation provides an assessment of performance for decision-making purposes a I. II. as Key Players - The Board and Superintendent with assistance from the Cabinet, a: recipients of the extended evaluations, use the information from the evaluation of programs to guide programmatic direction and resource allocation. The lead planning person coordinates the program evaluation process. The Manager for Support Services provides assistance with supporting financial information. The Cabinet and staff prepare all reporting documents falling within their areas of responsibility. Description - Each program is evaluated through the Districts regular program evaluation component. As programs are developed and implemented, they contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Special evaluations may be directed by the Superintendent. Programs may also be identified for fast-track evaluation on an as needed basis if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the District.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 3 III. Outcome - Program evaluation information enables the District to make programmatic decisions in the areas of program modifications, additions, and deletions and resource IV. allocation, which are the result of careful planning and thoughtful analysis. Time frame - The program evaluation period for each budget year begins in July and continues through mid-November, leading up to the point of program development (i.e., Business Cases). Program evaluations are conducted on programs that were operating during the most recently completed school year. Needs Assessment The needs assessment is a process for comparing the current situation with the desired conditions. 1. II. Key Players - The Superintendent provides leadership and direction for the Needs Assessment process. The lead planning person coordinates the process. The Superintendent and the Cabinet identify the needs. The Superintendents Cabinet is responsible for directing the staff in the collection of assessment information. Description - Utilizing a combination of district wide perceptual and objective instruments, data are collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Perceptual information is collected through broad-based input sessions such as Town Hall meetings and District Dialogue sessions. A. B. At least three Town Hall meetings are conducted. One town hall meeting each for area schools, magnet schools, and incentive schools are scheduled. Every effort is made to locate strategically the sessions to encourage maximum participation. Additional Town Hall meetings may be scheduled if needed. One District Dialogue is conducted with principals, teachers, classified staff, and central office administrators. Additional District Dialogues may be scheduled if c. Ml needed. An administrative work session is conducted to review and analyze various District wide reports and objective data. The following kinds of data are reviewed: HI 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Stanford Achievement Test Results Planning, Research, and Evaluation Monitoring Reports Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Court Orders Audit School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results District wide Facilities Study/Report Proportional Allocation Formulas Study Program Inventoiy b N M MLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 4 D. A comparison between identified needs and the Program Inventory is conducted to determine whether or not programmatic gaps and areas of need exist. III. IV. Outcome - The outcome of the administrative work session, town hall meetings, and district dialogue sessions is a list of needs. District desegregation and non-desegregation programs are also evaluated for needs information. The Superintendent and Cabinet identify program(s) in need of an extended evaluation. Time frame - The Needs Assessment process begins in September with a review of the types of data that will be collected. A Needs Assessment report is generated by the end of November based upon findings from the Town Hall Meetings, District Dialogues, studies or reports, and the results of program evaluations. Broad-Based Feedback Broad-based feedback is designed to provide feedback to the various groups who participated in town hall meetings and district dialogues (as a counterpart to the Needs Assessment process). Every effort is made to include other interested groups, if appropriate. I. II III. IV. Key Players - The Board and the Superintendent will provide direction for broad-based feedback. The Director of Communications, with assistance from the lead planning person, will develop a plan for disseminating information. Description - Broad-based feedback sessions are designed to provide planning and budgeting process information to the community and LRSD employees. Target populations are the same as those at the broad-based input sessions conducted in September and October. Outcome - Positive community support in recognition of the thoroughly planned budgeting process may be generated. Time frame - Broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted the following March and April. ni Planning and Budget Goals The goal setting process guides all actions of the administration, expected outcomes for a specified period of time. The process defines the bh I. UI II. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent provide leadership for identifying the mission and goals of the district. The Cabinet provides assistance and support by defining objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. The goal setting process is coordinated by the lead planning person. Description - The Board conducts a work session. After reviewing the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report, the Board: w UI A. B. Reviews and revises, if necessary, the mission statement. Establishes written goals/objectives. The goals and objectives define what the district expects to realistically accomplish for the next fiscal year. Goals and objectives that conflict with the desegregation plan are not adopted. I'l1 in w n 11 01 11 LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING III. IV. C. D. E. Page 5 I Reviews and provides guidance related to proportional allocation formulas (materials and supplies, staffing, etc.). Establishes written priorities. These priorities guide staff in program modification, addition, or deletion, as well as help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting process. Considers strategies for funding shortfalls. The Cabinet works to ensure that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the established goals. Outcome - At the conclusion of the Board Work Session, the Board publishes: A. B. c. A written mission statement Written goals A list of priorities The staff revises program objectives and evaluation criteria as needed for each program, and these are incorporated into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The goal setting process is dependent on the Needs Assessment and Program Inventory. The Board Work Session is conducted in mid-December. Program objectives and evaluation criteria are subsequently revised as needed by appropriate staff. Program Development If a service or program does not exist to support the needs of the District, it may be necessary to develop a program or modify an existing program. Any additions, modifications, or deletions are supported by a business case (see Attachment 2) as outlined in II, A below. I. II. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and guidance to ensure that goals are achieved by offering the best possible programs. The Cabinet will provide direction to staff in developing, modifying, and implementing effective and efficient programs. The lead planning person will monitor and advise the Superintendent throughout the program modification and development phase. Description - Programs may need to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current programs may be modified to meet objectives. Some programs may be The District establishes a framework for Program Development. framework includes, where appropriate, the following: eliminated. The A. I. 2. 3. 4. Business Case Executive Summary Background Problem Definition Analysis of Alternatives i s I ! J 1 1 i S i ! S ! I ! s s I I SiLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 6 B. III. IV. 4 If V. N H H Ml Ml 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Recommended Alternative Objective Impact Analysis Resource Analysis Force Field Analysis General Implementation Plan Appropriate changes to a Program Budget Document (see Planning Document in the Budgeting section) will be made as a result of program additions, modifications, or deletions. Program Development - (i e., program additions, modifications, or deletions) is conducted by staff with the appropriate Cabinet level official providing oversight to ensure that all tasks are completed in a timely manner. The Superintendent and the Cabinet review Program Development cases to ensure that commitments in the desegregation plan are not hindered by such Program Development. Outcome - A business case for each program that is added, modified, or deleted is written. As with existing programs, programs that are added or modified to satisfy a need include all of the elements for budget development and may be directly placed into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The Program Development phase begins in November and concludes in February. However, some programs may be identified or recommended for possible addition, modification, or deletion at an earlier or later date (or as part of an ongoing process, if appropriate). Budgeting I. II. Key Players - The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget. However, the Superintendent ensures that a balanced budget is developed that meets the needs and goals of the school district. The Manager for Support Services coordinates the budget preparation process, and the lead planning person ensures that the planning and budgeting components are linked appropriately. Budget managers provide input relative to his or her area of responsibility. The Manager for Support Services will produce the budget information. Description - Funds, personnel, and facilities are allocated based on the goals and objectives of the district. Directions for budget preparation are issued by the III. Superintendent with assistance provided by the Manager for Support Services. These directions include the identification of all proportional formulas and exceptions. Outcome - A budget document is developed that satisfies traditional budgeting and accounting requirements with a program planning and budgeting component that links the program and budget allocations. Funding of desegregation requirements is a priority. IV. Time frame -LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 7 Month 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bl November December Januai'y February March May July August Task Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels_________ Budget managers begin to submit requests for next school year Begin budget development__________________ Continue budget development_______________ Revise financial forecast\nPrepare Proposed Budget__________ Prepare Tentative Budget__________________ Prepare Final Budget_____________________ Board review and adoption of Budget\nSubmit budget to ADE Guidelines for Proposed. Tentative, and Final Budget Development The following guidelines help define the format and expectations, to the extent possible, of what is included in the Proposed, Tentative, and Final Budgets. I. II. Proposed Budget A. B. C. D. The Proposed Budget should be at the detailed level. The Proposed Budget should reflect a revised budget for the current fiscal year. The Proposed Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The Proposed Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration and should show the budget impact at the function and object level. Tentative Budget A. B. C. D. The format of the Tentative Budget should be similar to the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Tentative Budget should be at the detailed level. The Tentative Budget should build upon the Proposed Budget. The Tentative Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. (Most items should be included at the detail level by this stage.)LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 1 E. Page 8 4 The Tentative Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration, clearly showing the budget impact at the function and object level. 4 4 4 4 4 III. Final Budget A. B. C. D. The format of the Final Budget should be similar to that of the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Final Budget should be at the detailed level. The Final Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that the District intends to make during the fiscal year. These additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. The Final Budget should reflect what the District intends to deliver to the State Department of Education. 4 4 Monitoring and Reporting The Program Budget Document provides the means for monitoring program performance and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. I. Hi II. III. 4 d d Key Players - The Superintendent provides guidance for the maintenance of the Program Budget Document. Program Managers provide program information for their respective areas. The Manager for Support Services provides financial information for each program. The lead planning person coordinates the updating of the document. The Board and Superintendent are the recipients of the reports to assist them in oversight and decision-making. The lead planning person coordinates the process and prepares the Program Budget Document. Program Managers prepare all reporting documents within their areas of responsibility. Description - The Program Budget Document is the basis for monitoring and reporting and follows an established format and design. The Program Inventory provides the divisions within the Program Budget Document. Program managers, as primary leaders, are assigned responsibility for identified programs. Secondary leaders are assigned also. Program managers are responsible for accomplishing program objectives, for coordinating the required activities or strategies, and for the preparation and submission of the Program Budget Document. The document reflects both program performance and expenditures quarterly. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems may be addressed by corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed. Outcome - A Program Budget Document is maintained that becomes the basis for monitoring and reporting and also serves as a guide for interim decision-making. The result is a quarterly composite progress report on identified programs within the District, supported with expenditure information.n LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 9 IV. n Time frame - Reports are generated quarterly beginning with the first quarter of the fiscal year. 4 4 4 Reassessment of Process and Organization Planning and budgeting is a continuing process (see Attachment 3, Planning and Budgeting Cycle). As such, the Program Inventory begins in July, while the Needs Assessment begins in September. A review/revision of the Program Inventory for the future budget year is completed by August. The Reassessment of Process and Organization begins in July of the current year and concludes by August of the following year. The review process requires an examination of the Process for possible changes that prove beneficial to the Districts Program Planning and Budgeting Process. The reassessment requires a review of the Districts organizational structure to ensure that it is of the best configuration to meet the Districts needs. The lead planning person reviews the process and makes recommendations for changes to the Superintendent, when appropriate. The lead planning person ensures that the plannin. designed and coordinates the activities. 4 4 process is implemented as ig Management Tool The Management Tool is submitted to the Court by the end of each calendar month. The Management Tool serves as an instrument by which the District may monitor established timelines which are cardinal to the Planning and Budgeting Process. The Management Tool identifies the responsible person(s), activities, and timelines required ofand also serves asa Planning Budget Calendar. The Management Tool, in addition to the Program Budget 4 4 4 Document, is an outgrowth of the concepts described throughout this document. Further, items of significant importance to the District, but not necessarily directly linked to Program Planning and Budgeting, may be added to the tool, at the direction of the Superintendent, to allow the District to monitor additional issues or topics. The Management Tool is numbered to coincide with the Fiscal Year budget for which it is associated. The eight major components of the Management Tool include the following: 1) Program Inventory\n2) Program Evaluation\n3) Needs Assessment, 4) Planning and Budget Goals\n5) Program Development\n6) Budgeting\n7) Monitoring and Reporting\nand 8) Reassessment of Planning Process and Organization. 4 Summary One of the primary goals of the long-range planning and budget process is to instill in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the District a sense of fiscal responsibility, accountability and internal program evaluation by the District. Such tools as the Program Inventory, Needs Assessment, and quarterly reporting serve not only to strengthen the process, as outlined in the monthly calendar of critical events, but also to increase the communitys awareness of the Desegregation Plan, the commitments it contains and the Districts carefully thought-out process designed to meet those commitments. With commitment comes the responsibility of providing funds and ensuring that the funding levels are sufficient to support those programs that are determined by the planning and evaluation process to be effective toward achieving the desired goals. Increased use and refinement of the Districts Position Control Inventory SystemLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 10 1 4 4 4 software yields valuable data for program evaluation and budget decision making. Quarterly monitoring reports, by way of the Program Budget Document, are provided. This process, plus the program linkages serve as the basis for future funding decisions by the Board and the administration. The intent of these steps and procedures is to identify those programs which can either be modified or eliminated, thereby serving to demonstrate the level of fiscal responsibility needed to garner community support for future requests for funding. Further, by achieving greater staffing efficiency, reducing over-use of materials and supplies (i.e., through proportional allocations, etc.) and by directing the Districts resources toward those programs which demonstrate track records of success, the District will be able to reduce or eliminate its reliance on non-recurring revenue sources. Accordingly, the long-range planning and budget process is the key component of the Districts strategy to address anticipated funding shortfalls. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 kLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 11 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Organizational Chart H Attachment 2: Business Case Format Attachment 3: Schematic Planning and Budget Cycle 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 (I TBA Assoc Supt I Suelien Vann Communications Director Nancy Aoe Student Atsignmenl Director Becky Rather Perent KecruSei Coordinator Or Ed Jackson Planning Research \u0026amp; Ev.iluaiion Dll actor MaiMn Schwartz Giania tMitar Debbie Milam Volunteers in Public Schools Little Rock School District Organizational Structure [ Board of Dtrodora ] I Brady Gadbarry Labor Relaltons Dr Richard Hurley Human Resources Dwecior Or Patty Kohler Ohr Of Eiceptional Children Oireaor Jo Evelyn Elston Pupil Services Director I TBA Manager for Support Services Mark Milhollen Fmanoal Servicoa Charbe Neal Procuremanl Doug Eaton Plant Servtcas Bobby Jones 8ecurily/Rish Management Mery Jane Cheaiham Oiracior of Transportation Morlin McCoy Food ServKos Director Dr Don Roberts Intarsn Si^enntortdenl 1 Loon Modesto Spedol Aasiatanl to SupenrMondani 1 TBA Asst. Supt Curnoilum Support Leon Adams Federal Programs/ Grants I - Margaret GramiBion Asai Supi Elementary Sadia Mitchell Assist Superintendenl Elementary 1 Dr Victor Anderson Assisi Si\u0026lt;\u0026gt;erintendenl Secondary Gene Partier Reading/Foraign Arts Or Lmda Watson Acting Asst St^l Student Hearing Pnnctpals 13 Schools Pmapals 17 Schools Principals 13 Schools Dennis Glasgow Science/Mathematics Supervisor Mane A McNeal Social Studies Supervisor Catherine GiN Parent Involvement Coordinator Sterling Ingram Staff Development Director Pat Price Earty Childhood Coordinator Lucy Lyon Technology/Media Sarvicas Coordinator Menan Shead-Jeckson HIPPY Supervisor Lmda Young New Futures David Besson Information Services Prmcapais S Incentive Schools Carol Green Vocational Education Paulette Marlin Aduil Educiilion Johnny Neeley Alleriialive Learning Centei Ray Gilluspie Athletics * * s o OQ \u0026gt; \u0026gt; O 3\" n -i r 50 CZI O -0 ?3 o o z3 0 r \u0026gt; \u0026gt; o C3 G o o (IQF n LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 13 H 4 ATTACHMENT 2 STCASE02 4 REVISED 21 APR 93 4 SHORT TERM PROJECT - BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE 4 I. 4  4 4 4 I. BACKGROUND A business case is a written presentation which identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making process on an issue facing the organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a stafT paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same . . . decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective. . . . present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale . . . SELL YOUR IDEA. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 A. 4 4 IL The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. It is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the same formatting as the actual presentation. It should not contain the detailed data to support the topic. Keep it at a high level.. .what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background, 4 1. 2. Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. Background information. Background information should include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the situation is now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the situation should be noted along with their results and short comings. B. Problem Definition.4 LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 14 q 1. q q 2. q c. q q q q q D. q q q E. q Problem statement. The problem section should be a concise statement which defines and describes the problem or situation. There may be a need to convince the reader that a problem exists. Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. Considerations. What seems to be the real problem? What are the causes of the problem? To what extent are they known? Who is affected? What is the magnitude of the problem? Who are the primary actors in the situation? Analysis of Alternatives. 1. 2. 3. Process. Provide a written description of how you generated and analyzed your alternatives. Be sure to include the participants. Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. Be sure to describe the characteristics of each in factual terms. REMEMBER ... the do nothing alternative should always be analyzed as a possibility. Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in terms of impact: impact on objective, impact on requirements, impact on legal obligations, impact on personnel, impact on finances. The section should include a statement as to why the alternative was rejected. Each analysis should be brief, but should clearly make its point. While you should have supporting information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that in the selected alternative. Recommendation. 1. 2. Action recommended. The recommendation follows from the analysis of alternatives. The action recommended should be written in brief, clear, positive statements. Rationale. This section should provide the rationale for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. Objective. 1. 2. Objective of the recommendation. Define the objective of the recommended action, not the immediate physical outputs. Goal support. This section should include statements and examples of how this program recommendation will support specific, stated goals of the District. It is important to establish a direct relationship. 3. Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. These will become a major component of your future plan. There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) b) c) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used.I n 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING F. G. H. 4. Page 15 d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria going to cost more than it will yield? Expected benefits. This analysis should include an explanation of the anticipated benefits and when they are expected to be realized. It should also identify the recipients of the expected benefits. Impact Analysis. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Program. Describe the impact of the program, both positive and negative. Call in the Expected Benefits above. If you execute this recommendation, how will it impact other programs...will something fall off the table[?] Who will be the primary actors impacted? Desegregation Plan. How will this recommendation impact the Desegregation Plan' Court Orders. How will this recommendation impact court orders? Political factors. Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address them? implementation plan? Are your strategies in the Risks. This section should include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. Timing. What are the major timing issues, and how will you deal with them? Resources Analysis. 1. 2. Personnel analysis. What is the projected impact on the head count and type of position before and after the recommendation? Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? Training requirements should be included. Financial analysis. All of the financial considerations should be examined at this point. a) b) c) All operating costs, including personnel and benefits, for each of the next 1-5 fiscal years should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. Force Field Analysis. 4LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 1 I 4 4 I 4 4 4 4 4 Page 16 I. 1. 2. 3. Forces For. Who will be the primary supporters of the recommendation? Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? Forces Against. Who will be the primary detractors of the recommendation? Why will they oppose the recommendation? How can you minimize their influence or win them over? Confidentiality. You should determine if you want to include this section in material for public release. General Implementation Plan. 1. 2. 3. Milestones. The general implementation plan should include the milestone events for monitoring. This should not be a detailed project plan. Timelines. Each milestone event should have a timeline associated with it. Tasking. Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. 4. Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the implementation plan should be identified in terms of who, what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the implementation plan or an established standard reporting format. quarterly basis. Status reports are usually submitted on a monthly or 4 4 4 4 4LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 17 ATTACHMENT 3 Planning and Budgeting Time Line JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGRAM INVENTORY 2 PROGRAM EVALUATION I  3 NEEDS ASSESSfVlENT 4 GOALS T 5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I 6 BUDGETING I I I I I I 7 I MONITORING \u0026amp; REPORTING I I I I I I I 8 REASSESSMENT OF PLAfMING PROCESS \u0026amp; ORGANIZATION il II Dl II IIhl fl DI H II\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1446","title":"Report: ''Report on Elementary School Facilities in the North Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1996-07-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Report on Elementary School Facilities in the North Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1446"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1647","title":"Court Filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellant Little Rock School District (LRSD)","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":["1996-07-19"],"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--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Cleaning"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellant Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"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/1647"],"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":["10 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 APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. APPELLANT APPELLEE Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District 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 This appeal arises from the Pulaski County, Arkansas school desegregation case. The two issues presented by this appeal concern the district court's March 11, 1996 Memorandum and Order. The first issue concerns enforcement of the 1989 Settlement Agreement among the parties. The Settlement Agreement requires dismissal of this case with prejudice except that the district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the desegregation plans presently being implemented by the Pulaski County school districts. The district court declined to issue an order dismissing this case. The second issue concerns a contract between the Little Rock School District and Servicemaster Management Services. The Little Rock School District challenges the district court's finding that a clause in that contract violates public policy. The Little Rock School District requests oral argument. i 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 Contents .. Table of Authorities Preliminary Statement Statement of the Case Summary of Argument Argument Conclusion Addendum Order, March 11, 1996 Release of All Claims Against The LRSD. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts .... Order, December 11, 1995 Relevant Excerpts From Pulaski County Desegregation . i ii iii . 1  2  6 . 7 13 . 1 12 24 25 Case Settlement Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Authorities cases Continental Bank \u0026 Trust Co. v. American Bonding 630 F.2d 606, 608 (8th Cir. 1980) ..... Klein v. Arkoma Production Co. 73 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1996) Liddell v. State of Missouri 731 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1984) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . Thornton v. Carter, 109 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1940) Page   9 9, 10  .     9 . 1, 2, 7 1, 6, 7, 9, 10 10 Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association 860F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) ........... 1, 12, 14 28 u.s.c. S 1291 28 u.s.c. S 1331 28 u.s.c. S 1343(3) 28 u.s.c. S 1343(4) 28 u.s.c.  2201 28 u.s.c. S 2202 statutes iii . 1 . . 1 . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Preliminary Statement The decisions below were rendered by Judge Susan Webber Wright, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. The jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under 28 u.s.c.  1331, 1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 u.s.c. S 1291. The orders from which these appeals have been taken are final. The district court's order of March 11, 1996, by which the district court (1) refused to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice according to the tei;:-ms of the Settlement Agreement among the parties and (2) invalidated a provision of the contract between the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Servicemaster Management Services ( Servicemaster) , was appealed by LRSD by Notice of Appeal filed on April 9, 1996. 1. 2. Issues Presented on Appeal Did the district court err by refusing to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice as required by the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) Did the district court err in finding that the \"pending litigation clause\" of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violates public policy? Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association. 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I statement of the Case This appeal concerns two separate issues: The district court's refusal to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice in accordance with the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court; and the district court's finding that the \"pending litigation clause\" of LRSD's contract with Servicemaster violates public policy. These issues will be addressed separately in both the Statement of the Case and the Argument. I. Dismissal With Prejudice This Court approved the Settlement Agreement among the parties to this case on December 12, 1990. LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The purpose of the Settlement Agreement was to end the litigation among the parties. That intent, inherent in any settlement, is clearly expressed in the provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require release of all claims against the school districts and the provision regarding litigation among or between the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors and any of the school districts. Attachment B to the Settlement Agreement is a \"Release of All Claims Against The LRSD\" which contains the following requirement: It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the former and current members of its board of education named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The Settlement Agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. Settlement Agreement, Attachment c, p. 2 (Add. p. 17) and Attachment D, p. 2 (Add. p. 21). Finally, the Settlement Agreement contains the following \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\": Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans. The requirement of the releases that this case \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" has never been implemented. LRSD filed a motion on November 30, 1995 asking the district court to enter the required order. Even though the ; district court found that \"the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter, 11 that court refused to enter an order 3 I I dismissing this case. 1 Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996 (Add. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8-9). II. The Servicemaster contract On September 20, 1995, LRSD entered into a five year management agreement with Servicemaster Management Services. LRSD App. p., 69. While the agreement was being negotiated, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") filed a motion to enjoin LRSD from entering into an agreement with Servicemaster. Docket No. 2506. The District Court had taken no action on Joshua's motion by the time an agreement was reached between LRSD and Servicemaster, and accordingly, the following clause was included in the September 2 O, 1995 agreement: 14.12 Pending litigation. Each of the parties agrees that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin School from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District No. 1, et al.\", No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge school from any and all actions, causes of action, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in any way relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the school's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the court or otherwise) of that litigation. LRSD App., p. 84. (\"Pending Litigation Clause\"). 1The district court apparently misread LRSD's motion as seeking an order \"dismissing this case without prejudice.\" The Settlement Agreement requires, and LRSD sought, an order dismissing the case with prejudice. 4 I I I I I I I I I On December 4, 1995, Joshua purported to accept a proposed settlement offer2 made by LRSD related to Servicemaster. LRSD App. , p. 2 06. The settlement agreement recognized that substantial questions existed as to the legality of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster. LRSD App., p. 200. On September 29, 1995, Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant issued a formal opinion finding that LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated state law and was void. App., p. 195. At the October 28, 1995, hearing, the District Court commented that she believed LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated state law. Hearing Transcript, October 28, 1995, p. 140. Accordingly, the settlement terminated LRSD' s agreement with Servicemaster. LRSD App., p. 203. On December 11, 1995, the District Court rejected the settlement agreement finding that the Pending Litigation Clause of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated public policy. Add. p. 30. In a Memorandum and Order filed March 11, 1996, the district I I court denied Joshua's motion for reconsideration of her December I 11, 1995 Order. Add. p. 5. From this order, LRSD appeals. I I I I I I I 2LRSD denies that a settlement offer was made to Joshua. Even so, LRSD is pursuing this appeal to maintain its right, as established by the Pending Litigation Clause, to enter into a settlement agreement which would effectively terminate its agreement with Servicemaster. The District Court declined to rule on the issue of whether a settlement was actually reached. LRSD Add. p. 29. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Summary of Argument I. Dismissal With Prejudice The 1989 Settlement Agreement among the parties to this case waw designed to end this litigation. The Settlement Agreement requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice and also provides that the district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans adopted by the three Pulaski County school districts. This Court approved the Settlement Agreement in its entirety as written by the parties and, in a case directly on point, directed the district court to implement the entire agreement. LRSD v. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) .The district court has declined to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice as required by the Settlement Agreement. II. servicemaster Contract LRSD contracted with Servicemaster to provide certain management services. Pending at the time of the contract was the Joshua Intervenor's motion to enjoin LRSD from entering the contract. LRSD and Servicemaster therefore agreed upon contract language which recognized the pending litigation and protected LRSD against liability to Servicemaster if the pending litigation resulted, whether through settlement or otherwise, in the termination or modification of the contract. The Pending Litigation Clause was agreed upon following arms length negotiations between LRSD and Servicemaster. The district court improperly voided the Pending Litigation Clause, concluding 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \"that it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" The district court's conclusion is incorrect and should be reversed. Arkansas law, as interpreted by this Court, recognizes the validity of a contract provision permitting unilateral termination of the contract without cause. I. Argument The District court Erred In Refusing To Enter The order Of Dismissal Required By The settlement Agreement. This Court approved the parties' Settlement Agreement on December 12, 1990 and directed the district court \"to approve the parties' Settlement Agreement as written by them.\" LRSD y. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). On January 18, 1991, the district court ordered that \"[t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them.\" Docket #1418. According to the terms of the Settlement Agreement set forth in the Statement of the Case and reproduced in its Appendix, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal with prejudice upon the district court's approval of the Settlement Agreement. 3 The question of whether a particular component of the Settlement Agreement should be implemented has arisen once before 3The order of dismissal with prejudice required by the Settlement Agreement will not affect the district court's authority under the Settlement Agreement \"to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans\" (Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2) (Add. p. 13) or to preside over \"proceedings to enforce the terms\" of the Settlement Agreement or the desegregation plans. (Settlement Agreement, p. 19 (Add. p. 24). 7 I I in this case. In LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992), this Court confronted the issue of whether the district court was I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I required to extend certain millages in accordance with Item M of the Settlement Agreement. The district court had \"thought it 'unwise to infer from the court of appeals' approval of the settlement agreement that [the district court was] required to extend the omitted millages.'\" Ig. at 164 (emphasis in original). This court said: What the district court failed to recognize is that we directed it to \"approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" \" [A] s written by them, \" the settlement agreement included Item M, which corrected the problem of the omitted millages. The extension of the omitted millages is therefore settled as law of the case. .Ig. at 165 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). One of the reasons the district court had given for declining to implement Item M was that, even though this Court had approved the Settlement Agreement in its entirety, it had not specifically mentioned Item Min its opinion. Id. at 164. This Court made it clear that the parties are entitled to implementation of all of the terms of the settlement Agreement: The Special Master approved the agreement, including Item M, as did the district court. Most importantly, when the matter came before this Court on appeal from the district court, we held that the settlement agreement as drafted by the parties met constitutional standards and directed the district court to approve the settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We do not, therefore, agree with the district court that it is necessary to infer an approval of Item M from our earlier opinion. Our language was clear in its 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I approval of the entire agreement, including Item M. lg. at 165 (emphasis in original) This Court's decision requiring the district court to recognize and uphold each component of the Settlement Agreement was based upon the law of the case doctrine. ,lg. at 165. That doctrine \"prevents repeated litigation of . the same issue and promotes uniformity of decision.\" Liddell v. state of Missouri, 731 F. 2d 1294, 1304-05 (8th Cir. 1984). This Court has held that it \"will reconsider a previously decided issue only on a showing of clear error and manifest injustice,\" .i,g., or if the facts of the case have changed substantially since the first appeal.~ Continental Bank \u0026 Trust co. y. American Bonding. 630 F.2d 606, 608 (8th cir. 1980). When a case has been decided by this Court and remanded to the district court, every question which was before this Court and disposed of by its decree is finally settled and determined. Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 1996). In rejecting LRSD's effort to secure an order of dismissal with prejudice, the district court did not find either that this Court's previous opinion approving the Settlement Agreement resulted in clear error or manifest injustice or that the facts of the case have changed. The only question, therefore, should be whether this Court has previously ordered that this case be dismissed with prejudice. LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160, 165 (8th Cir. 1992). The language of the court-approved Settlement Agreement makes it clear that this case \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" and that the \"dismissal is final for all purposes except that the 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation\" of the desegregation plans agreed upon by the parties. Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The parties further agreed that there would be \"no further litigation\" among them other than proceedings to enforce the Settlement Agreement or the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, p. 19 (Add. p. 24). This Court approved the agreement. It is the law of the case. In accordance with the law of the case doctrine previously applied to this Settlement Agreement by this Court, the district court should be directed to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the settlement Agreement. LRSD v. Pesso. 971 F,2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . The district court offered no persuasive justification for declining to enter the required order. The court said that \"no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of dismissal at this time.\" Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996, (Add. p. 8). Once the entire Agreement has been approved and established as law of the case, it is not necessary for a party seeking to secure the benefits of the Agreement to convince the district court that each particular component of the Agreement serves some useful purpose. Id. The district court is bound by this Court's decision and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779,784 (8th Cir. 1996). \"It may not 'alter it, examine it except for purposes of execution, or give it any further or other relief or review it for apparent error with 10 I I respect to any question decided on appeal.'\" lg. (quoting Thornton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v. carter, 109 F.2d 316, 319-20 (8th cir. 1940). If, as the district court found, \"the claims involved in this on-going litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter,\" there should be no impediment to formalizing that dismissal as required by the Settlement Agreement. The district court also criticized LRSD's implementation of its desegregation plans and found \"that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to insure compliance with the plans and the agreement.\" This argument completely ignores the language of the Settlement Agreement which authorizes the district court to \"retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation\" of the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The Settlement Agreement precludes further litigation among the parties except for proceedings to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, p. 19. (Add. p. 24). The Settlement Agreement provides for both dismissal of this case with prejudice and for continued district court enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and the desegregation plans. It is not necessary for the district court to defer an order of dismissal in order to ensure compliance with the plans or the agreement. 4In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the State of Arkansas has been dismissed as a party to this case. Order, January 18, 1991 (Docket #1418). The district court nevertheless continues to monitor the State's implementation of its obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the State. The district court's January 13, 1995 decision, which was affirmed in part and reversed 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. The District Court Erred In Litigation Clause\" of LRSD's Violates Public Policy. Bolding That contract With The \"Pending Servicemaster A. Pending Litigation Clause Does Hot Violate Public Policy. The district court, citing no authority, concluded that \"it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" Add., p. 5. The district court's conclusion is incorrect and should be reversed. In Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (8th cir. 1988), this Court, applying Arkansas law, held that a contract provision providing for the unilateral termination of the contract without cause did not violate public policy. 5 The Pending Litigation Clause cannot be considered more offensive to public policy than a provision permitting unilateral termination without cause. The clause merely anticipated the possibility that substantial questions would be raised as to the validity of the agreement. In that event, LRSD wanted to be able to take whatever action was necessary without incurring liability to Servicemaster, and it negotiated at arms in part by this panel on May 15, 1996 (83 F.3d 1013), provides a recent example. 5The district court attempted to distinguish Union National Bank stating that the present case \"involves a purported settlement between a contracting party and a third party allowing the contracting party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the non-settling party.\" LRSD Add., p. 5. The district court does not explain how these facts distinguish Union National Bank from the present case. None of the facts noted by the district court require an outcome in the present case different from Union National Bank. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I length for that right as embodied in the Pending Litigation Clause. B. The Pending Litigation Clause Expressly Contemplates Resolution By settlement. As an alterative basis for rejecting the settlement agreement, the District Court found that: (T]he parties to this case intended that the contract would be performed in good faith unless this Court issued an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability pursuant to 1 14.12 of the contract. The Court has not and will not at this time issue such an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability under the contract. LRSD Add., p. 6. The district court's statement of the parties' intentions contradicts the express language of the Pending Litigation Clause. After stating that LRSD will incur no liability if the District Court terminates or modifies the agreement, the Pending Litigation Clause provides, \"Further, the school's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the court or otherwise) of that litigation.\" LRSD App., p. 84 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the Pending Litigation Clause expressly permits LRSD to reach a settlement without incurring any liability to Servicemaster. conclusion The 1989 Settlement Agreement was intended to end this litigation. The parties agreed that the case would be dismissed with prejudice. This Court and the district court have approved the settlement. It has become established as the law of the case. This court has previously held that the parties are entitled to all of I the benefits of the Settlement Agreement. The district court should I I I 13 I I I therefore be directed to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice. LRSD and Servicemaster negotiated at arms length in agreeing to the Pending Litigation Clause. LRSD expressly reserved the I right to resolve the pending litigation with Joshua by way of I settlement. That the settlement calls for termination of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster does not make the Pending Litigation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Clause violative of public policy. See Union National Bank, 860 F.2d at 853. The District Court's finding to the contrary should be reversed and the case remanded for hearings to determine whether a settlement has been reached. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. 14 Attorneys for Little Rock School District I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief for Appellant, Little Rock School District has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 8th day of July, 1996: Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 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 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John c. Everett 3822 N. Parkview Drive P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Josephs. Mowery 111 Center Little Rock, AR 72201 ~\" 15 I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I ADDENDUM  I I I I I I I I I I I I II ,.1,r.,_~ US OIS7i-iCT COURT !;ASTERN DISTRICT ARt\u003cANSAS MAR 1 1 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMcS WESTERN DIVISION By:_~.i...,..~l,J!,,,J,...l,L..ll~~ 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski county Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481); (2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status (doc.#2483); (3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506); (4) motion of PCSSD to I clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan (doc.#2520); (5) motion of I I I I I I Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (doc.#2544); (6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings (doc.#2546]; (7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") (doc.#2573]; (8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 1 2 6 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]; and (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction, dated October 25, 1995 (doc.#2612). I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan (doc.#2481) and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483). The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\") , Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCSSD's and LRSD's motions were both filed on August 23, 1995. on February 9, 1996, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby it was agreed that the PCSSD, LRSD, and NLRSD should be released from court supervision and monitoring in certain discrete areas of the desegregation plans. The parties further stated that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the ctesegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I remain deficient in terms of compliance. The additional hearings that were scheduled to address the motions to withdraw were cancelled at the parties' request as a result of the Stipulation. In light of the Stipulation and subsequent cancellation of the hearings, the Court finds that both the PCSSD's motion to withdraw (doc.#2481) and the LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483) have both been superseded by the Stipulation. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot. II. On August 31, 1995, Joshua filed a motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506). In its motion Joshua argues that ( 1) the LRSD had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors, (2) the proposed management contract has a potential adverse racial effect and impact, (3) the proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program, research and evaluation instrument for the next five years, (4) the proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon financial resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its desegregation obligations, and (5) the proposed management contract was not negotiated at arms' length and was designed to provide special favor to some unknown person in the school district. -3- 3 I I I I The Court held a hearing on Joshua's motion on Saturday, October 28, 1995, and again on Friday, December 8, 1995. At the hearing on December 8th, counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement,\" which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua with respect to the ServiceMaster contract. Joshua claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the Court enter an Order enjoining the LRSD from entering I I into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's I liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. The LRSD, however, contends that this document was not intended as an offer I I I I I I I I I I I I to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. On December 11, 1995, this Court issued an Order in which it ruled as follows: This Court declines to rule on whether this 'settlement' constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into it with Joshua. The court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. This 'settlement' purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1639","title":"Court of Appeals, appellant Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) appendix","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":["1996-07-19"],"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--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Joshua Intervenors"],"dcterms_title":["Court of Appeals, appellant Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) appendix"],"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/1639"],"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":["154 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 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT R ,JIii_ 1 ~ 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring APPELLANT I v. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES APPELLEE Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S APPENDIX Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District 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 APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S APPENDIX Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I XNDEX TO APPENDXX Relevant Docket Entries . . . . . . . . i Motion To Enjoin The LRSD From Entering Into A Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests For Information And Without Prior Involvement of The Joshua Intervenors ......... . Brief In Support of Motion To enjoin The LRSD From Entering Into A Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests For Information And Without Prior Involvement of The Joshua Intervenors. Motion For Order of Dismissal ..... Brief In Support of Motion For Order of Dismissal order, December 11, 1995 The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition To The LRSD's Motion For An Order of Dismissal Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996 ex 359 - LRSD Management Services Agreement With Servicemaster . . . . . . . . . . . . ex 364 - Opinion No. 95-294 .. CX 373 - Purported Settlement Between LRSD And Servicemaster . . . . . . . . . . ex 374 - Joshua Acceptance of Settlement . . . . 1 . . . . . 4 34 38 44 50 58 69 192 . . . 197 . 206 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8/31/95 2503 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's Program Planning and Budgeting Process (vjt) [Entry date 09/01/95) [4:82cv866] 8/31/95 2504 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1995-96 Budget/August Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 09/01/95) [4:82cv866] 8/31/95 2505 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/August Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 09 /01/95) ( 4: 82cv866) 8/31/95 2506: MOTION by Joshua to enjoin the LRSD from entering into. a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors (vjt) [Entry date 09/01/95) (4:82cv866] 9/1/95 2507 CLERK'S MINUTES: DAY THREE of hearings resumes w/Court taking up LRSD; after witness testimony and exhibits received, court instructs Joshua and Knight to file request for hearing to rebuts w/i 10 days and outline areas in which they want evidence presented; hearing will then be set; court adjourns (Waunzell Petre, court reporter) ( sc) [ 4 : 8 2 cv8 6 6 ) 9/1/95 2508 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (335-342) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 09/05/95) [4:82cv866] 9/5/95 2509 LETTER to court from PCSSD re their submission on the pooling issues (vjt) [Entry date 09/06/95) (4:82cv866) 9/5/95 2510 NOTICE of filing of PCSSD Submission Regarding \"Pooling\" Issues (vjt) [Entry date 09/06/95) (4:82cv866] 9/5/95 2511 NOTICE of filing of LRSD Pre-Trial Information Concerning Pooling of M-to-M Funds (vjt) (Entry date 09/06/95) [4:82cv866] 9/7/95 2512 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by LRSD to release incentive school kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats (vjt) (4:82cv866) 9/7/95 2513 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting LRSD's motions to release incentive school kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats (2469-1) [2512-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 9/7/95 (vjt) (4:82cv866] 9/7/95 2514- RESPONSE by LRSD to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/7/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/14/95 9/14/95 9/15/95 9/15/95 9/15/95 9/18/95 following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 09/08/95) [ 4: 82cv866 J 2515 RESPONSE by PCSSD to LRSD pretrial information concerning pooling of m-to-m funds [2511-1) (vjt) [Entry date 09/08/95] [4:82cv866) 2516 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright on 8/1/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2517 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/2/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2518 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright re: M-M pooling as ordered by 8th Circuit on remand; PCSSD puts on evidence, calls Dr. Don Stewart to testify; exhibits received; hearings to continue at a later date (Debbie Petre, court reporter) (sc) [4:82cv866] 2519 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (343-358) by PCSSD and LRsD in open court (vjt) [Entry date 09/11/95) [4:82cv866] 2520 MOTION by PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD Desegregation Plan (vjt) [Entry date 09/15/95) (4:82cv866) 2521 SPECIAL STATUS REPORT of the PCSSD concerning its affirmative action transfer procedure (vjt) [Entry date 09/15/95) [4:82cv866] 2522 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/28/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2523 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting PCSSD's motion to improve racial balance at Pine Forest Elementary School [2494-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 9/15/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2524 STATUS REPORT by ODM on Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers in the LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD (vjt) [ 4: 82cv866) 2525 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting motion for partial release from court supervision (2486-1); the North Little Rock School District is hereby released from Court supervision on student assignments (cc: all counsel) (EOD 09/18/95) (jad) (4:82cv866) ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/19/95 2526 NOTICE of filing by Joshua of response to the districts' motions for release of court supervision re the respective settlement plans (vjt) [Entry date 09/20/95) [4:82cv866] 9/20/95 2527 NOTICE by ODM of filing Replacement of Portable Classroom Buildings in the PCSSD {vjt) [Entry date 09 /21/95) [ 4: 82cv866) 9/22/95 2s2s{aRIEF by Joshua in support of motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors (2506-1) (vjt) [4:82cv866] 9/26/95 2529 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright re M-to-M Pooling, the hrg from 9/8/95 is scheduled to continue on Saturday, 10/28/95 from 9:00 am until noon and thereafter to continue on December 14th, 15th, 1995 at 9:00 am if necessary; a hrg is scheduled to begin Monday, 2/12/96 at 9:00 am re court withdrawal from certain aspects of the plan (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 09/27/95) [4:8;acv866) 9/26/95 2530 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright finding Joshua's motions for temporary restraining order, for preliminary injunction and to cite the LRSD for contempt of court moot [2477-1] [2477-2) [2477-3] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 09/27/95) [4:82cv866] 9/27/95 2531 NOTICE of filing of the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary and the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey (vjt) [Entry date 09/28/95) [4:82cv866] 9/28/95 2532 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/September Project Management Tool (vjt) [4:82cv866) 9/29/95 2533 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [4:82cv866] 9/29/95 2534 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file petition for fees and costs (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/6/95 2535 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 6/23/95 (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/6/95 10/6/95 10/6/95 10/6/95 2536 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 7/7/95 (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2537 LETTER to court from PCSSD re replacement of portables at Sylvan Hills High School and Elementary School and Robinson Elementary School (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2538 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting PCSSD's motion for permission to replace portables at certain schools [2429-1]; the PCSSD is reminded that under the Plan, all school construction is subject to prior approval by this Court (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2539 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 11/15/95 to file petition for fees and costs [2534-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2540 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 8/30/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2541 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 8/31/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2542 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 9/1/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2543 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 9/8/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/25/95 2544 MOTION by Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the Little Rock School defts under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (vjt) [Entry date 10/26/95] [4:82cv866] 10/25/95 2545 MEMORANDUM by Joshua in support of motion regarding faculty and staff assignment practices [2544-1] (vjt) [Entry date 10/26/95] [4:82cv866] 10/26/95 2546 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by deft Pulaski Cty School for order regarding portable buildings (kayp) [Entry date 10/27/95] [Edit date 10/27/95] [4:82cv866] 10/27/95 2547 MOTION by ServiceMaster for leave to intervene (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95] [Edit date 10/30/95] [4:82cv866) iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/27/95 10/27/95 10/28/95 10/28/95 10/31/95 10/31/95 10/31/95 11/2/95 11/2/95 11/2/95 11/3/95 2548 BRIEF by ServiceMaster in support of motion for leave to intervene [2547-1) (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [ 4: 82cv866] .2549.f RESPONSE by intv ServiceMaster to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866] 2550 'CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright on mot by LRSD to prevent LRSD from entering into contract with Service Master; mot to intervene by Service Master granted; attys Joseph Mowery and John Everett present for Service Master; Joshua begins proof with certain testimony; exhibits received; Court will not rule at this time; hearing to be continued (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 10/30/95) [Edit date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866] 2551 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (359-371) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866) 2552 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright that the hrg re Joshua's motion to prevent LRSD from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster is now scheduled to continue on Friday, 12/8/95 at 9:00 am (cc: all counsel) EOD 10/31/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2553 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/October Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 11/01/95) [ 4: 82cv866) 2554 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 11/01/95) [4:82cv866] 2555 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of budget hrg continued from 6/23/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 7/6/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2556 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg on motion for TRO and preliminary injunction before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/25/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2557 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting ServiceMaster's motion for leave to intervene in accordance w/ the Court's ruling from the bench during a hrg on 10/28/95 [2547-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 10/2/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2558 MOTION by LRSD for extension of time to respond to Joshua's motion to set forth in detail the V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11/6/95 11/13/95 continuing obligation of LRSD under its desegregation plan with regard to faculty and staff (vjt) (Entry date 11/06/95] (4:82cv866] 2559 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting LRSD's motion for extension of time until 11/13/95 to respond to Joshua's motion regarding faculty and staff (2558-1] (2544-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/6/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2560 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the Little Rock School defts under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (2544-1] (bt) [Entry date 11/14/95] [4:82cv866] 11/14/95 2561 RESPONSE by NLRSD to Joshua's motion re faculty and staff assignment (2544-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/ 15/95] [ 4: 82cv866] 11/15/95 2562 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file motion for an award of attys' fees and costs (vjt) [Entry date 11/16/95] [4:82cv866] 11/21/95 2563 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 11/22/95 to file motion for an award of attys' and costs [2562-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/21/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 11/21/95 2564 LRSD's 1995-96 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT (vjt) [Entry date 11/22/95] [4:82cv866] 11/22/95 2565 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM by Joshua for an interim award of attys' fees and for costs for post-judgment monitoring (vjt) [Entry date 11/27/95] [4:82cv866] 11/24/95 2566 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright finding the following motions moot: for modification of desegregation plan by LRSD [2432-1] and for approval of new school sites by PCSSD (2443-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 11/27/95] [4:82cv866] 11/29/95 2567 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that parties may file any objections to ODM's Proposed 1995-96 Budget w/i 15 days from the date of entry of this Order (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/29/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] vi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11/29/95 11/29/95 11/29/95 11/30/95 11/30/95 11/30/95 2568.~BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of motion response (2549-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866] 2569 MOTION by intervenor ServiceMaster for leave to file amended answer (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866] 2570 BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of motion for leave to file amended answer (2569-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866) 2571 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/November Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 2572 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 2573 MOTION by LRSD for an order dismissing this case w/ prej w/ respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLSD as of 1/18/91 except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues re implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans (vjt) (Entry date 12/01/95] [4:82cv866] 11/30/95 2574 BRIEF by LRSD in support of motion for an order dismissing this case w/ prej w/ respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLSD (2573-1] (vjt) [Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 12/1/95 12/4/95 12/5/95 12/6/95 12/6/95 2575 NOTICE of filing by ODM of Monitoring Report: The LRSD 1994-95 Incentive School Extended Year Program (vjt) [Entry date 12/04/95] [4:82cv866) 2576 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 4/10/95 (vjt) (4:82cv866] 2577 MOTION by LRSD and PCSSD to extend time to respond to Joshua's fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 12/06/95] ( 4: 82cv866] 2578 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting joint motion of LRSD and PCSSD to extend time until 12/18/95 to respond to Joshua's fee petition (2577-1] (2565-1] (2565-2] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/6/95 (vjt) ( 4: 82cv866] 2579 MOTION by Joshua for continuance of hrg scheduled for 12/8/95 (vjt) [Entry date 12/07/95] [4:82cv866] vii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12/6/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 2580 FOURTH QUARTER STATUS REPORT by NLRSD re North Little Rock Plan Implementation in 1994-95 (vjt) [Entry date 12/07/95) [4:82cv866) 2581 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright continues re: Joshua's mot for preliminary injunction with respect to ServiceMaster contract; Court receives exhibits and rules from bench; order will issue (Debbie Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 12/11/95) [4:82cv866] 2582 NOTICE of filing exhibits (372-378) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 2583 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting motion for leave to file amended answer by intv ServiceMaster (2569-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 2584~AMENDED RESPONSE by intv ServiceMaster to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 12/11/95 2585 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that Joshua's motion for continuance of hrg set for 12/8/95 was denied in open Court during hrgs conducted on 12/8/95 [2579-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/11/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 12/11/95 2586 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright finding that the purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster [2506-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/11/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 12/12/95 2587 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file their response to the LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal (vjt) (Entry date 12/13/95] [4:82cv866] 12/12/95 2588 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 1/5/96 to file their response to LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal (2587-1] [2573-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 12/13/95) [4:82cv866] 12/14/95 2589 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright continued from 9/8/95 on M-M Pooling issues on remand from 8th Circuit; after Dr. Stewart testimony, County rests; LRSD calls Earl Jones to testify; certain exhibits received; Court directs LRSD and PCSSD to file briefs on pooling issue by viii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/22/96; parties to contact Court if they want a hearing to take Ruth Steele testimony; Court adjourns (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 12/15/95) [4:82cv866) 12/14/95 2590 NOTICE of filing of amendment to ODM's September 15, 1995 status report on staffing to add desegregation plan provisions (vjt} [Entry date 12/15/95) [4:82cv866) 12/14/95 2591 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (379-385) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 12/15/95) (4:82cv866] 12/15/95 2592 MOTION by LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD to extend time to respond to Joshua's fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 12/19/95] (4:82cv866] 12/20/95 .2593 -:\"0PPOSITION by Joshua to LRSD's motion for an order 12/22/95 - of dismissal (2573-1] (vjt) [Entry date 12/21/95] [4:82cv866] 2594-'MOTION by Joshua Intervenors for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 and for  completion of hearing (bt) [Entry date 12/26/95] [4:82cv866] 12/22/95 2595 BRIEF by Joshua Intervenors in support of motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 (2594-1] and for completion hearing (2594-2] (bt) [Entry date 12/26/95] [4:82cv866] 12/27/95 2596 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting motion of LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD to extend time until 1/31/96 to respond to Joshua's fee petition (2592-1) (2565-1] (2565-2] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/27/95 (vjt) [ 4: 82cv866 J 12/29/95 2597 NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing 1996-97 Budget/December Project Management Tool (bt) ( 4: 82cv866 J 12/29/95 2598 NOTICE by defendant Arkansas Educ Board of filing Project Management Tool (bt) [4:82cv866) ix I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ~ 12cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL LEAD APPEAL U.S. District Court USDC for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: 82-CV-866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Filed: 11/30/82 Assigned to: Judge Susan W. Wright Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 440 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question Dkt # in USCA 8USCA: is :00-96-02047 Dkt # in USCA8 : is :00-95-01481 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act 12/29/95 2597 12/29/95 2598 1/4/96 2599 1,d/96 2600 .- 1/8/96 2601?' 1/12/96 2602 1/17/96 2603 NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing 1996-97 Budget/December Project Management Tool (bt) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by defendant Arkansas Educ Board of filing Project Management Tool (bt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright approving ODM's Proposed 1995-96 Budget in its entirety [2567-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/4/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] RESPONSE by intervenor ServiceMaster to motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1) and for completion of hearing [2594-2) (bt) [Entry date 01/09/96) [4: 82cv866] BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of response to motion for reconsideration and completion of hearing [2600-1) (bt) [Entry date 01/09/96) [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that the hrg will resume re motion to withdraw court supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [2481-1) and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [2483-1) at 9:00 on 2/12/96 (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] MOTION by Joshua for leave to file reply (vjt) [Entry date 01/18/96) [4: 82cv866] I 1/18/96 2604 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting Joshua's motion leave to file reply; a reply to the ServiceMaster submission dated 1/8/96 is extended to 1/26/96 [2603-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/18/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] for I 1/24/96 I 2605 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 3/24/95 (vjt) [Entry date 01/25/96) [4:82cv866] I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Pagel I X - ----- - - - - - - - ~ I I~P ~oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD .2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 1/26/96 I 11/26/96 11/26/96 11/26/96 I l/26/96 I 1/26/96 I l/29/96 I l/30/96 I 1/30/96 I 1/31/96 I l/31/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/5/96 2/5/96 2606( 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 REPLY brief by Joshua Intervenors to response to motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1] (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4:82cv866] NOTICE by defendant Pulaski Cty School of filing proposed conclusions of law (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4: 82cv866) NOTICE by defendant Pulaski Cty School of filing proposed findings of fact (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4:82cv866] SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF filed by defendant Pulaski County School regarding \"Pooling\" issues (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding pooling agreement (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele \u0026 Bobby Lester (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4: 82cv866) Amendment to Supplemental MOTION by PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings w/pe:cma.nent construction dated 10/25/95 (vjt) [Entry date 01/30/96) [4: 82cv866) MOTION by LRSD to extend time for the LRSD, PCSSD \u0026 NLRSD to respond to the Joshua fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 01/31/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing by ODM of 1995-96 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD \u0026 PCSSD (vjt) [Entry date 01/31/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/January Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 02/01/96) [4:82cv866) NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 02/01/96) [4: 82cv866) MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866) BRIEF by PCSSD in support of motion to amend desegregation plan [2617-1) (vj t) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of ADE's Semi-Annual Monitoring Report (vjt) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866J MOTION by Joshua for continuance of hrg set for 2/12/96 (vjt) [Entry date 02/06/96) [4: 82cv866)  WITNESS LIST submitted by LRSD for Unitary Status Hearings lnocket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 2 I xi I I I PToceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ,2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 2/5/96 I 2/6/96 I 2/7/96 I I I 2/8/96 I 2/9/96 I I 2/12/96 I 2/13/96 I 2/14/96 I I 2/20/96 I 2/23/96 I :c. . .1.3/96 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 (vj t) [Entry date 02/06/96] [4: 82cv866] EXHIBIT LIST submitted by LRSD re Unitary Status Hearings (vj t) [Entry date 02/06/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting motion to extend time until 3/1/96 for the LRSD, PCSSD \u0026 NLRSD to respond to Joshua's fee petition [2613-1] [2565-1] [2565-2] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 02/07/96] [4:82cv866] CLERK'S MINUTES: INFORMAL conference in chambers with attys and Ann Brown re: matters to be taken up at next week's hearing \u0026 Joshua's mot for continuance; Joshua's oral mot to extend time to respond to PCSSD's mot to amend granted to 3/1/96; no ruling on continuance; meeting adjourned (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 02/08/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's oral motion to extend time until 3/15/96 to respond to PCSSD's motion to amend desegregation plan [2617-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [4:82cv866] STIPULATION for Order by PCSSD, LRSD, NLRSD and the Joshua \u0026 Knight Intervenors re which areas of the Districts' respective desegregation plans can be released from Court supervision and monitoring (vjt) [Entry date 02/12/96] [4: 82cv866] Amendment to MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [4: 82cv866] MEMO TO FILE: finding the motion for continuance of hrg set for 2/12/96 moot [2620-1] (bt) [Entry date 02/14/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright scheduling informational hrgs on the LRSD draft budget and budgeting process for 9:00am on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996; June 6 \u0026 7, 1996; and July 29 \u0026 30, 1996; board members of the LRSD are required to attend hrgs (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 02/15/96] [4:82cv866] TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/11/95 (vjt) [Entry date 02/21/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright scheduling evidentiary hrgs for May 13-15 \u0026 May 30-31, 1996 to evaluate the success of settlement plans and desegregation remedies (cc: all counsel) (vj t) [Entry date 02/26/96] [4: 82cv866] LRSD'S SECOND QUARTER STATUS REPORT (vjt) [Entry date 02/26/96] [4: 82cv866] I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 3 I xii I I Proceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD , 2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL I 2/28/96 1 2/29/96 I 2/29/96 I 3/1/96 I 3/1/96 I 3/1/96 13 't:../96 I I I I I I 3/11/96 13/12/96 I 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 NOTICE of filing by LRSD of \"Little Rock School D~strict Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Sununary\" (vjt) [Entry date 02/29/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE of Filing by plaintiff LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/February Project Management Tool (lb) [Entry date 03/01/96) [Edit date 03/01/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing by defendant ADE'S Project Management Tool (lb) [Entry date 03/01/96) [4: 82cv866] RESPONSE by LRSD to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and costs for post-judgment monitoring [2565-2) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4: 82cv866] MEMORANDUM BRIEF by LRSD in support of motion response [2636-1) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4:82cv866] RESPONSE by NLRSD to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and costs for post-judgment monitoring [2565-2) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4: 82cv866] Supplemental and Clarifying MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [Entry date 03/07/96) [4: 82cv866] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright denying as moot PCSSD's motion to withdraw court supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [2481-1); denying as moot LRSSD's motion for partial unitary status [2483-1); denying Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1); denying as moot Joshua's motion for completion of hearing [2594-2); denying w/o prej Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures [2506-1); denying w/o prej PCSSD's motion to clarify the PCSSD Desegregation Plan [2520-1); denying LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal [2573-1); denying w/o prej Joshua's motion for an Order setting forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegragation plan w/respect to faculty and staff [2544-1); granting PCSSD's motions for an Order regarding portable buildings [2546-1) [2612-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/11/96 (vjt) [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright directing the LRSD to submit to the Court, ODM \u0026 parties by noon on March 18, 1996 all documents, budget material, business cases and any other info to be introduced at the hrg scheduled for 9:00am on March 26, 1996 (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] l\u003eocket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 4 I xiii I I I I I I P-oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ~ .2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 3/15/96 3/18/96 3/26/96 3/26/96 I 3/26/96 I 3/27/96 I I I I I I I I I 3/27/96 3/27/96 3/29/96 3/29/96 4/1/96 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 MOTION by Joshua for leave to file reply (vjt) [Entry date 03/18/96] (4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing of the Little Rock School District 1996 - 97 Proposed Budget and the Business Cases for Proposed Budget FY 1996-97 in accordance w/the Court's Order of 3/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W Wright re: budget of LRSD; testimony by witnesses \u0026 certain exhibits received; hearings conclude (Robin Johnson, court reporter) (sc) (4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing of exhibits (386 - 389) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 03/27 /96] [4: 82cv866] FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT by NLRSD re North Little Rock Plan Implementation in 1995-96 (vjt) [Entry date 03/27/96] (4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting PCSSD's supplemental and clarifying motion to amend desegregation plan; the Court authorizes a special millage election to be held May 7, 1996 and approves to convert Jacksonville Junior High North \u0026 Jacksonville Junior High South with one becoming a middle school hosting sixth \u0026 seventh graders and the other a traditional junior high hosting only eighth \u0026 ninth graders (2639-1]; finding PCSSD's previous motions to amend desegregation plan moot (2617-1] (2627-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright approving the stipulation for order filed 2/9/96 re areas in which the respective parties can be released from court supervision and monitoring (2626-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) (4: 82cv866) ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting Joshua's motion for leave to file reply to LRSD \u0026 NLRSD responses to their motion and memorandum for atty's fees \u0026 costs (2642-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) (4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/March Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 04/01/96) [4:82cv866] REPLY by Joshua to LRSD \u0026 NLRSD's response to fee petition (2565-1) (2565-2) (vj t) (4: 82cv866) I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 5 I xiv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P~oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD 32cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 4/4/96 4/4/96 4/8/96 4/9/96 4/16/96 4/22/96 4/26/96 4/30/96 4/30/96 2653 2654 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright directing parties to file any objections on or before 4/15/96 to the Magnet Review Committee's request for approval of the interdistrict magnet school budget for the 1995-96 school year (letter request dated 3/13/96 attached) (cc: all counsel) EOD 4/4/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright setting hrg on Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and for costs [2565-2) at 9:30 on 7/1/96 (cc: all counsel) EOD 4/4/96 (vj t) [4: 82cv866] 2655 NOTICE of filing of ADE'S Supplemental Report to the 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 February 1, 1996, Semi-Annual Monitor "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1178","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes","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":["1996-07-18/1996-12-19"],"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"],"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/1178"],"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 18, 1996 NOV b - 1996 Office of Desegrega:ion Monitonn9 ....... , The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District called a special meeting at 5 :00 p.m. on Thursday, July 18, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Linda Pondexter, Board President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: I. Ms.Beverly Griffin\nRecorder of Minutes CALL TO O,RDQt:- . Board President, Li:n:da Pondexter, called the meeting to,ot.der at 5:02 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence,.Df all Board members. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING July 18, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of accepting the report and recommendations of the contingency committee regarding the Superintendency of the Little Rock School District. Members of the contingency committee were present and are listed: Rett Tucker Roosevelt Brown Debbie Glasgow Marian Lacey ACTION AGENDA Betty Mitchell Skip Rutherford John Walker Mr. Rett Tucker provided a brief summary of the findings of the contingency committee. A copy of their report and recommendations are attached to these minutes. The committee's report included two recommendations: 1) to appoint a five member management team to lead the district until the appointment of an interim superintendent, and 2) to appoint Dr. Don Roberts as interim superintendent, effective August 15, 1996. Members of the recommended management team are: Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools Sadie Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools Marian Lacey, Principal of Mann Magnet Jodie Carter, Principal of McClellan Skip Rutherford, member of the LRSD Board of Directors from 1987-1991 Mr. Tucker reported that the committee recommended Dr. Roberts' appointment for a minimum of one year and a maximum of two years in order to give the LRSD Board the time necessary to find a permanent superintendent. He also stated that John Walker had agreed to a two year moratorium on any further legal action related to the Desegregation Plan and the settlement agreement. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING July 18, 1996 Page2 Executive Session Dr. Mitchell moved for the Board to convene in executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel issues. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session at 5:35 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. Mr. Riggs expressed appreciation to the members of the contingency committee and Ms. Pondexter thanked members of the Board for supporting her in the formation of the committee. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the recommendations of the contingency committee, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Price Gardner and Chris Heller, attorneys with the Friday firm, were asked to respond to questions of Board members regarding Dr. Williams' contract and the District's financial obligations to Dr. Williams. Mr. Gardner remarked that the contract was still in full effect unless Dr. Williams tendered a letter of resignation. He also stated that the Board could vote to terminate the contract \"for cause,\" but Mr. Heller suggested that the Board take no further action and allow the negotiations between Dr. Williams' attorney and Mr. Gardner to continue. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Riggs made a motion to adjourn at 5:55 p.m. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ~~?~~ ' Linda Pondexter, President APPROVED: g.J\n}., - 9 (, ~~ ,~k\u0026amp;,./J Suetricklan,Secretary CONTINGENCY COMMITTEE REPORT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JULY 18, 1996 Rett Tucker and Roosevelt Brown, Co-chairmen Debbie Glasgow, Marian Lacey, Betty Mitchell, Skip Rutherford, John Walker Members of the School Board and citizens of Little Rock, my name is Rett Tucker and I am Co-chairman of the Contingency Committee approved by this Board earlier this year. Other members, who are present, include Co-chairman Dr. Roosevelt Brown, PTA Council President Debbie Glasgow, Mann Principal Marian Lacey, CTA President Betty Mitchell, former school board president Skip Rutherford and attorney John Walker. On behalf of Dr. Brown~ let me begin by thanking the Board for putting your confidence and trust in us. We also want to thank the committee members for their dedication and hard work. We met numerous times in the spring and put together the framework of a contingency plan in the event it was needed. We have had almost perfect attendance at every meeting. We took this assignment very seriously. We considered it an honor and an opportunity to participate in this very important process. We resolved from the beginning that we would put our differences aside and work toward consensus. When we were notified Sunday that Dr. Williams was going to Kansas City, we were prepared. To finalize our recommendations, we have met every day this week and now come before you with a recommended plan of action. This plan comes to you with our unanimous support. In fact, I must say that our committee--with strong wills, strong personalities, strong views and all the diversity we prize in Little Rock--never once had a split vote and never met an issue that we didn't resolve in a civil and thoughtful way. I have been part of many committees both personally and professionally, but this one has represented the best and most gratifying experience I've ever had. Let's clarify first what we did not do. Although there has been a great deal of speculation, we did not consider the selection of a permanent Superintendent. That was not our assignment. We do believe, however, that this is a very important decision in its own right because it comes at such a critical time. We focused on the short-term, although we define short-term as one to two years. Tonight, we have two major recommendations. Our first deals with getting through the next several days and weeks. In this regard, we congratulate Dr. Williams on his new position and wish him well. We thank him for his leadership and his service. This is a tough job. We recognize that and appreciate all he has done. Although Dr. Williams will remain on the payroll until September 1, we know that he will be spending a great deal of his time, his talent and his energy--as he should--on Kansas City and the future. 2 While he will still be a very valuable resource for this school district, we propose--from tomorrow through August 14, the formation of a five-person management team which would report directly to the Board. This team would operate in the same spirit that our Contingency Committee has operated: successfully addressing a short-term assignment. We spent a great deal of time and thought on the membership of this team. We looked for people with experience, with dedication and who had the energy to take on extra assignments. We recommend the following individuals: Dr. Victor Anderson would serve as the daily operations officer. He brings a wealth of experience as a principal, an administrator and, more importantly, as a person who is recognized as both a consensus builder and a team player. He would be in charge of day to day administration. Joining him on the team will be Sadie Mitchell, a former teacher, a former principal, and now an administrator, who has worked very closely with the elementary schools. Also, Jodie Carter, the principal of McClellan High School, who from first hand experience understands both the challenges and the opportunities of our senior high schools. Sadie will be in charge of all elementary schools and Jodie will have the responsibility for the senior high schools. The two other members come from our Contingency Committee. Let me add that neither sought a position on the team. In fact, both had to be drafted. 3 e Marian Lacey is the principal of Mann Junior High School. She is a principal' s principal and was such a positive voice on our committee. Marian knows the junior highs and her outstanding record at Mann speaks for itself. She will focus on all aspects of the junior high schools. Skip Rutherford, the only non-educator on the team, understands the school board better than most. He served on the Board from 1987 to 1991, as its president in 1989 and 1990 and coordinated two victorious millage campaigns. He will supervise communication and student assignments and will serve without pay. All of these members will continue to perform their current responsibilities. Marian Lacey will still be the principal at Mann and Jodie Carter will still be the principal at McClellan. Skip Rutherford will still work at Cranford Johnson Robinson Woods. Vic Anderson and Sadie Mitchell will still be district administrators. All of them, however, for the good of the district, will work on the management team which means extra duty and long hours for each of them. Please note that all four educators are or have been successful principals and the non-educator is a former school board member and president. The team is experienced. It needs to be because much will be happening over the next four weeks--including the opening and beginning of school. We simply can't put this district on hold for that time period. This professional team addresses that issue. 4 The second part of our recommendation relates to the position of Interim Superintendent. We considered many people and possibilities. We listened to board members and to interested citizens. We wanted to recommend someone who could provide effective, steady, experienced leadership\nsomeone with local ties who understands Little Rock, Arkansas and state school funding\nsomeone who could help this district and the Board in its search for a permanent Superintendent. We believe we have found that person. Tonight, we unanimously recommend to you, Dr. Don Roberts--the former Director of the Arkansas Department of Education and the former Assistant Superintendent of the Little Rock School District. Dr. Roberts is an Arkansas native and was educated at Henderson State and the University of Arkansas. He served as State Education Director during the administrations of both Governor Bill Clinton and Governor Frank White. He has been a successful Superintendent in three urban school districts. We recommend him to you as Interim Superintendent for a minimum of one year and a maximum of two. This will give you the time, the breathing room and the opportunity to find the best Superintendent possible. As we know from experience, finding a Superintendent is not always a quick process. Dr. Roberts can and will help you in the search. He is 61 years old and retired in 1994 after seven years as Superintendent of the Fort Worth School District. This is a district with 72,000 students and 9,000 employees. Since that time, he has been doing consulting work with school districts across the country. 5 e He loves Little Rock, loves Arkansas, knows Little Rock and knows Arkansas. We sought him out for this position. He has always been dedicated to high quality desegregated education and seeks to build cooperation across racial lines. He is known as a person who keeps his word and works in good faith. He is an educator, an administrator and, we believe, a healer. He did not seek the job. We went after him. Dr. Roberts can be here tomorrow to meet with you individually and as a group. He can be in Little Rock and on the job no later than August 15. We also recommend the following: When Dr. Roberts arrives on August 15, the management team will become an advisory team to him. Dr. Roberts would, of course, take over the day to day operations, but we envision the advisory team helping him on both a regular and as-needed basis. Their assistance in this transition will be invaluable. As I noted earlier, we believe Dr. Roberts should be given a oneyear contract with the possibility of another year if needed. He has indicated he is not interested in the full-time Superintendent's position, but, again, that subject is a matter for the Board to discuss at the appropriate time. We believe his compensation package should be comparable to that of Dr. Williams. 6 Dr. Roberts said it is extremely important to him that the city's leadership, the business community and other groups come together in support of the public schools. We've seen a great deal of that happening already and tonight we have with us Mayor Dailey, other elected officials, city leaders, school patrons, parents and interested citizens who are here in support of quality desegregated public education in our city. As chairman of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, I can pledge to Dr. Roberts, the board, and the management team, the Chamber's continued support. The next two Chamber Chairmen, Doug Buford and Janet Jones, are here to back me up. Finally, and this is very important: to provide this district with stability as it works its way through some difficult problems and prepares for the 21st century, our colleague and fellow committee member John Walker, has agreed--in good faith--to a two-year moratorium on initiating any new legal action against the school district related to the settlement agreement. Dr. Roberts expressed reservations to our committee about accepting a position in a district embroiled in litigation and controversy. This offer was made by Mr. Walker to Dr. Roberts because of Dr. Roberts' past record in the Little Rock School District and the State Department of Education. This means that the Board, Dr. Roberts and the employees in the District, for the first time in almost 40 years, can concentrate totally and fully on educating our children and on implementing and, if necessary, modifying the current desegregation plan and getting out of court. 7 These are our recommendations. We believe they serve as a sound and reasonable short-term plan. We also believe they serve as a new beginning for the district and a bridge to the future. It is amazing what we can accomplish when we work together. Madame President and members of the Board, the Contingency Committee respectfully requests your approval of these recommendations. Having discharged our duties and responsibilities, we have concluded our assignment and will disband as a committee following tonight's meeting. We thank you for this opportunity to serve our school district and our city. Dr. Brown and I as well as members of the committee are now available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. C:\\wpwin6 l lwpdocsltucker\\Superintendent. 78 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 R NOV 6 - 1996 Of/ice of DesegregatJon Monitonng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on July 25, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of six Board members. Mr. Riggs was absent. The teacher ex officio, Dr. Jane Meadows, representing Hall High School, and the student ex officio from McClellan High School, Mitchell Moore, Jr., were also present. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Pondexter asked for a motion from the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a contract. Ms. Gee moved for the executive session, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 2 II. III. The Board returned from executive session at 6:20 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Ms. Gee made a motion to suspend the rules to consider an item that was not on the meeting agenda. Ms. Magness seconded the motion at it carried 6-0. Ms. Gee moved to accept a contract designating Dr. Don Roberts as interim superintendent. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of June 27, and from special meetings conducted on June 28, and July 11, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were approved 6-0, on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Ms. Magness. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Anderson presented citations to the ex officio Board members for the month of July: Dr. Jane Meadows, teacher from Hall High School\nand Mitchell Moore, Jr., McClellan High School student. B. PARTNERSHIPS There were no new partnerships presented for the month of July. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Ms. Pondexter invited Mr. Price Gardner to address the Board and answer questions regarding the status of superintendent Henry Williams' contract. He reported that effective August 1, or on the date that Dr. Williams signs a contract in another District, that action would effectively be a resignation from the LRSD and any further obligations to Dr. Williams would be measured as of that date. Mr. Gardner is continuing to negotiate with Dr. Williams' attorney. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 3 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden reported that ODM monitors had visited extended year (incentive school) sites and would be providing a copy of that report to the Board and administration within the next few weeks. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors Joy Springer introduced Sheree Peterson, a Hall High School graduate who will be attending the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff next school term. Ms. Peterson commented on the treatment of black students by police resource officers and school administrators at Hall High School. She asked that District staff members be provided additional training in sensitivity to the needs of black male students. Ms. Springer commended the Board for commissioning the desegregation committee. She asked the Board and the new administration to review the recommendations contained in the committee's report and base plan modifications on those recommendations. She also asked for hwnan relations committees to be formed in the secondary schools to include students and teachers from all backgrounds to increase interaction and goodwill. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Linda Pondexter expressed appreciation to the members of the desegregation committee and the contingency committee. She also thanked Dr. Don Roberts for accepting the appointment as interim superintendent. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page4 IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Diane Douglas is the parent of a special education student who had been charged with assaulting his teacher at Henderson Jr. High in February, 1996. Ms. Douglas distributed copies of documents, including a summons from the Pulaski County Juvenile Court, and asked the Board to investigate why the teacher waited until mid-July to file charges against her son. Mike Campbell, transportation department employee, asked the Board to consider conducting an internal audit and suggested that they should start with the Transportation Department. Hafeeza Majeed expressed concern about communication between the contingency committee and the community. She questioned whether the community had any input into the recommendations made by the committee or the selection of the interim superintendent. Gwen Porter-Cole discussed the elimination of the truancy center and concerns about the students who would not have access to services previously provided by the truancy center staff. Mark Cole introduced himself as a former LRSD student and commended Sheree Peterson on the comments she made regarding treatment of students at Hall High School. He asked the Board to look for ways to better educate black children in our city. V. ACTION AGENDA A. 1996-97 Carl Perkins Application The Board was asked to approve the submission of an application to the Arkansas Department of Education for a two-year local plan utilizing Carl Perkins funds. The application requested $351,570 to implement vocational evaluation, training, and purchase of additional equipment. Ms. Gee made a motion to approve the submission, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 5 B. Mini-Grant Submissions The Board was asked to approve the grant submissions listed in the following table. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the proposed applications, Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it passed 6-0. PROGRAM Develop a Web site for space/science/math education Establish a school greenhouse Install computer in Kindergarten C. Technology Grant SCHOOL Carver Magnet Mabelvale J. H. Fair Park Elem. AMOUNT REQUESTED $1,020 $1,000 $1 ,500 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION Ark. Space Grant Consortium Entergy/AP \u0026amp; L EDS The Board was asked to approve the submission of a grant application which had been forwarded to the Governor's Telecommunications and Information Technology Advisory Board in early July. The application requested $1,060,000 for the purchase of computers, network servers and printers, and would allow school media centers connection to the Internet. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the grant submission. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. D. ESEA, Title I District Plan, 1996-97 The ESEA, Title I, District Plan was prepared for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education by August 1, 1996. The Board was provided with copies of the Plan and the program abstract, which included a funding allocation of $4,258,731, based on 11,107 eligible students. Mr. Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs, was present to respond to the Board's questions regarding the application. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve submission of the application, seconded by Ms. Strickland. The motion carried 6-0. E. ESEA, Title VI Application, 1996-97 The Board was also asked to approve submission of the ESEA, Title VI application for 1996-97. The program abstract was included in the Board agenda and requested $120,520 to support and enhance existing programs in the schools. Ms. Gee moved to accept the submission, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it passed 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 6 F. First Reading: District Employee Conflict oflnterest Policy A policy on Conflict oflnterest and Ethics in Business Activities was submitted for the Board's review and approval. Mr. Charles Neal, Director of Purchasing, was present to respond to questions from Board members, and stated that much of the policy text was taken directly from Arkansas purchasing law and procurement codes. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the policy on first reading. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. G. Educational Equity Monitoring Instrument, 1996-97 The Incentive School Monitoring instrument for 1996-97 was submitted for the Board's review and approval. Changes in the document had been suggested and approved by the LRSD Biracial Committee. Ms. Gee moved to approve the instrument, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion carried 6-0. H. Televised Forum for School Board Candidates Upon approval of the Board, administration will arrange for a live broadcast over the District's cable channel, of a discussion among candidates for school board positions in zones one and five. The telecast will be conducted and sponsored by the LR Neighborhood Coalition. Ms. Magness moved to authorize the administration to proceed with the broadcast. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. I. Student Transfer Request Dr. Ronnie Williams petitioned the Board to approve a transfer request for his son, Torre, from Conway to Little Rock Central High School. The Board was provided copies of Arkansas laws and codes that regulate acceptance of minority students into districts, such as LR, that are operating under court-ordered desegregation plans. Torre would not be prohibited from attending school at Central, if he were living with a relative in the attendance zone, but he would not be allowed to participate in sports without approval of the Arkansas Athletic Association. The Board took no formal action on the request, but referred Dr. Williams to AAA for further information. J. Personnel Changes Dr. Anderson recommended acceptance of the personnel changes printed in the agenda and transfers and promotions listed on a slip sheet to the agenda. The Board asked to vote separately on items previously submitted for approval and additional personnel changes and transfers that were included on a slip sheet to the agenda. Ms. Gee moved to accept the resignations and terminations listed in the agenda. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 7 VI. Executive Session Ms. Gee moved for the Board to conduct an executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel issues, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board remained in executive session from 7:20 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., and returned to report that no action had been taken. Dr. Anderson recommended approval to transfer Dr. Walter Marshaleck to Southwest Jr. High School and Mr. Johnny Neely to the Alternative Learning Center. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve these transfers. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Ms. Pondexter abstaining. Administrative personnel changes were approved unanimously on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. They are listed in the table below. NAME Vernon Smith Kenneth Moore Jimmy Mosby Lloyd Sain Ann Blaylock Jerome Farmer PREVIOUS POSITION Asst. Principal/Fair Teacher/Hope High School Asst. Principal/Henderson Teacher/Hall Teacher/Pulaski Heights Teacher-Coach/Mann NEW POSITION Principal/Forest Heights Asst. Principal/Fair Asst. Principal/Hall Asst. Principal/Pulaski Hts. Pt. Time Asst. Prin./Pulaski Hts. Asst. Principal/Henderson Additionally, Dr. Mitchell made a motion to reinstate elementary assistant principals at six schools where those positions had been eliminated as a budget reduction strategy. Mr. Gadberry responded to questions from the Board and reported that reinstating these positions would cost approximately $160,000. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K. Financial Reports Financial reports for the month of June were unavailable at the time of the meeting. Mr. Milhollen responded to questions regarding the status of end-of-year closing progress. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update Nancy Acre responded to questions from the Board regarding the report printed in the agenda. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 8 B. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen reported that court hearings that had been scheduled for review of the budget had been canceled by Judge Wright. After filing the budget, meetings will be held in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for review of the proposed budget. C. Transportation Update: LRSD/Laidlaw Joint Report Mr. Ed Streeter provided information on transportation operations after the first year of Laidlaw's service to the District. He reported that Laidlaw retained 82% of the former LRSD bus drivers, 71 % of the former mechanics, and 100% of former LRSD supervisors and dispatchers. He also reported that the on-time performance rate for Laidlaw was 97.6% compared with the previous LRSD on-time rate of 78%. A copy of the statistical charts were provided for the Board's review. D. Blueprint for Action Ms. Pondexter had asked for this item to be included on the agenda and indicated that she would provide the information to the Board at a later date. The Board took a briefrecess at 8:24 p.m. and returned at 8:35 p.m. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS Hafeeza Majeed commented on recent actions of the Board relating to the appointment of the management team and the interim superintendent. She questioned the formation of the desegregation committee, the contingency committee and strategic planning committees. She also suggested that Laidlaw provide training in human relations skills for the bus drivers. Lou Ethel Nauden expressed concerns about the teacher contract and the entire negotiations process. She stressed the importance of the fringe benefits to the total contract package. VIII. HEARINGS: DISCIPLINARY None. REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 25, 1996 Page 9 IX. HEARING: LIBRARY BOOK CENSORSHIP Ms. Dee Norton, parent at Pulaski Heights Elementary school, had filed a complaint about two books housed in District libraries\nFirst Date and Beach House, by R. L. Stine. She had appeared before the Board previously, asking that the books be removed from District libraries. The Board had asked for a review of the books, using the District's established procedure for reconsideration of fictional library materials. Ms. Lucy Lyon, Director of Technology and Media Services, coordinated the formation of a review committee, which met to review the books. That committee recommended that the books be retained in the library. Ms. Norton appealed that decision and asked the Board to reconsider the decision of the committee. Dr. Michael Daugherty requested placement of the appeal on the agenda for consideration. In addition to Ms. Lyon, Mr. Mark Burnette spoke on behalf of the committee and its' findings. Other committee members were also present to indicate their agreement with the decision to retain the books on the library shelves: Thelma Watson, Mary Gillespie, Lillie Carter, and Margaret Gremillion. Andy Turner, attorney with the Friday firm, addressed the issue of censorship and provided established precedent for lawsuits that could possibly result from removing library books. He recommended that the Board consider the committee's findings and possible legal exposure resulting in a challenge of the First Amendment. Dr. Anderson suggested that the Board allow the committee's recommendation to stand. Ms. Gee moved to accept the recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried 5-1, with Dr. Daugherty casting the \"no\" vote. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, Dr. Mitchell moved for adjournment at 9:08 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: \u0026lt;Z-\n),\n).._q(.o LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 AEcs NOV 6 - 1996 Office of Des egregar,on Mon,tormg The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District called a special meeting immediately preceding the regularly scheduled agenda meeting, at 5 :00 p.m. on Thursday, August 8, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Linda Pondexter, Board President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Victor Anderson, Assistant Superintendent Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six Board members. Mr. Riggs was absent. Also present were ex officio members of the Board: Thaddeus Leopoulos, a student at Parkview Magnet, and Rose Bogan, a teacher at McClellan High School. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: 1. Westside 2. Eastside 3. CTA Presentation 4. Administrative Staffing Reassignments 5. Recommended Personnel Changes 6. Approval of Secretarial Position 7. Briefing by Legal Counsel 8. Student Hearings 9. Employee Hearing ACTION AGENDA Westside Mayor Jim Dailey presented a letter requesting the Board's approval to donate Westside Junior High School to the Volunteers of America and the Central Little Rock Community Development Corporation. Representatives of VOA and the CDC, Belinda Snow and Jeff Arnett, were also present and requested support for development of their plans which include a three phase implementation. Phase I would be the development of 50 efficiency housing units for the homeless\nPhase II would develop office space for public and private non-profit service agencies\nand Phase III would renovate the 1000 seat auditorium for performance space for local arts groups and meeting space for community groups. Federal, state and city funds will be used to complete the project. The District had previously accepted an offer on the property with an August 1996 closing date. Ms. Magness moved to extend the previously approved closing date until October 20, and to authorize Doug Eaton to meet with representatives from the city to explore options for purchase other than actual cash. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Eastside Kay Hadley reported that she had met with VOA staff and had used information from their proposal to develop a similar plan for utilizing the now vacant Eastside building. She stated an interest in operating a vocational training center with a day care center. Mr. Eaton was asked by the Board to negotiate a possible lease and report back to the Board at a later date. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 Page3 CT A Presentation Betty Mitchell, CT A President, introduced Rich Nagel who provided copies of a trend chart of the amount of District funds used to pay teacher salaries. Frank Martin commented on a possible crisis situation in the contract negotiations process and questioned the authority of the administrators who were bargaining on behalf of the Board and administration. He stated that if there was not a settlement of the contract this week, teachers would not return to work on the first day of school, August 19. Dr. Anderson remarked that the negotiating team had regularly briefed the management team on the status of the negotiations process. He stated that the negotiating team was operating strictly under the parameters allowable, taking into consideration the District's financial condition. He indicated that there was no reason to believe that the team was not operating in good faith and offered to schedule a meeting between Board members and the management team for further discussion or direction. Ms. Pondexter asked for the parties to continue negotiating and indicated that she would like for the contract issue to be resolved before the start of school. She recognized Mr. Skip Rutherford who also commented on the commitment of the management team to solve the issue positively. Administrative Staffing Reassignments The Board was asked to approve the reassignment of two assistant principals: Patricia McMurray to Henderson Jr. High School, and Gail Pitts to Forest Heights Jr. High School. Ms. Magness moved to approve the recommended reassignments. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Recommended Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve three assistant principals' assignments for the next school term. Action on this request was split for the purpose of voting. Unanimous approval was given to assign Mary Lou Kahler to the position of assistant principal at King Elementary School, and Thomas Voegele as acting assistant principal at Dunbar Jr. High School on a motion made by Dr. Mitchell and seconded by Ms. Magness. On the third request for reassignment, administration requested Board approval to assign Rhonda Dunn as a half-time assistant principal at Dunbar Jr. High School. Ms. Dunn would continue to serve as a classroom teacher for 1/2 day. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the recommendation, and Ms. Magness seconded the motion. Ms. Pondexter spoke in opposition to the motion and suggested that no additional positions should be approved by SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 Pagei the Board until the teacher contract negotiations are final. The motion failed 4-2, with Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Magness voting in favor of the motion, and Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Gee, Ms. Strickland and Dr. Daugherty voting \"no.\" Approval of Secretarial Position Administration requested approval for funding of a clerical position for the newly created office of the Athletic Director. Dr. Anderson spoke in favor of establishing the position and provided information regarding the cost of funding the position. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the recommendation and Ms. Magness seconded the motion. Ms. Gee, Dr. Daugherty, Ms. Pondexter and Ms. Strickland all spoke in opposition to the motion. They indicated that, although the position was probably necessary, they would not support creating a new position at this time and suggested that the clerical duties for the Athletic Director should be shared by someone currently employed, either a school-based employee or an employee of the central office. The motion failed 4-2. Briefing by Legal Counsel Mr. Heller was asked to attend the meeting to respond to questions regarding two separate issues before the Board: 1) the erection of a fence on District property during the renovation of adjoining property\nand 2) the pending motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 1. The City of Little Rock petitioned the Board to allow the City to construct a temporary fence 20 feet from the eastern boundary of the District's property at 501 Sherman Street for one to two years while Curran Hall is being renovated. Curran Hall will become the City of Little Rock's visitor's information center. There were no objections to this request. 2. Mr. Heller requested the Board's approval to appeal a decision on the issue of the \"pooling\" agreement regarding M-to-M payments from the State of Arkansas. Board members were provided with a copy of a Memorandum and Order dated July 30, 1996, wherein Judge Susan Weber Wright ordered the District to reimburse the PCSSD $345,294 in M-to-M costs for the period FY 1991-92 through FY 1994-95. Mr. Heller indicated he felt an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court was in order and necessary to limit current and future liability. Ms. Magness moved to accept Mr. Heller's recommendation to appeal the Order. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board recessed at 6:34 p.m.on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Ms. Magness. The regularly scheduled agenda meeting was conducted before reconvening at 7: 17 p.m. Ms. Gee made the motion to move into executive session for the purpose of conducting an employee grievance hearing. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 8, 1996 PageS\" EXECUTIVE SESSION Harold Jump, maintenance employee, requested a Board hearing to settle a dispute regarding his placement on the salary schedule for service employees. Brady Gadberry and Doug Eaton were present at the hearing. Mr. Jump felt that he was entitled to placement on the same salary schedule as another maintenance employee who was hired after him. Dr. Anderson recommended that the Board allow Mr. Eaton to review the two positions and make a recommendation based on the process used to set salary steps and grades for plant services employees. He was asked to return at the next Board meeting with his recommendation. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept Dr. Anderson's recommendation to continue the hearing at the next regular meeting. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session and reported that no action had been taken. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, there was a unanimous motion to adjourn at 8:03 p.m. APPROVED: 9 -JJ, -f(\n~-~~ ~trickland, Secretary t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 15, 1996 r, ,I i I ,\nREc Nov 6 - 1996 ,i. Office of Dese i , g egation. Monitoring c,.,!':.I..., The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District called a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 15, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Linda Pondexter, Board President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs, IV ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Interim Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six Board members. Mr. Riggs was absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: 1. Secondary Literature Textbook Adoption 2. Teacher Contract Negotiations Update SPECIAL BOARD MEETING August 15, 1996 Page 2 ACTION AGENDA Secondary Literature Textbook Adoption The Secondary English Literature Textbook Adoption committee provided the Board with a memorandum which contained their recommendations for literature textbooks. Dr. Roberts recommended approval of their recommendation. Ms. Magness moved to accept that recommendation, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion carried 5-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. Teacher Contract Negotiations Update Brady Gadberry reported on the progress of the negotiating team in reaching an agreement on the contract for teachers for the 1996-97 school year. He reported that the teachers had voted to ratify the agreement that afternoon and he asked for the Board to suspend the rules to also approve the contract. The one year contract would provide a 2.46% increase, plus the step increase on the salary schedule. There were also some revisions to the fringe benefit package. A copy of that agreement is attached to these minutes. Ms. Gee moved for a suspension of the rules to take action on the proposed contract, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the negotiated 1996-97 teacher contract. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. (Dr. Daugherty left the meeting during the voting and explained that since his wife was employed by the District he was abstaining to prevent any suggestion of a conflict of interest.) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Gee moved for adjournment at 6:17 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 8~\ni._? ~ C/k:.- f ,,,\\ 0\\ ~ rt\\'~\\  Salary:  LRCTA PROPOSAL August 15, 1996 - 3:45 p.m. 0 / Step+ 2.46% + topped-out stipend of $810 ~~0 .:. . ~ / ~ '\n. nur:tion: i f7 ~: --1 year  - Fringe Bene.fits: Insurance -Health $164.00 per month (1bis amount can be applied to any health insurance plan including the spouse and/or family plans.)~emium coverage will revert to the 1994-95 contract language at the end of the 97-98 contract year) Drop Long Term Disability Insurance. The savings are reflected in the salary schedule. . Employees who have health insurance from a source other than the LRSD who do not take any of the health insurance plans will receive a $550 stipend.  -\nfv_ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl.,,__ liCJ-4 ~ ~ lfti) N{)i. \\\u0026lt;5'\"'- ~cr1~~ M it ~~ c',~wtt.'f ...,,, M,,,, /l,yi,,\nl,.,i ~ ~? ~~ /i'J(,, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 R NOV 6 - 1996 Office of Des egrega11.o n Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on August 22, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Sue Strickland Michael Daugherty Judy Magness Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and stipulated a quorum without a roll call\nall members of the Board were present. The teacher ex officio, Rose Bogan, representing McClellan High School, and the student ex officio, Thaddeus Leopoulos, from Parkview Magnet High School, were also present. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of July 25, and from special meetings conducted on July 18, August 8, and August 15, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were approved unanimously, on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 2 III. PRESENT A TIO NS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Roberts asked for the Superintendent's Citations script to be read by Ms. Pondexter. Mr. Riggs distributed the certificates of appreciation. Four of the District's school based security officers were recognized for exemplary service to the schools and the students they served during the 1995-96 school year. Those officers were: Robert Moore, from Pulaski Heights Jr. High School\nDonald McTyre, from Cloverdale Jr. High School\nBrian Anderson, from Forest Heights Jr. High\nand Don Allen, from Hall High School. Three of the District's teachers were recognized for their participation in the 1996 Reading/Language Arts Summer Institute at Tulane University sponsored by The National Faculty. They were Theresa Harris, Kathryn Thomas, and Tammy Frahm. Barbara Byrd and Gregory Harris, both teachers at M. L. King Interdistrict Elementary School, were recognized by the Arkansas Council on Economics Education by winning third place honors in the intermediate category of the Bessie B. Moore Arkansas Awards Program for Teaching of Economics. Citations were also presented to the ex officio members of the Board for the month of August\nRose Bogan, McClellan High School teacher, and Thaddeus Leopoulos, student at Parkview Magnet High School. B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES There were no reports from citizens committees. C. 1. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIO NS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden reported on ODM informal monitoring activities during the first week of school. When questioned by Mr. Riggs, Ms. Gulden offered to have Board Members visit the schools with ODM monitors. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 3 2. Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin remarked on the negotiations process and expressed appreciation to Linda Pondexter for supporting the efforts of the CT A. He thanked all members of the contract negotiations team for their hard work in reaching a settlement before the opening of school. He welcomed Dr. Roberts to the District and pledged support for the new administration. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Mike Daugherty read a prepared statement in response to recent media reports regarding his educational background and stressed his commitment to serving the LRSD. Pat Gee complimented the staff of the District, and parents of our students, for a good opening of school week. She also provided a reminder that the LRSD is a service business. Judy Magness expressed appreciation to the teachers, the staff, and the management team, for a good opening of school week. Ms. Magness introduced Larry Berkley, who is unopposed candidate for the Zone 5 Board position. Linda Pondexter offered congratulations to Mr. Berkley, who will be her replacement on the Board. She also offered as advice to fellow Board members to be true to their own conscience when making decisions that affect the District and the students. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 4 IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS V. Robert \"Say\" McIntosh commented on the recent sentencing of Governor Jim Guy Tucker. He remarked on the recent publicity surrounding the educational background of Mike Daugherty and noted that serving on the school board does not require a college degree. He also remarked on the improvements made to the campus of Shorter College under the direction of Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Roberts asked for a moment to provide comments before taking action on the agenda items. He thanked the staff for the opening of school week, and recognized the negotiations team for their work in reaching a settlement. He also expressed appreciation to all District employees who report to work each day with a good attitude. He asked the Board to recognize that all recommendations for action at this meeting were based on the recommendations of District staff and that he reserved the right to ask for modifications at a later date, if necessary. ACTION AGENDA A. Second Reading: District Employee Conflict of Interest Policy Mr. Charles Neal, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management, was present to provide background information and respond to questions from Board members. The policy providing guidelines for ethical operations of the District's purchasing process was provided for second reading. District attorney, Harry A. Light, provided a legal review of the proposed policy and his recommendations were incorporated into the drafting of the final documents. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the policy on second reading, and Ms. Gee seconded the motion. Dr. Mitchell spoke in opposition to the motion and stated that the document was too long, too impractical, not binding, and that she would vote against approval. The motion to approve the policy on second reading carried, 6-1. B. Strategy Three: Action Plan #1 - Policy Revisions First Reading: Promotion and Retention of Students - Regulation for Retention in K- 6 and Regulation for Student Promotion Strategic Planning Team #3 recommended adoption of a policy statement providing for intervention strategies for retention at the elementary level, and guidelines for promotion of elementary school students. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommended policy statement and regulations on first reading. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 5 First Reading: Comprehensive Intervention/Follow Up Remediation - Regulation on Intervention/Follow Up Remediation Also a part of the Strategic Plan was the recommended adoption of a policy statement on intervention, follow up remediation, and regulations for operation. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the policy statement and regulations recommended by administration and Strategic Planning Team #3. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. First Reading: Parent Involvement Policy Statement The Parent Involvement Administrative Team developed a statement which will serve to encourage active parent participation in District activities and was intended to convey the Board's belief in the importance of involving all parents in school activities. The Superintendent recommended approval of the statement on first reading. Ms. Gee moved to accept the statement on first reading. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. D. Student Crime Watch Program The Little Rock Police Department requested instituting a Student Crime Watch program in the schools. The program would operate similarly to the Crime Stoppers Program currently operated by the City and would provide rewards to students for reporting criminal activity or behavior at school or in the community. Sgt. Al Dawson, of the LRPD, was present to respond to questions from Board members. Ms. Gee spoke in favor of the program, and made a motion to accept the proposal. Ms. Magness seconded the motion. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Pondexter spoke in opposition to the motion and after much discussion, Ms. Magness suggested amending the proposal to include a one-year trial period of implementation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion to amend. The motion to amend failed, as did the original motion, by identical 4-3 votes, with Ms. Gee, Dr. Daugherty and Ms. Magness casting the \"yes\" votes, and Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Strickland, Dr. Mitchell, and Mr. Riggs voting \"no.\" E. Arkansas Public Schools Week The Arkansas School Public Relations Association announced the theme for this year's observance, October 6-12, 1996, of Arkansas Public Schools Week. By proclamation of Governor Mike Huckabee, the theme is Arkansas Public Schools: Put Yourself in the Picture. The Board was asked to pass a resolution in support of this state-wide observance. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the resolution, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 6 F. Facilities Study Committee Ms. Strickland requested the Board's approval to add four additional persons to the Districtwide Facilities Study Committee. The Board was provided an updated list of the participants on this committee. The newly appointed members were: Lou Ethel Nauden, Gregg Stutts, Skip Marshall, and Brady Gadberry. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the additions to the committee. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. G. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the donated items, the motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Packard-Bell Computer/ Meadowcliff Elementary Monitor and Epson Printer Mary Mitchell Meadowcliff Elementary Sharp UX-185 Fax Sam's Club Machine Mann Arts/Science Magnet Computer/Monitor/Printer Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Stanley and Software Bauman, Jr. Chicot Elementary $50.00 cash Wal-Mart Store# 124 H. Personnel Changes Dr. Roberts recommended approval of personnel changes printed in the agenda and referred the Board to Dr. Hurley to answer specific questions. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the personnel changes, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. I. Financial Reports Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions of the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the financial reports for the period ending June 30, 1996. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 7 VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. August 21, 1996 enrollment figures were provided for comparison with 1995 data. B. Budget Update Mark Milhollen was present and answered questions from the Board regarding the financial reports printed in the agenda. Later in the meeting, Dr. Roberts reminded the Board of the upcoming dates for filing the final budget and suggested that an extension would be requested so that the budget can be finalized. He indicated that the Board might be asked to hold a special meeting to approve the final budget prior to submission. C. Briefing by Legal Counsel Chris Heller, Attorney with the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark law firm, provided a brief written report regarding two issues pending before the Court. 1) The North Little Rock School District's motion to close Baring Cross School\nand 2) a motion filed on behalf of school districts across the state to intervene as defendants in the Pulaski County School Desegregation case. Mr. Heller was not present at the meeting, but his report offered to provide additional information as needed. D. Transportation Update: LRSD/Laidlaw Joint Report Ed Streeter, terminal manager for Laidlaw, and Mary Jane Cheatham, from the District's transportation department provided a written report for the Board's approval. Ms. Gee asked several questions regarding safety stops, the costs involved in adding stops to existing routes, and adding additional routes. E. Update: Truancy Pick Up Procedures Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, and Officer Archie Adcock from the Southwest precinct, were present to answer questions regarding the revised truancy pick up procedures printed in the agenda. F. Status Report: Grants Writer The Board had no additional questions regarding the summary report provided by Marvin Schwartz, District grants writer. Ms. Pondexter commented that she wanted to ensure that the grants writer's salary was being paid from grant funding received. REGULAR BOARD MEETING August 22, 1996 Page 8 G. District Advisory Committees At Ms. Pondexter' s request, membership lists of subcommittees that developed as a result of the Strategic Planning process were provided as a part of the agenda. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. HEARINGS: DISCIPLINARY Ten students were recommended for reinstatement to LRSD schools and two students were referred for placement at the Pulaski County Juvenile Justice Center by Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer. Dr. Roberts upheld those recommendations. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the recommended reinstatements and alternative placements, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. A list of the students is attached to these minutes. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Pondexter asked for a motion from the Board to go into an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter. Mr. Riggs made the motion, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. The motion was unanimously approved. The Board returned from executive session and reported that no action was taken during that session. Board President Pondexter asked for a motion and recognized Mr. Riggs. Mr. Riggs made a motion for the Board to accept Dr. Williams' resignation and, in exchange for service rendered to the District, allow Dr. Williams to retain those moneys already expended in Item 5 E of his contract, and the unused vacation for which he has already been compensated. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, Mr. Riggs moved for adjournment at 8:03 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty, and it carried un imousl .  #Liu APPROVED: C-f J\u0026amp;, -9\u0026amp;\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 12, 1996 NOV 6 - 1996  Offi~e of Deso r g eg lion Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, September 12, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Linda Pondexter, Board President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr. John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Mari Flemons, Teacher Exofficio, Parkview Magnet High School Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and stipulated the presence of a quorum. Dr. Mitchell was absent. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: 1. Student Reinstatement Petitions 2. Student Appeal Hearings SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 12, 1996 Page2 Suspension oftlze Rules Mr. Riggs made a motion to suspend the rules in order to act on an item not included in the published agenda. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Riggs made a motion to rescind a previous Board action. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. At a special meeting on August 8, 1996, the Board voted 4-2 to deny the administration's request to create a clerical staff position for the office of Athletics. Administration was given authority to proceed with staffing the position. ACTION AGENDA The Board moved into executive session for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings on a motion by Ms. Gee, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer presented recommendations for placement and reinstatement of two students: Orlando Ellis was expelled from McClellan High School in March 1996, for participating in a gang-related disturbance. He petitioned the Board for reinstatement and the principal of McClellan agreed to his reinstatement there on strict probation. Janai Washington was expelled in November 1995, from McClellan High School. He had petitioned for reinstatement, but due to his age (17), it was recommended that Janai be given an assignment to the Alternative High School at the Job Corp Center. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the administration's recommendations for reinstatement and placement of these two students. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Three students were present to appeal their expulsions to the Board. Zainab Opurum was recommended for expulsion from Hall High School for possession of a weapon. She asked the Board to reconsider the administration's recommendation and allow her to return to school. Dr. Watson recommended placement at the Job Corp Alternative High School for the remainder of the first semester. She would be allowed to petition for reinstatement to Hall High School if she maintains a good record in the JC program. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING September 12, 1996 Page 3 Vinson Anderson was recommended for expulsion from Forest Heights Jr. High School on August 27, 1996. He had been charged with being in possession of a pocket knife. Dr. Watson recommended placement at the ALC for the remainder of the first semester. Vinson would be considered for reinstatement at semester if he maintains good progress. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommended placement, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Shakina Floyd, eighth grade student from Forest Heights Jr. High School, was recommended for long-term suspension for participating in a group fight in which she was charged with inciting to riot. Dr. Watson upheld the principal's recommendation for a long-term suspension and assigned Shakina to the Alternative Leaming Center for the remainder of the first semester of the school year. Shakina's mother objected to placement at the ALC and appealed to Dr. Vic Anderson and then to the Board when Dr. Anderson also recommended the ALC placement. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the administration's recommendation for placement at the ALC. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 4-2, with Mr. Riggs and Dr. Daugherty casting the \"no\" votes. Jabari Cummins had also been scheduled to appeal his expulsion to the Board, but did not arrive for the hearing. His parent phoned to ask for another hearing date. The Board returned from executive session at 6:43 p.m. and reported that the administration's recommendations had been accepted unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Gee moved for adjournment at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Pat Gee, Vice-President APPROVED: q. J.w  9 l.o ~~,he=-} Sue rickland, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 NOV 6 ~ 1996 Office of Deseg regat,.o n Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on September 26, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The Vice-President, Pat Gee, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Gee Larry Berkley Michael Daugherty Judy Magness Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: I. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Judge Chris Piazza Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney CALL TO ORDER Prior to the call to order, Judge Chris Piazza administered the oath of office to Larry Berkley, newly elected Board representative from Zone 5. Board Vice-President, Pat Gee, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of five Board members\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 6: 17 p.m. The teacher exofficio, Mari Flemmons, representing Parkview Magnet High School was also present. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of August 22, 1996, and from a special meeting conducted on September 12, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were approved unanimously, on a motion by Mr. Riggs, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. III. PRESENT A TIO NS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Gene France from the Arkansas Allergy Society presented the District's physician, Dr. Chris Smith, with 51 epipens for placement in each school in the District. These pens are for use when a student suffers a severe allergic reaction. Use of the epipen allows nonmedical personnel to administer the proper treatment in an emergency. Ms. Linda Pondexter was presented with a plaque and gavel in recognition of her service to the LRSD Board of Directors, 1993-1996\nshe served as president of the Board for two years of her term. Mr. Wendell Redmond, math teacher at Mann Magnet Jr. High School was presented with a citation in recognition of his selection as an Entergy Outstanding Teacher of the Year. He will be honored by Entergy by receipt of a $500 cash award. The final citation was presented to Ms. Mari Flemmons, teacher at Parkview Magnet High School, who served as the ex-officio member of the Board for the month of September. B. PARTNERSHIPS Dr. Roberts recognized Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator, who presented the partnership certificates to the following schools and local businesses: UALR Division oflnternational and Second Language Studies, partnering with Brady Elementary School\nAda Keown, principal, accepted the partnership certificates on behalf of UALR Staff, Dave McAlpine, Dr. Mary Garrett, and Professor Stephanie Dhonau, who could not be in attendance at the meeting. Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association, represented by Linda Heffington and Verleen Williamson, in partnership with Geyer Springs Elementary School, Julie Davenport, principal. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the new partnerships, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 3 C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Vice Mayor, Joan Adcock, presented information to the Board regarding the city's \"Cash for Trash Dash - 1996\" scheduled for Saturday, November 2, 1996. Vice-Mayor Adcock challenged the Board to adopt a neighborhood for clean-up and asked for participation from school groups within the District. Ms. Magness asked Ms. Gee to recognize Hafeeza Majeed for presentation of the Factfinding Committee's report on the Desegregation Plan. Ms. Majeed instead presented a petition requesting a special meeting of the LRSD Board for the purpose of presenting recommendations for modification of the current Desegregation Plan. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring No report. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. SPECIAL REPORT Ms. Gee requested that Chris Heller, Attorney for the District, present information scheduled on the agenda under \"Reports\" at this time. Without objection from other Board members, Mr. Heller provided a briefing on two issues relating to the Desegregation case and on the Lakeview School District lawsuit. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Heller reported that Judge Wright acknowledged the Joshua Intervenors agreement at the time of the Settlement, and that the two million dollar fee paid by the District at that time was to cover future monitoring of the desegregation case by Joshua. She found, therefore, that the District did not owe any additional fees to the Joshua Intervenors for monitoring. With respect to the District's motion to end federal court jurisdiction, Mr. Heller reported that school districts across the country are being dismissed from federal court supervision when they are found to be in substantial compliance with their desegregation plans. It is his belief that federal court jurisdiction over the LRSD should end because there is evidence to prove substantial compliance with our obligations. Judge Wright had rejected our argument that the desegregation plan was a six year plan, but did so without a formal hearing on the evidence. There are two motions pending in the Court concerning desegregation compliance issues, both filed by the Joshua Intervenors. One suggests that an independent party should be named to run the incentive schools\nthe other asks that the District be held in contempt for non-compliance with its obligations. Mr. Heller suggested that we ask the Judge to reconsider her decision on our motion, and to schedule a hearing in conjunction with the hearing Joshua is seeking so that we might have the opportunity to present our evidence. The District has thirty days from the date of the order to consider filing an appeal. Mr. Heller indicated that he would ask the Judge to reconsider the motion and to schedule a hearing unless there was objection from the Board. There were no objections noted by Board members. Regarding the lawsuit filed by the Lakeview School District, Judge Annabelle Imber ruled that the state school funding formula was unconstitutional and the state was given two years to propose a constitutional plan for funding school districts. A trial is scheduled for November to determine whether or not they have complied. The Lakeview School District has filed to make the suit a class action lawsuit and, therefore, Mr. Heller believes the LRSD should intervene in order to be properly represented in the lawsuit and to protect our interests in the case. Mr. Heller also reported that if Amendment One fails (on the November ballot) the State's present plan for funding school districts will also fail. If that occurs, decisions regarding future plans for funding will probably be made in Judge Imber's courtroom. The central Arkansas school districts should be a part of this process for the purpose of protecting our future interest in school funding. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 5 E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Mitchell reported on her visit to the Adult Education Building and commended the staffs of Adult Ed. and HIPPY for the work that has been done at their new location. She also offered congratulations to Sterling Ingram, who recently announced his intent to retire from the District. Dr. Daugherty invited members of the Board and community to attend a PTA rally to be held at Garland Incentive School on October 8. He extended a welcome to new Board member, Larry Berkley. Ms. Magness reported on attending open houses at Gibbs, Hall, and Dunbar. She thanked Vernon Smith, the new principal at Forest Heights, for providing a tour of the school, and invited other patrons to visit FHJH. She expressed appreciation to Laidlaw and District transportation employees for the on-time bus service during the first few weeks of school. Ms. Magness also thanked the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce for the reception they hosted to welcome Dr. and Mrs. Roberts. Mr. Berkley thanked Board members and administration employees who had been helpful in providing assistance to him during his first few days on the Board. He reported that he had visited Terry, Dunbar and Central, and thanked District employees who had been involved in providing a quality education to his children. Ms. Gee thanked Sterling Ingram for his many years of service to the District. She also welcomed Larry Berkley to the Board. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Hazel Bowers, a retired LRSD employee, commented on the dedicated serviced provided to LRSD students by Mr. Ingram. She spoke on behalf of Cleveland Ellis and asked for the Board to support funding for the STOP (Students That Officially Patrol ) program coordinated by Mr. Ellis. Cleveland Ellis provided information to the Board regarding the STOP Program and asked for consideration to continue funding. He is currently funded through the Healthy Family Center Grant\nthat funding will end September 30. Casey Latimore, a student who has participated in the STOP Program, also asked the Board to fund the STOP Program. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 6 V. ACTION AGENDA A. Election of Officers Mr. Riggs made a motion to table the election of officers until after the Zone 1 run-off election on October 8, 1996. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. B. Second Reading: Promotion and Retention of Students Regulation for Retention in K-6 - Student Promotion Regulation Second Reading: Comprehensive Intervention/Follow Up Remediation - Regulation on Intervention/Follow Up Remediation Policy revisions and regulations for promotion and retention of K-6 students and for intervention and follow up remediation procedures for elementary students, as recommended by the Strategic Planning Team Three, were approved on first reading at the August Board meeting. Mr. Riggs moved to approve both of these policies on second reading. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. C. Second Reading: Parent Involvement Policy Statement The Parent Involvement Administrative Team develop~d a statement to encourage active parent participation in District activities. The statement is intended to convey the Board's belief in the importance of involving all parents in school activities. The policy statement was approved on first reading at the August meeting of the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the policy on second reading, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. D. Naming of Drive at Henderson for James L. Washington Students and staff at Henderson Health Science Magnet School requested the naming of the driveway at Henderson for James L. Washington, principal, in recognition of his commitment to improving the school and community. Ms. Magness moved to accept the recommendation of the administration to allow placement of a sign naming the drive James L. Washington Court. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. E. Approval of the 1995-96 Annual Report District program managers developed the 1995-96 annual report which is required to be published in the form of a legal notice prior to September 30 of each year. Administration requested the Board's approval of the report for submission to the Arkansas DemocratGazette for publication. Dr. Mitchell made a motion for approval, which was seconded by Mr. Riggs, and carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 7 F. Goals 2000 Grant Submissions Two Goals 2000 Grant applications were submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education for consideration. One would provide funding to train administrators and teachers preparing for administrative certification\nthe second would provide math and science staff development for instructors at Central High School. The administration asked for the Board's approval to maintain the submissions. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the grant submissions. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. G. Mini-Grant Submissions Two mini-grant applications were submitted for consideration during the month of September. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the submissions\nthe motion was seconded by Ms. Magness and carried unanimously. SCHOOL Rightsell Elementary Fulbright Elementary PROGRAM Academic achievement through exposure to community and professional activities Classroom literacy program to increase reading skills. H. Capitol Improvement Proposal AMOUNT ORGANIZATION $2,000 Rockefeller Foundation $2,000 Rockefeller Foundation Administration requested the Board's approval to submit a proposal for funding capitol improvements to the Adult Education Center in the amount of $16,392.00. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the request, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0. I. Consolidated Application for Special Education and Related Services, 1996-97 The Board was asked to approve the 1996-97 application for funding Special Education and Related Services under the Consolidated VI-B Budget. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the application, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 8 J. Approval of 1996-97 School Year Budget The 1996-97 School Year budget, due for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education on September 27, 1996, had previously been provided to Board members for review. Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions and provide additional information. Dr. Roberts recommended approval of the budget for submission and indicated that he would begin the process of reviewing the budget for modifications over the next few months. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept the donated items, the motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR LRSD/Health Services 50 Epipens Ark. Allergy Society Central High School Used IBM Computer/ Charles Bolton/UALR Monitor Metropolitan Vo-Tech 1989 Ford Festiva Anonymous Metropolitan Vo-Tech 1996 Geo Metro Chevrolet Motor Division/Bale Chevrolet McDermott Elementary Exterior Sign McDermott PTA L. Personnel Changes Dr. Roberts recommended approval of personnel changes printed in the agenda and referred the Board to Dr. Hurley to answer specific questions. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the personnel changes, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. M. Financial Reports Mark Milhollen was present to respond to questions of the Board. Mr. Riggs moved to approve the financial reports for July and August, as printed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 9 VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. Members of the Board did not ask any additional questions. B. Class Action Lawsuit: Lakeview School District vs. State of Arkansas Chris Heller, attorney with the Friday Law Firm provided his report earlier in this agenda at the request of the Board. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS Sarah Facen, candidate for Zone 1 on the Board, presented two knives that she indicated had been found on the bus stop in her neighborhood. She asked the Board to develop a policy that would insure safety of children at bus stops. Ms. Magness moved for the Board to go into executive session for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings at 7:30 p.m. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VIII. HEARINGS: DISCIPLINARY Five students petitioned the Board for reinstatement and their requests were provided for the Board's review. Dr. Linda Watson, student hearing officer, provided information on the following students: Keon Johnson had been expelled from McClellan High School in January 1996, for participating in gang activity. Since he is an 18 year-old, 12th grade student, the principal was willing to readmit him on strict probation in order to give him the opportunity to complete high school. The administration recommended allowing Keon to return to McClellan. Barbara Miller was expelled from Forest Heights Jr. High School in November 1995, for inciting to riot. She had been assigned previously to the Juvenile Justice Center, but did not successfully complete that program. The administration recommended denial of the petition to return to the Little Rock School District and again made a referral for Barbara to attend the JJC. REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 26, 1996 Page 10 Kendrick Alexander was recommended for expulsion from Henderson Jr. High School for possession of a weapon on the bus stop. The principal requested that the Board allow Kendrick to return to school on strict probation, and administration recommended that the Board approve that request. Billy Robinson was charged with possession of a weapon, and recommended for expulsion from Henderson Jr. High School, in the same incident noted above for Kendrick Alexander. The principal requested an opportunity to work with Billy and recommended that the Board allow him to return to school. The superintendent recommended approval of the principal's request for reinstatement. Christopher Berry was recommended for expulsion from Mann Magnet Jr. High School for possession of a weapon. The weapon was found during a scan and had not been used to threaten or injure anyone. Since the student had no prior disciplinary charges, the principal requested reinstatement. Administration recommended approval of the principal's request. The Board returned from executive session and reported that the Board approved the administration's recommendations on student disciplinary requests by a unanimous vote, on a motion made by Mr. Riggs and seconded by Dr. Mitchell. ADJOURNMENT --- APPROVED: IO JL/ -Cf (t, PULASKI COUNTY 96 68875 P.O. Box 2659 Little Rock, AR 72203-2659 CAROLYN STALEY Circuit County Clerk and Registrar 40 I WEST MARKHAM, SUITE I 00 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2325 OFFICIAL OATH County Circuit Court 50 t-J40-S-l3 I FAX 501-340-8340 I, LARRY BERKLEY , do hereby solemnly swear or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and that I will not be interested directly or indirectly, in any contract made by the district of which I am a Director, except that said contract be for materials bought on open competitive bid and let to the lowest bidder and that I will faithfully discharge the duties as school director in LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ZONE 5 of Pulaski County, Arkansas, upon which I am about to enter. Cl uJ\n::, \u0026gt;-i Cl Ln WW o=: _J..J ~ a:) \u0026lt;(CJ c:...\n, ::c -\u0026gt;- UJ c::: c:r 'f)~ = \"''::[ =5 :2: .-o I :CJ ~ = ~ LL.! -....! ~ ~== u.. NAME ~ \\L\\'~~~ .c ~~\"'k ~?\u0026lt; .. ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE CJ ... '.. .. Sworn to and subscribed before me, \u0026gt;i:7\"\"~--------'--:....\u0026amp;.....----' a c~~/ ~ in the County of Pulaski this the One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six A.D. Civil / Criminal (50 I) 340-843 I Fax (50 I) 340-8420 Marriage License (50 I) 340-8330 Real Estate (5 0 I) 340-8433 Voter Registration (50 I) 340-8683 Fax (50 I) 340-8340 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 10, 1996 Nov 6 - l99i Office Of D esegregat,on M The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately preceding the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, October 10, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Pat Gee, VicePresident, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Gee Larry Berkley Michael Daugherty Judy Magness Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Mitchell Perry, teacher ex officio, Metropolitan I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Gee called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of six board members\nMs. Strickland was absent. on,tormg SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 10, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: I. Swearing in Ceremony II. Election of Officers III. Personnel Item IV. Expulsion Recommendations V. Student Appeal Hearing ACTION AGENDA Prior to the call to order, Carolyn Staley, County and Circuit Clerk, administered the oath of office to Katherine Mitchell, who was reelected to represent Zone 1 on the Board of Directors. Election of Officers Ms. Gee, Vice-Presidentppened the floor for nomination for the position of president. Dr. Mitchell nominated John Riggs for the position of President of the Board. There being no other nominations for president, Ms. Gee requested a motion for election by acclamation. Dr. Mitchell moved for election by acclamation, seconded by Ms. Magness and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Riggs opened the floor for nominations for the position of vice president of the Board. Mr. Berkley nominated Judy Magness for election by acclamation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Riggs asked for nominations for the position of secretary. Ms. Magness nominated Ms. Gee, who declined to accept the nomination. Dr. Mitchell nominated Michael Daugherty for the position of secretary. Mr. Berkley seconded the nomination and it carried unanimously. Personnel Item Dr. Daugherty moved to rescind a previous Board action which denied approval of a halftime assistant principal position at Dunbar Magnet Junior High School, and by that action to approve the position. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Roberts also recommended that the Board approve of the position of secretary to the athletic director. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept Dr. Robert's recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 10, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Riggs asked for a motion to recess the special meeting to conduct the regular agenda meeting at 5:25 p.m .. Ms. Gee moved to recess, seconded by Mr. Berkley, and carried 6-0. Dr. Mitchell left at this time due to a previous appointment. After conducting the agenda meeting and recessing for a short break, the Board returned to the special meeting agenda at 6:28 p.m. Student Hearings Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer presented information and recommendations for students who had received disciplinary suspensions or expulsion sanctions. Those students and the recommendations are noted for the Board's action. Kelton Montgomery was suspended from Central High School for possession of a weapon. He did not appeal the suspension and the Board was asked to uphold the administration in the expulsion. Misty Odem-Harris, from Pulaski Heights and Corey Young, from Henderson, were both recommended for expulsion for verbal abuse of staff. The hearing officer has been unable to reach the parents of these students to schedule hearings or reinstatement conferences. The Board was asked to officially expel these students for their behavior. Dr. Roberts upheld the recommendation of the student hearing officer. Ms. Gee moved to accept the recommendation, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. Dimitrios Stubblefield appeared before the Board to appeal the decision of the school administration to place him at the Alternative Learning Center. Dimitrios was expelled from Cloverdale Junior High School for possession of a weapon. Due to the number of previous suspensions and expulsions, the principal asked that Dimitrios not be returned to Cloverdale, but that he be given the opportunity to continue his education at the ALC. Dr. Watson agreed with the building administration and also recommended placement at the ALC. Dimitrios and his mother asked the Board to allow him to return to Cloverdale. Dr. Roberts supported the recommended placement at the ALC for the remainder of the first semester. IfDimitrios exhibits acceptable behavior during his assignment to the ALC, he could return to Cloverdale Jr. High School for the second semester. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the recommendation, seconded by Mr. Berkley, and the motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 10, 1996 Page4 On completion of the student hearings, and at the Superintendent's request, the Board convened an executive session at 6:45 p.m., for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter. The motion was made by Dr. Daugherty, seconded by Ms. Gee, and carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session to report that they had upheld the superintendent's recommendation on all student disciplinary hearings and that no action was taken during the personnel discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Dr. Daugherty moved for adjournment at 7:38 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. APPROVED: I 0-~ 4 -qe, ~.L, .L ~ L Michael Daugherty,retary PULASKI COUNTY P.O. Box 2659 Little Rock, AR 72203-2659 CAROLYN STALEY Circuit County Clerk and Registrar 401 WEST MARKHAM, SUITE 100 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2325 OFFICIAL OATH County Circuit Court 501-340-843 I FAX 501-340-8340 I, KA THERINE PHILLIPS MITCHELL , do hereby solemnly swear or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and that I will not be interested directly or indirectly, in any contract made by the district of which I am a Director, except that said contract be for materials bought on open competitive bid and let to the lowest bidder and that I will faithfully discharge the duties as school director in LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS CT, ZONE 1 of Pulaski ADDRESS n L L f+k +:Ge_(( }H2_ ? J-J-a\n.___ CITY STATE (zIP CODE Sworn to and subscribed before me, CAROLYN STALEY a CIRCUIT COUNTY CLERK for the County of Pulaski this the -./-0- day of October, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six A.D. Civil/ Criminal (501) 340-8431 Fax (50 I) 340-8420 Marriage License (501) 340-8330 Real Estate (501) 340-8433 Voter Registration (50 I) 340-8683 Fax (501) 340-8340 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on October 24, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The Vice-President, Judy Magness, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee MEMBERS ABSENT: Katherine Mitchell John Riggs, IV Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Board Vice-President, Judy Magness, called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of four Board members. Mr. Riggs, Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Strickland were absent. The teacher ex- officio, Mitchell Perry, representing Metropolitan Vocational-Technical High School was also present. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of September 26, 1996, and from a special meeting conducted on October 10, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were fil!I!TI)Ved by a 4-0 vote, on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 2 ill. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Roberts recognized several students who had entered artwork in the Bus Safety Week competition\nthe winning posters were on display in the Board Room. Forest Heights Jr. High students, Calvin Williams, Chris Graham, James Mauney, Jordan Smith, Kari Riedy, Lonzell Pride and Ray Braxton were winners in the group competition\nMabelvale Jr. High student, Thomas Bennett, was the winner in the individual competition. Dr. Ann Smith, history professor at Henderson State University presented a plaque to Christine Green, who teaches history at Hall High School. Ms. Green was recognized by the Arkansas Association of College History Teachers as the Outstanding High School History Teacher for 1996-97. Mr. Lee Gordon, Director of the Arkansas Business and Education Alliance, was at the meeting to recognize the Men of Dunbar, who serve as mentors to students at that school. The Men of Dunbar were awarded the Arkansas Friends for Better Schools/ Arkansas Times 1996 Public School Heroes Award. The membership in_cludes John Talley, Bruce Washington, Carl Hines, L. T. Davis, Lucious Powell, Sterling Rogers, James Vault, Jack Gilbert, Addison Dean, Emmett Willis, Eugene Porter, and Wendell Shead. The members who were present accepted the plaque and other gifts on behalf of the entire group. Miro Hundley, Wayne Cranford, and Gary Smith were recognized for their efforts in offering an opportunity for all 4th grade students in the District to attend \"The Snow Queen. \" Although these individuals were unable to attend the Board meeting, they will receive a letter of appreciation for their contribution to our students. Dr. Roberts presented a citation and plaque to Leonard Willis, who has been employed by the District for 50 years. There will be a reception honoring Mr. Willis on October 30, in the administration building lounge. The final citation was presented to Mitchell Perry, teacher at Metropolitan VocationalTechnical High School, who served as the ex-officio member of the Board for the month of October. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 3 B. PARTNERSHIPS Dr. Roberts recognized Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator, who presented the partnership certificates to the following schools and local businesses: Corky's Restaurant, represented by Carla Hilburn, in partnership with Fulbright Elementary School, represented by Mac Huffman and Beverly Jones. Arkansas Bar Association, represented by Carol King and Jerry Rutledge, partnering with the LRSD Social Studies Department and Mann Magnet School, represented by Marie McNeal, Marian Lacey and Martha Daniel. Cyber Learning Academy, represented by Ron and Yona McFarlane, in partnership with Cloverdale Jr. High Academy, represented by Cassandra Norman. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept the new partnerships, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None. D. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIO NS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden, representing ODM monitors, notified the Board that they should have received a current list of monitoring priorities for the current school year. She reported that monitors visited 18 schools in the LRSD during the first few weeks of school and that a report would be forthcoming. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 4 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PT A Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Daugherty reported that he had attended a PTA meeting at Garland Incentive School on October 8, 1996, where PTA officers were elected and installed. He encouraged everyone to vote in the election on November 5, 1996. Ms. Gee encouraged participation in the Coats for Kids Campaign, sponsored annually by Channel 7 and Fashion Park Cleaners. She invited the public to attend a tailgate party preceding the McClellan High School Homecoming Game on October 25. She also reminded the school community that uniforms have been approved by the Board, in concept, and that implementation of individual school uniform policies do not have to be approved by the Board. Ms. Gee reminded the public that transportation complaints should be reported and she provided the telephone numbers for Laidlaw and for an administration office. Ms. Magness congratulated Parkview drama students on their recent performance of \"Tales From the Crypt. \" She also commented on a recent visit to Dunbar Magnet Jr. High School, where she participated in a science project. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Diane Vibhaker announced her recent appointment as Executive Director of Parents for Public Schools. She pledged support and commitment to building bridges between schools and the community. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 5 V. ACTION AGENDA A. National Science Foundation Grant The District was invited to submit a proposal for a program to increase the number of students enrolling in and completing courses in math and science through the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement. If awarded, the grant would provide up to $200,000 in the first year and up to $800,000 per year for years 2-5. Ms. Gee moved to approve submission of the grant application. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. B. Eastside Junior High School Building Acts of H \u0026amp; K Enterprises rendered an offer to lease to purchase the old Eastside Junior High School building for $260,000. This community organization would renovate the building and use the space for vocational and technical education programs. Kay Hadley, President of Acts ofH \u0026amp; K, was present to answer questions posed by the Board. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the lease/purchase offer from Acts ofH \u0026amp; K. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. C. Hepatitis B Immunizations The Arkansas Department of Health offered the District a supply of Hepatitis B vaccine for use in immunizing District students and employees. Gwen Efird, Coordinator of Health Services, and Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations, were present to respond to questions regarding this offer. Ms. Gee made the motion to approve acceptance of the vaccine, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it passed, 4-0. D. Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools and Communities Application The Board was asked to approve submission of the 1996-97 Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools and Communities application to the Arkansas Department of Education. JoEvelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, reported that the grant amount would be $130,084. for implementation of drug abuse prevention programs in grades K-12. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve submission of the application. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. E. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the donated items, the motion was seconded by Mr. Berkley, and it carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 6 VI. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Pulaski Heights Jr. High Office/Classroom furniture Greg Hart/Southern Office Supply Chicot Elementary Cash ($70.73) Wal-Mart Store/from Sam's Cola Vending Machine Adult Education Center 12 used 386 SX Computers/ ETOP of AT \u0026amp; T and 13 Monitors/8 Keyboards IBEW Jefferson Elementary Microwave Oven Alice Lynn Greenwood Jefferson Elementary 250' of Chain Link Fence Dr. Tom Smith F. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda and asked that the approval include a slip sheet recommendation to employ Lillie Scull as the principal at Mitchell Incentive Elementary School. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the personnel items, including the slip sheet. Dr. Daugherty se~onded the motion and it carried 4-0. G. Financial Reports Financial reports for the period ending September 30, were presented for the Board's approval. Mr. Berkley made the motion for approval, seconded by Dr. Daugherty and the motion carried 4-0. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. Members of the Board did not ask any additional questions. B. Budget Update Dr. Roberts reported that he would be meeting with Mark Milhollen, LRSD Manager of Financial Services, and Skip Marshall with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to begin working on a budget proposal for next year. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 7 C. Cash for Trash Dash Dr. Roberts reported that it was unknown at this time whether any LRSD schools would be participating in the city-sponsored project, Cash for Trash. He will try to determine if any school groups are participating and provide a report to the Board at a later date. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. HEARINGS: DISCIPLINARY Dr. Daugherty moved for the Board to go into executive session for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Berkeley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board took a briefrecess and recoRvened at 7:35 p.m. Dr. Linda Watts, acting Student Hearing Officer, presented information on students who had been recommended for suspension or expulsion from District schools. Those students and the circumstances surrounding their disciplinary sanctions are reported. Monika Wright was charged with possession of a weapon and recommended for expulsion from Henderson Jr. High. The \"weapon\" was a screwdriver, which was found when a security officer asked to see a hall pass. The weapon had not been used in a harmful or threatening manner. The principal agreed to allow Monika to return to school, if that return included a strict probationary period. The Superintendent recommended reinstatement on strict probation for the remainder of the school year. Dr. Daugherty moved to accept Dr. Roberts' recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. Ricardus Flowers was recommended for expulsion from Fair High School for use of a weapon. Ricardus had a pocket knife, which he attempted to use during a fight with another student. During the altercation the police resource officer, as well as the other student, suffered minor injuries from the knife. At the hearing before the Board, Joy Springer was present to represent the student. His parents wanted him readmitted to school, but Ricardus has a pending court date related to this incident, which would prevent his assignment to the alternative high school program at the LR Job Corp Center. Dr. Roberts recommended that Ricardus be allowed to enroll in that program after the November 14 court date. If there are other charges pending, which would prevent assignment to the Job Corp program, he would be referred to the Juvenile Justice Center. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 24, 1996 Page 8 Two additional students were scheduled for hearings before the Board, but did not appear. Meagan Grinage, Forest Heights Jr. High School student, accepted the administration's recommended placement at the Alternative Learning Center for the remainder of the 1996-97 school year. Willis Bowie, McClellan High School student, did not appear at the scheduled time. The hearing office will attempt to contact his parents to determine if they accepted the recommended placement at the Juvenile Justice Center. The Board returned from executive session and reported that the Board had approved the administration's recommendations on student disciplinary requests by unanimous votes. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, Mr. Berkley moved for adjournment at 8:22 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: l )- ~ I -1 e.p J\n~~ 61. ~ Michael Daugherty, Se\n?tary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 7, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, November 7, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley Pat Gee ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Fran Ables, Teacher Ex officio, Cloverdale Jr. High Crystal Holman, Student Ex officio, Hall High I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of five board members\nMr. Berkley and Ms. Gee were absent. Ex officio members of the Board, Fran Ables, teacher at Cloverdale Jr. High School, and Crystal Holman, student at Hall High School, were also present. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 7, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The special meeting was called in response to a request by petition, submitted by the Fact Finding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan. ACTION AGENDA Hafeeza Majeed, Chairman of the Fact Finding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan, addressed the Board and presented a report of recommendations for review. A copy of that report is attached to these minutes. Ms. Majeed's presentation included remarks about increased gang activity in the schools, and she expressed concerns about the safety and security of students while on school buses. She noted that bus drivers were not trained to handle disruptive students. Parents who were in attendance at the meeting were also invited to share their concerns with the Board: Desmond Reed related personal experiences as a new resident of the city. He noted concerns regarding a lack of information available for parents. Rose Williams expressed concerns regarding the District's discipline policy and stated that the process used in hearings at school were unfair. Mary Givens stated concerns about the process used to fill magnet school seats. She also noted the increase in gang activity in the schools, especially at Southwest Junior High School. Pauline Reed remarked that there seemed to be a need for better communications and a better relationship between the school and the home. Barbara Johnson stated that some buses were too crowded and suggested that some behavior problems could be eliminated by running more buses and having them run on time. Some problems have escalated because students are alone at stops for too long. The Fact-Finding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan - Is It Mr. Curtis Hall Mr. Howard Love Ms. Hafeeza Majeed Rev. Larry Staggers Mr. Dale Charles Working For African-American Youth? DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1996 TO : FROM: LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUPERINTENDENT DON R. ROBERTS THE FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE FOR THE LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN - IS IT WORKING FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN YOUTH? SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDING LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN The Fact-Finding Committee For The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan - Is It Working For African-American Youth? submits the following recommendations for amending the LRSD Desegregation Plan, as outlined in the \"Desegregation Plan Amendment Process (Deseg. Tool Kit, April 2, 1996~ Appendix D). Please review and reply to the Committee by December 6, 1996, informing us of any action(s) made by the Board regarding the following recommendations: 1. It is our recommendation that the LRSD Board of Directors and Superintendent Don Roberts clearly delineate the District's desegregation mission to the staff and to the community as required in the \"Commitment To Desegregation In The Little Rock School District. (Desegregation Tool Kit, April 2, 1996, page 1) 2. It is our recommendation that \"Opportunity Learning\", as outlined in \"Voices Of The City\", be further researched and studied for consideration as an effective program for effectively educating youth in the LRSD. 3. It is our recommendation that the current educational curriculum of the LRSD be reviewed and revised to include a thorough education of Africa and African-American History. 4. It is our recommendation that \"Conflict Resolution\" education be provided for LRSD students, beginning at the elementary level. 5. It is our recommendation that the \"Zero Tolerance\" policy in the LRSD be reviewed and revised. LRSD Board November 7, 1996 Page Two 6. It is our recommendation that all LRSD monitoring instruments be revised to include input from students. 7. It is our recommendation that teachers and parents in all LRSD schools be required to attend PTA meetings just at parents in LRSD Magnet schools are required to attend. 8. It is our recommendation that independent \"Community Teams\" be formed to provide independent monitoring by parents, students and community members. 9. It is our recommendation that each schoolbus transporting LRSD students have an adult monitor to assist the d~iver. 10. It is our recommendation that no amendments be made to the LRSD Desegregation Plan until the Board and Superintendent have attempted to address these recommendations. Respe tfully submitted: Mr. Curtis Hall, 11/7/96 Rev. Larry Staggers, 11/7/96 MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 7, 1996 Page3 ADJOURNMENT Ms. Magness moved for adjournment at 8:00 p.m. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 11 -J. (-9 \"- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., on November 21, 1996, 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 II. Board President, John Riggs, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll call revealed the presence of all Board members. The teacher ex-officio, Frances Ables, from Cloverdale Jr. High Academy, and the student ex-officio, Crystal Holman, from Hall High School, were also present. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of October 24, 1996, and from a special meeting conducted on November 7, 1996, were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved, on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Ms. Magness. REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Roberts recognized students from Rockefeller Incentive School Show Choir, directed by I. J. Routen, who performed before the Board. These students have been invited to a choral festival at Carnegie Hall, and they are currently involved in fund-raising activities to enable them to participate. B. PARTNERSHIPS Dr. Roberts introduced Gwen Efird, Health Services Coordinator, who presented School Nurse Awards. Karen Terry received the First Year Nurse Award. Five nurses received certificates in recognition of their nomination for School Nurse of the Year, Stevie Cherepski, Carla Kelley, Marsha Mahan, Betty Nieser, and Lucia Perry. Deborah Bolls was awarded a plaque in honor of her naming as School Nurse of the Year. The Superintendent read a proclamation recently signed by Mayor Jim Dailey, naming November 21, 1996, as \"Education Day\" in the City of Little Rock. A copy of that proclamation is attached to these minutes. Four LRSD teachers were recently named recipients of the Stephens Awards, which are awarded annually through the City Education Trust Fund. Each of these teachers received a $5,000 award: Leslie Kearney, who teaches German at Central High School\nMelissa Donham, who teaches biology at Central High School\nTommie Sue Wood, who teaches history at Fair High School\nand Mildred Walker, a mathematics teacher at McClellan High School. Citations were presented to the ex-officio members of the Board for the month of November\nFrances Ables, teacher from Cloverdale Jr. High Academy, and Crystal Holman, student from Hall High School. Lee Ann Matson represented the VIPS office in presenting the new partnership certificates. The following schools and local businesses were recognized: ITT Technical Institute, represented by Ken Sullivan, in partnership with Cloverdale Jr. High School, represented by Cassandra Norman and Fran Ables. BFI of Arkansas, represented by Tom Boston and John Embree, partnering with Geyer Springs Elementary School, represented by Julie Davenport and Kathy Farley. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page 3 Arkansas Federal Credit Union, represented by Richard Gilliland and Lorraine Darral/, in partnership with Mitchell Elementary School, represented by Lillie Scull and Mary Ann Hanson. A collaborative partnership with four ecology related entities has been established by the Washington Magnet School staff: Project Learning Tree, partnership certificate accepted by Susan Glaze\nProject WET, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control \u0026amp; Ecology, accepted by Jim Shirrell\nProject WILD, Arkansas Game \u0026amp; Fish Commission, accepted by Pat Knighten\nand Toltec Mounds State Park, represented by Melanie Thornton. Washington Magnet School staff members present to accept certificates were Katherine Snyder, Betty Hansberry, Cathy Schwartz, and Sheila Flaxman. Ms. Magness moved to accept the new partnerships, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden, representing ODM monitors, stated that their staff is working to complete several reports, including the annual emollrnent comparison reports of the three Pulaski County Districts and a staffing report on the Incentive Schools in the LRSD. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page 4 5. PTA Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Berkley reported that he had attended a PTA meeting at Fulbright Elementary School and commended the parents and staff for their work in landscaping the school grounds. He also reported on his attendance at the first meeting of the social studies textbook selection committee. Dr. Daugherty thanked the members of the Rockefeller Show Choir for their performance earlier in this meeting. He especially thanked those persons responsible for the inclusion of handicapped students in the choir's presentation. Dr. Mitchell remarked that she attended an assembly at Wilson Elementary School where students were recognized for their academic achievements and citizenship improvements. She also commended District personnel who coordinated the rally last Sunday at Henderson Junior High School for 6th grade students who will attend 7th grade next year. Ms. Magness expressed appreciation to District teachers and principals who spent a weekend in staff development training at the Hilton. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Pam Marshall, who works with the Central Little Rock Community Development Council, asked the Board to consider an extension of time for development of a proposal for the purchase of the Westside Junior High School property. Volunteers of America had requested, and had been granted an option for purchase of the property. They have been unable to meet their obligations under the terms of the agreement and had indicated a desire to terminate that agreement. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Interim Millage Adjustment The Pulaski County Quorum court establishes the rates of taxation to be levied on taxable real and personal property for the use and benefit of the cities, towns, and schools, as required by State law. As a result of the countywide reappraisal, the millage rates for personal and real property will be adjusted effective January 1, 1997. The new personal property rate will be 41.90 mills, and the new real property rate will be 41 .40 mills. REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page 5 The Board was asked to approve a resolution acknowledging the certification of applicable taxes to the County Clerk prior to the regular November Quorum Court meeting. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the resolution, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A copy of that resolution is attached to these minutes. B. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the donated items, the motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty, and it carried unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Booker Arts Magnet Elem. 386/25 Computer System Robert Bradley Booker Arts Magnet Elem. Two Echo trimmer/ brush Booker Arts PT A cutters McDermott Elem. Garden Plants/supplies Home Depot Jefferson Elem. Microwave Oven Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Price Roark Chicot Elem. $300.00 (for cheerleading J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. outfits) Fulbright Elem. Prone Stander (for disabled Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Kelton students) Brown MeadowcliffElem. $504.00 (for carpeting in Metropolitan National classrooms) Bank/AR Capital Corp. Fair High School Lab Equipment \u0026amp; Supplies AT\u0026amp;T F. Personnel Changes The Superintendent requested the Board's approval of personnel items printed in the agenda Ms. Strickland moved to accept the personnel items, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING November 21, 1996 Page 6 G. Financial Reports Financial reports for the period ending were presented for the Board's approval. Mark Milhollen was present and responded to questions from Board members. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the reports, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and the motion carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update The Desegregation Update was printed in the agenda. Nancy Acre responded to the Board's questions regarding the ten-day pre-registration period scheduled early in 1997. B. Budget Update Mark Milhollen provided information regarding the project management tool and updated the Board on meetings with budget managers. Mid-year budget adjustments will be done in mid-December. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDMDUALS OR GROUPS Vicki Gonterman invited the Board and Superintendent to attend the 10th annual arts festival at Gibbs Magnet School on Monday, November 25, 1996. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved for adjournment at 7:55 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: / 8.. -I CJ  1 ~ I I I : ' f I j 't G0 cAII G0 ~ \u0026amp;~ cs@~ ~hall ~ome ~l-1\"-.L/A   WHEREAS, a quality education system is vitally important to the well-being of a city - to its quality of life, its economic vigor and the future of its children\nand, WHEREAS, the Little Rock Board of Directors is committed to education and work jointly with the school district to strengthen the link between government and school officials in an effort to bolster everyone's participation in public education\nand, WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock is an active participant in the Partners-In-Education Program, taking an active role in the educational process, supporting those who work tirelessly to ensure our children receive the skills they need to succeed\nand, WHEREAS, Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey joins Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, along with other Mayors across the country, in encouraging communities to take advantage of the unique opportunity to renew the public school system and work collectively with our schools. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jim Dailey, Mayor of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, do hereby proclaim the 2 I st day of November, 1996, \"Education Day\" in the City of Little Rock and encourage all citizens to join me in playing a role in the long-term viability of our schools. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused che seal of che City of Little Rock to be affixed on chis 18th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1996. ' ~m~ Mayor RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPERTY MILLAGE RA TES FOR THE YEAR 1996 WHEREAS, the Pulaski County Quorum Court will levy county, municipal, and school taxes for the year of 1996 as required by Ark. Code Ann. 14-14-904\nand WHEREAS, Ark. Ann. 26-73-202 requires that the governing body of any taxing entity approve the applicable taxes prior to the adoption of the county levy\nNOW, 1HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock S~hool District of Pulaski County approves the established level of 41 . 90 mills for personal property and 41. 40 mills for real property within the district for the year 1996. ,8 Secretary ll-J.1-1eo Adopted LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 26, 1996 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Tuesday, November 26, 1996, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. John Riggs, President, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Riggs, IV Judy Magness Michael Daugherty Larry Berkley Pat Gee Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER Mr. Riggs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., and stipulated a quorum without a roll call\nall members were present. - MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 26, 1996 Page 2 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting contained the following items: I. Superintendent's Presentation II. ODM Remarks III. Parties' Remarks IV. Board Discussion/Comments/Action PRESENTATION Dr. Roberts presented his views on the current status of the Little Rock School District and made recommendations for operational improvements that he sees as necessary to the future of the District. He asked the Board to adopt a resolution that would allow him to proceed in askingfor Court approval to modify the current desegregation plan by working during a six to nine month period without formal monitoring by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. If approved by the Court, ODM monitors would assist the District with other operational areas, such as budget, staff development, student assignment, and discipline. Ann Brown, ODM Monitor, made brief remarks regarding the importance of building a strong partnership between the ODM office and the LRSD. She stated support for Dr. Roberts' recommendations and presented a book to him, entitled Re-thinking America. John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, commented on Dr. Roberts' presentation and questioned whether or not the Courts would allow the federal monitors, as an arm of the Court, to become involved in the daily operations of the District. He made several remarks regarding the current staff of the District and suggested that it was insufficient to meet the needs of the total student population. Although he stated that adoption of the proposed resolution was inappropriate, Mr. Walker did agree to support Dr. Roberts in his efforts. ACTION AGENDA Dr. Roberts read the proposed resolution and asked for the Board's approval. A copy of that resolution is attached to these minutes. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation and approve the resolution as read. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried by a unanimous vote. MINUTES - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING November 26, 1996 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Berkley made a motion to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: Id. -\nq-7\u0026amp;:J /L,~~ Michael Daugherty, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications\nWHEREAS, students and desegregation the necessary LRSD can improve its educational program for all can enhance the prospects for the long term of the District if given the opportunity to devote time and resources to the task\nWHEREAS, LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the District\nand WHEREAS, ODM could, with court authorization, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nredeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed.  IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that LRSD Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts is authorized to submit to the court appropriate pleadings as necessary to secure the time and resources needed to develop a modified education and desegregation plan for the Little Rock School District. (\n\\ha,,o\\foodloylinld\\ 112696.,ca CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special meeting of the Board held on the 26th day of November, 1996. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting, the duly elected, qualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Vote Director (Aye, Nay, Abstain or Absent) John Riggs, IV Aye Judy Magness A e Micheal Daugherty A e Larry Berkley A e Patricia Gee A e Katherine Mitchell A e Sue Strickland A e I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all resp\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":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_17","title":"LaVerne Revis Martin","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":["1996-07-17"],"dcterms_description":["LaVerne Revis Martin discusses her involvement in the Movement with her family. She witnessed bombings, attended mass meetings and demonstrated alongside key figures including Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth."],"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":["African Americans--Civil rights","Mass Meetings","Civil rights demonstrations--Alabama","Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham"],"dcterms_title":["LaVerne Revis Martin"],"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/17"],"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":["Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_155","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report, Volume 1","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":["1996-07-15"],"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","School integration","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report, Volume 1"],"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/155"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I nitonng I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S SEMIANNUAL MONITORING REPORT JULY 15, 1996 A. MONITORING OVERVIE\\:, 2 B. ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE 6 C. TEST DATA 281 D. BUDGET INFORMATION 306 E. STUDENT DISCIPLINE 374 F. MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFER 621 G. ECOE MONITORING 641 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. MONITORING OVERVIEW During the 1995-96 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 V schools: Little Rock School District (9) Carver Magnet Elementary, Cloverdale Elementary, Geyer Springs Elementary, Gibbs Magnet Elementary, Hall High School, King Magnet Elementary, Mabelvale Elementary, MeadowcliffElementary, and Pulaski Heights Junior High. (Please note that Pulaski Heights Elementary School was one of the schools reported to be in Cycle V. In actuality, it should have been Pulaski Heights Junior High School that was included in the February, 1996 monitoring report. Pulaski Heights Junior High School is a Cycle V ECOE school while Pulaski Heights Elementary School is a Cycle I ECOE school and should be reported in the 1996-97 monitoring reports. Therefore, quantitative data for Pulaski Junior High School is incomplete at th.is time.) North Little Rock School District (6) Amboy Elementary, Central Elementary, Crestwood Elementary, Lakewood Elementary, Meadow Park Elementary, and Seventh Street Elementary. Pulaski County Special School District (7) Baker Interdistrict Elementary, Cato Elementary, Crystal Hills Interdistrict Magnet Elementary, Dupree Elementary, Fuller Elementary, Landmark Elementary, and Murrell Taylor Elementary. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. A. All parties to the suit were invited to participate in the monitoring process during the ADE monitoring update on November 8, 1995. MONITORING PROCESS MONITORING SCHEDULE (_ 1 /1..,c-f(A 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 tenninology 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 are used to facilitate the desegregation process. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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-black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are 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 is recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocunicular 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. Results of the announ_ed and unannounced monitoring for the fourteen elements - - are included in the ECOE monitoring section of this reP.ort. 4 ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDANCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: CYCLE FIVE SCHOOLS SOURCE: LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B. ENROLLMENT/A1TENDANCE DATA The Allen letter requires the collection of 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 data follows for each of the Cycle V schools excluding Pulaski Heights Junior High School. Concept Definition: For the purposes of desegregation monitoring, the Arkansas Department of Education, North Little Rock School District, Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District defin~d an instructional pr~!F':'.!1 as follows: A combination of courses and experiences that is designed to accomplish a predetermined objective or set of allied objectives. The three districts have agreed that for the purposes ofthis report Compensatory Education costs are the costs that are funded from the special funds received from the ADE for Compensatory Education as specified by the Settlement Agreement. 6 TOTAL ENROLLMENT I l _,_ BY GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ___________________ Cf) r z w 0 :::, r Cf) LL 0 a: w (0 ~ :::, z 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollrnent ------65----------------------------------------- Grade 1 Transported ~on-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (65) White Female (16) IIIBlack Female (18) -  White Males (14) - Black Male (17) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- Cf) I-z w 0 ::, I-Cf) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::, z 100 80 60 40 20 0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrolln1ent 91 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (91) White Female (18) _ c\nJ8IackF emale (17) White Male (24) Black Male (32) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrolln1ent 120 .------------------, ~ 100 z w o::: \u0026gt; 80 I-C/) LL 60 0 a: cwa 40 ~ ~ 20 0 107 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (107) White Female (19) ~Black Female (21) White Male (36) Black Male (31) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- 120 .-----------------, ~ 100 z w o 80 ::::) I-C/) LL 60 0 a: ~ 40 ~ ::::, z 20 0 107 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (107) - White Female (28) C!'.JBlackF emale (30) - White Male (25) Black Male (24) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- Cl) I-z w 0 :::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w al ~ :::\u0026gt; z 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enroilment 105 r\n_ : ,,,,., - \" -: ,.l ~ , . , .''. , ' \u0026lt;~ I ' -- ,_ __\u0026lt; , --------------------------75-------- Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (105) White Female (18)  Black Female (20) White Male (35) Black Male (32) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CJ) I- z w 0 =\u0026gt; I-CJ) LL 0 a: w en ~ z= \u0026gt; 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enroliment 101 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (101) White Female (21) - - Black Female (24) White Male (27) Black Male (29) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: 80 Cl) 70 I- z w 60 0 ::::, 50 I-Cl) LL 40 0 c:c 30 w co ~ 20 ::::, z 10 0 LRSD Total Enroliment ------- 68-----------------------------------64 ______ _ Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (68) White Female (4) GJ Black Female (26) White Male (5) Black Male (33) ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: 60 Cr l) 50 z w 0 40 ~ r Cl) LL 30 0 a: w 20 Cl) ~ ~ z 10 0 LRSD To\"l 'al E.ill.V-I-I rr..I l!lmI ent 54 53 ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- 1 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (54) White Female (3) [![J8Iack Female (26) White Male (6) Black Male (19) ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: Cl) I- z w 0 ::, I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::, z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment 51 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) _ White Female (3) rgBlack Female (24) - White Male (6) Black Male (18) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 60 ~--------------, Cl) 50 ~ z w O 40 :) ~ Cl) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ :) Z 10 0 50 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female (3) illlBlack Female (27) White Male (1) Black Male (19) ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: 60 Cr-l) 50 z w 0 40 :::) r- Cl) LL 30 0 a: w 20 al ~ :::) z 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment 51 ----------------------------4-7-------- Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) White Female (4) Black Female (19) - White Male (8) Black Male (20) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 00 'l\"'\"1 ------------------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD Totai Enrolln1ent 50 ,-----------------, ~z 40 w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 ' w co ~ z= \u0026gt; 10 0 45 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (45) White Female (1) Black Female (24) White Male (2) Black Male (18) ------------------- 50 en rz- 40 UJ 0 :::J r- 30 en LL 0 a: 20 UJ ca ~ :z:: J 10 0 - GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Totai Enrollment 41 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (41) White Female (6) _ @Black Female (20) White Male (2) _ Black Male (13) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 60 .----------------~ ~ 50 -------45------------------------------------------z LJ.J O 40 ::\u0026gt; r(/) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ ::\u0026gt; Z 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (46) White Female (5) GBlack Female (20) White Male (7) Black Male (14) ------------------- 40 35 Cl) I-z w 30 0 :::, 25 I-Cl) LL 20 0 a: 15 w Cl) ~ 10 :::, z 5 0 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 35 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (35) White Female (3) LJBlack Female (11) White Male (5) Black Male (16) ------------------- GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD 50 ~--------------- ~ 40 z w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ :::) z 10 0 42 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (42) White Female (6) G:J Black Female (13) White Male (3) Black Male (20) ------------------- Cf) I-z w C :::) I-Cf) LL 0 a: w ca ~ :::) z 30 25 , 20 15 10, 5 / 0 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (26) White Female (2) li:lBlack Female (8) White Male (5) Black Male (11) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 50 ~-------------~ ~ 40 z w 0 ~ 30 Cf) LL 0 a: 20 w co :?! :z:J 10 0 43 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -z1 - - - - - - - Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (43) White Female (5) EBlack Female (18) White Male (3) Black Male (17) ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: Cl) ~ z w 0 :::) ~ Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment -------48---------------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (48) \\0 White Female (6) Ill Black Female (10) White Male (18) ('-1 - Black Male (14) Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 50 .------------------, ~z 40 - w 0 ~ 30 - Cf) LL 0 a: 20 w co ~ :z:: \u0026gt; 10 0 44 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (44) - White Female (12) []]Black Female (8) - White Male (8) Black Male (16) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 50 ~--------------~ CJ) 42 ~ 40 TOTAL w 0 ENROLLMENT (42) 00 ~ 30 CJ) LL 0 a: 20 w a) ~ 10 z 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp - White Female (10) CJ Black Female (13) White Male (11) Black Male (8) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ~ ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 50 .------------------, ~z 40 w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w CXl ~ :z:: :::\u0026gt; 10 0 40 TOTAL --------------------------------------- ENROLLMENT (40) ----------------------------27-------- White Female (8) CJ Black Female (10) _ White Male (9) Black Male (13) Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: (/) ~ z w 0 ::J ~ (/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment -------45--------------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMEN(4T6 ) Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp White Female (4) tlli Black Female (13) White Male (17) _ Black Male (12) GRADET, RANSPORTEADN DN ON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Fnrolin1ent 50 ,-----------------, (I) 1z- 40 w 0 ~ 30 (I) LL 0 a: 20 w al ~ 10 z 0 45 ----------------------------27-------- Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (45) White Female CIJBlack Female White Male Black Male ------------------- Cf) I-z w 0 ::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::\u0026gt; z HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD 400 350 ------s-30------------------------------------------- 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Grade 10 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (330) White Female (48) ~Black Female (117) White Male (41) Black Male (124) ------------------- (/) I-z w 0 ::) I- (/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 To, ta-11 CL nr,d. ,~viiil meHr. + * h. ------287------------------------------------------ 253 Grade 11 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (287) White Female (50) Iii Black Female (110) White Male (33) Black Male (94) ------------------- HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD 300 ,------------------, 250 ~ z ~ 200 :::::, rCf) LL 150 0 a: w ca 100 ~ :::::, z 50 0 270 Grade 12 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (270) IIIIWhite Female (59) EBlack Female (76) White Male (54) Black Male (81) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: ~ z w 0 :::\u0026gt; ~ Cf) LL 0 a: w ca ~ :::\u0026gt; z LRSD 100 .--------------------, 80 ______7_7 ___________________________________ ________ 68 60 40 20 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (77) White Female (11) Black Female (24) White Male (16) Black Male (26) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: Cf) I-z w 0 :::, I-Cf) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, z 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment -------5-7--------------------------------------------- TOTAL 50 ENROLLMENT (57) Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp White Female (11) - CJBlack Female (14) _ White Male (12) Black Male (20) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 .. a: w a) ~ ::::\u0026gt; z LRSD Tota 1 c-rollment ... I L.11 . .1 80 70 _____6_8__ ________________________________ _________ 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (68) White Female (13) cIJBlack Female (16) White Male (18) Black Male (21) ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD T ot,i,a 1a F_ nrou1 men t 60 .-----------------~ ~ 50 -------48-------------------------------------------- z ~ 40 :) IC/) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ :) z 10 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (48) IIIWhite Female (15)  Black Female (11) White Male (12) Black Male (10) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enroilment 60 .-------------------, ~ 50 z w o 40 :::) I-- Cf) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ :::) 2 10 0 51 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) - White Female (8) lmLlBlackF emale (16) - White Male (12) Black Male (14) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ---------------~--- KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: Cf) I-z w 0 :J I-Cf) LL 0 a: w m ~ :J z LRSD Total Enrollment 60 50 _____48 _________________________________ __________ TOTAL 40 ----------------------------37-------- ENROLLMENT (48) 0 s::r White Female (10) 30 - ~Black Female (10) 20 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Male (13) Black Male (15) ------------------- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: Cl) 1- z w 0 ::, IC/) LL 0 a: w cc ~ ::, z LRSD 100 ,---------------, 80 -------74------------------------------------------ 60 40 20 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (74) White Female (8)  Black Female (20) White Male (12) Black Male (34) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- en I-z w 0 ::) I-Cl) u. 0 a: w al ~ ::::\u0026gt; z MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 - - - - LRSD Total Enrolln1ent 61 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (61) -----------------------------3t)-------- White Female (11) Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp ~Black Female (18) White Male (12) - Black Male (20) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ---------------~--- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 :::, I-Cl) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::, z LRSD Total Enrollment 80 .---------------~ 70 ------- 68 ---------------------------------------------- 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 - - - - Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (68) White Female (13) ~Black Female (18) - White Male (18) _ Black Male (21) ___G_RAD_E, T_RAN_SPO_RTED_ AN_D NO_N-T_RANS_POR_TED_ ,.. __ _ MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: 60 Cf) I- 50 z w 0 40 ::::) I-Cf) LL 30 O a: w 20 al ~ ::::) z 10 0 LRSD To~al Enrollment 50 - TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female (15) ----------------------------26 ------- Black Female (11) 24 White Male (12)  Black Male (12) Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: 60 Cf) I- 50 z w 0 40 ::, I-Cf) LL 30 0 a: w 20 co ~ ::, z 10 0 - - - - LRSD Totai Enrollment 51 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) White Female (9) ---------28--------------------------- Black Female (16) White Male (12) - Black Male (14) Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z IJJ 0 :.:.:.:.\u0026gt;.. Cl) LL 0 a: w r:c ~ :::\u0026gt; z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrolln1ent -------48--------------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (48) White Female (10) Black Female (10) --------------------------2s-------- 22 White Male (13) _  Black Male (15) Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: C/) I- z w Cl ::, I-C/) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::, z 70 60 50 - 40 - 30 20 10 0 LRSD Total Enrollment 62 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female (7) Black Female (19) - White Male (6)  Black Male (30) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED t-- \"\"' ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: 70 en 60 I-z w 50 0 ::::, eI-n 40 LL 0 30 a: w co :E 20 ::::, z 10 0 LRSD Total Enrolh11ent 62 - - - --------- 35 ---------- -- - -- - Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female (5) Black Female (18) White Male (9) Black Male (30) ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enrollment 60 .----------------------, ~ 50 - z w 0 ::) ~ CJ) LL 0 a: ~ 20 ~ ::) z 10 - 0 50 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female (2) Black Female (23) White Male (9) Black Male (16) ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD Total Enroliment 80 ~-------------~ ~ 70 -------66---------------------------------------------- TOTAL ~ 60 ENROLLMENT (66) 0 :::, Ien LL 0 a: w ca ~ :::, z 0 --------------------------------------- ~-----~ Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp White Female (3) Black Female (27) - White Male (11) _ Black Male (25) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 0 lt') ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD 60 .--------------------, ~ 50 z w O 40 ::::\u0026gt; I-C/) u. 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ ::::\u0026gt; Z 10 0 54 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (54) White Female (8) Black Female (25) White Male (7) Black Male (14) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 ::::, I-Cl) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::, z LRSD Total Enrollment 60 50 49 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (49) White Female (8) Black Female (13) White Male (9) Black Male (19) ------------------- i i ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDENCE i\n!Fi i ~ l\"\"\"\" ~ lemI -IL r~= I T .. L W\"\"\"'!i\\/ilt...,.. I'! i\"\"\" 1 .~. I \"' I .,, I ~ ~ SOURCE: NLRSD ,OOL ~ ll) Ol\u0026amp;S ------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) I-z w 0 :::::, I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, z 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 64 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (64) White Female (13) ----------------------------------- Black Female (21) _ White Male (10)  Black Male (20) Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED II') II') ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 70 62 60 Cl) ..... z w 50 0 :::) I- 40 Cl) LL 0 30 a: w co ~ 20 :::) z 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female (11) \\0 riiBlack Female (18) White Male (16) Black Male (17) an ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cf) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 70 ,-------------------, 60 ______5_8 ___________________________________ _________ 50 - ____________________________ 4g_ ______ _ 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (58) White Female (20) t--- ln!Black Female (14) White Male (10) Black Male (14) 11) ------------------- - AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) I- z w 0 :::::) I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::::) z 80 70 -------a5------------------------------------------- 60 50 --------------------------4a------- 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (66) White Female (10) Black Female (14) White Male (22) Black Male (20) 00 lO ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w cc ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 - 63 Tota-l ' rC- rI- rU-B-1I1 meIn. ,il~ H Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (63) White Female (6) ., Black Female ( 15) White Male (26) Black Male (16) ------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrollment 60 ~------------~ ~ 50 z ~ 40 :::\u0026gt; I-C/} u. 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 0 53 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (53) White Female (14) Black Female (16) White Male (11)  Black Male ( 12) ------------------- ~z 11.1 0 :::) I-CJ) LL 0 a: 11.1 al ~ :::) z CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: 50 40 30 20 10 0 NLRSD Total Enrollment ------37--------------------------------------- 33 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (37) White Female (7) Black Female (10) White Male (7)  Black Male ( 13) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED --------~---------- CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrollment 50 .---------------~ z~ 40 w 0 ~ 30 Cf) u.. 0 a: 20 - w (ll ~ ::, 10 - z 0 41 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (41) White Female (9) [][]Black Female (13) White Male (6) Black Male (13) ------------------- CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 45 Cl) TOTAL Iz- 40 ENROLLMENT (45) tf\") w \\0 0 :::, 30 White Female (6) I-Cl) u. ldlBlack Female (13) 0 20 White Male (8) a: w Black Male (18) al ~ ::::\u0026gt; 10 z 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------~ Cl) I-z w 0 :::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NLRSD Total Enroilment ----------4--9--- ---------------------------------- Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (49) White Female (10) Black Female (7) White Male (13) Black Male (19) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: Cl) ..... z w 0 :.:.:.\u0026gt;.. Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NLRSD Total Enrollment -- -- --4 7--- - --- - -- -- -- -- -- ---- - -- -------- -- -- -- - - TOTAL Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp ENROLLMENT (47) White Female (15) ~ Black Female (15) White Male (5) Black Male (12) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ----~---------~---- CENTRAL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 .-------------------, g? 40 z w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ z= \u0026gt; 10 0 43 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp TOTAL ENROLLMENT (43) White Female (6) ~Black Female (14) White Male (12) Black Male (11) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ----------~-------- CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 :::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 32 NLRSD T . . E 1 g ota1 nro11n1en1 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (32) r-- \\C ---------------------------1-a-------- White Female (7) ,B lack Female (8) - White Male (9) _  Black Male (8) Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 ::::, I=- Cl) u.. 0 . a: w ca ~ :::\u0026gt; z NLRSD 35 30 -------2a------------------------------------------ 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (28) White Female (7) 1 Black Female (5) White Male (9)  Black Male (7) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I=- z w 0 :J I=- Cf) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 NLRSD Total Enrollment _____29 _________________________________ __________ TOTAL ENROLLMENT (29) ---------------------------1-a------- White Female (6) Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp Black Female (5) White Male (9) Black Male (9) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 .-----------------, ~ 40 ------ 39 ----------------------------------------z - w 0 ~ 30 CJ) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ :::, 10 z 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (39) White Female (7) Black Female (8) White Male (14)  Black Male (10) ------------------- CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: 50 Cl) Iz-= 40 w 0 :::\u0026gt; I- 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ ::J 10 z 0 - - - 45 NLRSD TOTAL --------------------------------------- ENROLLMENT (45) ----------------------------27-------- White Female (9) Black Female (13) _ White Male (12) Black Male (11) Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ~--~--------------- CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cf) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; 1-- Cf) LL 0 a: w cc ~ ::::\u0026gt; z NLRSD Total Enrollment 35 32 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (32) White Female (10) EBlack Female (9) llllWhite Male (3) Black Male (10) --~---------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 :::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::::\u0026gt; z NLRSD 40 35 35 30 25 20 -------- 19 _______________________ __ 16 15 10 5 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (35) White Female (9) ~Black Female (7) White Male (4) Black Male (15) ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 35 .-----------------, ~ 30 -------2-8--------------------------------------------z LU 0 ::::, IC/) LL 0 a: LU m ~ ::::, z 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (28) White Female (4) llilBlack Female (6) IIIWhite Male (8) Black Male (10) ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 30 ..------------------, ~z w 25 _____2.4 _ _________________________________ ___________  20 1- U) LL 15 0 ffi 10 - al ~ :z:\u0026gt; 5 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (24) tr) ~-----~ t-- White Female (6) Black Female (6) White Male (7) Black Male (5) ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cf) I- z LU 0 ::::::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 0 a: LU co ~ ::::::\u0026gt; z NLRSD rotal Enroiln1enl 35 30 _____2_._9 _ _______________________________ ___________ 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (29) White Female (8) Black Female (8) White Male (7) Black Male (6) ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 ,-------------------, ~z 40 w 0 :::, 1e-n 30 LL ~ 20 w m :~::, 10 z 0 42 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (42) White Female (13) Black Female ( 11) White Male (8)  Black Male (10) t--, t--, ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z UJ 0 :::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w ca ~ :::\u0026gt; z NLRSD Total Enrollment 40 35 _____3_4 ------------------------------------------ 30 25 --------------------------2-3------- 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (34) White Female Black Female (10) White Male (10) Black Male (7) 00 t-- ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: Cl) I== z w 0 ::) I== Cl) LL 0 er: w m ~ ::) z 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 NLRSD ------ 33 --------------------------------32 _______ TOTAL -------------------- - ENROLLMENT (33) 1 - White Female Black Female White Male -  Black Male Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: ~ z w 0 :J I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z NLRSD Total Enrollment 40 36 30 20 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (36) White Female ,,rn,, Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: Cl) I-z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 NLRSD Total Enrollment _____2_9_. _ ______________________28--_---_---___T OTAL 1 ENROLLMENT (29) White Female ,.,,B lack Female - White Male Black Male Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ~ 00 ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: C/) I-z w 0 ::J I-C/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z NLRSD 35 30 ______2 9_ __________________________________________ 25 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (29) White Female --Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 .--------------------, Cl) ~ 40 w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL ~ 20 w co ~ 10 z 0 41 40 1 - TOTAL ENROLLMENT (41) White Female IIBlack Female White Male Black Male Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enroliment 50 ,----------------, TOTAL ~ 40 _____39 _________________________3_7_ ______________E NROLLMENT (39) w 0 ~ 30 Cl) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ :::) z 10 0 2 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported White Female Black Female White Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrollment 50 .-----------------, ~ z 40 w 0 ~ 30 CJ) LL aO: 20 w co :~:, 10 z 0 43 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (43) l!IIIWhite Female Black Female White Male Black Male lr) QC) ------------------- en I-z w 0 ::) I- en LL. 0 a: w OJ ~ :::, z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 --------------------------3-7-------- Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 50 ~------------~ ~z 40 w 0 ::, 1- 30 Cl) LL ~ 20 w co ~ 10 :::::\u0026gt; z 0 43 __________________29 ___________ Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (43) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male t-- 00 ------------------- 60 ~ 50 z w 0 40 :::) I-Cl) LL 30 0 a: w co 20 ~ :::) z 10 0 SEVENTH STREET .. ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrollment 50 TOTAL - ENROLLMENT (50) - ---------------------------------------- White Female \"'\", Black Female ----------24- ---------------2a-------- White Male Black Male Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 00 00 ------------------- ~ z w 0 ::J IC/) LL 0 a: w cc ~ ::J z SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 100 .-----------------------, TOTAL 80 ---------74--------------------------------------------------- ENROLLMENT (74) 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 White Female BBlack Female - White Male Black Male Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 0\"0\" ------------------- Cl) I-z w Cl ::::\u0026gt; I- (/) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Total Enrolln1ent 54 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported TOTAL ENROLLMENT (54) White Female :+. Black Female White Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED -------------------- ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDANCE SOURCE: PCSSD ----~-----------~-- TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ----------------~-- BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 50 ~-----------~ ~ z UJ 0 40 -----_ 39 -------------------------------------- ~ 30 Cl) LL. ~ 20 w m ~ 10 z 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transp GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (39) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male --~-~-------------- BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 50 .---------------------, ~z 40 w 0 ~ 30 en LL 0 a:: 20 w m ~ :::, 10 z 0 41 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (41) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male --~-~-------------- (/) rz- - w 0 ::) r= Cl} LL 0 a: w cc ~ :::\u0026gt; z 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 35 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported TOTAL ENROLLMENT (35) White Female ~Black Female BWhite Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED --~---------------- 35 Cl) 30 I- z w 25 0 ::::) I- 20 Cl) LL 0 15 a: w cc 10 ~ ::::) z 5 0 BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 30 - ----------23----------------------------- - - - - Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (30) .----------, White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ~z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w al ~ ::::\u0026gt; z BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 TOTAL _______2_9__ _____________________E_N__R_O LLMENT( 35) i- - - Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Female m!Black Female White Male Black Male 0\"1 ----~-------------- z~ w 0 ::, I-CJ) u. 0 a: w cc ~ ::, z BAKER INTERDIST. ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 40 35 35 30 --------27- ---------------------- 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (35) White Female -iBlack Female BWhite Male Black Male 00 O'\\ L. - - .... :aa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 100 ....--------------------, ~z w 0 :::\u0026gt; rC/) LL 0 a: 40 - w m ~ ~ 20 - 0 87 -------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (87) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ----~-------------- CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD ~ z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::\u0026gt; z 100 ,-------------------, 80 ______7_8 ___________________________________T_O_T_A_L_ __ 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ENROLLMENT (78) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD CJ) I-z w 0 :) I- en LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z T otai enrollment 70 62 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD ~ z w 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::::\u0026gt; z T , . = p . otai t:nronment 100 ,-------------------, 86 60 40 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (86) White Female . Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD ~z LU 0 :J Ien LL 0 100 ~-------------~ 80 -------76------------------------------------------- a: 40 - w co ~ ~ 20 - 0 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (76) White Female\nBlack Female White Male Black Male -------------------- L-CATO ELEMENTARY: PCSSD ~ z w 0 :J IC/) LL 0 a: w 0) ~ :J z 100 ,------------------, 80 -------7~-------------------------------------------  39 ---------35 ------------------------ 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (74) White Female ,,SC Black Female BWhite Male Black Male ------------------ ~z UJ 0 ::, IC/) LL 0 a: UJ cc ~ ::, z CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. MAGNET: PCSSD 70 .--------------------, 60 --------55----------------------------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TOTAL ENROLLMENT (56) 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 10 - 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Female  Black Female White Male Black Male lr) Q ,-,! ~------------------ CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. Cl) I- z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z MAGNET: PCSSD 50 44 40 --------------------------37------- 30 20 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (44) White Female ,-.. Black Female White Male Black Male ---~--------------- ~ z UJ 0 ::::\u0026gt; CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. MAGNET: PCSSD Total Enroiiment 70 ~----------------, 60 -------_5_8_ _-- --- ------ ---- -- -------- --- ---- --- ------- --- - TOTAL ENROLLMENT (58) 50 - ~ 40 - White Female EBlack Female _ White Male Black Male LL 0 a: UJ co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 30 - 20 - 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. 60 en 1-- 50 z w 0 40 ::::, 1-- en u. 30 0 a: w 20 co ~ ::::, 10 z 0 - - - - - MAGNET: PCSSD Total Enrollment 50 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (50) White Female Black Female White Male _ Black Male Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. 70 Cl) 60 I-z w 50 0 :::, 1-- CJ) 40 LL 0 30 a: W. co 20 ~ ::J z 10 0 MAGNET: PCSSD 64 - - -----------------------------45------- - - Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (64) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- CRYSTAL HILLS INTERDIST. MAGNET: PCSSD Total Enrollment 80 .-------------------, ~ 70 ------- 68 ---------------------------------------------- m 60 - Cl ~ 50 Cl) LL 0 a: 30 w en ~ :::\u0026gt; z 20 - 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (68) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 70 CJ) 60 t=- z UJ 50 0 :J J=- CJ) 40 LJ... 0 30 a: w co 20 ~ ::) z 10 0 DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 64 - - - - - - Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (64) White Female , Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- ~z w 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 a: w al ~ :::\u0026gt; z DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 80 ~--------------~ 70 ---------66------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 60 - ---------------------------------------- ENROLLMENT (66) 50 - 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- ~ z w 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::) z DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 70 .-------------------~ 60 --------55-------------------------------------------------- 50 - TOTAL ENROLLMENT (56) White Female m!Black Female 30 White Male 20 10 -  Black Male 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- ~ z w 0 :::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::\u0026gt; z DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD T0 I~ a11 t...=... nr-ouq men t 100 .--------------------, 80 80 - ----------55---------------------------- 20 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (80) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 70 Cl) 60 I- z w 50 0 ::\u0026gt; I- Cl) 40 LL 0 30 a: w m 20 ~ ::, z 10 0 DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 63 - - - - - Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (63) White Female 1\"=-Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 70 Cl) 60 t- z w 50 0 :::\u0026gt; I-=- 40 U) LL 0 30 a: w al 20 ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 0 DUPREE ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 63 - - - - Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (63) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- ~ z w 0 ::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w CXl ~ :::\u0026gt; z FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 50 .--------------------, 44 43 20 1 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (44) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male t-,-.( ,-.( ------------------- ~ z w FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 60 ~--------------~ 50 --------4.8------------------ -- --------- -- ---- -- --------- -- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (48) Cl 40 - :::) IC/) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::\u0026gt; z 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 50 CJ) Iz- 40 w Cl :::\u0026gt; I- 30 CJ) LL 0 a: 20 w m ~ ::::\u0026gt; 10 z 0 - - - FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 42 ----------37---------------------------- TOTAL Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported ENROLLMENT (42) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------~ ~ z w 0 :::, Ien LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, z FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD \"\"\\j1\"\" o t a I fc\"\"\": nrohi n-1en 1 70 .--------------------, 60 --------513------------------------------------------------- 50 - 30 20 10 0 51 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (56) White Female \u0026amp;!Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- 60 ~ 50 z w 0 40 :J I-Cf) u.. 30 0 a: w co 20 ~ :J z 10 0 FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total l::nroilment 53 - --------------------- - - --------------------- - - 2 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (53) White Female :.,,B. lack Female White Male Black Male -------------------- FULLER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 60 51 Cl) 50 - I-z ----------------------------------------- TOTAL ENROLLMENT (51) w 0 40 - :::\u0026gt; --------------------- .---------, IIWhite Female I-Cl) LL 30 - 0 li!Black Female --------------------- White Male a: w co 20 - Black Male --------------------- ....._ ____ ~ ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- ~ z w 0 :) 1- (j) LL 0 a: w m ~ :) z LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 70 .-------------------. 60 ---------5-9-- ----------------------------------------------- 50 30 20 10 0 -----------30---------------------------- Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (59) White Female ~Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- CJ) 1-- z w 0 :.:_::.\u0026gt;. CJ) LL 0 a: w co ~ =\u0026gt; z LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PCSSD T _,,,_g .  irF= -=n '\"~1-\nm. ,,.,,.. .. ,., ~ ULdl ~ .1 \\..h , 1 cI l 61 - - - - - - Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (61) White Female Black Female White Male Black Male ------------------- ~ z w 0 ::, IC/) LL 0 a: w m ~ ::, z LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 100 .----------------~ 80 -- - - -- -78 - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - -- - - - 40 20 0 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (78) White Female (18) Black Female (18) White Male (27) Black Male (15) ---~--------------- LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollment 100 ..-----------------, ~ 80 ------74--------------------------------------- z w 0 ~ 60 en LL 0 a: 40 w co ~ z= \u0026gt; 20 0 Grade 4 TransportedNon-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (74) White Female (23) Black Female ( 11) White Male (21) Black Male (19) ------------------- LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 100 .------------------, ~ 80 -------75------------ ------------------------------ w 0 ~ 60 Cf) LL 0 a: 40 w al ~ :z: , 20 0 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (75) White Female (23) Black Female (14) White Male (26) Black Male (12) ------------------- LANDMARK ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 80 ,------------------, ~ 70 -------6-7--------------------------------------------- as 60 Cl ::::\u0026gt; 50 IC/) LL 0 aw: 30 co ~ 20 ::J z 10 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (67) IIIWhite Female (26) ~Black Female (13) White Male (20) Black Male (8) ------------------- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 80 ,----------------~ ~ zw 60 0 ::\u0026gt; t- CI) LL 40  0 a: w co ~ 20  ::\u0026gt; z 0 72 Grade 1 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (72) White Female (26) IBBlack Female (9) White Male (24)  Black Male ( 13) --------------~---- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 60 ,----------------, ~ 50 z w O 40 ::J I-C/) LL 30 0 a: ~ 20 ~ ::) z 10 0 54 Grade 2 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (54) White Female (19) ,.,, Black Female (5) White Male (13) Black Male (17) -----------~------- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total Enrollrnent 70 .-------------------, ~ 60 z w 50 0 :::, ~ 40 LL O 30 a: w m 20 ~ :::, Z 10 0 60 Grade 3 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (60) White Female (23) ii!Black Female (9) IIIWhite Male (20)  Black Male (8) ------------------- Cl) I= z w 0 :::, I=- Cl) LL 0 a: w ca ~ ::) z TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD Total r-nrol'mAnt fl f: I C, I I ~- 70 60 _____58 _________________________________ __________ 50 40 --------------------------------------- 30 20 10 0 Grade 4 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED TOTAL ENROLLMENT (58) White Female (15) Black Female (14) White Male (14) Black Male (15) ------------------- TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 70 62 CJ) 60 TOTAL Iz- ENROLLMENT (62)  w 50 0 ~ ::\u0026gt; White Female (18) ~ I- ~ en 40 Black Female (9) LL 0 30 White Male (18) a: w Black Male (17) co 20 ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 10 0 Grade 5 Transported Non-Transported GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- Cl) I=-- z w C) ::::\u0026gt; I-Cl) LL 0 a: w m ~ :::, z 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TAYLOR ELEMENTARY: PCSSD 62 Grade 6 Transported Non-Transported TOTAL ENROLLMENT (62) White Female (19) fillliill8IacFk emale (13) White Male (16) Black Male (14) GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED ------------------- ENROLLMENT LJTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION, TRANSPORTED, AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: 60 Cl) I- ' ' z 50 ' ' w 0 ' ' :::\u0026gt; 40 ' I-Cl) ' ' u.. 30 , 0 , , a: 20 , w r:o , ~ 10 ' , :::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment ' ' ' BM 17 13 17 LRSD n ent ----40---------------------------- BF 18 4 18 WM 13 2 14 WF 17 3 16 36 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: ~z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; ~ Cl) 100 60 ,' , 76 LL 0 a: w al ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 40 ,, __ 20 ,' 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 32 Transported 12 Enrollment 32 BF 17 8 17 LRSD nr nt WM WF 23 14 4 4 24 18 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: LRSD 80 ~ z , w , 0 60 , ::J I-Cl) , , LL 40 , 0 a: w , , co 20 , ~ ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 31 21 28 18 Transported 10 12 8 8 Enrollment 31 21 28 19 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: LRSD n en 80 (/) , , , , r 70 , , , z , , , , -- -- - - -- - ---sa --- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- - - - - -- - ---------------59------ 54 w , 0 60 , ::) , _ _ D Compensatory Ed. r 50 , (/) ' (\"') D Transported ~ , LL 40 , 0 , a: 30 , w , co 20 , ~ , ::) 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 24 8 24 BF 30 8 30 WM 24 5 25 WF 26 5 28 __ CJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: LRSD f r er 100 Cl) ~ , z , w 80 , ------------- ~------~ 0 ::J , ~ 60 , Cl) LL 0 , 40 , a: w Cl) , , ~ 20 , ::J z o---~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 32 20 35 17 13 8 4 5 32 20 35 18 D Compensatory Ed. Transported ~ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Carver Magnet Elementary: 80 Cf) 1- z ~ 60 ,' =\u0026gt; 1- Cf) LL 40 ,' 0 a: cwo 20 ,' ~ =z \u0026gt; LRSD r r rnen o---~----.~-~-- Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF WM WF 29 24 27 21 15 7 8 7 29 24 27 21 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 80 Cf) Iz- 70 w / 0 60 , :::) / / I- 50 , Cf) / / LL 40 , 0 / a: 30 , w / / co 20 , ~ / / :::) 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 35 1 33 nro lment - -as--------------------------------------- ----sa---------------------------- BF 30 2 26 WM 3 1 5 WF 4 0 4 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 2 nr lment 53 60 Cl) I- , z 50 , w 0 , :::) 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30 , 0 , a: w 20 , co , ~ , 10 , :::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 28 27 4 1 Transported O O 1 0 Enrollment 19 26 6 3 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 60 , , nr rner ________5_2_ -_--- ----------------------- ~z 50 ,' ,' w , 0 :) JC/) LL 0 a: w Cl) ~ :) z 40 ,' 30 ,' 10 ,' , ----11----------------- 6 , o--~-~----- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 17 25 5 3 2 3 0 0 18 24 6 3  Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 60 Cl) r- , z 50 , w 0 , :::\u0026gt; 40 , r- Cl) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20, Cl) ~ , 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF 19 28 2 2 19 27 WM 0 0 1 en WF 1 0 3 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 50 Cl) I-z , w 40 , 0 :::::\u0026gt; , I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 , 20 , a: w co , ~ 10 , :::::\u0026gt; z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 20 Transported 2 Enrollment 20 5 Enrollment - _42 ------ 41 ___________________ ________ BF 20 2 19 ------------------------ WM 5 0 8 WF 1 0 4 ,---------~  Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 1.0 ~ \"'\"' ------------------- Cloverdale Elementary: LRSD 60 Cl) I- , z 50 , w 0 , ::\u0026gt; 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , Cl) ~ , 10 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , BM 18 3 18 BF 28 1 24 r r llment 53 WM 2 1 2 WF 3 0 1 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Geyer Springs Elementary: 60 10 ,' , , LRSD Enr llrnent 47 0 -------.-------.----,------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 19 21 1 9 Transported 3 6 0 1 Enrollment 13 20 2 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~----~----- Geyer Springs Elementary: 60 Cl) I- , z 50 , w 0 , ::) 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30, 0 a: , w 20 , co ~ , 10 , ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment LRSD , ------------50---------------------------- , , , BM 16 6 14 BF 23 7 20 WM 5 2 7 WF 5 1 5 ~ Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. - - - - .. - .. - ...-. - .. - - - - - - .. Geyer Springs Elementary: 35 (f) I- , z 30 , w , 0 25 , :J I- , (f) 20 , LL , 0 15 , a: , w 10 , en ~ , :J 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , BM 13 3 16 LRSD ___2_6 --------------------------- BF 12 3 11 WM 4 1 5 WF 3 3 3 ~ Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 0 tr) ,-..f -------------------- Geyer Springs Elementary: 60 Cl) I-z 50 , w 0 , ::J 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30 , 0 , a: , w 20, a) ~ 10 , ::J z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 21 11 20 LRSD lme _52_ _________________________ _____________ __-3 0--__ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ _____ _ _ _ D Compensatory Ed. BF 13 4 13 WM 2 1 3 WF 5 0 6 D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Geyer Springs Elementary: 30 Cf) I- , / z w 25 , 0 / ::::, 20 , I-Cf) , LL 15 , 0 , a: / w 10 , c:c ~ / ::::, 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 11 4 11 LRSD Enr )llmen 1 J _26_ _________________________ _____________ BF 9 5 8 WM 5 1 5 WF 2 0 2  Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ----~-------------- Geyer Springs Elementary: 50 ~z w 40, 0 ::J tC/) LL 0 cc w co LRSD ------------------------ ~ ::J z 0--------.------.---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 15 18 3 5 Transported 7 8 1 0 Enrollment 17 18 3 5 ,----------, D Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ~ lO ~ ----~~------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD r r llment 50 -----------------------38 ---------------- Cf) , , , I- , , z , , w 40 , ------------- 0 D Compensatory Ed. ::J , , l-/). :r I- 30 , ------------- D Transported ~ Cf) LL D Enrollment 0 , 20 , , a: w a:::i , , ~ 10 , ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 14 10 16 5 Transported 3 0 4 1 Enrollment 14 10 18 6 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. -~~---------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: 35 en I- , z 30, UJ , , 0 25 , ::) I- , , en 20 , LL , , 0 15 , a: , UJ , 10 , co ~ , , ::) 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 16 0 16 LRSD __________________________ 26 _____ _ BF 8 0 8 WM 7 1 8 WF 12 2 12 Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. I/') I/') ~ -----~------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD r lmen 27 30 en I- , , z 25 , w 0 , , ::J 20 , I- en / LL 15 , 0 / a: , w 10 , cc , ~ , 5' ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 13 11 10 Transported 3 1 2 4 Enrollment 8 13 11 10  Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD Enr \u0026gt;llmen 35 ' -3E}--------------------------------------( j)I- ' z 30 ,' w 0 :::) 1- (j) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::) z 25 ,' / 10 ,' / 5 ,' / 0 I'-------~----.---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 13 10 8 8 Transported 4 2 6 1 Enrollment 13 10 9 8 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported G1 Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. 157 t--tr) ...-4 ------------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD e Enrollment 1 ) 50 / / -----------------------38 ---------------- Cl) I- / z / LU 40 , ------------- 0  Compensatory Ed. ::) / 00 I- 30 , D Transported l/) ------------- ,-.( Cl) u. Q Enrollment 0 / a: 20 , LU co / ~ 10 , ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 12 13 16 5 Transported 3 2 5 2 Enrollment 12 13 17 4 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. 1------------------- Gibbs Magnet Elementary: LRSD llm rt 35 / -2g- ------------------2g- ---------------- I-Cf) z 30 ,' ___2_._6_ ~_- -------------- w 0 :) 1- Cf) LL 0 a: w 0) ~ :) z , 25 ,' , 20 ,' , 15 ,'1----- 10 ,' 5 ,' 0--------,-----,-----.-----f' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 13 12 11 8 Transported 3 2 7 6 Enrollment 13 12 11 9 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- 250 Cl) t-z , w 200, 0 ::::\u0026gt; , t- 150 , Cl) LL 0 , 100 , a: w co , ~ 50 , ::::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment Hall High: LRSD , , , BM 0 111 124 BF 0 95 117 nrullm r t ------------------------ WM 0 16 41 WF 0 25 48 .-----------, D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. Note: Hall High reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. -----~------------- Hall High: LRSD 250 Cl) I- , z , w 200, 0 ::J / I- 150 , Cl) LL 0 , / 100 , a: w cc , / ~ 50 , ::J z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 0 88 94 BF 0 107 110 ------------------------ WM 0 16 33 WF 0 22 50 .------------, D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. Note: Hall High reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. -----~------------- Hall High: LRSD 200 ~z ~ 150 ,' :J I-C/) LL 100 ,' 0 t-------,- a: w co ~ :J z / 50 ,' 0---------- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 80 68 16 21 81 76 54 59 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported _ _ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. Note: Hall High reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: 60 Cl) ~ , z 50 , w 0 , :::\u0026gt; 40 , ~ Cl) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , co ~ , 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , BM 26 0 26 BF 23 1 24 LRSD 1r )lln-1 r t WM 14 3 16 WF 21 5 21 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported kiLl Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: 50 Cl) I- z , w 40 , 0 :::\u0026gt; , , I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 , 20 , a: w co , ~ 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 20 Transported 1 Enrollment 20 LRSD 2 nrollment _41_ __________________________ ____________ --- 30---------------------------- ,-------- BF 14 2 14 WM 12 2 12 26  Compensatory Ed. WF 9 2 11 D Transported B Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: 50 ~ , z , w 40 , 0 :J , 30 , , I-CJ) LL 0 , 20 , a: w , a:) , ~ 10 , :J z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 21 2 21 BF 16 2 16 LRSD ------------- ,----------, WM 16 3 18 WF 12 2 13 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: LRSD nrollrn nt 3 5 , , , , -----------------------29--------31 _ ----- (/)I- ,,' z 30 ,' ,, / UJ / , -2{}---- 0 25, / ::J IC/) u.. 0 a: UJ co ~ ::J z , 20 ,' 15 ,' 10 ,' 5 ,' 0---..------.--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 10 10 12 14 Transported 0 1 5 2 Enrollment 10 11 12 15 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. 1,0 1,0 ~ ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: LRSD r 40 0 l'---------r------,...--------r--------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 14 16 11 9 2 4 0 2 14 16 12 9  Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ ~ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- M. L. King Magnet Elementary: LRSD Enr llment 1 40 , , -34--------------------------------------- , , ~ 35 ,' ----- --- ------ .------------, z w 0 ::J IC/) _ _ D Compensatory Ed. LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z 10 , , , 01'----,------,-------,r------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed.  15 10 12 10 Transported 4 1 2 4 Enrollment 15 10 13 10 D Transported CJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. 00 1,0 ~ ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 80 ~ 70 ,' z ~ 60 ,' ::J IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z 20 ,' 10 ,' nrollmen 0-------,----,---------.---------\nBM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 24 25 10 6 Transported 9 8 2 2 Enrollment 34 20 12 8 CJ Compensatory Ed. D Transported  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 2 Enrollment - 1 S-J 70 ,' 57 Cl) ~ 60 ,' w 0 50 ,' ::) ~ 40 ,' LL 0 30 ,' cc w 20 ,' co ~ ::) z 10 ,' ----41---------------------------- ,-----------, 6d Compensatory Ed. D Transported ----1-9-------2-2------ Ga Enrollment / 0 -----.-------,------,-------r Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF WM WF 22 21 6 8 15 6 1 3 20 14 12 11 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 60 (f) ..... , z 50 , w 0 , ::::\u0026gt; 40 , ..... (f) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , co ~ , 10 , ::::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 24 8 21 ,, 3 Enrollment - 1 J c ----39---------------------------- BF 16 7 16 WM 5 0 18 WF 11 3 13 ~ Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD G e 4 Enrollment - 1 45 50 Cl) / I- / z / w 40 , 0 ::) / I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 / 20 , a: w a::i / ~ 10 , ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 15 25 7 6 Transported 11 9 3 1 Enrollment 10 11 12 15 5 6 Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 60 CJ) r- , z 50 , UJ 0 , :::\u0026gt; r- 40, CJ) , , LL 30 , 0 , a: , UJ 20 , co :E , 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 21 11 14 5 nrolln nt ________5_2_ -_--- ----------------------- BF 25 11 16 WM 14 4 12 WF 12 2 9 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Mabelvale Elementary: LRSD 50 Cl) I- , z , LU 40 , 0 ::\u0026gt; , , I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 , , 20 , a: LU co , , ~ 10 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment r e 6 Enrollment - 1 BM 19 8 15 -4--2- --------40- -------------------------- BF 22 8 10 WM 6 4 13 WF 10 2 10 Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 70 Cz/) 1- 60 ,, w , Cl 50 ,, ::::) IC/) LL 0 cc w co ~ ::::) z , 40 ,, 30 ,, I 20 ,' 10 / I ' 1 Enrollment I -60--------------------------------------- -----7-- --------!1------ o,...._------,-------,-----.----~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 16 5 1 2 Transported 14 11 0 2 Enrollment 30 19 6 7 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 80 ~z 70 / UJ 0 ::::\u0026gt; Ien LL 0 a: UJ co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z , 60 ,' , 50 ,' , 20 ,' , 10 ,' - --, - ..-. -- ... ~~\no\n-~--,,T_ \"%w..~~,.n,:\n', t .:\n-19\n ~p~---~:~ \\ ~ .. : , - ' ~.. 2 Enr llment - 1 35 -----g------------------ 5 0 ------.-------.----,--- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 12 6 0 0 Transported 24 11 0 0 Enrollment 30 18 9 5 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ----~-------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 50 (J) I-z 40 , , w 0 =\u0026gt; , I- 30 , (J) LL 0 , 20, a: w co , ~ 10 , z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported BM 7 9 Er r llment _________4_1_ _ ____________________ ______ BF 3 15 WM 2 0 WF 0 1 Enrollment 16 23 9 2 CJ Compensatory Ed. D Transported ~ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. t-t- .,...\n------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD Enrollment - 1 60 , ------------50 --------------------------- Cl) , , t- , , z 50 , w 0 , ::J 40, t- Cl) , LL 30 , 0 , a: , w 20 , cc , ~ , 10 , ::J z 0------------- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 8 8 3 0 10 15 0 2 25 27 11 3 J D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 00 ,t-..... ------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 60 Cl) I- , z 50 , w 0 , :::) 40 , I-Cl) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , co ~ , 10 , :::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported , , , , , , , BM 8 12 nrollmer ------------51---------------------------- BF 8 18 WM 2 2 WF 2 1 Enrollment 14 25 7 8 Q Compensatory Ed. D Transported GJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadowcliff Elementary: LRSD 6 Enr llment 50 42 Cf) r- , z , w 40 , ----------------------------------- ,------------, 0 ::J , , ~ Compensatory Ed. r- 30 , Cf) D Transported LL 0 , 20 , a: D Enrollment w cc , , ~ 10 , ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 9 4 3 2 Transported 14 9 2 0 Enrollment 19 13 9 8 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 0 00 ~ ----~--------------1 ENROLLMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION, TRANSPORTED, AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM .-I 00 .-I ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD 70 Cl) Iz- 60 UJ / 0 50 , ::J I- / Cl) 40 , LL / 0 30 , a: / UJ / cc 20 , ~ / ::J 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment Gra e 1 Enrol ment - 1995-9 53 BM 18 15 20 BF 19 16 21 56 ----21--- WM 10 1 10 WF 13 1 13 27 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------~ Amboy Elementary: NLRSD Jracl 2 Enrollment - 19~ 5-96 60 ------------------------------------------- / 47 Cl) / I- / z LU 50 , 0 / D Compensatory Ed. / :::\u0026gt; 40 , I- D Transported Cl) / LL 30 , D Enrollment \"'l 0 00 / ~ a: / 20 , LU Cl) ~ / 10 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 15 16 17 12 Transported 13 13 0 0 Enrollment 17 18 16 11 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD 50 Cf) I-z / LU 40 , 0 ::::\u0026gt; / I- 30 , Cf) LL 0 / 20 , a: LU co / ~ 10 , ::::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0r a e 3 Enrollrnent - 1995-96 / / / BM 14 14 14 42 ----------------------------------40------ BF 11 9 14 WM 11 0 10 WF 19 1 20 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ~ 00 ~ ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD r J e 4 nr\nllment - 19 5-96 60 CJ) r , z 50 , w 0 , , :::) 40 , r CJ) , LL 30 , 0 , , a: 20 , w en ~ , 10 , :::) z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 18 Transported 11 Enrollment 20 BF 14 7 14 WM 22 2 22 WF 10 0 10 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. tr) 00 ~ ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD r' de 5 Enrollment - 19 5-96 60 ~z 50 ,' w 0 :::) , 40 , 53 , tCI) LL 0 a: w c::c 30 ,' 1--------r --- I======= , 20 ,' 1---- ~ :::) z 10 ,' 0 -------.--------.------,----- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 17 14 26 5 9 12 1 1 16 15 26 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Amboy Elementary: NLRSD 50 ~ / m 40 ,, 0 r=-\u0026gt; / 30 ,' Cf) LL O 20 ,' a: w ~ 10 ,' z= \u0026gt; de 6 Er rolln1ent - 1995-96 / ------------40---------------------------- 33 ~- ---------------2g------ ...-----------, D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 12 15 12 15 9 9 0 0 12 16 11 14 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. t-- 00 ~ ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD r c d  1 nrollment - -1 5-9 J 40 ~z 35 / , -3---------------------------------------- ,.,, .....___ __,, ~ 30 ,' ~ 25 / 1----CI) ___2_1__ _____________Co_m_p ensatory Ed. 18 ,,----___,,.__ D Transported LL 20 ,' 0 a: UJ cc ~ :::, z 15 ,, __ 10 ,' 5 ,' .,,.__ _ ____,, 01'---------~--- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 10 10 7 5 Transported 12 8 7 6 Enrollment 13 10 7 7 D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 00 00 ~ Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD Gr dd 2 nrollment - 1995- , -35--------------------------------------- 40 Cl) r- 35 // z ~ 30 // ::) ..... Cl) 25 // 20 // , 1------r / LL 0 a: w co 15 // --- ~ ::) z / 10 // / 5/ ___3_. 1_ ___________________ ________ --------- 23 ~-___,,,__ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment 0 -------.------,-----.-------f' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 14 10 7 9 Transported 8 8 4 5 Enrollment 13 13 6 9 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 0\"0\" ~ ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD 60 en I-z 50 w 0 / =\u0026gt; 40 , I- en / LL 30 , 0 a: / w 20 , cc ~ / 10 , z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment / Gra e 3 Enrollrnent - 1995-9 46 BM 14 14 18 ____a i____________________________D Compensatory Ed. BF 9 10 13 22 D Transported -------------- 18 ---- D Enrollment WM 8 6 8 WF 8 4 6 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD \\rade 4 Enrollment - 1995-9 60 40 ,' 30 ,' , 20 ,,i--- 10 ,' o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 17 6 12 9 12 6 10 8 19 7 13 10 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. l\"\"i 0'. l\"\"i ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD G de 5 Ent lln1ent - 1 q95_95 50 __________4_1_ ________________4_2_ _- ---- / / ~ ,/ 34 -- d] 40 ,, 0 -- :::\u0026gt; IC/) 30 ,' / LL 0 20 , a: w ca ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 ,' / o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 13 14 4 16 9 12 3 11 12 15 5 15 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Central Elementary: NLRSD 40 Cl) Iz- 35 UJ , 0 30 , :J , I- 25 , Cl) , LL 20 , 0 , a: 15 , UJ , Cl) 10 , ~ , :J 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , r r J 6 Enrollment - 19~ -96 BM 10 10 11 BF 14 5 14 WM 11 6 12 WF 6 4 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD 30 Cf) I-z w 25 0 , :::\u0026gt; I- 20 , Cf) , u.. 15 , 0 a: , w 10 , co ~ , :::\u0026gt; 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment Gra e 1 Enrollment - 1995-96 , , BM 8 5 8 ------------2-5---------------------------- 21 BF 9 8 8 WM 9 0 9 WF 6 1 7 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD 25 Cl) ~ / z / w 20 , 0 ::) / ~ 15 , Cl) LL 0 / 10 , a: w a:::i / / ~ 5' ::) z 0  Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment rade 2 Enrollment - 1985-96 21 BM 8 6 7 BF 7 5 5 17 WM 9 0 9 18 WF 7 0 7 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD :JI .d~ o Enr llment 19 - 6 30 , -25 -------------------------------------- , ~z 25 ,' w 0 :J 20 ,' I- --- 13 Cl) LL 15 ,' 0 a: 10 ,' w co ~ 5 ,' :) z 0 l'---------.--------,-----,--------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 5 10 6 Transported 8 3 0 0 Enrollment 9 5 9 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD G1 a . e 4 Enrollment - 1995-9 / / -2 8 ------------------29 ---------------- ___2 1__ / 25 , / 20 ,' 1------f\" 15 ,'  1--- 10 ,' 5 ,' 0 I'------.--------,-----.-------\u0026lt; BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 9 8 15 8 Transported 9 5 0 0 Enrollment 10 8 14 7 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD j_ 1 18 5 Er, llr11 ,nt - 1 40 Cl) ------------34 --------------------------- , -30--- ------------------------ Iz- 35 / / w / 0 30 , ::, / / I- 25 , Cl) / ----24-----------------~-----~ ----rg------ D Compensatory Ed. _ _ D Transported LL 20 , 0 / / a: 15 , D Enrollment w / cc 10 , ~ / ::, 5' z 0 l'---------,-----,---------.---- Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF WM WF 11 11 12 10 8 10 0 0 11 13 12 9 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 00 C's ,-.( ------------------- Crestwood Elementary: NLRSD 35 Cl) I- / z 30 , w / Cl 25 , :J I- / Cl) 20 , LL / 0 15 , a: / w 10 , co ~ / / :J 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Graoe 6 Enrollment - 199 -9b BM 12 9 _31_ __________________________ ____________ ----2----------------------------- BF 10 6 __________2_1_ ___ .-- ----------, WM 4 0 WF 11 0 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment Enrollment 10 9 3 10 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD 50 Cf) I- , z , w 40 , 0 ::) , I- 30 , Cf) LL 0 , 20 , a: w ca , , ~ 10 , ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment tad 1 nrollment - 19 5-96 BM 14 13 15 42 ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ~------~ D Compensatory Ed. ___2_1 _ __________________ 18 -----  Transported BF 8 6 7 WM 5 0 4 WF 9 0 9 D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD (1de 2 Enrollment - 1995-96 ,,' -29 ------------------------------------- 35 ,' ,............___ ~z 30 ,, , '- ---.\n.\n......__ w , O 25 ,' :::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 , 15 ,' a: -- w 10 ,' en ~ :::\u0026gt; z , 5 ,' 0---,.-------,------,-------r BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 11 8 10 7 9 4 5 0 0 6 8 4 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. -------------------- ,----- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD 20 Cl) I-z w / 0 15 ' =\u0026gt; I-Cl) / LL 10 ' 0 a: w / / co 5' ~ z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment G de 3 nrollment - 1995-96 16 16 BM BF 7 6 4 4 5 6 WM 6 1 7 WF 6 0 6 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD \\3r d ~ 4 Enrollment - 19 5-96 15 ,' a: 10 ,' w Cl) ~ 5 ,' ::\u0026gt; z 1---- , o---~-~~-~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 8 7 8 Transported 6 8 2 0 Enrollment 6 8 7 8 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD 20 ,   15 ,  Grade 5 Enrollment - 1 95-96 _________3_1_ __ ____________________ ______ 27 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment a: 1-- UJ 10 ,  co ~ 5 ,  z o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 10 11 7 14 6 9 1 0 10 11 8 13 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Lakewood Elementary: NLRSD 30 / 15 ,' / 10 , / 5 ,' r 1e 6 nrollment - 19 -9  / / , / , ------------25 ----------------------------- 1------:--- D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment 0 -------.------,-----.---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 8 9 10 6 5 6 0 0 7 10 10 7 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: 35 ~ , z 30 , LU , , 0 25 , ::J , ~ , en 20 , LL , , 0 15 , cc , LU 10 , co ~ , ::J 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment NLRSD Gr\u0026lt;-1de1 nrolln1ent - 1c BM 17 0 14 _31_ _________________________ _____________ BF WM 9 3 0 0 8 2 WF 12 1 9 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: 30 Cl) I- , , z 25 , w 0 , , , :::) 20 , I-Cl) , , LL 15 , 0 cc: , w 10 , co ~ , 5' :::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , , , , , , , , BM 9 0 9 NLRSD c d , 2 Enroll n1ent - '19S)r.:_g 27 ------ 18 BF 14 0 13 WM 9 1 7 WF 4 2 7 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: 20 Cl) I- z / w / 0 15 , ::) I-Cl) / / LL 10 , 0 a: w / / en 5' ~ ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment NLRSD ,. de 3 nr llment - 1995-96 18 BM 9 0 9 ---------------4-5--------4-5------ 11 --------- BF 6 0 5 WM 7 0 8 WF 7 1 7 __ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: NLRSD 4 l.nrollment - 19 5-96 22 25 Cl) , , I- , , , z , w 20 , 0 , 12 , :::\u0026gt; / , I- 15 , Cl) LL 0 / 10 , a: w cc , ~ 5' :::\u0026gt; z 0-------,----.-----------.----- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 6 12 6 8 Transported O O 2 2 Enrollment 6 10 5 8 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: NLRSD ,._rl ~ 5 nrollment - 19 )~)-9b 35 (/)I- , z 30 ,' ,, / w , 0 =\u0026gt; IC/) 25 ,' ,/ , , __1_ 6 __ 20 ,' 15 ,' LL 0 a: w co 10 ,'1----- ~ z= \u0026gt; 5 ,' 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , BM 8 0 8 BF 16 0 16 32 WM 6 0 7 WF 11 1 10 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Meadow Park Elementary: 30 Cl) I-z w 25 0 / =\u0026gt; 20 , I-Cl) / LL 15 , 0 / cc / w 10 ' co / ~ / =\u0026gt; 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment NLRSD , le 6 Enrollment - 199t}-96 BM 12 0 11 BF 11 0 10 WM 8 1 7 WF 12 1 11 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD G cl J e 1 n r II men t - 'l ) i:: - ~ 50 ~ // 37 m 40 ,, f---- o ::) .,_ 30 // Cl) LL O 20 / __ a: LU a) ~ 10 // ::) z 0 l'---------.-------,,----~-------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 19 10 6 4 0 0 3 3 18 13 6 6 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD G .,.de 2 Er rollment - 1 5-9 40 Cl) Iz- 35 , w , 0 30 , I=- \u0026gt; 25 Cl) , , LL 20 , 0 , a: 15 , w , co 10 , ~ , =\u0026gt; 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 12 0 13 ----------------------------------3------ -25-------------------24-- 22 BF 9 0 13 WM 8 7 9 WF 14 6 15 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. __ D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: 35 en Iz- 30 UJ / 0 25 ' =\u0026gt; I- / en 20 ' LL / 0 15 , a: UJ / ca 10 ' ~ / =\u0026gt; 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment NLRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1995-96 / / / BM 14 1 13 __________________________________ 31 _____ _ 28 s--.:..\n, ,~ .c-\"~,.,,.,. D Compensatory Ed. ~~~--fl --  Transported BF 9 1 10 WM 7 4 8 WF 11 8 12 -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1995-96 60 ,' -----------------------48 --------------- ,,  ~=:-:-:a 44 ~z LU 0 50 ,' :r:-::\u0026gt;4 0 C/) LL 30 0 a: 20 ,' LU co ~ z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 11 0 8 BF 8 1 8 WM 19 11 18 WF 16 12 16 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION lnstrucHonal Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD GrcJ ie 5 nrollment - 1995-96 60 ~z 50 // w 0 40 // ::::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 30 ,, 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 20 // 10 ,  52 , -----------------------4g----------------- --4--2-- ----------- /  t=:=:=== o---~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 21 17 17 18 1 0 14 15 20 17 18 19 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Seventh Street Elementary: NLRSD i nroll. ent - 1 L 5_9c 60 g? z 50 w 0 :::\u0026gt; 40 I-C/) LL 30 ,' 0 aw: 20 co 55 _j_j __ , ~ :::\u0026gt; z 10 ,' 1---- 01\u0026lt;--------------,---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 5 14 20 12 Transported 0 0 15 9 Enrollment 6 16 20 12 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- ENROLLMENT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION, TRANSPORTED, AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM 00 ,-j N ------------------- Baker Elementary: Cl) I- 50 m 40 ,, 0 ::J ,' I- 30 ,' Cl) LL O 20 ,' a: / cwa ,, ' ~ 10 ,' ::J z nrollment , -----------------------38 / / -----------------1------t' / 5 6 0 -------,-------,------r---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 5 6 1 3 Transported O O 17 14 Enrollment O O 20 19 PCSSD 6  Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Baker Elementary: PCSSD 2 Enrollment 50 (J) , I- / / z / w 40 , / 0 , / / :) / I- 30, (J) LL 0 / / 20 , a: 13 w co / ~ 10 , :) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 7 5 5 6 Transported 3 0 14 17 Enrollment 3 1 18 19 42 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Baker Elementary: PCSSD nrolln1ent 1 -----------------------34 ---------------- 40 ,/ 33 Cl) ------------------ zr- 35 / ,, ,/ ----------------_l------1' w 30 / ,,/ 0 , ----------------- ::) rC/) LL 0 15 ,,' ,,,,' ffi ,' , -------------5--- ca 1 O ,' ,/ 2 ~ , , ::J 5 , z 0 -------,-------,--~-- BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported BM 2 0 3 3 5 1 15 10 Enrollment O 1 16 18 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Baker Elementary: PCSSD 1rolln1e t _______________________ 3.1 ________________ _ 35 / (J) / / / I- / / 30 / / z / / / w / / / 0 25 / / / ::) / / / I- / / / 20 / / (J) / / / LL / / / / 0 15 / / / / / a: / / w / / 10 / / / co / / / ~ / / 5 / ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 2 2 3 Transported O O 13 10 Enrollment O O 16 14 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. -------------------1 Baker Elementary: PCSSD nr )!In n 1 J 50 ~m 40 ,' ------------- ~-------~ 0 ::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 30 ,' 0 20 ,' a: w co ~ ::\u0026gt; z 10 ,' , , o--~-~--~-- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 1 0 0 1 19 9 1 1 21 12 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- - Baker Elementary: 40 Cl) I-z , LU , 30 , 0 :::, I-Cl) , , LL 20 , 0 a: , LU , , en 10 , ~ :::, z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported , , , , , , , , , , , BM 0 0 nrollm n ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- BF 2 0 WM 0 16 WF 0 11 Enrollment O O 21 14 PCSSD __ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------1 Cato Elementary: ~z w 0 :::, IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, 60 50 40 30 20 10 , , , , , , , , , , , Er r llmer , , , , , , , , , , , , , , z o--~-----,-----.---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 10 6 13 16 Enrollment 15 6 33 33 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Cato Elementary: Enr )llr11ent 50 , ~ ,/ a:i 40 ,' 0 , :J IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :J z 30 ,' , 20 ,' 0------------.----- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 6 5 12 14 7 7 32 32 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Cato Elementary: enrollment 40 Cl) , I- , z , , w , 0 30 , ----------------- :::\u0026gt; I- , Cl) , , LL 20 , 0 a: w , co 10 , ~ :::\u0026gt; z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 6 3 9 11 Enrollment 7 7 22 26 PCSSD G D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Cato Elementary: 70 Cl) r- / 60 , / z / / / w / 0 50 , / / ::\u0026gt; / / r- / / / 40 , / Cl) / / / / LL / / / 0 30 , , /. /. er: w 20 , co ~ / / ::\u0026gt; 10 , z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 0 Transported 10 Enrollment 11 , Enr llment BF 0 4 7 WM 0 20 42 WF 0 9 26 PCSSD u D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. 00 ('l ('l ------------------- Cato Elementary: 60 Cf) I- , z 50 , w 0 , :::) 40 , I-Cf) , LL 30 , 0 a: , w 20 , 0) ~ , 10 , :::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 4 3 11 18 Enrollment 5 4 36 31 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Cato Elementary: PCSSD Enrollm n 50 ----------------- Cl) , , I- , z , w 40 , , ----------------- 0 , , , , D Compensatory Ed. :::) , , , I- 30 , ----------------- - - D Transported Cl) u. D Enrollment 0 , 20 , a: w cc , 10 , , ~ :::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 7 1 14 13 Enrollment 10 3 33 28 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Cato Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. 0 t'f\") M ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: PCSSD nrollrn .,n J 60 ----------------------------------48------ 40 ,' 10 ,' 01\u0026lt;--~------- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 18 8 6 5 Transported O O 5 10 Enrollment O O 23 33 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: PCSSD 1 U( 9 30 , Cl) ,,' ~ 25 / / ------------------w 0 ::::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z 20 ,' ,' , 15 ,' ,,' ----------------- , , , , 10 ,' ,' ----------------- , 5 ,' 0-----------,..---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 3 4 0 0 Transported 0 0 4 3 Enrollment O O 23 21  Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: 50 Cl) I- , , z 40, , w , , 0 ::, , , I- 30, Cl) , , LL , 0 , 20 , cc w a) , ~ 10 , ::, z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 13 Transported 0 Enrollment 0 PCSSD roll 1en 43 ----------------- ----------------- 13 BF WM WF 1 1 4 0 12 7 0 30 28 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- l Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: PCSSD nrollr 1ent 33 , 10 ,' , 5' 0 ----...------,,----~-~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 7 4 1 Transported 0 0 4 4 Enrollment O O 22 28 _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: 50 Cf) , I- , z , w 40 , 0 , , :::) , , I- 30, Cf) , LL , , 0 , a: 20 , w co , ~ 10 , :::) z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 6 Transported 0 Enrollment 0 PCSSD BF 2 0 0 Enrollment 1 ~- WM 2 10 29 WF 1 9 35 45 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Crystal Hills Magnet Elementary: PCSSD nr llment 60 Cf) Iz- 50 ,' ' / ----------------- w ,' 0:: ::\u0026gt;4 0 ,, ' / ----------------- I- ,' Cf) LL 0 a: w Cl) ~ z= \u0026gt; 30 ,, ' ,, , ----------------- ' 20 ,' ' ,,' ----------------- , 10 ,' 0 ----.-------,--~------f' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 5 8 3 0 Transported 0 0 10 9 Enrollment O O 40 28 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Magnet Elementary K-6. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: PCSSD 50 ~ ,' m 40 ,, 0 ::\u0026gt; ~ Cl) 30 ,' , 20 , LL 0 a: w ca , ,,___ ________ \"-' 1---- ~ 10 , --- ::\u0026gt; z 0 l'------,----------.------.---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 3 7 17 13 6 9 23 26 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: PCSSD 50 Cl) I- , z , , w 40 , 0 :) , , I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 , , 20 , a: w co , ~ 10 , :) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , , ----------------- , ----------------- , , , BM BF 0 0 5 6 7 7 WM 0 15 25 WF 0 17 27 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: Pesso 40 ~ z ,' ~ 30 ,' ::) I-C/) LL 0 a: 20 ,' , 1 Enrollment UJ co 10 ,' --- ~ ::) z 0 l'--------,-------,-----,-------f' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 7 6 14 7 8 9 24 15 l } ) D Compensatory Ed. D Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: PCSSD n llmen J 60 Cf) , I- , z 50 ,, ----------------- / , w / 0 / / D Compensatory Ed. / ----------------- ::) 40 , I- D Transported Cf) / 30 , ----------------- LL D Enrollment 0 cc / w 20, co ~ / 10 , ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 4 7 26 18 Enrollment 10 10 31 29 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. 0 \"1' (',l ------------------- Dupree Elementary: PCSSD 50 ~ ct] 40 , 0 ::::) 1- (J) LL 30 , O 20 a: w ~ 10 ::::) z Err llrnent / 0 ~---,------,----~--~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 0 0 0 0 3 8 18 14 5 10 28 20 CJ Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Dupree Elementary: 50 , ~ ,,,,,' m 40 ,, 0 ::, IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::, z 30 ,' 20 ,' 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , , , , , , , , , BM 0 7 9 BF 0 3 6 r 11r r r WM 0 14 26 WF 0 16 22 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Dupree Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Fuller Elementary: Enrollmen - 50 / -40--------------------------------------- Cl) / I-z / w 40 , ------------------------ 0 :::) / I- 30 , Cl) LL 0 / , 20 , a: w co , / ~ 10 , :::) z 01\u0026lt;----~------- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 8 4 3 1 16 15 6 6 16 15 7 6 PCSSD .--------------, D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- Fuller Elementary: nro ln1 n 30 (f) I- / z 25 , w 0 / / :::::\u0026gt; 20 , I- (f) / LL 15 , 0 a: / w 10 , co ~ / 5' :::::\u0026gt; z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 2 5 2 0 Transported 12 11 9 9 Enrollment 13 11 13 11 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. -------------------1 Fuller Elementary: PCSSD 35 Cl) I- , z 30 , w , 0 25 , :::) , I- , Cl) 20 , LL , 0 15 , a: , w 10 , co ~ , :::) 5' z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 5 13 13 Enr llmen ) _31_ _________________________ _____________ BF 1 9 9 WM 1 6 10 WF 1 9 10 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- B Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Fuller Elementary: PCSSD nr Im nt J 50 Cl) I-z , UJ 40 , 0 ::, , , I- 30, Cl) u.. 0 , , 20 , a: UJ co , 10 , , ~ ::, z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 10 5 0 3 Transported 15 13 12 11 Enrollment 16 13 16 11 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- Fuller Elementary: PCSSD 40 Cl) I- z w 30 , 0 ::::) I-Cl) / LL 20 , 0 a: w / en 10 , ~ ::::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF 8 3 14 15 14 15 Enrolln1ent - 1 Jt\u0026gt;- WM 3 14 15 WF 2 8 9 D Compensatory Ed. D Transported EJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Fuller Elementary: 40 , 10 ,' , , , , Enr llment 0 -----,------,------r---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 3 4 0 2 9 7 16 10 11 7 22 11 PCSSD 6 Compensatory Ed. D Transported EJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD (J) 80 , I- , z 70 , w , 0 60 , ::::\u0026gt; , I- 50 , (J) , , LL 40 , 0 , cc 30 , w , (l) 20 , ~ , , ::::\u0026gt; 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 26 18 21 BF 9 9 10 Enr llment 1 WM 13 5 13 WF 17 4 15 Compensatory Ed. __ D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. --------~---------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD Enrollment 1 ~ 50 ~ ,/ m 40 ,, 0 =\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w c:o ~ z= \u0026gt; 30 ,' 20 ,' 10 ,' , , , , , 45 ,' ------------3g--------40--- 0 -------r-------,----,---~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 9 12 18 19 Transported 10 13 6 6 Enrollment 11 14 16 20 96 E3I Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION I Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. 1 ------------------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD Er rollment J 64 ~ 70 ,/ 52 z 60 / ,,,,, 47 w 0 :::J 50 ,' ~ 40 / LL 0 30 ,' a: ~ 2 0 , , i--:-~- ~ 10 ,' z 0 --~-----,.----.---- BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 17 15 15 18 26 17 16 11 6 18 27 18 D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD Enrollment 1 70 ,' 57 Cl) ~ 60 ,' 53 ---------------50----------------- w 0 ::J IC/) LL 0 a: w OJ ~ ::J z , 50 ,' , 30 ,' 20 ,' 10 ,' 0 --~--.-------,---- BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 21 13 22 21 Transported 17 9 7 9 Enrollment 19 11 21 23 CJ Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported -- D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD 80 Cl) 1- z w 0 ::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 40 ,' 0a : 30 ,' __ _ cwo 20 ,' ~ --- ::\u0026gt; 10 ,' z r. Enr llmen 66 0 !'----------.-----,,----,------~ BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 13 14 24 21 Transported 10 12 16 11 Enrollment 12 14 26 23 D Compensatory Ed. _ _ D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Landmark Elementary: PCSSD E::nr )llment J , ----------------------------------70 ----- 80 , , Cl) ---------------------------- ..... 70 / ,,/ z , ---------------------------- w 60 / ,,/ 0 / I, - - - - - - - - - - - - 3a---- ~ 50, / Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 40 ,,' ,,,,' ,' _22 __ 30 ,' 20 , , ------ -- 10 , 0 -----.-----,----~-----(' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 8 13 18 28 Transported 6 12 7 16 Enrollment 8 13 20 26 _ _ EJ Compensatory Ed. __ D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. ------------------- Taylor Elementary: 40 ~ z ,' ~ 30 ,' ::\u0026gt; I-Cf) LL 20 ,' 0 a: cwo 10 ,' ~ ::\u0026gt; z n llment 0-------~-- Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM BF WM WF 0 0 0 0 4 1 14 10 13 9 24 26 PCSSD _ _ D Compensatory Ed. D Transported 13:1E nrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Taylor Elementary: PCSSD L Enr llment - 1 -96 30 / ----------------------------- , / Cl) , / t- , z 25 , w 0 , [TI Compensatory Ed. :::\u0026gt; 20 , t- D Transported Cl) , LL 15 , Enrollment 0 a: , w 10 , co ~ , :::\u0026gt; 5' z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 5 3 4 9 Enrollment 17 5 13 19 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. \\C lO (',l ------------------- Taylor Elementary: 35 , , , 30 , , 25 , 20 ,' , , , , , , , nr llmen , , ----------------~~~ 15 ,' / 10 ,' 5 ,' 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , BM 0 0 8 BF 0 1 9 WM 0 9 20 WF 0 10 23 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Taylor Elementary: PCSSD Enrollment 30 , , , Cl) , , I- , z 25 ,, ---------------------------- w 0 , , EJ Compensatory Ed. ::\u0026gt; 20 , I- D Transported Cl) , LL 15 , D Enrollment 0 a: , w 10 ' co\n~ , ::\u0026gt; 5' z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 6 3 7 14 Enrollment 15 14 14 15 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. 00 lO ('l ------------------- Taylor Elementary: PCSSD 30 Cf) J- , z 25 , w 0 , ::) 20 , J-Cf) , LL 15 , 0 a: , w 10 , en ~ , 5' ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , , , BM 0 3 14 BF 0 3 6 Enrollment - 19 ~ WM 0 7 18 WF 0 8 18 Compensatory Ed. D Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- Taylor Elementary: En ollment 35 / / ' Cl) / / r / / z 30, / ' ' / w / ----------------- 0 ' / 25 , / / :::J / / r / Cl) 20 , LL / ' 0 15 , a: / w 10 , co ~ / / :::J 5' z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 0 0 0 0 Transported 6 3 9 13 Enrollment 14 13 16 19 PCSSD D Compensatory Ed. -- D Transported Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary K-6. Taylor Elementary reported no instructional program funded by funds generated from the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. ------------------- ENROLLMENT MAGNET SCHOOLS BY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION, TRANSPORTED, AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ,-t I.D N ------------------- MANN MAGNET JUNIOR HIGH: LRSD r t 300 , , , -----------2 44------------------2 3 g----- en / I- / / z 250' / UJ / 0 / _15_8_ / ::\u0026gt; 200 ' I- en / LL 150 , 0 / a: / UJ 100 , co ~ / 50 ' ::\u0026gt; z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 62 91 57 82 Transported 34 62 57 75 Enrollment 62 91 57 82 _c D Compensatory Ed.  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet Junior High (7-9) ------------------- MANN MAGNET JUNIOR HIGH: LRSD 8 Enrollment - '19 5 ~ 219 250 Cl) -----------2 03-------1 g 1--- --- I-z ll.J 200 167-- 0 :) , I- 150 , Cl) LL , 0 , 100 , a: ll.J ca , ~ 50 , :) z 0 BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 63 77 65 73 Transported 41  49 61 73 Enrollment 63 77 65 73 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet Junior High (7-9) ------------------- MANN MAGNET JUNIOR HIGH: 250 Cl) I- , z , , UJ 200 , 0 ::\u0026gt; , , I- 150 , Cl) LL 0 , 100 , a: UJ c::c , , :?! 50 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment , BM 73 53 73 BF 81 59 81 LRSD 1rollment \"I \u0026gt;~-c WM 59 56 59 WF 60 52 60 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet Junior High (7-9) ------------------- Parkview Magnet High: LRSD r 1 1tl O .nrolln1ent , -----------301--------------------------- 350 ,' 271 Cl) ,,..,.\" ~ 300 ,' ,,/ w ,' O 250 ,' ::::, IC/) 200 , 178 LL 0 a: w c:a 150 ,' t------t\" ~ ::::, z 100 ,' 50 ,' 0---------,----,----------,------r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 60 101 58 91 Transported 58 99 56 89 Enrollment 60 101 58 91 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported -- o Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet High (10-12) ------------------- Parkview Magnet High: LRSD 250 Cf) I- / z / / w 200 , 0 ::\u0026gt; / I- 150 , Cf) LL 0 / 100 , a: w co / / ~ 50 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment r i 1 1 1 E n r J 11n 1 r t 1 5 / / / 180 / BM 61 58 61 BF 75 73 75 223 WM 59 58 59 WF 73 71 73 217 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported ru Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet High (10-12) ------------------- Parkview Magnet High: LRSD 300 Cl) I-z LU 250 0 , , ::\u0026gt; 200 , I-Cl) , LL 150 , 0 a: , 100 , LU a:l ~ , 50 , ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment J  1d . -12 Enrollment ~ 1 q _q5 , , BM 59 57 59 ----------------------------------245----- BF 74 74 74 222 WM 44 43 44 WF 83 80 83 D Compensatory Ed.  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts and Science Magnet High (10-12) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: 100 (I) I- z w 80 0 ::) , , I- 60 , (I) LL 0 , 40 , a: w co , / ~ 20 , ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment BM 24 21 24 LRSD nr )lln1ent = 1 ----------- 79---------------------------- 69 i\u0026lt;-----'--- 70 BF 27 25 27 WM 24 22 24 WF 19 16 19 D Compensatory Ed.  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: 100 en ~ / z / w 80 , 0 ::) / ~ 60 , en LL 0 / 40 ' a: w co / / ~ 20 , ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment LRSD 2 E1 rollrn nt - 9 ) - ----------------------------------76 ____ _ / , _52__ __- - --~?_ __---s_a --,__ D Compensatory Ed. BM BF 21 22 20 21 21 22 WM 20 18 20 WF 26 24 26 --  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) O\"I 1,0 N ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary:  LRSD 100 Cl) r- / z / / w 80 , 0 ::::\u0026gt; / / r- 60 , Cl) LL. / 0 40 , / a: w co / / ~ 20 , z= \u0026gt; 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment / / / _... 1 ~ :_,,t :nr )ilment 1 i , - ,, --------------------------------- 1s----- 71 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported  Enrollment BM BF WM WF 22 20 22 19 18 19 24 23 24 27 24 27 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: 100 Cl) I-z w 80 0 ::) / I- 60 , Cl) LL 0 / 40 , a: w cc / ~ 20 , ::) z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 21 Transported 21 Enrollment 21 LRSD 4 Enrollment - ~1~ b- BF 15 13 15 WM 13 11 13 WF 25 24 25 74 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: LRSD ~  - r l I n1 n - 7 120 Cl) 92 1- z w 0 :J IC/) ---------------61------ D Compensatory Ed. LL 0 a: w en ~ :J z 60 ,' 40 ,' 20 ,' 53 / 0 ------,----........-------r-----r BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment 23 31 18 21 22 30 17 19 23 31 18 21  Transported  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Booker Magnet Elementary: 100 Cl) I- , z , w 80 , 0 :::\u0026gt; , , I- 60 , Cl) LL , 0 , 40 , a: w co , ~ 20 , :::\u0026gt; z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 26 Transported 24 Enrollment 26 LRSD j Enr llment - 1 BF WM WF 24 19 26 24 17 25 24 19 26 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported CJ Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Arts Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 70 Cl) I- 60 / / z / / / UJ / 0 50 , :J I- / Cl) 40 , LL / 0 30 , a: / / UJ 20 , co ~ / :J 10 , z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 16 Transported 14 Enrollment 16 46 BF 22 20 22 LRSD Enrollment 19' le\n96 64 _- --49--_- -__5 2_ ____ _ WM 17 15 17 WF 18 16 18 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 80 Cl) / / / Iz- 70 , w 60 0 ::::\u0026gt; / I- 50 , Cl) / LL 40 , 0 / / a: 30 , w / co 20 , ~ / ::::\u0026gt; 10 , z 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment / / BM 20 19 20 LRSD Je 2 Enr llment - 1 ~ ~,5~96 BF 16 14 16 WM 17 15 17 WF 22 22 22 66 _ _ D Compensatory Ed.  Transported u Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: LRSD I ltnent - 1 70 ,,,, ------------59--------------------ss----- ~z ,/ , -59---60 , ,, -- ----I w , ------ 0 50, :::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 40 ,' 30 ,' , 10 , i----- 0 --~--,---------.-------(' BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 17 20 14 20 Transported 16 19 12 18 Enrollment 17 20 14 20 D Compensatory Ed. --  Transported --  Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 100 Cl) I-z , w 80 , 0 ::::\u0026gt; , I- 60 , Cl) LL 0 , 40 , a: w co , ~ 20 , ::::\u0026gt; z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 29 Transported 27 Enrollment 29 85 LRSD i4 E:nr lln1 ~rat 1 ---------------59-------55-----.-----------, D Compensatory Ed. BF 12 11 12 WM 20 19 20 WF 19 18 19 --  Transported D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 60 ,  50 ,  40 ,  10 ,  LRSD 65 0 -------,----.----------,--------f\" BM BF WM WF Compensatory Ed. 19 22 16 18 Transported 19 21 15 18 Enrollment 19 22 16 18 __ D Compensatory Ed.  Transported __ D Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) 00 t-M ------------------- Williams Magnet Elementary: 80 10 ,' 0 Compensatory Ed. Transported Enrollment LRSD rade Enrollment - 19 5- 6 BM 17 17 17 BF 22 21 22 65 WM 15 15 15 WF 18 17 18 D Compensatory Ed.  Transported __ C'.J Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Basic Skills Magnet Elementary (1-6) -------------------1 TEST DATA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: CYCLE FIVE SCHOOLS 0 00 N ------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C. TEST DATA The Allen letter requires the collection of the following norm referenced test data on the three school districts in Pulaski County: 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 1994 Interim Monitoring Report, the February 1995 Semiannual Report and the July 1995 Semiannual Report. Scores for the spring of 1994-95 and the fall of 1995-96 school years are outlined on the following pages. The graphs on the following pages indicate the results by composite score on the Stanford Achievement Test by race, gender, grade, school, SES and teacher. 281 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD w 0 z ~ ~ LL 0 1- z w 0 a: w Q. w 8 Cf) w t: ~ ~ 8 100 60 20 84 86 85 82 85 BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 IIIIIFall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility NE 66.3% \\ RC 5.1% NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free F 28.6% N 00 N Teacher administering test was Linda Ammel ----------~-------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD w 0 z 80 2 60 ~ ~ LL 0 fz w 0 a: w 40 0.. w ~ 0 (f) ~ ~ 20 ~ g 71 BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 8.6% NE 40.2% F 51.2% I NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free Teacher administering test was Lorraine Mosby ----------------~-- GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY: LRSD w () z z Li!i ~ LL 0 I-z w () a: w 0.. w a: 0 () Cl) w !::: Cl) ~ ~ 0 () 80 70 60 50 / 40 30 20 10 / / / / / / / / / / 65 0.__--------------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 IIIIIFall 95 - Grade 5 j Teacher administering test was Linda Parker SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC F 54.8% NE 40.0% I NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free -----~-----------~- GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD w 0 z z\n'.S 2: IL 0 1- z w 0 a: w D. w 15 0 Cf) ~ ~ 2: 8 120 100 80 60 40 ,, 20 / / / / 95 o~--------------- BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility NE 4.9% 62.5% 32.6% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free 1./) 00 ('l Teacher administering test was Judy Bryant ----------~-------- HALL HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD w 0 z 80 ~ 60 ,, ~ LL 0 1- z w ffi IL 40 w ~ 0 Cf) w !::: ~ 20 ~ 0 0 71 70 0\"-------------------J BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 aFall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 2.0% NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free Teacher administering test was Linda Porter ------------~---~-- M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY: LRSD 100 SES ____________ 83 83 ____________________ _ Based on Free Lunch Eligibility w 0 2 80 ~ :': LL 0 1- z w 0 a: w 0. w 8 40 Cf) w I- ~ ::'i: 20 8 BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER Jspring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grades I Teacher administering test was Geraldine Johnson ------------ RC 6.4% NE 49.0% I F 44.6% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free - - - - - - -1 w 0 z ~ ~ LL 0 fz w 0 a: w Q. w 8 Cf) w f- ~ ~ 0 0 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY: LRSD 100 80 60 ,' 40 20 / ---------------------------------- 81--- ,, 77 / / / / / / / / BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 8.5% \\ F 62.6% NE = Not Eligible NE 28.9% / 00 00 N RC = Reduced Cost Teacher administering test was Lee Van Enk F = Free ------------------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY: LRSD 80 70 w 0 z ~ 60 ~ IL 0 fz w 0 a: w a.. w ~ 0 Cl) w t: 50 40 30 / / ~ 20 ,, ~ 0 0 10 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / BM 69 _____________ 52_ __ _ BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I F-\u0026lt;ES SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC F 66.5% 8.5% \\ NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free NE Teacher administering test was Tracye Thomason ------~------------ TEST DATA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: CYCLE FIVE SCHOOLS 0 a, N -------------------- AMBOY ELEMENTARY: NLRSD M SES 70 / / / 65 65 w / ------------- 0 / z ,' ~ 60 ,' 2 ,' LL O 50 f-z w ffi 0. w 8 (I) w t: 40 ,' 30 ,' ~ 20 2 8 10 ', / / BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I Teacher administering test was Barbara Woodyear Based on Free Lunch Eligibility NE 42.8% F 52.2% I NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free ----------~--~----- w 0 z z ~ ~ LL 0 1- z w 0 ffi 0.. w ~ 0 Cf) w !::: ~ ~ 0 0 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY:. NLRSD 100 80 40 20 01\u0026lt;------------------r BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grades j SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility 67.9% RC 3.2% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free NE Teacher administering test was Pat Siegel ------------------- . CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD S.....A,,. \".I, ..8 \\C...J'Vf \"'QRES UJ 0 z ~ 2: LL 0 fz UJ 0 a: UJ 0.. UJ ~ 0 Cf) ~ Cf) i 2: 8 100 80 _, 60 40 / 20 / / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 79- - -81 - 80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - // 76 / / BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I Teacher administering test was Linda Wilson SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 2.5% NE 53.3% F 44.2% NE= Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free ------------------- LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD UJ 0 .100 Z 80 ~ 2: LL 0 ~ 60 UJ 0 a: UJ D.. UJ ~ 40 0 Cf) ~ ~ 2: 20 g BM 90 BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER Jspring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 J RES SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility NE 47.3% I F 51.4% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free Teacher administering test was Kaye Lowe ------------------- MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 70 63 / / / / w 60 0 z z / / ~ 50 / ~ LL ----------- 0 / I- / z / w 40 0 a: ---------- w Q. w 30 / ~ 0 (J) w t: 20 (J) ~ ~ 0 0 10 0 ~---------------' BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 51 Teacher administering test was Sam Mascuilli SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility 74.0% RC 6.6% NE = Not Eligible RC = Reduced Cost F = Free ------------------- w 0 z ~ ~ LL 0 fz w 0 ffi Q. w ~ 0 Cl) w t: ~ ~ 0 0 SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY: NLRSD SAT 8 SCORES 100 80 / 60 ,/ 40 / 20 / / / / / / 88 0\"----------------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Grade 4 Fall 95 - Grade 5 I SES Based on Free Lunch Eligibility RC 1.3% NE 44.8% F 53.9% NE = Not Eligible Teacher administering test was Marsha Paul RC = Reduced Cost F = Free ------------------- TEST DATA I /\\ C+-KCI N y I ,. re t-- I \".'. 0\"I ~ ,~~.. ~ rn ~-'\"',\\I ~') ' .  I\"\"\"' w,,mI\u0026lt; N 1_--,-T-R- I Ta ~y L ,. aS ~  I ~ .. I -~ ------------------- BAKER ELEMENTARY: PCSSD w 0 z z ~ ~ LL 0 1- z w 0 a: w Q. w ~ 0 (f) w I- ~ ~ 0 0 100 80 60 / 40 20 0\"---------------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF RACE AND GENDER !Spring 95 - Gr\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_152","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report, Volume 2","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":["1996-07-15"],"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","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's, Semiannual Desegregation Monitoring Report, Volume 2"],"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/152"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nl D J nitorin9 LRSD PROGRAM COST -:~-::..-... .,cf~ tt:-::~ .\ni~~:~~\"I' ' 308 Little Rock School District (LRSD) The following is a summary of the LRSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1996 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 for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996 and is estimated for the fiscal year. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 5 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 5 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 5 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 5 school programs. Graphs indicate total program cost and average cost per student rates for elementary, junior high and high school programs. 309 rT' LOCAUSTATE LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 8001001 CENTRAL HIGH 3,187,056 1,562,623 328,669 8001002 HALL HIGH 2,191,579 923,114 191,706 8001003 MANN JR. HIGH 0 842,5-40 174,973 8001- PARKVIEW HIGH 0 Be0,498 176,626 8001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 800,820 124,774 8001007 OUNBAR JR. HIGH 1,402,978 728,148 151,217 8001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 1,573,787 755,004 156,794 8001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 1,66e,881 776,888 161,339 8001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 1,127,909 608,778 126,427 8001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 1,762,542 787,830 183,612 8001017 BALE ELEM 873,788 310,357 84,483 8001018 BRADY ELEM 840,180 375,015 77,881 8001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 819,919 484,436 100,806 8001021 CARVERaEM 0 826,888 129,939 8001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 801,488 232,788 48,340 8001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 849,728 432,710 89,862 6001026 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 380,094 74,782 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 235,752 48,959 8001027 GIB8SELEM 0 305,384 83,420 8001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 637,567 313,341 86,073 6001030 JEFFERSON aEM 837,781 488,362 103,497 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF aEM eee.100 397,894 82,632 8001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 282,810 84,637 8001036 MLKINGaEM 54,804 487,578 115,027 8001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1586,562 403,862 113,872 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 199,942 41,523 8001040 ROMINE ELEM 886,880 287,564 55,570 8001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 1,188,126 599,825 124,588 8001043 WILLILAMS aEM 0 805,325 104,943 8001044 WILSONaEM 700,003 364,073 75,608 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 392,888 216,862 48,034 8001047 TERRY ELEM 828,801 633,178 110,727 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 961,524 515,273 107,009 8001000 ROCKEFELLERE LEM 0 311,352 84,660 8001061 BADGETT ELEM 387,305 173,084 35,948 6001062 BASELINE ELEM 519,919 289,486 80,115 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 944,183 431,715 89,656 6001004 CLOVERDALE ELEM 579,813 397,894 82,832 6001056 DAVID O'OOOD ELEM 517,068 292,452 80,735 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 633,250 271,563 56,396 6001067 MABELVALE ELEM 747,949 440,668 91,515 6001068 OTTER CREEK ELEM 569,718 337,215 70,031 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 893,524 426,741 88,623 6001080 WATSON ELEM 872,937 406,847 84,491 6001081 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 1,143,329 805,794 125,807 8001062 MABELVALEJ R. HIGH 1,244,332 488,415 101,431 8001063 JA FAIR HIGH 1,941,790 900,235 186.~5 6001084 MCCLELLAN HIGH 2,176,823 899,240 186,748 NIA METRO HIGH 1,027,915 0 0 NIA ALT LEARNING CTR 33,830 0 0 NIA ISHELEM 12,015 0 0 TOT AL PROGRAM EXPENSE 37,262,354 2 ,026,827 4,989,738 SOURCE: -See the not aectlon on the next page for explanatlona of th categorle . The Llttle Rock School D13tncFt inance omce. - - - - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 96/96 FUNDING SOURCES FEDERAL LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 10,492 0 107,425 21,078 6,120 0 82,659 1,351 M86 0 57,190 0 o,639 0 57,730 0 3,983 0 40,782 0 4,827 0 49,425 133,661 5,006 36,828 51,248 87,811 5,151 0 52,734 76,174 4,036 57,280 41,323 103,110 5,223 34,382 83,476 131,417 2,056 27,534 21,088 76,951 2,486 36,177 25,455 49,831 3,212 28,924 32,883 4,269 4,148 0 42,470 0 1,543 32,289 15,800 eo,729 2,869 37,364 29,371 15,254 2,387 80,962 24,442 1,122,980 1,563 4,412 16,002 800.788 2,026 0 20,729 0 2,077 28,111 21.289 4,403 3,304 36,238 33,828 17,357 2,638 44,102 27,008 18,220 1,741 30,894 17,825 890,948 3,034 36,788 31,069 1,026,237 2,878 31,832 27,413 13,889 1,326 29,832 13,572 874,772 1,774 34,1127 18,163 111,788 3,977 87,414 40,715 182,703 3,3e0 0 34,300 0 2,414 36,112 24,713 39,148 1,436 32,487 14,720 51,330 3,535 0 36,191 9,513 3,416 29,277 34,978 18,825 2,064 119,283 21,134 1,345,421 1,147 27,264 11,749 83,842 1,919 36,888 19,649 70,718 2,862 88,811 29,304 83,517 2,638 33.795 27,008 81,497 1,939 8,485 19,851 15,310 1,800 31,149 18,433 84,721 2,922 86,804 29,912 52,876 2,236 30,876 22,889 14,185 2,829 83,735 28,966 12,962 2,897 34,455 27,616 88,316 4,016 52,428 41,120 86,736 3,238 2,271 33,153 29,101 5,968 0 61,108 22,927 5,962 0 61,039 34,776 0 35,510 0 0 0 0 0 256,346 0 0 0 0 159,293 1,359,880 1,630,891 7,856,384 - - - - DESEGREGATION DISTRICT MAGNET TRANS 370,756 0 184,336 216,255 0 115,853 197,379 2,063,752 87,487 199,244 2,326,882 88,313 140,752 1,425,443 82,387 170,561 0 75,608 178,873 0 78,397 181,999 0 80,870 142,617 0 83,214 184,563 0 81,806 72,706 0 32,227 87,854 0 38,940 113,487 0 80,302 148,578 1,257,1162 84,970 54,830 0 24,170 101,370 0 44,931 84,358 0 37,391 56,229 0 24,480 71,541 775,244 31,710 73,406 0 32,eae 118,780 0 51,748 93,213 0 41,318 81,521 0 27,269 107,1115 0 47,513 94,612 0 41,1138 48,840 0 20,781 82,886 0 27,786 140,519 0 82,284 118,381 1,143,488 52,471 86,290 0 37,804 80,801 0 22,517 124,906 0 56,364 120,711 0 63,804 72,940 0 32,330 40,548 0 17,973 87,813 0 30,067 101,137 0 44,828 93,213 0 41,318 68,512 0 30,367 83,818 0 28,198 103,234 0 48,768 78,998 0 35,015 99,971 0 44,311 95,311 0 42,248 141,917 0 62,904 114,420 0 80,715 210,8~ 0 93,478 210,862 0 93,374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,628,692 8,992,448 2,494,869 - - - TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEGAL 03131196 FYIW96 4,189 5,776,823 8,837,048 2,444 3,891,061 6,518,803 2.230 3,431,137 5,130,141 2,261 3,707,183 M42,8n 1,600 2,400,831 3,569,:2()! 1,1127 2,718,370 4,064,432 1,999 2,923,n1 4,371,470 2,056 2,902,872 4,340,294 1,811 2,276,305 3,403,469 2,085 3,206,936 4,794,922 822 1,281,942 1,918,724 1183 1,334,812 1,995,774 1.282 1,839,319 2,481,065 1,886 2,273,111 3,398,693 818 972,270 1,483,711 1,148 1,404,804 2,100,125 953 1,768,339 2,829,020 824 1,187,789 1,775,949 608 1,270,881 1,900,158 829 1,078,812 1,812,711 1,319 1,111111,184 2,5-40,573 1-,053 1,374,179 2,064,635 1,147,840 1,716,219 1,211 1,880,148 2,781,238 1,0l!II 1,297,415 1,939,869 529 1,028,797 1,638,229 708 1,287,843 1,895,348 1,888 2,391,719 3,578,032 1,338 1,953,573 2,935,880 954 1,365,127 2,041,100 574 828,411 1,238,817 1,411 1,703,426 2,548,918 1,384 1,633,879 2,741,1165 824 1,1120,008 2,870,743 468 759,115 1,135,008 788 1,097,312 1,840,871 1,143 1,787,126 2,842,156 1,053 1,340,869 2,004,815 774 1,013,493 1,015,347 719 1,089,862 1,829,517 1,187 1,801,405 2,394,377 893 1,181,854 1,737,172 1,130 1,482,792 2,187,126 1,077 1,485,993 2,178,961 1,804 2,264,655 3,386,080 1,293 2,068,369 3,092,588 2,383 3,425,737 5,122,088 2,380 3,871,004 5,488,784 0 1,063,425 1,590,004 0 291,976 436,554 0 12,015 17,964 83,597 94,464,753 1  1,241,095 - - - 0 ..-\n('f') Funding Categories L.ocal\u0026amp;Stal9 Federal DeHg NOTES FOR LRSD TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE SCHEDULE FOR FY 95/96 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; Stall, o-g Total Categories This category consists of axpenses Incurred relative to regular program expense, district expanse, transportation expanse and legal expanse funded by unrestricted local, stat and federal sources. This category consists of expenses lncur..-.d relative to federal program expense and district expanse funded by reslrlcted federal sources. This category consists of expanses Incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expanse, magnet expanse, transportation expanse and legal expanse funded from desegregation sources. Total at 03/31/gtj The totals In this column represent actual costs Incurred for each school site through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY ll~ The totals In this column represent the total estimated expanse for each school site for ftscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The LJttle Rock School 0/\u0026amp;trict Finan,::. Office.   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE Ii SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 911/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAI./STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET TRANS 6001002 HALL HIGH 2,191,679 1123,114 191,706 6,120 0 62,~9 1,351 216,255 0 96,~3 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 1!26,688 129,939 4,148 0 42,470 0 146,678 1,257,662 114,1170 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 306,384 63,420 2,026 0 20,729 0 71,541 TT8,244 31,710 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 866,103 3117,894 82,632 2,638 , 102 27,008 18,220 93,213 0 41,316 6001035 ML KING ELEM 54,!504 487,878 95,027 3,034 36,788 31,059 1,026,237 107,198 0 47,813 tl001004 CLOVERDALE ELEM 8711,813 3117,894 82,632 2,638 33,796 27,008 81,497 93,213 0 41,316 tl001088 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 833,256 271,883 88,3911 1,800 31,149 16,433 114,721 63,618 0 28,196 tl001057 MABEL\\IALE ELEM 747,949 440,688 91,616 2,922 86,1104 29,1112 82,576 103,234 0 48,788 TOTAL CYCLE 8 PRCIGRAM EXPENSE 4,TT3,203 3,8111,783 7113,257 25,325 231,438 zjj9,276 1,264,702 894,847 2,032,1109 3'\"',834 The district's Total Program Expense as of March 31, 1186 was $14,484,713, and Total Program Expense for the fiscal year Is expected to be $141,241,otli. The programs funded In uch of the Cycle I schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle I Schools. Funding categortee Local \u0026amp; State De#(/ Th  category lncludN funding from focal 90Ul'CM, r.gular ate aourcn, and unl'Ntrtcted f9deral 80Urcn. Th  cat.gory lnctudM funding from rNtricted fedral eourcn which mult be accounted tor Nparately from the Gtneral Fund. Toil ca1-gofy conailbl ol funding lor d-regauon purpoHI. Expenu Categor1N Loce/ \u0026amp; Stote Th61 categofy conaletl of expenau Incurred relative to regular program expenN, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestrk:ted local, state and federal eources. Thtl categOf)' con latl of XJMn ... Incurred relatNe to federal program expenN and dlltnct expense funded by restricted federal sources. Th  category conI11t1 of ex.,.nMt Incurred relatlw to deHgregaUOn program xpenN, dlstr1ct expense, magnet xpense, transportation expense and legal expense tunded from deaegregaUon 10urces. Total Categorle Total at 03131\ng~ The totals In th61 column represent actual costs Incurred tor each of the Cycle 5 schools through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY Q.W6 The totads In thts column represent the tot.al estimated expense tor each or the Cycle 5 schools tor fiscal year 199511996. SOURCE' The Little Roel\u0026lt; School Dl$tr/ct Finance Office.     TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FDR LEGAL 03131/96 FY96196 2,4 3,691,081 8,618,803 1,1166 2,273,111 3,396,693 806 1,270,881 1,11001, 88 1,003 1,374,179 2,004,638 1,211 1,860,148 2,781,239 1,003 1,340,869 2,004,818 719 1,089,882 1,1!211,817 1,157 1,801,408 2,394,3TT 10,111 14,801,494 21,11\u0026amp;2,~ PROGRAMS Four-Year Old Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music AcceleratedL eaming Itinerant lnstructlon ResourceR oom Special Class Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Guidance Services Library Services High School Marketing/District Ed-Coop Business Ed-Coop Business Ed- Skill Training Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop Consumer/Marketing Coord Career-Coop SOURCE:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 5 Schools FY95/96 MEADOWCLIFF HALL HIGH CARVER ELEM GIBBS ELEM ELEM KING ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The uttte Rock School District Finance Offica. CLOVERDALE GEYER SPRINGS ELEM ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MABELVALE ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X - ('I') ~ ('I') I I I I II I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL.AS OF TOTAL.FOR COST PER STU LEA, SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31/96 FY 95196 FOR FY95196 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 1,591 5,108,640 107,425 560,358 5,776,623 8,637,048 5,429 6001002 HALLH IGH 928 3,312,519 62,659 315,903 3,691,081 5,518,803 5,947 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 847 1,023,099 57,190 2,350,848 3,431,137 5,130,141 6,057 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,032,763 57,730 2,616,690 3,707,183 . 5,542,878 6,483 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 604 n9,577 40,782 1,630,1n 2,400,531 3,589,208 5,942 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 732 2,287,168 49,425 381,m 2,718,370 4,064,432 5,553 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIG 759 2,490,571 88,076 345,080 2,923,n7 4,371 ,'476 5,760 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIG 781 2,509,239 52,734 340,899 2,902,872 4,340,294 5,557 6001011 SOVTHWEST JR. HIGH 612 1,867,150 98,603 310,552 2,276,305 3,403,469 5,561 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 792 2,719,207 87,858 399,871 3,206,936 4,794,922 6,054 6001017 BALE ELEM 312 1,050,636 -48,600 182,706 1.281,942 1,916,724 6,143 6001018 BRADY ELEM 377 1,095,562 61,632 177,618 1,334,812 1,995,77  5.294 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM -487 1,408,1n 61,807 169,340 1,639,319 2,451,065 5,033 6001021 CARVER ELEM 629 759,775 42,470 1,470,866 2,273,111 3,398,693 5,403 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 784,136 -48,089 140,045 972,270 1,453,711 6,212 600102  FOREST PARK ELEM 435 1,175,169 66,735 162,700 1,404,604 2,100,125 4,828 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 362 437,263 75,394 1,245,682 1,758,339 2,629,020 7,262 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 237 286,274 20,414 881,101 1,187,789 1,775,949 7,493 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 307 370,829 20.n9 879,303 1,270,861 1,900,156 6,189 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 315 918,058 49,380 111,17  1,078,612 1,612,711 5,120 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 1,442,944 69,066 187,174 1,699,184 2,540,573 5,071 6001033 MEADOWCUFF ELEM 400 1,149,267 71,110 153,802 1,374,179 2,054,635 5,137 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 264 318,888 -48,519 780,433 1,147,840 1,716,219 6,501 6001035 ML KING ELEM 460 610,143 67,847 1,182,156 1,860,146 2,781239 6,046 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 406 1,086,964 58,945 151,506 1,297,415 1,939,859 4,778 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 201 242,791 43,104 742,902 1,028,797 1,538,229 7,653 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 269 1,011,588 53,090 202,965 1,267,643 1,895,345 7,046 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 603 1,896,496 108,129 387,094 2,391,719 3,576,032 5,930 6001043 WIWLAMS ELEM 508 613,618 34,300 1,315,655 1,963,573 2,935,880 5,779 . 6001044 WILSON ELEM 366 1,142,098 59,825 163,204 1,365,127 2,041,100 5,577 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 218 656,012 47,177 125,222 828,411 1,238,617 5,682 6001047 TERRY ELEM 536 1,476,041 36,191 191,194 1,703,426 2,546,916 4,752 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 518 1,577,222 64,253 192,404 1,a33,879 2,741,965 5,293 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 313 378,076 90,417 1,451,515 1,920,008 2,870,743 9,172 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 174 597,-481 39,013 122,621 759,115 1,135,008 6,523 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 291 871,421 56,537 169,354 1,097,312 1,640,671 5,638 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 434 1,468,386 98,115 200,625 1,767,126 2,642,158 6,088 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,062,977 60,803 217,079 1,340,859 2,004,815 ~.012 6001055 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 294 872,194 26,336 114,963 1,013,493 1,515,347 5,154 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 863,014 49,582 177,256 1,089,852 1,629,517 5,969 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 443 1,283,054 115,516 202,835 1,601,405 2,394,377 5,405 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 979,198 53,565 129,091 1,161,854 1,737,172 5,124 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 429 1,211,717 92,701 158,374 1,462,792 2,187,126 5,098 6001060 WATSON ELEM 409 1,166,972 62,071 226,950 1,455,993 2,176,961 5,323 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 609 1,878,946 93,5-48 292,161 2,264,655 3,386,050 5,560 6001062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 491 1,837,416 35,424 195,529 2,068,369 3,092,568 6,299 6001063 JAFAJR HIGH 905 3,034,948 61,106 329,683 3,425,737 5,122,068 5,660 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 904 3,268,773 61,039 341,192 3,671,004 5,488,784 6,072 NIA METRO HIGH NIA 1,027,915 35,510 0 1,063,425 1,590,004 NIA NIA ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 33,630 0 258,346 291,976 436,554 NIA NIA ISH ELEM NIA 12,015 0 0 12,015 17,964 NIA TOTAL EXPENSE 24,154 66,438,212 2,990,571 25,035,970 94,464,753 141,241,095 5,848 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. See the note section on the nexl page for explanations or the categories. 314 I I NOTES FOR LRSD COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categorie5 Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Thi\" category includes funding from local sources, regular state aources, and unrestricted federal aources. This category includes funding from restricted federal aources 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 Categories This category consists of expen\u0026amp;e$ incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Thia category consists of expen\u0026amp;e$ funded by restricted federal aources. This category consists of expen\u0026amp;e$ Incurred relative to desegregation program\" funded from desegregation aources. Total at 03131/96 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each school site through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY 95196 The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: Th\u0026amp; Uttle Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal S\u0026amp;rVices Dr.sion of the ADE. 315 I I II I I I    II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL C 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL OESEG 03/31/96 FY95196 6001002 HALlHIGH 1128 3,312,519 62,659 315,903 3,691,081 5,518,803 6001021 CARVER ELEM 629 759,nS 42,470 1,470,866 2,273,111 3,398,693 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 307 370,829 20,ns 879,303 1,270,861 1,900,156 6001033 MEAOOWCUFF ELEM 400 1,149,267 71,110 153,802 1,374,179 2,054,635 6001035 MLKJNG ELEM 460 610,143 67,847 1,182,156 1,860,146 2,781,239 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,062,sn 60,803 217,079 1,340,859 2,004,815 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 863,014 49,582 1n,2ss 1,089,852 1,629,517 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 443 1,283,054 115,516 202,835 1,601,405 2,394,377 TOTAL EXPENSE 3,640 9,411,578 490,716 4,599,200 14,501,-494 21,682,235 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96 . Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Daseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Daseg Total Categories Total at 0:v.11196 Total for FY 9~ SOURCE: This category includes funding from locaJ source., regular \u0026amp;late source., and unrestricted federal source.. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund . This category con\u0026amp;lsts ol funding for desegregation purposes. This category con\u0026amp;lsts ol expenoes incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists ol e,q::,enoesfu nded by restrided federal sources. This category consists ol expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent actual cosl5 incurred for each of the Cycle 5 schools through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the total estimated 8xpen$8 for each of the Cycle 5 schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. The UttJe RocJc School District Finance Otnce and the Local Flsca/ SeMces D/vsJon of the ADE. 316 FOR FY95196 5,s.47 5,403 6,189 5,137 6,046 5,012 5,969 5,405 5,646   I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM COST TOTAL COST BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 76,758,158 54.3% 5,751 5,848 (97) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 32,583,352 23.1% 5,795 5,848 (53) HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 31,899,585 22.6% 6,155 5,848 307 LRSD PROGRAM COST LRSD COST PER STUDENT 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 Program costs consist of the total estimated cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs . The percentage of program cost to the estimated total district cost of $141,241,095 for FY 95/96 The estimated total program cost for FY 95/96 to the total number of students in the program category. DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU The total estimated cost for FY 95/96 of $141,241,095 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of 24,154 . VARIANCE SOURCE: The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per stude 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 Little Rock School District Finance Office. 317  I II   II    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL @ 1001/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31/96 FY 95196 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 6'.),4 729,fi77 40,782 1,630,172 2,400,531 3,589,208 6001017 BALE ELEM 312 1,050,636 48,600 182.706 1,281,942 1,916,724 6001018 BRADY ELEM 377 1,095,562 61,632 177,618 1,334,812 1,995,774 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 487 1,408,172 61,807 169,340 1,639,319 2,451,065 6001021 CARVER ELEM 629 7fS,775 42,470 1,470,866 2,273,111 3,398,693 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 784,136 48,089 140,045 972,270 1,453,711 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM ,435 1,175,169 66,735 162,700 1,404,604 2,100,125 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 362 437,263 75,394 1,245,682 1,758,339 2,629,020 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 237 286,274 20,414 881,101 1,187,789 1,775,949 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 'J/J7 370,829 20.729 879,303 1,270,861 1,900.156 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 315 918,058 9,380 111,174 1,078,612 1,612,711 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 1.442,944 69,066 187.174 1,699,184 2,540,573 6001033 MEAOOWCUFF ELEM 400 1,1 9,267 71,110 153,802 1,374,179 2,054,635 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 264 318,888 48,519 780,433 1,147,840 1,716,219 6001035 ML KING ELEM 460 610,143 67,847 1,182,156 1,860,146 2,781,239 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 06 1,086,964 58,945 151,506 1,297,415 1,939,859 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 201 242,791 43,104 742,902 1,028,797 1,538,229 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 269 1,011,588 53,090 202,965 1,267,643 1,895,345 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 603 1,896,496 108,129 387,094 2,391.719 3,576,032 6001043 WILLILAMS ELEM 508 613,618 34,300 1,315,655 1,963,573 2,935,880 6001044 WILSON ELEM 366 1,142,098 59,825 163,204 1,365,127 2,041,100 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 218 656,012 47,177 125,222 828.411 1,238,617 6001047 TERRY ELEM 536 1,476,041 36,191 191,194 1.703,426 2,546,916 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 518 1,577,222 64,253 192,404 1,833,879 2.741,965 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 313 378,076 90,417 1,451,515 1,920,008 2,870,743 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 174 597,481 39,013 122,621 759,115 1,135,008 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 291 871,421 56,537 169,354 1,097,312 1,640,671 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 434 1,468,386 98,115 200,625 1,767.126 2,642.158 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,062,977 60,803 217,079 1,340,859 2,004,815 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 294 872,194 26,336 114,963 1,013,493 1,515,347 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 863,014 9,582 177,256 1,089,852 1,629,517 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 43 1,283,054 115,516 202,835 1,601,405 2,394,377 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 979.198 53,565 129,091 1,161,854 1.737, 172 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM  29 1,211,717 92,701 158,374 1,462,792 2,187,126 6001060 WATSON ELEM 409 1,166,972 62,071 226,950 1,455,993 2,176,961 NIA Al T LEARNING CTR NIA 33,630 0 258,346 291,976 436,554 NIA ISH ELEM NIA 12,015 0 0 12,015 17,964 TOTAL EXPENSE 13,348 33,039,658 2,042,244 16,255,427 51,337,329 76,758,158 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96 . Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal IJeseg Expensa Categortu Local \u0026amp; State Federal IJeseg Tobi Cat.gortas Thi\u0026amp; category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal oources. This cateQO\u0026lt;Yin cludes funding from restrided federal sources ..tlich must be accounted fo, oeparately from the General Fund. This categOIY consists of funding to, desegregation purposes. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This categOIY consists of expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This categOIY consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. FOR FY 95196 5,942 6,143 5,294 5,033 5,403 6,212  ,828 7,262 7,493 6,189 5,120 5,071 5,137 6,501 6,046 4,778 7,653 7,046 5,930 5,779 5,577 5,682 4,752 5,293 9,172 6,523 5,638 6,088 5,012 5,154 5,969 5,405 5,124 5,098 5,323 NIA NIA 5,751 Tola/ at 03/31196 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each of the elementary 6Chools through March 31, 1996 fo, fiscal year 199511996. Tola/ for FY 95'96 The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense fo, each of the elementary 5Chools fo, fi\u0026amp;cal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The Utfie Rock School District Finance Offtee and the Local Fiscal Services Oivsion of the ADE. 318 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROUMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEAi SCHOOL @10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31~ FY 95196 FOR FY95/96 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH \u0026amp;47 1,023,099 57,190 2,350,848 3,431,137 5,130,141 6,057 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 732 2,287,168 49,425 381,m 2,718,370 4,064,432 5,553 6001009 FOREST HEIGKTS JR. HIGH 759 2,490,571 88,076 345,080 2,923,n7 4,371,476 5,760 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 781 2,509,239 52,73-4 3\"0,899 2,902,an 4,3\"0,29-4 5,557 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 612 1,867,150 98,603 310,552 2,276,305 3,\"3,469 5,561 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 792 2,719,207 87,858 399,871 3,206,936 4,794,922 6,05o4 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 609 1,878,9,46 93,5\"8 292,161 2,26\",655 3,386,050 5,560 6001062 MASELVAI.E JR. HIGH 4Sl1 1,837,416 35,424 195,529 2,068,369 3,092,568 6,299 TOTAL EXPENSE 5,623 16,612,796 562,858 4,616,717 21,792,371 32,583,352 5,795 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories LDCa/ \u0026amp; State Federal 09S8fl Expense Categor1u Local \u0026amp; state Federal 09S8fl Tot.al Categories Tola/ at OJl.lf/96 Tola/ kx FY 95'96 SOURCE: This calegOl'f includes lunding from local sources, regular state sources, and un\"\"\"1icted federal sources. This categOl'f includes funding from r8\"1ricted federal sources which must be accounted lor separately from the General Fund. This categOl'f consists o( funding lor desegregation purpose,\n. This calegory consists o( expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This categOl'f consists o( expenses lunded by restricted lederal sources. This categOl'f consisl$ o( expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs lunded lrom desegregation aources. The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each o( the junior high schools_through March 31, 1996 ror fiscal )'8\"r 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the total estimaled expense for each o( the junior high schools for f16Cal year 1995/1996. Tile LlttJe Rocle School District Finance Otrlce and the L.ccaJ Fiscal S8MC8S DlvsJoo of the ADE. 319 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROUMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEAi SCHOOL G 10101/95 STATE FEDERAL OESEG 03131196 95196 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 1,591 5,108,3-40 107,25 560,358 5,776,623 8,637,048 6001002 HAI.LH IGH 928 3,312,519 62,659 315,903 3,691,081 5,518,803 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,032,763 57,730 2,616,690 3,707,183 5,542,878 6001063 JAFAIR HIGH 905 3,034,948 61,106 329,683 3,425,737 5,122,068 6001064 MCCLELl.AN HIGH 904 3.268,m 81,039 341,192 3,671,004 5,488,78 NIA METRO HIGH NIA 1,027,915 35,510 0 1,063,425 1,590,004 TOTAL EXPENSE 5,183 16,785,758 385,469 4,163,826 21,335,053 31,899,585 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories Locsl \u0026amp; Sta ta Fed\u0026amp;ra/ Deseg Expense Categories Locsl \u0026amp; State Fed\u0026amp;ra/ Deseg Tot.al Categories Total st 03/311!16 Total for FY 9!196 SOURCE: This catego,y includes funding from local aources, regular state sourcea, and unrestricted federal sources. This catego,y includes funding from restricted federal sources which muol be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This catego,y consists o( funding for desegregation purposeo. This catego,y consists o( expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This catego,y consists o( expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This catego,y consists o/ expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each of the high schools through March 31, 1996 for f1Scal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the tolal estimated expense for each o/ the high schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. The LJttJeR ock Scllool District Finance Otr,ce and the LOCBIF isc.BJS OMOOSO iYsion of the ADE. 320 COST PER STU FOR FY95196 5,429 5,947 6,483 5,660 6,072 NIA 6,155 I I II I I I I I I I I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE FY 95/96 TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES TOTALS LEA# 6001002 6001021 6001027 6001033 6001035 6001054 6001056 6001057 Teacher Expense SCHOOL @03/31/96 FY95/96 @03/31/96 FY 95/96 @03/31/96 HALL HIGH 1,450,674 2,188,496 155,403 223,269 1,606,077 CARVER ELEM 719,480 1,139,139 67,803 99,784 787,283 GIBBS ELEM 474,097 750,629 57,082 84,006 531,179 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 486,568 790,686 39,002 57,412 525,570 ML KJNG ELEM 695,440 1,136,995 51,887 75,479 747,327 CLOVERDALE ELEM 450,771 745,652 28,826 42,149 479,597 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM -410,894 514,585 36,835 55,734 447,729 MABELVALE ELEM 542,107 866,012 66,694 100,001 608,801 TOTAL 5,230,031 8,132,194 503,532 737,834 5,733,563 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 is expected to be $62,647,464 or 44.4 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $141,241,095. At 0l/31196 Actual teacher salary expense for each Cycle 5 school as of March 31, 1996. FY 95196 Expected teacher salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95/96. Administrator Expense At 0l/31196 FY95tll6 SOURCE: Actual administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school as of March 31, 1996. Expected administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95/96. The Utile Rock School District Finance Office. 321 FY95/96 2,411,765 1,238,923 834,635 848,098 1,212,474 787,801 570,319 966,013 8,870,028 NLRSD PROGRAM COST ?ew.:n 't\\, \"J.f. ~ct!! .~ - 322 I I I I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) The following is a summary of the NLRSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1996 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 for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996 and is estimated for the fiscal year. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 5 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 5 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 5 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 5 school programs. Graphs indicate total program cost and average cost per student rates for elementary, junior high and high school programs. 323 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY961M FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOi. PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGI\\L PROGRAM DISTRICT 8002080 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 738,642 363,080 57,718 815 153,856 \u0026lt;10,n1 = BELWOOO ELEMENTARY 321,463 104,201 18,1566 234 9,808 11,702 II002064 BOONE PARK ELEM 708,428 384,780 68,401 797 141,688 39,843 80020e6 CRESlWOOO ELEMENTARY 434,683 200,960 31,947 461 8,121 22,688 80020C58 GLENVIEWE LEMENTA RY 427,384 172,842 21,4n 388 36,248 19,410 8002067 IND!AN HILLS ELEMENTARY 766,808 315,812 60.= 708 90,689 36,478 8002068 LAKEW000 ELEMENTARY 348,464 186.247 29,460 418 47,871 20,804 8002069 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 787,114 333,278 62,983 748 116,966 37,428 8002080 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 708,828 369,742 57,190 808 88,329 40,400 8002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 414,188 187,728 29,844 421 43,288 21,082 8002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY --329,144 52,328 739 81,114 36,984 6002084 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 423,898 238,174 37,864 1536 41,711 -it\n,747 80020e6 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 883,008 288,140 45,489 842 32,868 32,134 6002067 REOWOOO ELEMENTARY 4112,178 184,420 29,318 414 87,611 20,711 8002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 708,717 311,m 49,1566 700 119,llM 36,013 8002070 LAKEW000 MIDOI.E SCHOOi. 1,099,080 401,0112 63,763 800 82 46,043 80020n RIOGEROAO MIDOI.E SCHOOi. 1,219,088 498,en 1nn 1,120 38,817 68,003 8002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOl.~T 2,888,819 1,073,439 170,= 2,410 25,686 120,649 8002078 NLR HIGH SCHOOI.-WEST 2,1121,488 1,044,494 166,048 2,346 80,887 117,299 80020n ROSE CITY MIOOLE SCHOOi. 1,081,418 301,028 47,856 878 46,828 33,808 8002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 220,701 33,080 5,269 74 46,982 3,716 NIA SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE 318,881 0 0 0 25,373 0 NIA ELEMENTARYA LTERNATIVE 284,863 0 0 0 11,841 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 18,847,818 7,2711,204 1,157,208 18,342 1,136,225 817,470 Funding CatogorlN Loce/\u0026amp; Salt ExpnN Co1ogor1N Tlucallgory-~lrom--.reguornite....-ces,and\"\"\"'1\u0026lt;:lodf-..i-. Tiu callgo\u0026lt;y- ~ 1rom. --1--.i -- rruat bo oc:c:o\u0026lt;mfldo r--lolytrom ti GenonllF tn!. Tiu callgory c:onnla of flnilig lor ~Ion- PROGRAM 4,788 6,081 3,808 4,319 10,983 4,849 4,883 4,788 4,824 4,862 4,990 4,848 14,360 4,073 4,957 423 342 11,224 22,389 376 0 34,494 19,281 174,462 OESEGREGI\\TION DISTRICT TRANS LEGI\\L 4,843 10,130 3.- 1,333 2,1107 1,048 4,1537 8,899 3,687 2,570 6,807 2,021 2,210 4,822 1,738 4,040 B.814 3,178 2,369 6,189 U63 4,262 8,289 3,361 4,801 10,037 3.817 2,401 5,238 1,887 4.208 8,184 3,308 3,048 8,846 2,396 3,658 7,984 2,an 2,369 6,148 1,864 3,987 8,699 3,136 6,130 11,181 4,033 8,378 13,914 5,014 13,728 29,ll50 10,793 13,368 29,143 10,502 3,860 8,399 3,027 423 823 333 0 0 0 0 0 0 93,0113 203,100 73,190 Loe,,/ \u0026amp; Slolt Tiu callgo\u0026lt;ycorwiata of-- lncu-red r-.lolve lo reguor prosrom ---...._.Ion _and - flmed by ...-ontcled local, 11111 ond fedoral-. Tlucatego\u0026lt;yc:onntaof--lncuTed-lof-..iprosrom-ondc:ln1ct--byren1clodfedonll-. O..eg Tlucallgo\u0026lt;yc:onntaof __ lncuTed lo ~1onprosrm-. --...._.Ion_ ond lego/- Mded lrom ,.__1on ....-ca. Tololot03131M Tholoall lnlll ---- coni lncuTedforeocllachool altohoogl Morch 31, 1996forllacalyer 1995/1996. Tolo/ for FY 8MG Tho loall In Illa ---ti - --lod -for Ncll achool al1e for flacal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The North Ul/le Rock School Dlatrlcl F/nonc,, 0/IJce. TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR 03/311118 FY- 1,277,i40 2,048,169 474,322 1594,813 1,323,844 2,074,384 714,127 1,139,360 700,482 1,089,218 1,2ao,3n 1,848.- Me,328 1,038,310 1,310,198 2,016,420 1,274,178 2,036,3116 710,818 1,108,1153 1,198,434 1.1194,808 786,883 1,289,6-43 1,108,148 1,714,825 808,084 1,198,319 1,184,108 1,843,829 1,630,717 2,478,433 1,918,828 2,973,638 4,348,1127 8,818,337 4,387,733 8,697,895 1,609,089 2,146,034 310,490 360,487 378,748 378,746 315,1166 315,886 29,697,113 46,000,000 - c-I=f 'o ff 7\u0026lt;:Jd'!\n-.(,\"'\u0026lt;T\nz,--- 6=~-- NORTHLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL 03/31196 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 738,542 363,050 57,716 815 53,855 40,771 4,768 4,843 10,130 3,650 1,277,940 6002055 CRESlWOOD ELEMENTARY 434,563 200,960 31,947 451 9,121 22,568 4,319 2,570 5,607 2,021 714,127 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 348,454 185,247 29,450 416 47,871 20,804 4,683 2,369 5,169 1,863 846,326 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 767,114 333,279 52,983 748 96,966 37,428 4,768 4,262 9,299 3,351 1,310,196 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 414,188 187,728 29,844 421 43,268 21,082 4,862 2,401 5,238 1,887 710,919 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 706,717 311,777 49,565 700 59,555 35,013 4,957 3,967 8,699 3,135 1,184,105 TOTAL CYCLE 5 PROGRAM EXPENSE 3,409,578 1,582,041 251,505 3,551 310,636 177,666 28,357 20,232 44,142 15,907 5,843,615 The district's Total Program Expense as of March 31, 1996 was $29,597,113, and Total Program Expense for the fiscal year la expected to be $45,000,000. The programs funded In each of the Cycle 5 schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle 5 Schools.\" Funding catagortu Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category Includes funding from local 1011rces, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This categoryI ncludes funding from Nlltricted -ral sources which must be 11CCOUntfeodr separately from the General Fund. This category consists rA funding for desegregation purposes. Expanse Catagorlu Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Categorlu This category consists rA e,cpenaa Incurred relati\\/e to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal 1011rces. This category consists rA expenses Incurred relati\\/e to federal program expense and distrtct expense funded by restricted federal 1011rces. This category consists rA e,cpenaa Incurred relati\\/e to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation 1011rcee. Total at 03/31196 The totals in this column represent actual costs Incurred for each rlthe Cycle 5 ochools through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995.'1996. Total for FY 95,96 The totals In this column represent the total estimated expense for each of the Cycle 5 schools for fiscal year 1995.'1996. SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Off,ce. FY 95196 2,046,159 1,139,360 1,038,310 2,015,420 1,108,153 1,843,829 9,191,231 PROGRAMS Four-Year Old Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Guidance Services Library Services SOURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 5 Schools FY 95/96 AMBOY CRESTWOOD LAKEWOOD CENTRAL MEADOW ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM PARK ELEM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 7TH STREET ELEM X X X X X X X X ' N CV) I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROU.MENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS Of TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL C 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03131196 FY 95196 FOR FY 95196 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,160,123 94,626 23,191 1,277,940 2,046,159 4,661 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 126 442,463 21,510 10,349 474,322 694,813 5,514 6002054 BCX)NE PARK ELEM 429 1,120,404 181,429 21,811 1,323,644 2,074,364 4,835 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 667,921 31,689 14,517 714,127 1,139,360 4,689 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 209 628,071 55,658 19,753 703,482 1,069,218 5,116 6002057 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 382 1,133,451 126,047 20,879 1,280,377 1,948,850 5,102 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 563,567 68,675 14,084 646,326 1,038,310 4,635 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 403 1,154,124 134,394 21,680 1,310,198 2,015,420 5,001 6002060 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 435 1,124,368 126,729 23,079 1,274,176 2,035,396 4,679 6002061 MEAl)()','J PARK ELEM 227 632,181 64,350 14,388 710,919 1,108,153 4,882 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,078,664 98,078 21,692 1,198,434 1,894,906 4,761 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 700,471 68,458 16,734 785,663 1,289,643 4,478 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 346 1,015,277 64,992 28,880 1,109,149 1,714,625 4,956 6002067 RED'NOOD ELEMENTARY 223 706,330 88,322 13,432 808,084 1,198,319 5,374 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,068,759 94,568 20,778 1,184,105 1,843,829 4,891 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDlE SCHOOL 485 1,564,835 45,105 20,777 1,630,717 2,479,433 5,112 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDlE SCHOOL 603 1,798,160 94,820 25,648 1,918,628 2,973,836 4,932 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 4,135,118 146,114 65,695 4,346,927 6,618,337 5,099 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 4,134,355 177,986 75,392 4,387,733 6,597,895 5,224 6002077 ROSE CrTY MIDDlE SCHOOL 364 1,410,973 82,434 15,652 1,509,059 2,146,034 5,896 6002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 259,114 49,697 1,679 310,490 380,487 9,512 NIA SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE 0 316,881 25,373 34,494 376,748 376,748 0 NIA ELEMENTARY ALTERNATIVE 0 284,963 11,641 19,261 315,865 315,865 0 TOTAL EXPENSE 8,802 27,100,573 1,952,695 543,845 29,597,113 45,000,000 5,112 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Thi5 category inciude\u0026amp; funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Expense Categories Thi5 catego,y inciude\u0026amp; funding from restncted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Thi5 catego,y C0n6ists a funding for desegregation ~. Local \u0026amp; State This category consists a expensei\nincurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources Federal Thi5 category consists a expensei\nfunded by restricted federal sources. 0eseg Thi5 category consists a expenses incutTed relative to de\u0026amp;egregation programs funded from desegregation 50Urces. Total Cat.gorln Total at O.ll.31196 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each 5Chool site through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY 95'% The totals in lhi5 column represent the total estimated expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE. The North LJttle Rock School District Finance Otr,ce and the Local Fiscal Services Divsion of the ADE. 327 I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL OESEG 03/31196 FY95196 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,160,123 94,626 23,191 1,277,!MO 2,046,159 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 667,921 31,689 14,517 714,127 1,139,360 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 563,567 68,675 14,084 646,326 1,038,310 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 403 1,154,124 134,394 21,680 1,310,198 2,015,420 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 227 632,181 64,350 14,388 710,919 1,108,153 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,068,759 94,568 20,778 1,184,105 1,843,829 TOTAL EXPENSE 1,913 5,246,675 488,302 108,638 5,843,615 9,191,231 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Thi\u0026amp; category includes funding from local \u0026amp;OUrcesr,e gular state sources, and un,estncted federal sources. Oeseg Expense Categorlas Local \u0026amp; State Federal Oeseg Total Categories Total at 03/31196 Tota/for FY 95196 SOURCE: This category includes funding from restlicted federal IOUrces v.tlich must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists al funding for desegregation purpose\u0026amp;. This categO/)' consists al expenses Incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, slate and federal sources. This category consists al expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists al expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from cle\u0026amp;egregation liOUrces. The totals in this column represent actual co6ls incurred for each al the Cycle 5 schools through Maren 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the total estimated e\u0026gt;\u0026lt;pellSe for each al the Cycle 5 6Chools for fiscal year 1995/1996. The North Little Rock School District Finanoe Olf,ce and the Local Fiscal Setvices Q\nvsjoo of the ADE.. 328 COST PER STU FOR FY95/96 4,661 4,689 4,635 5,001 4,882 4,891 4,805 l I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM COST TOTAL COST BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 23,807,717 52.9% 4,971 5,112 (141) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 7,599,303 16.9% 5,234 5,112 122 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 13,592,980 30.2% 5,308 5,112 196 NLRSD PROGRAM COST NLRSD COST PER STU 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU VARIANCE SOURCE: 5400 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 FY 95/96 Program costs consist of the total estimated cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program cost to the estimated total district cost of $45,000,000 for FY 95/96. The estimated total program cost for FY 95196 to the total number of students in the program category. The total estimated cost for FY 95196 of $45,000,000 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of8,802. 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 North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 329 l I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROU.MEITT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SO-OOl. a 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31196 FY 95196 6002050 AMBOY ELEMEITTARY -439 1,160,123 94,626 23,191 1,277,940 2,046,159 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMEITTARY 126 442,463 21,510 10,349 474,322 694,813 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,120,404 181,429 21,811 1,323,644 2,074,364 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMEITTARY 243 667,921 31,689 14,517 714,127 1,139,360 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMEITTARY 209 628,071 55,658 19,753 703,482 1,069,218 6002057 INDIAN HIU.S ELEMEITTARY 382 1,133,451 126,047 20,879 1,280,377 1,948,850 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMEITTARY 224 563,567 68,675 14,084 646,326 1,038,310 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMEITTARY 403 1,154,124 134,394 21,680 1,310,198 2,015,420 6002060 l YNCH DRIVE ELEM 435 1,124,368 126,729 23,079 1,274,176 2,035,396 6002061 MEAr:O\u0026gt;NPARKELEM 227 632,181 64,350 14,388 710,919 1,108,153 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMEITTARY 398 1,078,664 98,078 21,692 1,198,434 1,894,906 6002064 PARK Hill ELEMEITTARY 288 700,471 68,458 16,734 785,663 1,289,643 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMEITTARY 346 1,015,277 64,992 28,880 1,109,149 1,714,625 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMEITTARY 223 706,330 88,322 13,432 808,084 1,198,319 6002069 SEVEITTH STREET ELEM 377 1,068,759 94,568 20,778 1,184,105 1,843,829 6002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 259,114 49,697 1,679 310,490 380,487 NIA ELEMEITTARY ALTERNATIVE 0 284,963 11,641 19,261 315,865 315,865 TOTAL EXPENSE  ,789 13,740,251 1,380,863 306,187 15,  27,301 23,807,717 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding CalegoriH LDca/ \u0026amp; State This catego,y includes funding from local 50Urces, regular state 50Urces, and unrestricted tederal 50Urces. This category Includes funding from reslricted federal 60Urces which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. 09seg Thi5 catego,y consists a! funding for de5egregation purposes. Expensa Categories Local \u0026amp; State This catego,y consists a! expenses incurred relawe to regular program e\u0026gt;\u0026lt;pen,\ne funded by unrestricted local, state and federal 50Urces. Federal This catego,y consists ct expenses funded by reslricted federal 50Urces. 09seg This catego,y consists ct expenses incurred -,ti,e to de5egregation programs funded from desegregation 50Urces. Total CalegorlH Total at 031.31196 The totals in this column represent actual 005ts incurred for each o( the elementary school$ through March 31, 1996 for fiocal year 1995/1996. T eta/ for FY 95'96 The totals in lhi5 column represent the tolal estimated e,q:,ense for each ct the elementary school$ for liscaJ year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The North Little Roel\u0026lt;S. chool District Finanoe OITioea nd tl\u0026gt;9 Local Fiscal Services Divsion of the ADE. 330 COST PER STU FOR FY 95196 4,661 5,514 4,835 4,689 5,116 5,102 4,635 5,001 4,679 4,882 4,761 4,478 4,956 5,374 4,891 9,512 NIA 4,971 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROUMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03131196 FY 95196 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 485 1,564,835 '45,105 20,TT7 1,630,717 2,479,433 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 603 1,798,160 94,820 25,648 1,918,628 2,973,836 6002077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 1,410,973 82,434 15,652 1,509,059 2,146,034 I TOT Al EXPENSE 1,\u0026lt;452 4,773,968 222,359 62,077 5,058,404 7,599,303 I Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95196. Funding categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal I Oeseg Expense categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Oeseg I Total ~orles Total at 0.Jr.Jl/96 Total tor FY 95'96 SOURCE: I I I This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restrided federal sources 'Mlich must be accounted tor separately from the General Fund. This category consi6ls cl funding for desegregation purpo,\nes. This category consists cl expense!i Incurred rela!Ne to regular program e,q,ense funded by unrestricted local, slate and federal 60Urce6. This category consists cl expenses funded by restricted ,-.,.i sources. This category consists cl expen,\neo incurred relalNe to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each cl the junior high schools through March 31, 1996 to, fiscal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense for each cl the junior high schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. The North Uttle Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Ser,ices 0/vsion of the ADE.. 331 COST PER STU FOR FY 95196 5,112 4,932 5,896 5,234 I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SOlOOL C!l 1Ml1195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 03/31/96 95/96 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 \u0026lt;1,135,118 146,11\u0026lt;1 65,695 \u0026lt;1,346,927 6,618,337 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 \u0026lt;1,134,355 177,986 75,392 \u0026lt;1,387,733 6,597,895 NIA SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE 0 316,881 25,373 34,-494 376,748 376,748 TOTAL EXPENSE 2,561 8,586,354 349,473 175,581 9,111,408 13,592,980 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95196. Funding categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Expense categories LDca/ \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total categories This catego,y includes funding from local sources, regular st.ate 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 consi\u0026amp;ts a funding for desegregation purpo,\ne,\n. This catego,y con\u0026amp;ists a expenses incuned ralalNe to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, st.ate and federal oources. This catego,y consi6b\na e,cpenses funded by restricted federal sources. This catego,y c:on\u0026amp;ists a expenseo incuned relawe to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. Total at OJIJ1~ The totals in this column represent adual C06t1i incurred for each a the high 6Chools through March 31, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total lex FY 9~ The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense for each dthe high schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The Ncxth LJttle Roci\u0026lt; School Distnct Finance Otr,ce and the Local Fiscal S\u0026amp;vioes Divsion of the A.DE. 332 COST PER STU FOR FY 95/96 5,099 5,224 NIA 5,308 I I I I I I I LEAi 6002050 6002055 6002058 6002059 6002061 6002069 Teach er Expense _ At 03131196 FY9~6 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE FY 95196 TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES SCHOOL C 03131196 FY 95196 @03131196 FY 95196 AMBOY ELEMENTARY c.t,691 745,591 56,880 80,318 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 260,575 432,668 30,195 43,169 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 202,752 361,389 27,790 39,749 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 488,857 TT4\n262 58,525 80,041 MEADOW PARK ELEM 234,529 395\n290 32,195 44,314 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 393,303 660\n294 30\n265 50,393 TOTAL 2,014,707 3,369,494 235,850 337,984 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 is estimated to be $20,533,600 or 45.6 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $45,000,000. Actual taact- salary expense for each Cycle 5 school as of March 31, 1996. Expected teacher salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95196. Administrator Expense AtD3131A15 FY9~6 SOURCE: Actual administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school as of March 31, 1996. Expected administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95196. The North LittJe Rock School District Finance Otriai. 333 TOTALS C 03131196 FY95/96 491,571 825,909 200,no 475,837 230,542 401,138 547,382 854,303 266,724 439,604 423,568 710,687 2\n250,557 3,707,478 I I '  I I I I PCSSD PROGRAM COST 334 Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) The following is a summary of the PCSSD Program Cost Section of the July 15, 1996 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 for FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996 and is estimated for the fiscal year. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 5 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 5 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 5 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs\njunior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 5 school programs. Graphs indicate total program cost and average cost per student rates for elementary, junior high and high school programs. 335 ~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LOCAUSTA TE LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 1v6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM 746,912 298,831 80,516 8003092 BAKER ELEM 710,124 292,395 78,781 8003093 CRY ST AL HILL ELEM 1,323,883 874,899 181,841 8003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 1,237,865 583,870 157,315 8003095 CLINTON ELEM 1,178,267 544,332 146,882 8003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 779,404 424,800 114,456 8003100 FULLER ELEM 841,559 318,140 85,718 8003102 HARRIS ELEM 818,085 298,831 80,516 8003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 1,326,885 891,449 186,301 8003104 LANDMARK ELEM 964,390 445,029 119,906 8003105 LAWSON ELEM 758,177 283,200 78,304 8003108 TOlLESON ELEM 908,815 500,197 134,771 8003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 923,923 349,403 94,141 8003110 ROBINSON ELEM 932,095 355,839 95,875 8003111 SCOTT ELEM 467,241 125,049 33,893 8003112 SHERWOOD ELEM 940,321 425,719 114,704 8003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 1,188,937 408,249 109,997 8003118 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 1,401,049 583,870 157,315 8003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 1,301,945 470,774 126,843 8003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 2,123,485 811,901 218,755 8003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 2,076,807 788,914 212,581 8003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 2,741,051 917,842 247,245 8003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 1,965,718 891,449 188,301 8003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 2,488,988 826,813 222,719 8003127 ROBINSON HIGH 1,161,758 331,933 89,434 8003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 2,554,994 742,021 199,926 8003129 CATO ELEM 990,812 507,553 136,753 8003130 PINEWOOD ELEM 970,185 532,379 143,442 8003135 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 529,913 264,120 76,552 6003138 N. PULASKI HIGH 2,481,986 750,296 202,156 8003137 ARNOLD DRNE ELEM 720,188 349,403 94,141 8003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 1,058,269 418,384 112,722 6003140 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 2,603,098 903,849 243,529 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 921,185 386,182 104,051 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 918,002 457,901 123,375 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 1,168,099 430,317 115,942 6003146 BATES ELEM 1,209,500 445,948 120,154 NIA SCOTT ALTERNATNE 13,088 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 47,360,321 18,651,661 5,025,413 SOURCE: S the not s.etlon on the next IMP for explanatton. of the categories. The Pulaki County Special School Di,trict Finance Office. TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES FEDERAL LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 1,372 137,779 37,068 4,990 1,342 53,321 36,270 164,898 3,098 191,726 83.717 260,158 2,880 132,405 72,425 1,471 2,499 198,095 87,521 262,305 1,950 114,359 52,894 2,188 1,480 202,720 39,463 95,877 1,372 154,759 37,068 37,159 3,174 224,098 85,770 23,141 2,043 191,577 55,203 110,728 1,300 64,402 35,129 1,503 2,296 81,128 82,046 0 1,804 139,007 43,341 132,971 1,834 104,800 44,140 0 574 93,342 15,512 1,464 1,954 54,599 52,808 0 1,874 55,593 50,841 0 2,880 75,126 72,425 20,161 2,161 73,791 58,396 19,617 3,727 138,605 100,711 432,022 3,621 89,759 97,860 33,882 4,212 81,895 113,627 0 3,174 109,481 85,770 492,104 3,795 134,447 102,536 26,506 1,524 88,473 41,174 17,896 3,406 87,677 92,043 1,961 2,330 145,219 62,959 2,247 2,444 123,983 88,038 1,256 1,304 115,654 35,243 406,614 3,444 115,553 93,069 0 1,804 51,951 43,341 0 1,921 87,086 51,895 0 4,149 145,525 112,117 26,675 1,773 147,936 47,903 2,505 2,102 82,895 56,800 1,810 1,975 70,631 53,378 50,448 2,047 264,862 55,317 248,251 0 72 0 370,810 85,619 4,384,331 2,313,618 3,253,438 DESEGREGATION DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL 39,710 18,408 4,300 38,855 18,010 4,207 89,884 41,569 9,711 11\n588 35,963 8,401 72,334 33,527 7,832 58,449 26,185 8,112 42,278 19,595 4,577 39,710 18,408 4,300 91,883 42,589 9,948 59,138 27,411 8,403 37,833 17,443 4,075 88,489 30,809 7,197 48,430 21,521 5,027 47,286 21,917 5,120 18,817 7,702 1,799 58,572 26,221 8,125 54,250 25,145 5,874 77,587 35,982 8,401 62,559 28,997 6,774 107,889 50,008 11,882 104,835 48,592 11,351 121,941 58,521 13,203 91,883 42,589 9,948 109,844 50,914 11,884 44,109 20,445 4,776 98,603 45,704 10,876 67,446 31,262 7,303 70,745 32,791 7,660 37,755 17,500 4,088 99,703 48,213 10,795 46,430 21,521 5,027 55,594 25,788 8,020 120,108 55,671 13,005 51,318 23,786 5,556 60,848 28,204 8,588 57,183 26,505 6,192 59,260 27,487 6,416 0 0 0 2,478,524 1,148,819 268,365 TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR IW30l96 FY 95196 1,369,884 1,804,401 1,398,203 1,837,588 2,860,086 3,349,719 2,309,783 2,705,207 2,511,374 2,941,309 1,578,577 1,848,822 1,851,385 1,934,094 1,468,206 1,742,980 2,865,219 3,144,915 1,981,828 2,321,107 1,299,186 1,521,577 1.m.128 2,077,382 1,757,368 2,058,221 1,608,708 1,884,109 783,013 893,837 1,879,023 1,966,464 1,880,560 2,202,503 2,434,578 2,851,364 2,151,857 2,520,244 3,998,785 4,883,357 3,467,962 4,081,884 4,297,537 5,033,254 3,878,418 4,308,145 3,956,236 4,833,524 1,781,320 2,086,273 3,837,011 4,493,889 1,953,884 2,288,379 1,950,903 2,284,888 1,508,743 1,767,032 3,783,215 4,430,883 1,333,586 1,561,889 1,817,639 2,128,810 4,227,726 4,951,492 1,692,195 1,981,890 1,718,525 2,012,728 1,980,670 2,319,751 2,439,222 2,856,605 383,970 449,704 64,990,109 99,540,000 \\.0 CV') CV') NOTES FOR PCSSD TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE SCHEDULE FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category Includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Thia category Includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Thia category conslala of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Categories Thia category conslala of expenaea Incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, otate and tlederal sources. Thia category conalala of expenaea Incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Thia category conaista of~ Incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregationo ournes. Total at 04l3Q,,96 The totals In this column represent actual costs Incurred for each school lite through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total for FY 95'96 The totals In this column represent the total estimated expense for each school site for li$cal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finanoe Off,oe. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 116/96 FUNDING SOURCES ,p 1Y LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGA TlON TOTALS TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL eoo3092 BAKER ELEM 710,124 292,395 78,781 1,342 53,321 38,270 184,898 38,855 18,010 4,207 0003093 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 1,323,083 074,899 181,841 3,098 191,726 83,717 260,158 89,884 41,seG 9,711 eoo3()gg WARREN DUPREE ELEM m,404 424,800 114,456 1,950 114,359 52,894 2,188 58,449 26,1e5 e,112 8003100 FULLER ELEM 841,558 318,140 e5,718 1,490 202,720 39,463 115,877 42,279 19,5115 4,577 8003104 LANDMARK ELEM 984,3110 445,029 119,906 2,043 191,577 55,203 110,728 SG,138 27,411 e,403 8003129 CATO ELEM 1190,912 507,553 138,753 2,330 145,219 82,959 2,247 97,449 31,262 7,303 8003141 TAYLOR ELEM 921,1116 388,182 104,051 1,m 147,938 47,1103 2,505 51,318 23,788 5,569 TOTAL CYCLE 5 PROGRAM EXPENSE e,531,157 3,048,998 821,509 13,- 1,048,856 378,208 938,1101 405,109 187,788 43,- The district's Total Program Expense as of Aprll 30, 1996 was $84,990,109, and Total Program Expense for the ftscal year Is expected to be $99,540,000. The programs funded In each of the Cycle I schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle 5 Schools.\" Funding catagorles Local \u0026amp; stale Thia categot'y Includes lundln\nfrom local _,,_, 19gulars late 10Urcet1a, nd unrea1rk:tedf ederal oources. Thia category Includes lundln\nfrom -.:.d _,.,_,,_which must be accounted for separately from the Gen ral Fund. Thia categot'y consisla al lundin\nfor deeegregatlon pu_.. ExpanM categories Local \u0026amp; Stale Thia catego,y conaisla al expenua inc,Jn.d - to 19gular program expense, di.triet expense, trll--,,orta1ion expense and '\"9al expense funded by unreatricted local, slate and federal -,rces. This category conalsta rA expen ... Incurred relatiYe to federal program expense and district expense funded by reatricted federal sources. O..eg This category consists of expen ... Incurred r..-M to desegregation program expense, district expenae, tranaportation expense and legal expense funded from deaegrwgation aources. Total catagorles Total t04./3tWtl The totals in this column 18prsent actual oos1sin cun.d for each of the Cycle 5 schools through April 30, 1996 forfiacal year 1995/1996. Total for FY 115,VO The totals In this column reprsentthe total Htimeted expense for each of the Cycle 5 schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The Pulaaki County Special School Diatrlct Finance Offtce. \u0026lt;W30IIHI FYll5/Ve 1,388,203 1,837,588 2,860,081! 3,349,719 1,578,577 1,948,822 1,951,385 1,934,094 1,981,828 2,321,107 1,953,984 2,288,379 1,992,1115 1,981,1180 13,119,158 15,381,5711 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 5 Schools FY 95/96 BAKER CRYSTAL HILL DUPREE FULLER LANDMARK PROGRAMS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM Pre-School X X Kindergarten X X X X X Elementary X X X X X Reading X Resource Room X X X X X Special Class X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X Library Services X X X X X SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. CATO ELEM X X X X X X X TAYLOR ELEM X X X X X X X Q'\\ C\"\") C\"\") I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 96/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL C 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG \u0026lt;w.30/96 FY95196 FOR FY 95196 6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM 325 1,127,631 174,847 67,406 1,369,884 1,60oC,\u0026lt;I01 4,937 6003092 BAKER ELEM 318 1,082,642 89,591 225,970 1,398,203 1,637,568 5,150 6003093 CRY ST Al. HILL ELEM 734 2.183,521 275,443 401,122 2.860,086 3,349,719 4,564 6003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 635 1,981,530 204,630 123,423 2.309,783 2,705,207 4,260 6003095 CUNTON a.EM 592 1,869,760 265,616 375,998 2,511,374 2,941,309 4,968 6003099 WARREN DUPREE a.EM 462 1,320,610 167,053 80,914 1.57s,sn 1,848,822 4,002 6003100 FULLER ELEM 346 1,246,BTT 242.183 162,325 1,651,385 1,934,094 5,590 6003102 HARRIS EL8,I 325 1,196,80' 191,827 99,575 1,488,206 1,742,980 5,363 6003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 752 2.207,789 309,868 167,562 2,685,219 3,144,915 4,182 60031'4 LANDMARK ELEM 484 1,531,368 246,780 203,680 1,981,828 2,321,107 4,796 6003105 LAWSON ELEM 308 1,118,981 119,531 60,654 1,299,166 1,521,5TT 4,940 6003106 TOLLESON ELEM 544 1,546,079 123,174 1'4,475 1,m.128 2,0TT,382 3,819 6003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 380 1,369,071 182,348 205,949 1,757,368 2,058,221 5,416 6003110 ROBINSON ELEM 387 1,385,443 148,940 74,323 1,608,706 1,884,109 4,868 6003111 SCOTT ELEM 136 626,557 108,854 27,602 763,013 893,637 6,571 6003112 SHERWOOD ELEM 463 1,482.698 107,\u0026lt;107 88,918 1,679,023 1,966,464 4,247 6003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 444 1,689,057 106,234 85,269 1,880,560 2,202,503 4,961 6003116 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 635 2.144,914 147,551 142,111 2.Gl,576 2,851,364 4,ol90 6003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 512 1,901,723 132,187 117,947 2.151,857 2,520,244 4,922 6003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 883 3,157,868 239,316 601,601 3,998,785 4,683,357 5,304 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 858 3,081,703 187,619 198,660 3,467,982 4,061,684 4,734 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 998 3,910,150 195,722 191,665 4,297,537 5,033,254 5,043 6003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 752 2,846,642 195,251 636,525 3,678,418 4,308,145 5,729 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 899 3,520,095 236,983 199,158 3,956,236 4,6l3,524 5,154 6003127 ROBINSON HIGH 361 1,584,647 109,647 87,026 1,781,320 2,086,273 5,TT9 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 807 3,500,347 179,720 156,944 3,837,011 4,4!13,689 5,569 6003129 CATO ELEM 552 1,637,448 208,178 108,258 1,953,884 2,288,379 4,146 6003130 PINEWOOD ELEM 579 1,648,430 190,021 112,452 1,950,903 2,284,888 3,946 6003135 COLLEGE ST A TION ELEM 309 891,689 150,897 465,957 1,508,743 1,767,032 5,719 6003136 N. PUL.ASKHJ IGH 816 3,417,882 208,622 156,711 3,783,215 4,430,883 5,430 6003137 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 380 1,165,316 95,292 72,978 1,333,586 1,561,689 4,110 6003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 455 1,591,276 138,981 87,382 1,817,639 2,128,810 4,679 60031\u0026lt;1() NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 983 3,754,625 257,642 215,459 4,227,726 4,951,492 5,037 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 420 1,413,191 195,839 83,165 1,692,195 1,981,890 4,719 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 498 1,501,380 119,695 97,450 1,718,525 2,012.728 4,o.42 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 468 1,716,333 124,009 140,328 1,980,670 2,319,751 4,957 6003146 BATES ELEM 485 1,TT7,649 320,179 341,394 2.439,222 2,856,805 5,890 SCOTT Al. TERNA TIVE 13,088 n 370,810 383,970 449,7().4 NIA TOT Al. EXPENSE 20,285 71,143,014 6,697,949 7,149,146 84,990,109 99,540,000 4,907 Cost PN student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1996 enrollment figures and the tot.al estimated expense for FY 95196. Funding CategoriH Local \u0026amp; Slale federai o.s..g Loc,il \u0026amp; Slale This catego\u0026lt;y includes funding from local '\"\"\"\"rog ular s1a1e '\"\"\"\"an d \\llll8Slric:lad federal oourta. This category includes funding from reslric:tedfe deral sources ..tlich must be 1CCO\u0026lt;Jntefodr o\neparatelyfr om the General Fund. This category c:onsisls o( funding tor desegropobon - This category consists o( expenses ina!rred rolatiw ID regular program expense funded by unr.ttictad local, stata and fedal sources. This category consists o( expenses funded by '11Strict8dle deral sources. OeJeg This category consiS1s o/ expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. Total Cmgorlu Total at 04/.l0'96 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred tor oach school site through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 199511996. Total lor FY 95'96 The lotlls in this column represent the lotll estimated expense for each school site for fiscal year 199511996. SOURCE: The Ptila.ski County Spec,al School Di.slricl f-,c\ne Qffa, and the Local Fisal Sa-vices Divsion cl the ADE. 340 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 5 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROL.LMEl',ff LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL C 10/01195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 04/30/96 FY95/96 6003092 BAKER ELEM 318 1,082,642 89,591 225,970 1,398,203 1,637,568 6003093 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 73'1 2,183,521 275,443 401,122 2,860,086 3,349,719 6003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 462 1,320,610 167,053 90,914 1,578,577 1,848,822 6003100 FULLER ELEM 346 1,246,877 242,183 162,325 1,651,385 1,934,094 6003104 LANDMARK ELEM 484 1,531,368 246,780 203,680 1,981,828 2,321,107 6003129 CATO ELEM 552 1,637,448 208,178 108,258 1,953,884 2,288,379 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM -420 1,-413,191 195,839 83,165 1,692,195 1,981,890 TOTAL EXPENSE 3,316 10,415,657 1,425,067 1,275,,43,4 13,116,158 15,361,579 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Deseg This categOI)' includes lunding from local sources, regular stale 600/CeS, and unrestricted federal sources. Thi,\ncategOI)' includes funding from restricted federal sources - musl be accounted for oeparately from the General Fund. This category consists o/ lunding for desegregation purpooes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Catagories This categOI)' consists o/ expenses incurred relali\u0026gt;,e to regular program expen\u0026amp;e lunded by unrestricted local, 6late and federal sources. This categOI)' consists o/ expenses lunded by restricted federal sources. Thi6 categOI)' consists o/ expenses incurred re!a!Ne to desegregation program5 funded from desegregation sources. Total at 04l3lW6 The totals in thi6 column represent adual ooota incurred for each o/ the Cycle 5 IChools through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Total to, FY 9\u0026amp;-95 The tctal6 in thi6 column represent the total e6limated expense for each o/ the Cycle 5 ocllaols b fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: The PulasW County Special School Disttict Finance o,r,ce and tile Local Fiscal Services Divoon of tile ADE. 341 COST PER STU FOR FY 95/96 5,150 4,564 4,002 5,590 4,796 4,146 -4,719 4,633 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM COST TOTAL COST BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 53,166,140 53.4% 4,700 4,907 (207) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 21,387,892 21.5% 4,929 4,907 22 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 24,985,968 25.1% 5,393 4,907 486 PCSSD PROGRAM COST PCSSD COST PER STU 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU VARIANCE SOURCE: 5400 5200 5000 4800 4600 4400 FY 95/96 Program costs consists of the total estimated cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program cost to the estimated total district cost of $99,540,000 for FY 95/96. The estimated total program cost for FY 95/96 to the total number of students in the program category. The total estimated cost for FY 95/96 of $99,540,000 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of 20,285. 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. 342 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL @ 10KJ1/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 04/30/96 FY 95/96 6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM , 325 1,127,631 17~.847 67,\"'6 1,369,884 1,604,401 6003092 BAKER ELEM 318 1,082,642 89,591 225,970 1,398,203 1,637,568 6003093 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 734 2,183,521 275,443 401,122 2,860,086 3,349,719 6003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 635 1,981,530 204,830 123,423 2,309,783 2,705,207 6003095 CLINTON ELEM 592 1,869,760 265,616 375,998 2,511,374 2,941,309 6003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 462 1,320,610 167,053 90,914 1,578,Sn 1,848,822 6003100 FULLER ELEM 346 1,246,Bn 242,183 162,325 1,651,385 1,934,094 6003102 HARRIS ELEM 325 1,196,804 191,827 99,575 1,488,206 1,742,980 6003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 752 2,207,789 309,868 167,562 2,685,219 3,144,915 6003104 LANDMARK ELEM ,484 1,531,368 246,760 203,680 1,981,828 2,321,107 6003105 LAWSON ELEM 308 1,118,981 119,531 60,654 1,299,166 1,521,577 6003106 TOLLESON ELEM 544 1,546,079 123,174 104,475 1,773,728 2,077,382 6003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 380 1,369,071 182,348 205,949 1,757,368 2,058,221 6003110 ROBINSON ELEM 387 1,385,443 148,940 74,323 1,608,706 1,884,109 6003111 SCOTT ELEM 136 626,557 108,854 27,602 763,013 893,637 6003112 SHERWOOO ELEM 463 1,482,698 107,407 88,918 1,679,023 1,966,464 6003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 444 1,689,057 106,234 85,269 1,860,560 2,202,503 6003129 CATO ELEM 552 1,637,448 208,178 108,258 1,953,884 2,288,379 6003130 PINEWOOO ELEM 579 1,648,430 190,021 112,452 1,950,903 2,284,888 6003135 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 309 891,889 150,897 465,957 1,508,743 1,767,032 6003137 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 380 1,165,316 95,292 72,978 1,333,586 1,561,889 6003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 455 1,591,276 138,981 87,382 1,817,639 2,128,810 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 420 1,413,191 195,839 83,165 1,692,195 1,981,890 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 498 1,501,360 119,695 97,450 1,718,525 2,012,728 6003146 BATES ELEM 485 1,1n,649 320,179 341,394 2,439,222 2,856,805 SCOTT ALTERNATIVE 13,088 72 370,810 383,970 449,704 TOTAL EXPENSE 11,313 36,606,085 4,483,660 4,305,011 45,394,776 53,166,140 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95196. Funding Catagorles Local \u0026amp; Stale 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 oeparately from the General Fund. This category consists c:J funding for desegregation purp06e6. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; Slate Federal Total Categories This category con\u0026amp;ists c:J expenses incurred relatille to regular program expense funded by unmstricted local, state and federal oources. This category consist,\nol expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists c:Je xpenses incurred relatille to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. Tola/ at 04/3005 The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each ot the elementary 6Chools through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. Tola/ for FY 95196 The totals in this column represent the total estimated expense for each c:J the elementary schools for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCE: Tt\u0026gt;e Pulaski County Special School District Finance Off,ce and the Local Fiscal Services Divsion of the ADE. 343 COST PER S1U FOR F\\'95196 4,937 5,150 4,564 4,260 4,968 4,002 5,590 5,363 4,182 4,796 4,940 4i 3,819 5,416 4,868 6,571 4,247 4,961 4,146 3,946 5,719 4,110 4,679 4,719 4,042 5,890 NIA 4.700 I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR. HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS ENROU.MENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 04/30/96 FY95J96 6003116 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 635 2,144,914 147,551 142,111 2,434,576 2,851,364 6003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 512 1,901,723 132,187 117,947 2,151,857 2,520,244 6003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 883 3,157,868 239,316 601,601 3,998,785 4,683,357 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 858 3,081,703 187,619 198,660 3,467,982 4,061,684 6003140 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 983 3,754,625 257,642 215,459 4,227,726 4,951,492 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 468 1,716,333 124,009 140,328 1,980,670 2,319,751 TOTAL EXPENSE 4,339 15,757,166 1,088,324 1,416,106 18,261,596 21,387,892 Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95/96. Funding Catagorlas Local \u0026amp; Slate Federal Des,,g This catego,y includes funding from local sources, regular state source,\n, and unreotricted lederal sources. This catego,y includes funding from restricted lederal .ource,\nwhich must be 8CCOUntefdo r separately from the General Fund. This category con,\nisU\ncl funding for desegregation purpoGe$. Expense CatagorlH Local\u0026amp; Slate Federal Des,,g Total Catagoria,\nTotal at 04l.3()\n'96 Total for FY 95196 SOURCE: This catego,y consists al expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state ar\u0026gt;d federal sources. This category consists al expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This catego,y consists al expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column ~t actual costs incurred for each cl the junior high schools ttvough April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 1995/1996. The totals in this column repreM!Ot the total estimated expense for each cl the junior high schoofolsr l iscaJy ear 1995/1996. The Pulaski County Special School Distnct Finanoe Oflice and tt\u0026gt;e Local Fiscal Sarvices Divsxx, of tl\u0026gt;e ADE.. 344 COST PER STU FOR FY 95/96 4,490 4,922 5,304 4,734 5,037 4,957 4,929 I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 I FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS I ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; TOTAL AS OF TOTAL FOR LEA# SQ-IOOL G 1001195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG 04/30/96 FY95196 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 998 3,910,150 195,722 191,665 4,297,537 5,033,25\" I 6003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 752 2,646,6\"2 195,251 636,525 3,678,418 4,308, 1\"5 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 899 3,520,095 236,983 199,158 3,956,236 4,633,524 6003127 ROBINSON HIGH 361 1,58\u0026lt;1,6\"7 109,647 87,026 1,781,320 2,086,273 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 807 3,500,3\"7 179,720 156,944 3,837,011 4,\"93,889 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 816 3,417,882 208,622 156,711 3,783,215 4,43-0,883 I TOTAL EXPENSE 4,633 18,779,763 1,125,945 1,428,029 21,333,737 24,985,968 I Cost per student figures were calculated using the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures and the total estimated expense for FY 95196. I I I I I I I I I I I Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This catego,y includes funding from local source,\n, regular state \u0026amp;OUl'CeS, and unresllicled federal \u0026amp;OUrces. Federal This catego,y includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. De.seg This catego,y comists o1 funding for desegregation purpo5eS. Expanse Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Catagor1as To/al at 041Ja196 Total fcx FY 95196 SOURCE: This catego,y consists ol expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This catego,y consists ol expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consist,\nol expenses incurred relatr,oeto desegregation programs funded from desegregation \u0026amp;OUrces. The totals in this column represent actual costs incurred for each ol the high schools through April 30, 1996 for fiscal year 199511996. The totals in this column re..--,! the total estimated expense for each d the high school5 for fiscal year 199511996. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance orrce and the Local Fiscal Services Divsion d the ADE.. 345 COSTPERS1U FOR FY 95196 5,043 5,729 5,154 5,779 5,569 5,43-0 5,393 I I I I I I I I I I LEAi 6003092 6003093 6003099 6003100 6003104 6003129 6003141 TeachN Expense At 04/JQ/96 FYSISl!,6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 5 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE FY 95196 TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES TOTALS SCHOOL @04/30/96 FY 95/86 @04/30l96 FY95/96 @04/30/96 FY95/96 BAKER ELEM 446,505 597,979 87,163 116,733 533,668 714,712 CRYSTAL HILL ELEM 903,976 1,210,645 122,566 164,146 1,026,542 1,374,791 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 535,645 717,360 81,649 109,348 617,294 826,708 FULLER ELEM 546,708 732,176 67,391 90,253 614,099 822,429 LANDMARK ELEM 830,982 845,039 78,135 104,642 709,117 949,681 CATO ELEM 674,680 903,562 81,310 108,894 755,990 1,012,456 TAYLOR ELEM 585,498 784,125 74,090 99,225 659,588 883,350 TOTAL 4,323,994 5,790,886 592,304 793,241 4,916,298 6,584,127 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 is estimated to be $45,397,250 or 45.6 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $99,540,000. Actual teacher salary expense for I08ch Cycle S school u of April 30, 1996. Expected teacM\u0026lt; salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95196. Administrator Expense At 0413(1196 SOURCE: Actual administrator salary expense for I08ch Cycle 5 school u of April 30, 1996. Expected administrator salary expense for each Cycle 5 school for FY 95/96. Thfl Pulaski CO\u0026lt;Jnty Special School District Finar,ce Office. 346 TRANSPORTATION -  COST 347 U.l I I I I I I D. BUDGET INFORM.A TION 2. Transportation cost and funding source. Transportation costs for FY 95/96 are presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter. Transportation cost information for the LRSD and the NLRSD contains actual expenses by funding source for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996. Transportation expense information for the PCSSD contains actual expenses by funding source for FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996. Outsourcing costs, bus driver salaries and replacement parts expense are also addressed. 348 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEA# 60-01 60-02 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG LITTLE ROCK 4,989,738 0 2,494,869 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,157,209 0 203,100 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 5,025,413 0 1,148,819 TOTAL 0 3,846,788 TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 TOTAL 7,484,607 1,360,309 6,174,232 15,u 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. Deseg NOTE: SOURCES: This category consists of transportalion costs incurred relative lo desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. The expenses for the PCSSO are for FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996. The Finance Off1Ces of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 349 %OF TRANS EXP TO TOTAL :XP FOR 03/31/96 7.9% 4.6% 7.3% ~ l, \" (- I I I I I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL TOTAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD SOURCES: FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 BUS DRIVER REPLACEMENT OUTSOURCING SALARIES PARTS TOTAL 5,182,587 666,476 0 5,849,063 0 544,939 91,286 636,225 0 2,641,505 322,716 2,964,221 5,182,587 3,852,920 414,002 9,449,509 Outsourcing costs accounted for 69.2 percent of the total transportation expense of $7,484,607. Bus driver salaries, exclusive of any bus driver salaries included in the outsourcing fee, accounted for 8.9 percent of the total transportation epxense. The district did not incur any replacement part costs because this was included in the outsourcing costs. The district does not outsource its transportation function\ntherefore, no outsourcing costs were incurred. Bus driver salaries accounted for 40.1 percent of the total transportation expense of $1,360,309. Replacement parts accounted for 6.7 percent of the total transportation expense. The district does not outsource its transportation function\ntherefore, no outsourcing costs were incurred. Bus driver salaries accounted for 42.8 percent of the total transportation expense of $6,174,232. Replacement parts accounted for 5.2 percent of the total transportation expense. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 350 ,1 \\., \\J l I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I LRSD TRANSPORTATION COST 351 l( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ITTI S:: ~nr.K ~r.1-1nn1 nl~T~lr.T TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 LRSD TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 LEGEND 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 LOCAUSTATE 0 FED DESEG TOTAL Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Deseg 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 Deseg 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 in the LRSD through March 31, 1996, outsourcing costs accounted for $5,182,587 or 69.2 percent of total transportation expense, and bus driver salaries, exclusive of any bus driver salaries included in the outsourcing costs, accounted for $666,476 or 8.9 percent of the total transportation expense. The district did not incur any cost for replacement parts because this is included in the outsourcing fees. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 352 4,989,738 0 2,494,869 7,484,607 i'll l., \" I I I I NLRSD 1 TRANSPORTATION COST 353 lb t, \" 1 I l I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 NLRSD TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 LEGEND 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 LOCAUSTATE 0 FED DESEG TOTAL Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Deseg 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. I Expense Categories I I I I I I 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 in the NLRSD through March 31, 1996, bus driver salaries accounted for $544,939 or 40.1 percent of total transportation expense, and replacement parts accounted for $91,286 or 6.7 percent of total transportation expense. The district did not have any outsourcing transportation expense. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 354 1,157,209 0 203,100 1,360,309 PCSSD - 1 TRANSPORTATION I COST 355 I I I I I I I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU APRIL 30, 1996 PCSSD TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 TH RU 04/30/96 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 ,::,'Yo .. \"      '  ~--- DE FUNDING SOURCES -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 Oeseg 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 in the PCSSD through April 30, 1996, bus driver salaries accounted for $2,641,505 or 42.8 percent of total transportation expense, and replacement parts accounted for $322,716 or 5.2 percent of the total transportation expense. The district did not have any outsourcing transportation expense. SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. 356 ~ 5,025,413 0 1,148,819 6,174,232 I I I . I I I I LEGAL FEES 357 I I I I I I I D. BUDGET INFORMATION 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. The information is as of March 31, 1996 for the LRSD and the NLRSD. The PCSSD information is as of April 30, 1996. The LRSD's legal fees totaled $222,890 for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996. The district's legal expense in FY 94/95 was $315,036. Legal fees for the NLRSD totaled $89,532 as of March 31, 1996. The district's legal expense for FY 94/95 totaled $98,087. Legal fees for the PCSSD increased 67.4 percent from $211,463 in FY 94/95 to $353,984 in FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996. 358 I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 FUNDING SOURCES ~ LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 159,293 0 63,597 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 16,342 0 73,190 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 85,619 0 268,365 TOTAL 261,254 0 405,152 LEGAL FY 95/96 THRU 03/31 /96 Funding Categories 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 222,890 89,532 353,984 666,406 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 legal expenses incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. NOTE: The expenses for the PCSSD are for FY 95196 through April 30, 1996. SOURCES: The Finance Off,ces of each of the school districts in Pu/ask/ County. 359 %OF LEGAL EXP TO TOTAL EXPAT03/31/96 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.9% I I I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL TOTAL LEGAL BY CATEGORY LRSD NLRSD PCSSD SOURCES: LEGAL EXPENSE BY CATEGORIES FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 LEGAL CATEGORIES FUNDING SOURCES LOCALJSTATE DESEG SPECIAL ED/ TEACHER/ DUE PROCESS EMPLOYEE OTHER DESEG TOTAL 15,498 81,598 62,197 63,597 222,890 0 12,284 4,058 73,190 89,532 25,853 40,057 19,709 268,365 353,984 41,351 133,939 85,964 405,152 666,406 Special Ed/due process fees accounted for 7.0 percent of the total legal expense at March 31, 1996 of$222,890. Teacher/employee fees accounted for 36.6 percent of the total legal expense. Other fees accounted for 27.9 percent of the total legal expense. Desegregation fees accounted for 28.5 percent of the total legal expense. Teacher/employee fees accounted for 13.7 percent of the total legal expense at March 31, 1996 of $89,532. Other fees accounted for 4.5 percent of the total legal expense. Desegregation fees accounted for 81.8 percent of the total legal expense. There were no fees incurred regarding Special Ed/due process litigation. Special Ed/due process fees accounted for 7.3 percent of the total legal expense at April 30, 1996 of $353,984. Teacher/employee fees accounted for 11.3 percent of the total legal expense. Other fees accounted for 5.6 percent of the total legal expense. Desegregation fees accounted for 75.8 percent of the total legal expense. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 360 I I I I I I I LRSD LEGAL FEES 361 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 LRSD LEGAL FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 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 Deseg 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 legal expenses incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Deseg This category consists of legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total legal expense in the LRSD through March 31, 1996, Special Ed/due process fees accounted for $15,498 or 7.0 percent of total legal expense, teacher/employee fees accounted for $81,598 or 36.6 percent of total legal expense, other ligitation fees accounted for $62,197 or 27.9 percent of total legal expense, and desegregation fees accounted for $63,597 or 28.5 percent of total legal expense. SOURCE: The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 362 159,293 0 63,597 I I I I 1 NLRSD LEGAL FEES I I I I . I 363 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DiSTRiCT LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 NLRSD LEGAL FY 95/96 THRU 03/31 /96 LEGEND 80000 60000 40000 20000 LOCAUSTATE 0 FED DESEG FUNDING SOURCES TnTAL Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Deseg This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separateiy from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Deseg SOURCE: This category consists of legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total legal expense in the NLRSD through March 31, 1996, teacher/employee fees accounted for $12,284 or 13.7 percent of total legal expense, desegregation fees accounted for $73,190 or 81.8 percent of total legal expense, and other fees accounted for $4,058 or 4. 5 percent of total legal expense. No Special Ed/due process fees were incurred during FY 95/96. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 364 16,342 0 73,190 89,532 I I I I I I I . I I I I I PCSSD LEGAL FEES 365 I I I I I I I I I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU APRIL 30, 1996 PCSSD LEGAL FY 95/96 THRU 04/30/96 LEGEND LOCAUSTATE FED DESEG FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL Funding Categories I Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. I I I I I I I I Federal Deseg 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 legal expenses incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Deseg This category consists of legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Of the total legal expense in the PCSSD through April 30, 1 996, Special Ed/due process fees accounted for $25,853 or 7.3 percent of total legal expense, teacher/employee fees accounted for $40,057 or 11.3 percent of total legal expense, desegregation fees accounted for $268,365 or 75.8 percent of total legal expense, and other fees accounted for $19,709 or 5.6 percent of total legal expense. SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. 366 85,619 0 268,365 353,984 I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 367 I I I I I I I D. BUDGET INFORMATION 4. Compensatory Education Program cost. Compensatory Education costs incurred and funds received from the ADE for Compensatory Education by each of the three districts in Pulaski County during FY 95/96 are presented in this section of the July 15, 1996 Monitoring Report. The information for the LRSD and the NLRSD for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996, and the PCSSD information is for FY 95/96 through April 30, 1996. The three districts have agreed that for the purposes of this report Compensatory Education costs are the costs that are funded from the special funds received from the ADE for Compensatory Education as specified by the Settlement Agreement. The LRSD incurred Compensatory Education costs totaling $3,323,890 in FY 95/96 as ofMarch 31, 1996. The ADE paid the district $4,970,262 in FY 95/96 to fund their Compensatory Education programs. As ofFY 95/96, the LRSD has received $56,601,950 or 95.7 percent of the total amount of$59,129,886 due to the district by the ADE for Compensatory Education. The NLRSD incurred expenses totaling $267,555 in FY 95/96 as of March 3 1, 1996 for Compensatory Education programs. The district was paid $389,025 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for Compensatory Education during FY 95/96. As of FY 95/96, the district has received $4,000,000 or 100.0 percent of the funds due to the district by the ADE for Compensatory Education as specified in the Settlement Agreement. The PCSSD incurred Compensatory Education expenses totaling $2,063,550 in FY 95/96 as of April 30, 1996. The district did not receive any funding from the ADE for Compensatory Education programs in FY 95/96. The last payment made by the ADE to the district for Compensatory Education was in FY 94/95 in the amount of $2,500,000, and at that time, the district had been paid a total of$16,000,000 by the ADE for Compensatory Education as required by the Settlement Agreement. 368 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEA, 60--01 60--02 60--03 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL TOTAL COMPENSATORY EDUCATION FY 95/96 AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 TOTAL DESEGREG.IITION COMPED EXPENSE EXPENSE 25,036,970 3,323,890 543,85 267,555 7,149,1 6 2,063,550 32,nB,961 5,654,995 COMPED FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 COMPEDPMTS FROM ADE IN FY 95196  ,970,262 389,025 0 5,359,287 PERCENT OF COMPED EXP TOOESEG EXP 13.3% 9.2% 28.9% 17.3% Compensatory Education Payments Made by the \u0026gt;DE. LRSD NLRSD PCSSO Total Oeseg Expense Comp Ed Expense The distric1 has received a total of $56,601,950 for Compensatory Education as o! FY 95196. The Settlement Ag,__,, stipulates that the \u0026gt;DE. I\u0026amp; to pay the LRSD  total $59,129,886 for Compensatory Education. The distric1 received  total o1 $ ,000,000 for Compensatory Education as ol FY 95196. As ol FY 95196, the ADE. has fully funded their CompM1Satory Education oi,jigations to the distric1 as stipulated In the Settlement ~- As ol FY 95196, the ADE. had fully funded their Compensatory Education obligations to the district totaling $16,000,000 as stip,,lated in the SeltlemMrt Ag.._,_,t. The total desegregation expense incurred In FY 95196 through March 31, 1996 for LRSD and NLRSD and through April 30, 1996 for PCSSD as detailed in the Program Cost ponion of the Budget Section o( the monttoring report. Compensatory Education expense incurred in FY 95196 through March 31, 1996 for LRSD and NLRSD and through April 30, 1996 for PCSSD. Comp Ed Pmts Compensatory Education payments by the ADEt.o the distric1in FY 95196.  of Comp Ed Ratio of Compensatory Education expense to desegregation expense in FY 95196 through March 31, 1996 Exp to Deseg for LRSD and NLRSD and through April 30, 1996 for PCSSD. Expense NOTE: The expenses tor the PCSSD are tor FY 95\"96 through Aprll 30, 1996. 369 I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I MAGNET SCHOOL COST 370 I I I I I I I D. BUDGE INFORMATION 5. Magnet school cost Magnet school costs incurred and funds received from the ADE for magnet school operational costs by the LRSD during FY 95/96 are presented in this section of the July 15, 1996 Monitoring Report. The information presented is actual costs incurred for FY 95/96 through March 31, 1996 and the estimate of total costs for the fiscal year. As of March 31, 1996, the district has incurred magnet operational costs totaling $8,992,448 and has received $5,375,278 or 72.9 percent of the total amount due to the district from the ADE for magnet operational costs. 371 I I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES TOTALS LEA# SCHOOL 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 6001021 CARVER ELEM 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 6001043 WILLILAMS ELEM TOTAL MAGNET EXPENSE Funding Categories LOCAL\u0026amp; STATE FEDERAL DESEG 0 0 2,063,752 0 0 2,326,882 0 0 1,425,443 0 0 1,257,662 0 0 nS,244 0 0 1,143,465 0 0 8,992,448 MAGNET EXPENSE FY 95/96 THRU 03/31/96 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 MN PY BK CV GBwL TOTAL AS OF 3131/96 2,063,752 2,326,882 1,425,443 1,257,662 nS,244 1,143,465 8,992,448 Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrastric1ed federal sources. F\u0026amp;deral This category ir\u0026gt;cludes funding from restricted fedefal 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 expenses incurred re!atille 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 relatiw to magnet p,ograms funded from desegregation sources. 372 TOTAL FOR FY 95196 3,385,630 3,817,300 2,338,470 2,063,222 1,271,805 1,875,879 14,752,306 STUDENT DISCIPLINE -------------- --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. STUDENT DISCIPLINE: REFERRALS The Allen Letter requires the collection of the following student discipline data: 1. Number of discipline referrals by school and teacher reported by race, gender, grade, subject and teachers' years of experience. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. This information follows: The following Cycle V schools reported no discipline referrals for quarters 1-3 of the 1995-96 school year\nthus, no graphs appear for these school sites and grade levels. Little Rock School District  Carver Magnet Elementary  Gibbs Magnet Elementary\nGrade 2  Hall High Schools  Mabelvale Elementary\nGrade 6  MeadowcliffElementary\nGrade 1 Pulaski County Special School District  Baker Elementary  Cato Elementary\nGrade 1  Landmark Elementary\nGrades 1, 2, 5 and 6 The following graphs indicate the number of discipline referrals by school and teacher, reported by race, gender, grade, subject and teachers' years of experience for the Cycle V schools. Pulaski Heights Junior High School is not included. 374 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 7 6 / 5 / 4 / 3 2 / 1 NO. OF REFERRALS /-----6------------------------------------------------- -------~----------------------------------- 0 -----,---------r--------,-------( BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENC Dudeck (4) Rogers (18) 1 5 SUBJECT: Grade 1 0 1 RACE AND GENDER 0 Dudeck (4) lllilRogers (18) CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / --- i---------------------------------------------- 1 BM BF WM WF Betton (3) 1 0 0 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 1.1 x -~ . ' TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE I Betton (3) j \\0 t--- ~ CLOVERDALEEL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / , ----------------------------- 2 -------------------- / / 2 / / / / 1 / 0 1'-----,---------,--------,,------( TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE / vanecko (22) / BM BF WM WF Vanecko (22) 0 0 2 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 t-- t-- ('f') - - - - -------- - - - - - CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY (]uarters NO. OF REFERRALS ----2---------------------------------------------- 2 / 1 / BM BF WM WF 0 -------~--~-------( TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Tripcony (17) 2 0 0 0 lTripcony (17) I RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 2 / 1 / 0 Ellis (31) CLOVERDALEEL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ----2-------------------------------------------------- BM 2 ------------------------------------i------- BF WM 0 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE I Ellis (31) / SUBJECT: Grade 5 ---------- CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ----1------------1--------------------------------- 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Cokeley (20) 1 1 0 0 J 1111cokeley(2 0) I RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 6 - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY Ceuarters NO. OF REFERRALS 5 / , ---4------------------------------------------- 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Rhodes, M. (5) 4 0 0 0 j llllllRhodes, M. (5) / RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY 5 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 Douglas, P. (13) / / NO. OF REFERRALS ----------------4-------------------------------- BM BF WM 3 4 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Joouglas, P. (13) SUBJECT: Grade 2 - - - - - - - ....: - - - GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 Frahm, T. (8) Bohra, B. (7) / / SUBJECT: Cluarters NO. OF REFERRALS -----------------J---------------------------------- ------2--------------------- BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 2 1 1 0 Frahm, T. (8) 2 1 111B1o hra, B. (7) RACE AND GENDER Grade 3 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY [= NO. OF REFERRALS 50 40 / 37 30 / 20 / 10 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Miller, P. (4) 13 6 0 0 IIDllMiller, P. (4) Bibbs, J. (9) 24 12 Bibbs, J. (9) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ---~-----------------------~------------------- 1 / 0 ------,-------,------,---- TE ACHE R'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Stubblefield, E. (7) 1 0 1 0 I stubblefield, E. (7) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 5 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 25 21 20, 15 10 5 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Peterson, T. (9) 1 2 ID Peterson, T. (9) Jarboe, J. (2) 20 5 6 5 lil\u0026amp;Jarboe, J. (2) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 6 GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / / ----------------------------1------------------- / 1 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Newsome (19) 0 0 1 0 j111Newsome (19)j RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 t--, 00 ~ GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / --- 2----------------------------------------------- 2 / -------~---------------------------------- 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Weaver (2) 2 0 ll'ililWeaver (2) Kimball (18) 1 0 Kimball (18) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 00 00 ~ GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY (:\u0026gt;.uartc NO. OF REFERRALS / -----------------------------~-------------------- 1 / / / 0 1'----------.----------,--------.----------r' BM BF WM WF Robinson (22) 0 0 1 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !Robinson (22) I GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY [llS(::IPI iNE REFERRALS: Quarters 1-3 (95-96) 6 5 / 4 3 / 2 / 1 / NO. OF REFERRALS / ----5----------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------1---------------------- 0 ---~--------,-------,------ BM BF WM WF TE ACHE R'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Luzzi (15) Dunn (1) 3 2 SUBJECT: Grade 5 0 1 0 RACE AND GENDER -------------- - !Illuzzi (15) Dunn (1) - - -- - 2 / 1 / 0 Guinn (4) GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ----2-------------------------------------------------- BM BF WM 2 0 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !Guinn (4) I SUBJECT: Grade 6 --------- M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ----1------------------------------------------------- 1 / o---~-----,-------,.---~ TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE I Norwood (2) I BM BF WM WF Norwood (2) 1 0 0 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ___-- 3_ _________________3_ ___________ __________ ____ 3 2 / 1 Smith (21) Fletcher (14) Gunnell (3) BM 1 2 BF WM 0 3 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 - - - - ------ WF 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Smith (21) Fletcher (14) Gunnell (3) - - - - M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 25 20, 15 , 10, 5 Rutherford (3) Martin (11) Cooper (3) 21 BM 2 10 9 SUBJECT: Grade 3 BF WM 1 1 1 1 RACE AND GENDER WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 1 ~Rutherford (3) Martin (11) Cooper (3) ... - - M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY C.)uarters NO. OF REFERRALS 5 ---4---------------------------------------------- 4 / -------3--------------------------------- 3 2 / -------1-------------------- 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Van Patter (3) 4 2 llil!Van Patter (3) Jenkins (11) 1 1 0 Jenkins (11) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY 25 20 / 15, 10 / 5 / 0 Capps (16) Davis (1) Goodman (3) NO. OF REFERRALS ------------19----------------------------- BM BF 8 5 9 5 1 WM 2 13 4 WF 0 RACE AND GENDER OM OF 0 2 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Capps (16) Davis (1) Goodman (3) SUBJECT: Grade 5 - -------------- M. L. KING MAGNET ELEMENTARY 5 4 3 / 2 / 1 Harris (3) NO. OF REFERRALS ---4------------------------------------------ ------2------------------------------- BM BF WM WF 4 2 0 0 RACE AND GENDER TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !Harris (3) I SUBJECT: Grade 6 - --- ...., - ---------- MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / ----------------------------------------------2-------- 2' / -------------------------------- 1------ 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Carr (1) 0 1 Lee (7) 0 1 1 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 IIIR - -. - ----- --..., ~ - - MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 7 ----6------------------------------------------------------ / / 6' 5 4  _______________________ 3 _______________________ _ 3  2 1 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Witt (16) 1 2  Witt (16) Sims (17) 2 1 Sims (17) Moore (19) 3 0 0 Moore (19) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / __-_3 ------------------------------------------------- --------2------------------------------------ 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Raney (14) 2 0 0 Raney (14) Dees (12) 1 2 Dees (12) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 ... 0 R cker (7) Ca well (7) Geach (25) MABELVALEELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ---2---------------------------------------------- -------------------1-------------------- BM BF WM WF 1 0 1 0 1 RACE AND GENDER TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE  Rucker (7) lillCaldwell (7) Coach (25) SUBJECT: Grade 4 - --_,\n- - - - ---- --- - MABELVALE ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS _______________3_._ _____ ____________________________ ______ 3' 2' _____1__ ____ _____________ _______ 1 , 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Beard (0) 1 0  Beard (0) Pinkerton (5) 1 Pinkerton (5) Durham (15) 1 2 1 Durham (15) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 5 ~----------------..-.- ---....- - MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS , ---3-------------------------------------------- 3 / -------------------2------------------- 2 / 1 / 0 BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Wetzel, M. (1 O) 2 0 ~Wetzel, M. (10) Burgess, L. (24) 2 llill!Burgess, L. (24) Bishop, I. (18) 1 0 Bishop, I. (18) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS ---~------------------------------------------- 1 / BM BF WM WF Craig, D. (18) 1 0 0 0 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !Craig, D. (18) I MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY 6 4 / 2 / 1 Robinson, S. (5) Hence, V. (25) Childs, S. (10) / / NO. OF REFERRALS / --5----------------------------------- --------------3--------------- BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 2 1  Robinson, S. (5) 1 2 1 0 Hence, V. (25) 2 1 Childs, S. (10) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 4 --------- MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 Burgess, S. (1) Cox, S. (9) SUBJECT: NO. OF REFERRALS ~r,n ~~ g,.= ! L- ---3-----------3-------------------------------- BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 1 1 0 IIIIIIBurgess, S. (1) 2 2 0 Cox, S. (9) RACE AND GENDER Grade 5 MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY 3 / 2 / 1 / / / Quarters NO. OF REFERRALS / ------------------------------3-------------------- 0 -----,-------,-------,------(' BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Lewis, L. (16) 2 0 3 0 !Lewis, L. (16) I RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 6 00 0 -.::t' ------~ AMBOY ELEMENTARY 12 2 ,' Warren, J. (25) Veasley, J. (8) Thornton, C. (18) Jeffrey, R. (5) Hensley, S. (7) Amaden, C. (1) NO. OF REFERRALS --tO---------------------------------- -----2 ----------------------- 1 BM BF WM WF 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 4 1 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Amaden, C. (1) li!l!Hensley, S. (7) ~Jeffrey, R. (5) lllllThornton, C. (18) Veasley, J. (8)  Warren, J. (25) AMBOY ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 5 / --4---------------------------------- -----2------------------------- 2 / 1 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Summons, T. (1) 1 1 0 0 Jeffrey, R. (5) Mayherhoff, C. (13) 1 0 0 0 ll!lllawhon, J. (21) Lawhon, J. (21) 1 1 0 0 GJMayherhoff, C. (13) Jeffrey, R. (5) 1 0 0 0 liiiSummons, T. (1) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 - - - - - AMBOY ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 7 --6--------------------------------------- 6 5 4 3 -----2---------------------------- 2 1 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Summons, T. (1) 2 0 Jeffrey, R. (5) Smith, K. (1) 3 2 1 lffl!ISmith, K. (1) Jeffrey, R. (5) 1 B'f11SummonsT, . (1) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 AMBOY ELEMENTARY (Juarters NO. OF REFERRALS 16 / __1 4 ____________________________ _______ 14 ,  -------------------------------- 12 .  -1_Q --------------- --------------- 10 ,  8 / 6 .  4 / 2 / 0 Veasley, J. (8) Summons, T. ( 1) Sullivan, L. (2) Reeves, M. (6) Powell, H. (21) Hooper, G. (2) Hickman, D. (4) BM 2 1 1 1 5 Allen, C. (20) 4 SUBJECT: Grade 4 BF 1 1 1 WM 5 2 3 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE l!!IAllen, C. (20) l!!ii!Hickman, D. (4) ~Hooper, G. (2) lli!!Powell, H. (21)  Reeves, M. (6)  Sullivan, L. (2) summons, T. (1) IIIVeasley, J. (8) AMBOY ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 14 / __________________j2_ ___________ _________ / 12 -' -------------------- / / 10   / -------------------- 8 / /~=7=\"'\u0026lt;1 6 / 4 / 2 / / 0 l'-----------r-----,-----,------, BM Summons, T (1) Milsap, C. (1) 1 Manning, P. (1) 1 Kelso, B. (16) Jeffrey, R. (5) 1 Hickman, D. (4) 2 Gardner, N. (10) 2 SUBJECT: Grade 5 BF 1 2 1 1 2 WM 1 2 4 5 RACE AND GENDER WF 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Gardner, N. (10) Hickman, D. (4)  Jeffrey, R. (5) Kelso, 8. (16)  Manning, P. (1)  Milsap, C. (1) Summons, T. (1) - - 5 4 / 3 2 1 Scott, M. (8) Reeves, M. (6) Morow, N. (31) Kelso, B. (16) Jeffrey, R. (5) Hickman, D. (4) Hibbard, J. (34) AMBOY ELEMENTARY Quarters 1-3 t 95-96) \\_ NO. OF REFERRALS / -- 4 -------- 4 -------------------------- _____j _________________ BM BF WM WF 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 RACE AND GENDER TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE l!IHibbard, J. (34) ll!l!llHickman, D. (4)  Jeffrey, R. (5) lilKelso, B. (16)  Morow, N. (31)  Reeves, M. (6) Scott, M. (8) SUBJECT: Grade 6 - - CENTRAELL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 16 14 ,  12 ,  10 , 8 / 2 / / / AMi\u0026amp;\u0026amp;i#h#MiiAAP\u0026amp; %iiW%\u0026amp;i?\u0026amp;\u0026amp;f-tMW6 ifiiiiki\u0026amp;ii%MfM-I 0 I'--------.----,--------.---- Southard, C. (6) Hassell, L. (5) Bradford, P. (20) BM 2 12 1 SUBJECT: Grade 1 BF 0 0 0 WM 0 0 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 0 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Bradford, P. (20) liilllHassell, L. (5)  Southard, C. (6) - CENTRAELL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 7 6 / 5 / 4 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Perreault, L. (6) 1 0 0 0 Atherton, R. (5) Harper, K. (4) Atherton, R. (5) 4 0 2 0 lllilHarper, K. (4) 1 1 0 0  Perreault, L. (6) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 2 CENTRAELL EMENTARY H\\IE F\u0026lt;E E'l~RALS: NO. OF REFERRALS 10 9 8 / --------------0--------------- 4 / / 2 ,' BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Young, M. (22) 6 2 4 0 Roders, A. (23) 0 0 1 0 Allen, E. (16) Pendergraft, A. (0) 0 0 1 0 lilllColeman, R. (15) Diffey, D (20) 1 0 0 0  Diffey, D (20) Pendergraft, A (0) Coleman, R. (15) 1 0 0 0  Roders, A (23) Allen, E. (16) 1 0 0 0  Young, M. (22) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: Grade 3 - - CENTRAELL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS BM Wolfe, S. (4) Setzler, N. (18) Pendergraft, A. (0) Goldsby, 0. (31) Custer, R. (5) SUBJECT: Grade 4 1 2 5 1 BF WM 1 1 RACE AND GENDER WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 0 ,.. .,... - Custer, R. (5) llllillGoldsby, 0. (31)  Pendergraft, A. (0) lllilSetzler, N. (18) Wolfe, S. (4) - --- - 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Moody, S. (5) Lipsmeyer, L. (25) Custer, R. (5) Coleman, R. (15) CENTRAELL EMENTARY / NO. OF REFERRALS BM BF 2 2 2 WM 2 1 1 WF RACE AND GENDER OM 1 Quarters \"1= 3 OF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BMoody, S. (5) l:iS Lipsmeyer, L. (25) IIIIICuster, R. (5) Coleman, R. (15) SUBJECT: GRADE 5 CENTRAELL EMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS Young, M. (22) Whitten, W. (21) Perreault, L. (6) Moody, S. (5) Mathews, B. (25) Lipsmeyer, L. (25) Hickman, C. (1) Dunn, S. (28) Coleman, R. (15) Acklin, C. (19) BM 1 1 1 1 3 6 SUBJECT: GRADE 6 BF WM WF OM 0 1 5 1 1 2 6 1 1 2 1 RACE AND GENDER OF 0 Acklin, C. (19)  Coleman, R. (15) Dunn, S. (28) Hickman, C. (1) C:Jlipsmeyer, L. (25)  Mathews, B. (25) Moody, S. (5) IIIIPerreault, L. (6) Whitten, W. (21) Young, M. (22) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 3 / 2 / 1 / Wilson, L. (26) Saltmarsh, J. ( 19) Powers, J. (1) / LS: Cl NO. OF REFERRALS , --3------------------------------------ BM 1 1 1 -------------------------2------ BF WM 1 1 GRADE AND RACE WF 1 1 SUBJECT: GRADE 1 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Powers, J. (1) BSaltmarsh, J. (19) Wilson, L. (26) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 10 8 6 4 2 / 0 Wilson, L. (26) Thomas, L. (0) Powers, J. (1) Hargrave, L. (1) Fuselier, A (18) NO. OF REFERRALS ------2-----------2------------------ BM 3 2 2 1 1 BF 1 1 WM 2 GRADE AND RACE WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Wilson, L. (26) !illlThomas, L. (0)  Powers, J. (1) ml Hargrave, L. (1) Fuselier, A (18) SUBJECT: GRADE 2 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 8 7 ,/ 6 / 5 ,/ 4 ,/ 3 / 2 ,/ 1 ,/ NO. OF REFERRALS __ ]_ __________________________________ _ / ----2-------------------------- 0 ---~--~-~--- BM BF WM WF Warrior, W. (0) 1 0 0 Sheppard, K. (5) 3 Pace, S. (1) 1 Hargrave, L. (1) 1 Cummings, L. (3) 1 Bryant, R. (12) 2 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: GRADE 3 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Bryant, R. (12) ll!Cummings, L. (3) ~Hargrave, L. (1) II Pace, S. (1)  Sheppard, K. (5) Warrior, W. (0) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 12 10 / 8 / 6 / 4 / 2 / 0 Wilson, L. (26) Sheppard, K. (5) Powers, J. (1) Pace, S. (6) Hargrave, L. (1) Fulmer, L. (4) NO. OF REFERRALS 11 BM 2 1 1 1 1 5 -----8----------------------------- BF 2 1 1 1 3 1 WM 1 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 SUBJECT: GRADE 4 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Wilson, L. (26)  Sheppard, K. (5) Iii Powers, J. ( 1)  Pace, S. (6) ll!'!!lllHargraveL, . (1) l!!IIFulmer, L. (4) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS / --12---------------------------------- 12 8 / 4 3 0 BM BF WM WF Warrior, L. (0) 1 0 Slattery, L. (12) 1 Powers, J. (1) 2 Pace, S. (6) 2 Harris, M. (3) 1 Hargrave, L. (1) 2 1 Gaines, H. (1) 1 Fulmer, L. (4) 1 Anderson, S. (24) 2 1 SUBJECT: GRADE 5 RACE AND GENDER TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Anderson, S. (24) liil!Fulmer, L. (4) B:?i!GainesH, . (1) l!li!Hargrave, L. (1)  Harris, M. (3)  Pace, S. (6) Powers, J. (1) lil!Slattery, L. (12) Warrior, L. (0) CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 25 20 / 15 10 5 / NO. OF REFERRALS t-,,,,-,-~=\"\"\" 0------------ Wilson, L. (26) Warrior, W. (0) Ware, E. (1) Slattery, L. ( 12) Powers, J. (1) BM 2 1 1 1 3 Hargrave, L. (1) 6 Gaines, H. (1) 7 Burnett, J. (20) 1 SUBJECT: GRADE 6 BF 1 1 2 WM 0 RACE AND GENDER WF 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Wilson, L. (26) warrior, W. (0) Ware, E. (1)  Slattery, L. (12) liiilPowers, J. (1)  Hargrave, L. (1) IIIIIGaines, H. (1) Burnett, J. (20) LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS // --- i ------------------------1-------------------- 1 / BM BF WM WF 0 ------,----------r-----,-------( TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Lowe, K. (14) 1 0 1 0 !Lowe, K. (14) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: GRADE 1 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY il i NO. OF REFERRALS 3 / 2 / 1 / Scott, S. (O) Lowe, K. (14) Cothern, L. (3) BM 1 1 1 SUBJECT: GRADE 2 BF WM 3 2 RACE AND GENDER uarters 1-3 (95-96) WF 0 ' F TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE @Scott, S. (0) Lowe, K. (14) IIICothern, L. (3) LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 1.2 1 / 0.8 , 0.6 , 0.4 , 0.2 , Lowe, K. (14) Huddleston, K. (1) , NO. OF REFERRALS , --1-------------------1--------------BM BF WM WF 1 0 0 1 RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: GRADE 3 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Huddleston, K. (1) l!Rllowe, K. (14) LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 5 / ---4--------------------------------------------- 4 / 3 / -------2-------------------------------- 2 / 1 / 0 TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BM BF WM WF Lowe, K. (14) 2 2 0 0 li!lllllowe, K. (14) Hickman, C. (2) 2 Hickman, C. (2) RACE AND GENDER SUBJECT: GRADE 4 l~\"ii\"',Z1 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY NO. OF REFERRALS 7 -------------0--------------------------- 6 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 / / / / / . ----------- -----~----------------- 0 I'------,-----,-----,----- BM BF WM WF TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Lowe, K. (14) Kerth, K. (2) Hickman, C. (2) Cothern, L. (3) Briggs, A. (3) Barrett-Smith, G. (3) SUBJECT: GRADE 5\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\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_501","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-07-12"],"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 improvement programs","School integration","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations''"],"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/501"],"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\n12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1996-96) Summary of Recommendations 1 Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96), July 12,1996 Summary of Recommendations DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO 1 PG 6 _________________________________RliCOMMENDATIOM______________________ The incentive program Is successfully dosogrogatlng each Incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg^)____________________________________________________ The incentive program Is successfully dosogrogatlng oaclt Incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Identify the factors that are working to mako Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them ___^rthe other Incentive schools. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 6)___ 28 28 Shidonts In grades 3-6 have access to either inohllo or pormnnont scloncn lat)s with ndnqtinlo materials Hint allow chikJien to oxocuto long-tonn oxpurlmunts end stuily sclonco In Itio fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pQ. 153\nJuly 10, 1992 Court Order\nref. Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 15) Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should bo able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff dovolopinont sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom. (ODM 1992-M Incentive Schools Monitoring Report,jjg. 49)____________________________________________ The curriculum at each school Incorporntos foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\"method of Instruction. Emphasis Is on l)nslc vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates (oroign language labs with appiopriato equipment and matoiials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) PERSON Rather Principals Gremllllon Gremllllon Pilnclpols Glasgow Gremllllon DONE 8/96 2 3 4 7 Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the Incentive schools In establishing a foreign language program as an Integral part of the overall school program. (ODM 1992- 93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. SI) RESPONSEtxQaniiParker gave court* WWpy th* foralgn lnouafiTproBram*n\u0026lt;iT^ probloim LR8D'facttcl. LR8D  coiitlnuo9 toTac9 Uio\nonm8 problems that wore outlined In Parkers Mtlmonxtolhicoiirtjhl^^ - Neodn t'.o bo done Denoton roconunendation apponrod in prior ODM Monitoring Roport I Tn Proni'onn * Coinpl otfd12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 2 DATE 7/12/96 DOC MR NO 5 PG 28 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total physical response\" mothod of instruction. Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) PERSON Gremilllon Parker DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 6 1 8 28 28 28 Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program. Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 51) ODM 1992-93 Incentive RESPONSE: Gene Parker gave court testimony on the foreign tanguag* program arid the problems LRSD faced. LRSD continue# to face the aame problems that were outlined In Gene Parkers teatimoriytothe Courts^ The curriculum at each scliool Incorporates foreign language Instruction using the foreign language lab and the total ptiyslcal response\" method of instruction. Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Eacli building oporalos loroign language labs with appropriate equipment and malorials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 61) RESPONSE:'Goho Parker gavo' court 8-11-9(5, on the rdrolgF problems LRSD faced. LRBD rcontInuos to face the aame problems that were outlined In Gene Parker's testimony to thioi'cdurts. tho~curtlculum al each sciiool incorporates foreign language Instruction using the forolgn language lab and ttio total ptiyslcal response\" method of Instruction malorials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156) Emphasis Is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural Eucti building oporalos loioign langungo labs with appropilalo equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 61) RESPONSEi Oorie Parkor gave court testimony 8\u0026gt;1198, oh the foreign longuap^p^^ problome LRSO faced. LRSD conttinies to face the samo problems that were outlined In Gene Parkers testimony to the courta.___________________________________________ Cumulnllvo records document both host and guest schools paillclpnllon In Snturdny programs. (ODM 1992 *!! Repoit, pg. 25) Satuidny programs will bo dovolopod Io onhanco loaming. Those programs will Include but shall not bo limited - Noodti t o be done Dnot recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report ! In Progronu  f.'oinplotod Gremilllon Parker Gromllllon Parker Gromllllon Principals +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendalions 3 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 71^2196 DOC MR MR MR MR NO 9 10 11 12 PG 29 29 29 40 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION_________________________________ to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, paronl/child mako-and-tako sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Standardize the reporting process for Saturday school. Data should be cumulative and reflect race, gender, and grade of participating students. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 60) Cumulative records documont both host and guest scliool's participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will bo developed to enhance loaming. Those programs will include but stiall not be limited to field trips, onrlchmont actlvitios, tutoring, paronl/child mako-and-tako sessions, book fairs, and physical education actlvitios. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Perform annual evaluations of the Saturday programs, using the information to design programs that ai ppeal to the students and thek parents. (PPM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 60)___ Cuniulatlvo records documont bolti liosl and giiosl school's paiticipniion In Saliirday proyrams. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, py. 25) Saturday programs will bo dovolopod to enhance lourniny. Those proyrams will Include but shall not bo llinitod to Hold trips, onrlchmont actlvltlos, tutoring, paront/ctilld mako-and-tako sessions, book lairs, and physical education nctlvIHos. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) Perform regular evaluations of the Saturday program, both during and at the end of the school year, asking staff, parents, and students for feedback. Use the garnered Information to design activities and events that coincide with the Interests of all participants. (ODM 1994-96 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 37 I W V * I ------------------- Cuimiinllvo racords docunioiiTijoHi liosl and ynost scliool's paillcipatlon In Salnrday proyrams. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, py. 25) Satuiday programs will bo dovolopod to enhanco loaininy. Tlioso proyrams will Include but stuill not bo limited to Hold tiips, enrichment aGtIvlllos, tutoriny, pnronl/clilld mako-and-tako sessions, book lairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, py. 179) Promote collaboration among the Incentive schools and between the Incentive schools and the district's area and magnet schools to plan Joint field trips and other collnborntlve activities during the regular academic wook. Tho district can thus do a bettor job of fulfilling its obligation to provide Incentive school studonts^tjHiioro opportunities lor desogrogatod louriiliig oxporloncos. fIto purposo~of the InconllvoTchool proyram Is io piomolo and onsiiio acadoinlc oxcollonco In scitools thnt have boon dilllcull to dosoyroyato. (LRSD plan, py. 149) Willi proper resources and oxpoctatloiis, Itio Incentive sctiool program will servo ns a model of oxcollonco lor the county, stalo, and the nation. (LRSD plan, (ly. 149) Base staff development activities on areas of domoiistratod need. Some tonchors many need more - Noodfi Io 1)0 (lone *DenotB rcomnu\u0026gt;ndtion nppenrod in prior ODM Monitoring Report I Ln Iroyi'onn  tronipl Rt.o(i PERSON Gremillion Principals Gremillion Principals Asst. Siipls. Principals Gremillion Pilnclpnls DONE + +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1996-96) Summary of Recommendations 4 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR *Danotea NO 13 14 15 PG 40 48 54 _______________RECOMMENDATION training than others in areas such as classroom management and organization and effective discipline. It is incumbent upon the building administrator and the individual teachers to identify areas of need and access the resources necessary to address them. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, ___________________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of the incentive scliool program Is to promote and ensure academic oxcollonco in sctiools that have been difficult to desegregate. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) With proper resources and expectations, the Incontivo school program will servo as a model of excollcnce for the county, state, and the nation. (LRSD plan, pg. 149) Better define the role of phonics Instruction in the Incentive schools and convene a meeting of those administrators in charge of the incentive schools and the reading supervisor and his staff to communicate that role to all teachers so that phonics instruction will conform to the board-adopted LRSD curriculutii\n_________________________________________________________________________ The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career cholco.s using written information, guest speakers, films, and Interest Invonlorlos. (LRSD Plan, PG. 172, 180) Study skills training onhancos skills In test-taking, lisloning, and studying. Test-taking skills aro being taugtit and students practice lest taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nJuly 10, 1992 Couit Older ref. Juno 5, 1992 ODM Ropoil, pg. 32) Students receive Individual and group counseling and aro taught conflict resolution. Tho school uses poor facilitators. (LRSD Plan. Pp. 176, 184) Ttio stall has dovolopod wrilton building giildanco plan.s Io address personal growlli, social dovolopmont, caroor awnronoss, and educational dovolopmont. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ret: June 5, 1092 ODM Ropoil, pg. 27) Roquiro counselors to have bullding-lovol guidance plans that rolloct activities and projects for the current school year. I PERSON Gromllllon Principals Parker Elston DONE Clear guidance plans help teachers and administrators achieve school improvement goals, reflect an assessment of the schools^iildance noeds^and shov^how the counselor plans to address those needs. bisaggrogato data rblutod to studuni dlsclpliao anil rovlow stud'unt data to addioss Issuos of racial disparity. (Intordis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closoly monitor Iho discipllno program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summativo, information. The district would bo wise to analyze Iho factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipllno problems and loss dispailly In discipline botwoon black and white students. Identifying and omulating those factors and closoly scrutinizing progress should result In interventions Hint roduco ltio number of students suspended or oxpollod, as woll as ttio disproportionate number of black students roforrod lor disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that aro staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184)________________________________________________________________________________ - Notulii I o bo doiio rocommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Ropoit I In IrcxjrtiiKi * Comp]oLud Gromllllon Principals Watson12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 5 DATE DOC I NO I PG RECOMMENDATION Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Hold periodic \"summits\" to develop a forum for an exchange of ideas and successful techniques for handling disciplinary problems. Incentive schools have similar characteristics and staff members who, along with parents and students, are valuable resources for ideas to combat problems. (ODM 1993-94 PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/98 Donoteo MR MR 16 17 54 54 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 29)__ Disnggrogalo data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Intordis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor tho disclpllno program lo mako modifications that are indicatod by formative, os well ns summntivo, Information. Tho district would bo wise lo analyze tho factors Hint contribulo to sonio schools having fowor overall discipline problonis and loss dispailly In discipline between black and while students. Identifying and emulating those factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result In interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as tho disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Ropoit, pg. 23) Attondanco and behavior guldollnos Includo limo-out rooms that are stalled with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Ropoil, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly Indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consoquoncos for Infractions. Policy onforcomont Is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Ropoit, pg. 32) Explore the feasibility of developing permanent alternative educational sites designed specifically for chronically disruptive students. Tho presence of chronically misbehaving and disruptive students in tho classroom hindors teaching and learning (or tho rost. (ODM 1993-94 Incontlvo Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 29) RESPONSE: ThpBssItttant Superlntentje^tover lncwW|iie\nft|o|8, IRSP Hearing oriicer, along with the Incentive SchooWlncIpals are currently^|seuaalria4bSi%nd BOnd exploring alternative educational sites ..... \"Disaggrogato data rolalod iirstu'd'oiit disclpllno and rovlow stuaoni gain lo nouioss Issiios of racial disparity - Noi'dii In be done roconintondation appoarad in prior ODM Monitoring Roport I Tn Progrenn * (\\)nipl etOit Gromillion Watson Gromillion12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 6 DATE /12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR I NO I PG 18 19 20 RECOMMENDATION (Interdis. Plan. pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor tho discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summativo, information. The district would be wise to analyze the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. Identifying and emulating these factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as ttie disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992, Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 19923 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for tho work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Provide ongoing training in behavior management for school district employees who are responsible for supervising children for any period of time. The Assistant Superintendent over Incentive Schools^ LRSD Hearing Officer, Staff Oevttlopinont Supervisor, along with Incentive School Principals and teachers will be planning RESPONSE: 60 60 60 PERSON Watson DONE inservices for LRSb employeea responsiblefor cupervjslrifl children on bebavlof mahagement._________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Franklin - Investigate the cause of the failing paint and take corrective action.________________________ Tho district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho Incontivo scliools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incontivo schools would benefit aosthollcally from tho addition of attrnctivo landscaping. Once plantings are Installed, train tho custodial sluff In proper plant care Io provenl loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or undor-waloring. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Fraiikihi - Correct drainage problom^n all affected levels of tlio_buildjng.__________________________ The district wifi provide clean and safe facliitlos and rnako all repairs fundamental to malnialn tho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incentive schools would bonofit aosthoticnily from tho addition of allractlve landscaping. Once - Needii t.o be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I 111 Progreuf.) * Completed Eaton Eaton Eaton 8/96 8/96 12/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 7 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR MR NO PG RECOMMENDATION plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) I PERSON DONE 21 22 23 24 25 60 60 60 60 60 Garland - Attend to the peeling paint on the exterior doors._______________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tire incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once Garland Principal plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Garland - Improve cleanliness in the cafeteria and bathrooms._____________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train tho custodial staff in proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Garland - Correct the problems with floor tiles in the large downstairs bathrooms.__________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are Installed, train tho custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Mitchell - Replace the worn lunchroom tables.__________________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incontivo schools would bonofit nosthotlcally from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings aro Installed, train Iho custodial staff In proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Mitchell - Remove or replace the malfunctioning urinal in the bathroom located on the second floor landing. The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon Incontivo schools would bonofit aosthollcally from tho addition of atlrnctlvo landscaping. Once plantings aro Installod, train the custodial staff In proper plant caro to prevent loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) _________________________________________ - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreee * Completed Eaton Moran Eaton Eaton 8/96 8/96 ' 8/96 8/9612/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 8 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO I PG 26 27 28 29 60 60 60 60 RECOMMENDATION Mitchell - Replace or reattach the loose tiles in the hallways._______________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan. pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell -Determine the cause of the leaks found throughout the building and correct the problems. RESPONSE\nLRSD is committed to repairing leaks In the roof, but duo to the ago and condition of the building, leaks ara likely to be a reoccurring problerri untIt funds are available to replace the roof.  - The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Repair and repaint damaged ceilings._______________________________________________ The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Assess water damage to carpets and replace as needed. RESPONSE: Malnfenance of the carpets will be acceseed by school personnel while roof repair Is in The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff In proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Repair any broken partitions and fittings in the bathrooms. PERSON Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton DONE 11/96 12/98 - Needa to be done Denotes reconunondation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreoo * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 9 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR MR NO I PG 30 31 32 33 34 60 60 60 RECOMMENDATION The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools v/ould benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. E Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Evaluate the school's plumbing needs and complete work needed to make all bathrooms fully functional. Tho district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain tho incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven Incontivo schools would bonofit aosthotically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Onco plantings aro installed, train tho custodial staff In propor plant care Io provont loss of plantings Io Improper pruning or undor-watoilng. (ODM 1092 Report, pg. 43) Rightsell - Eliminate tho Insect Infestation._____________________________________________________ The district will provWo clean and safe facliitios and make all repairs fundamontai to maintain Iho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incontivo schools would bonofit aoslhofically from Iho addition of atlracllvo landscaping. Onco plantings aro installod, train tho custodial staff In proper plant care to provont loss of plantings to Improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Rockefeller - Repair the small area of damaged tile In the boys bathroom before the problem escalates. 60 Tho district will provide clean and sate lacilltlos and make all repairs fundamental to maintain Iho Incontivo schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All sovon incontivo schools would bonofit aosthotically from tho addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings aro Installod, train tho custodial staff In proper plant caro to provont los,s of plantings to Improper pruning or undor-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Before releasing as RFP, Rockefeller -Replace carpeting throughout all areas of the building, representatives from the plant services and tho purchasing departments should consult with tho principal and staff regarding details of carpet replacement, such as tho replacement schedule, the carpet color, and the areas to bo carpeted, including the carpot-covered furnishings. 78 RESPONSEnQurOTiaj^^ A Parent Center In each school provides resources and rnatorials, locommondod by a parent and staff commlltoo, that can bo lonnod to parents. A parent has boon triilnod Io opornto Iho contor, which Is to bo tho - Needo Co be done Denoteo recommondatlon appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I In Proyreoo  Completed PERSON Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton DONE 11/96 8/96 8/96 +12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendalions 10 DATE DOC I NO I PG ______________________RECOMMENDATION source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Keep more accurate and complete records of Parent Center use by consistently using sign-in sheets. PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 35 36 37 78 79 79 (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 77) A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that Is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. Tho school documents the degree to which parents use Gremillion Principals the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Develop strategies and arrange events to encourage greater use of the Parent Center. For example, design boxes or bags containing materials on a certain topic that could be checked out. Highlight Parent Center Resources in the school newsletter, bulletin boards, and PTA meetings to heighten awareness and increase interest in the centers. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 77)________________________________________________________________________________:------- The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and cariying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of paiticipanls by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of tho potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Team with community organizations (such as churches and civic clubs) and other programs (such as HIPPY and New Futures) to explore ways to cooperate in offering parent training. Such collaboration can help coordinate and strengthen resources to focus on targeted audiences. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 79)____________________________________________-------------------- The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, lime management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with Iho number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent mootings and actlvitios Is maintained, Including slgn-ln sheets that reflect Gremillion Principals Gremillion Principals  Ncodu to be done *Danote8 recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report I- Tn Proyveuo * Completed12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 11 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR NO I PG I' 38 39 40 79 79 79 RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Offer sessions on timely and intriguing topics at times, dates, locations, and circumstances that haven't been tried before as a means to increase participation. (ODM 1994-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 79) _______________________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent mootings and actlvitlos Is maintalnod, including sIgn-in shoots that reflect parents' race, gondor, and the school Ihoir ctilld attends. (ODM 1992 Roport, pg. 38) Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion and mako candid suggestions tor training improvements and future session topics. Then carefully analyze tho feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of tho training to make changes accordingly. (ODM 1994-96 Incontlvo Schools Monitoring Report, pg. 62)___________________________________________________________________ Tho schools offer parent workshops to assist paronts In understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workstiops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with tho number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on tiow well tho session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the goals of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations. Use the feedback to redesign offerings as necessary to ensure progress toward the goals. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, .31751 The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out scfiool expectations. The workshops includo such topics as study skills, discipline, time managomont, pre-reading skills, financial managomont, and dovolopmontal loaming skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, limo, and location along with tho numbor of participants by raco, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze pailicipants' feedback on how well tho session was conducted and their perception of tho potential helpfulness of tho training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complcto documentation of all parent mootings and activities Is maintained, Including sign-ln sticets that reflect - Needo l.o lio doiio Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Roport ( III Il tiqroiJU  Coinplotod PERSON Gremillion Principals Gromillion Principals Gremillion Principals DONE12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 12 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC MR MR MR MR NO I PG I 41 42 43 44 79 79 79 79 __________________________RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) in order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, guardian, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information. (ODM 1992-93 hicentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 105) Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132) Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs, designed to support children and families. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 78)_____________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school thoir child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 105)________ Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30) Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training. (ODM 1992-93 Incentive SchooI Monitoring Report, pg. 78)____________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) - Needa to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + Ill Progreoo * Completed PERSON DONE Milam Cheatham Principals Milam Gremilllon Principals Ratherb, - INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) 13 Suiniiiary of Recommendations DATE I DOC I NO | PG | 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR MR 45 46 47 80 80 80 ____________RECOMMENDATION Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for using the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 86)____________________________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureaus and key communicators that clearly identify the Job goal, qualifications, performance expectation, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job. (ODM 1993-94 Incentive School Monitoring Report, pg. 86)____________________________________________________________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quaiterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incontivo school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management foam, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must bo Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitinonf assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Engage in a recruitment campaign that is broad and intense enough to ensure that the district can select a Biracial Committee membership that is racially balanced and also fully representative of the districts geography. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 26)____________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports - Needo to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreso * Completed PERSON Rather Supt. Supt. DONE +12,,.,- NCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 14 DATE DOC I NO PG ________________________________RECOMMENDATION________________________________ that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref: Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) PERSON DONE 7/12/96 7/12/96 MR MR 48 49 80 80 Define Biracial Committee goals and then develop and carry out specific objectives and timelines for reaching them. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 27) Tho dislrictwide Biracial Committee, whoso members represent various geographic areas of tho community, will monitor tho incontivo schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports ttiat summarize all monitoring visits. Tho superintendent will share tho PRE document witli the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Coordinate Biracial Committee monitoring activities with other internal district monitoring groups to eliminate duplication and ensure that no part of the desegregation efforts go unscrutinized. (ODM 1992- 92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees., pg. 28)________________________________________ The dislrictwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) - Needfj to be done Denotes roconunondation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreuo * Completed Supt. Supt. Jackson12/19/96 .INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 15 DATE I DOC I NO | PG RECOMMENDATION The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Design Biracial Committee monitoring instrument that correlate specifically with the desegregation plan provisions so each district can measure its progress in plan implementation. (ODM 1992-92 Monitoring PERSON I DONE 7/12/96 MR 50 80 Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 28) 7/12/96 MR 51 80 The districlwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with tho Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. Tho Associate Superintondont for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with tho advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school rocruitrnont reports from tho dosegregalion office, ovalirato tho program quarterly and recommend needed changes to tho Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior managornent team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (Iwo of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Older: ref: Juno 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Regularly update Biracial Committee monitoring instruments to reflect all modifications to the desegregation plans. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 28)____________ The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will I monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225)__________________________ Supl. 8/96 - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progreos * Completed Supt. Jackson12/1b,3. JCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendations 16 DATE I DO'C I NO I PG~~[ ___________________________RECOMMENDATION The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports PERSON DONE 7/12/96 MR 52 80 The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of that summarize all monitoring visits. ' Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board ot Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with tho expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref\nJune 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Make evaluation an integral part of the Biracial Committee monitoring process so that conclusions and recommendations for improvement are used to both prevent and correct problems. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29)_________________________________ Tt)o districtwido Biracial Committee, whoso members represent various geographic areas of tho community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) Tho Biracial Committoe will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. Tho Office of Planning, Rosoarch, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarizo all monitoring visits. Tho superintondont will share tho PRE document with tho Board of Directors al their regularly scheduled meetings. Tho Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committoo, with tho advice of marketing and advertising exports, will servo as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from tho desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of\nincentive school principals, tho superintendents senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order\nref\nJune 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Supt. Annually evaluate the role, operations, and accomplishments of the BIraclal Committee In relationship - Needa to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report h In Progreoa it Completed12/19/91 jCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summa, y of Recommendations 77 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR MR 53 54 PG 80 80 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION to specific settlement plan provisions and overall desegregation goals. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29) I PERSON RESPONSE: An annual evaluation of the Biracial Committees role, operations, and accomplishments at the end of each fiscal year beginning with the 1996-97 school year. The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, witfi the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialist from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 5) Regularly ask Biracial Committee members to review and rate the type and quality of support the district is furnishing them, and solicit suggestions for new or improved support services. (ODM 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees, pg. 29) RESPONSE: LRSD will develop a survey for KlrttcJa) Committee members to review and rate the quality of support LRSD is providing and asking for suggestions for new and Improved support services. This survey will be distributed to members during tho 3rd quarter of tho 1996*97 school year. Beginning with the 1997-98 school year LRSD will Survey members during the 1st end 3rd quarter of each school year. The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed DONE Supt. Gremillion Principals12/19/96 JCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summaiy of Recommendalions 18 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO I PG I MR MR 55 56 80 80 RECOMMENDATION parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy._______________________________________________________________ Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Focus on the schools where community involvement is lagging and intensify efforts to increase volunteer support in those buildings. Pay particular attention to targeting those schools which fall far behind the others in volunteer activity._________________________________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Strengthen the communication between school and community by considering placement of an outreach coordinator in each incentive school to function as a liaison. This position, which should require at lease half-tinie and preferably full-time attention, could be paid or voluntary and filled by an employee, a volunteer, or an intern. The outreach coordinator would be supervised by the principal and work closely with all aspects of the school, as well as the district's offices of student assignment and communications. Any funding necessary for such a position could be sought from a grant or come from the extra money provided through the schools' double funding. The outreach coordinator could perform a number of tasks that could include, but not be restricted to, the recommendations listed below. RESPONSE: LRSD is exploring the possibility of using a volunteer to serve as an outreach coordinator for each incentive schoot. - - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed PERSON Milam Gremillion Principals DONE12/19/96 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 19 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR MR MR MR 57 58 59 60 PG IT 81 81 81 _________________________________RECOMMENDATION________ ___________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exist in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210,213) Develop a school communications plan that includes specific objectives as well as methods to measure results. Each school should write objectives that answer the following questions\nWho will benefit from this activity and how will they benefit from it? How will the activity be implemented, who will do the work, when will the work start, and what is the implementation schedule? When will the benefits be visible and what will they look like? How will we know if were successful? RESPONSE\nLRSD Assistant Superintendent for Incentive Schools, Parent Recruiters, Communications Director and Incentive School principals are currently working together to develop a communications A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exist in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210,213) Produce a monthly school newsletter that targets the community, with distribution to parents, volunteers, partners, and residents of the neighborhood. These neighbors would include churches, shops, fire stations, nursing homes, hospitals, professional offices, etc. The newsletter should stress the success of students and teachers, herald coming events, and highlight individuals who live or work in the community. Use the publication as a means to more broadly recognize students, teachers, parents, and volunteers. Students could write some of the articles, striving to create a friendly, chatty communiqud that conveys a positive and enthusiastic attitude, school pride. Make this publication a banner of The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Work the territory by actively reaching out to the neighborhood and beyond. Instead of waiting for the community to come to the school, the school can energetically extend itself to the community. Contact local businesses and other organizations to explain the school and its place in the neighborhood. Personally extend an invitation to attend an open house or any other special function being held in the school. If a class is presenting a play, invite the neighbors in for the fun and assign student hosts to guests.____________________________________________________________________________________ A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, - Need.g to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progre.en * Completed PERSON I DONE Gremillion Principals Rather Gremillion Principals Vann Rather Gremillion Principals Vann Rather Rather Principals12/19/96 ir JENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 20 DATE 7/12/96 7/12/96 DOC I NO I PG I RECOMMENDATION PERSON DONE MR MR 61 62 81 82 213) Develop the speakers bureau into a proactive ambassadorship for the school. Members of the bureau can be parents, teachers, students, and community volunteers. Give the speakers a special title (such as Goodwill Ambassadors, Outreach Angels, etc.) and help them focus on a specific theme or point of school pride. Arrange for them to meet frequently with small groups at a well known nearby place, such as a church, fire station, or community alert center. Such experiences are prime learning opportunities for students, helping boost their self esteem while also polishing their schools image._______________ A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan. pp. 206. 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Gremillion Principals Actively manage the Parent Centers to become the catalyst and focal point of parent resources and services they were intended to be. Suggestions for strengthening the centers include the following: foster the ongoing involvement of a strong Parent Center Committee in each school, using the Committee to establish a means for determining what special parent needs exist, such as materials and equipment, home visits, extended center hours, etc.\nconsider relocating the centers to a place of prominence and easy access, where parents can meet and chat without fear of disturbing classes\ndevelop a monthly theme of parenting emphasis that is carried throughout the school in such way as a featured bulletin board and the school newsletter, then follow up with appropriate workshops on the themes\nequip the centers with welcoming and comfortable furniture that invites parents to linger awhile\nconsider the feasibility of merging the faculty lounge and the Parent Center into a combined building resource center to promote frequent and sustained interaction between teachers and parents._________________________________ The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school, expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Each school provides community role models and mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) Milam Principals - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + In Progress * Completed12/19/9G INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1995-96) Summary of Recommendations 21 DATE 7/12/96 DOC I NO MR 63 PG 87 ________RECOMMENDATION_________________________________ Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (July 10, 1992 Court Order: ref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pg. 29) PERSON I DONE Intensify efforts at the school level to coordinate the services of volunteers and school partners in the school, making them an integral part of the school family. Routine operation procedures should include follow-up to determine the degree of volunteer satisfaction, because these very important people need consistent guidance, support, encouragement, and thanks. Keep in contact with them through meetings, phone calls, and notes. Invite them to the special functions at the school and assign a student host to escort them. Spend time training the children who are selected as hosts, showing them how to be courteous and respectful. Make these students a part of the symbols of school pride. The district will inform the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies will include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district will distribute highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219) Recruitment will be an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdist. Plan, pg. 57) The districts recruitment strategies will include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school will establish a speakers bureau and help the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings will be held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, PG. 215- 216, 220-222) Parent recruiters will focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216, 222) All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29) The LRSD will establish a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well-thought-out, interrelated process\npresent a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adhere to it\ndevelop a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincrease the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (July 10, 1992 Courf Order\nref: June 5, 1992 ODM Report, pp. 4, 5) Gremillion Principals Rather Millhollen Establish a budget that is adequate to underwrite an aggressive and sustained recruitment program that encompasses the special needs of the incentive schools, investing that allotment in high-quality, high- energy strategies that result in steady progress toward the desegregation goals. - Needs to be done Denotes recommendation appeared in prior ODM Monitoring Report + Tn Progress * Completedi| Little Rock School District  MEMORANDUM RECE^VSD 4 To: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring DEC 2 0 1996 From\nI Date: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent December 6, 1996 Office cf Desegregation Moniiortn^ Subject\nLRSD Responses to Incentive School Monitoring Report (1995-96),July 12, 1996 q q q Attached you will find a report stating the status of each recommendation the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring recommended in their 1995-96 Incentive School Monitoring Report, If you should have questions, please contact me. C-. Chris Heller. LRSD Aiiome\u0026gt;' q q q I I I I I q q\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":451,"next_page":452,"prev_page":450,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5400,"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}}]}}