{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_681","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/681"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL EXHIBIT LIST DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The following Exhibits, copies of which have been delivered to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, are submitted in support of LRSD's \"Motion to Close Stephens Incentive School\" which will be heard on June 7, 1994: 1, Letter from Ann S. Brown to Dr. Henry P. Williams dated February 18, 1994 with attachments\n2. Stephens School Relocation Timeline\n3 . Fast Track Evaluation Program: School\nStephens Elementary 4. Facilities Study Recommendation Concerning Stephens and Garland schools\n5. Computer printout showing cost per occupant to operate various LRSD schools and other facilities\n6. Excerpt from facilities study showing estimates for renovation and repair of Stephens school\n7. February 24, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Mayor Jim Daily\n8, March 9, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Foster Strong, President, The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation\n9. March 25, 1993 Memorandum to LRSD Board of Directors regarding Stephens site selection. 10. July 28, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 11. August 11, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 12. Petition of Stephens community residents. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By^ Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Exhibit List has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of June, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hei Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each docmnent. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and I met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours. t Cid-- \"Ann S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All Counsel EXHIBIT 1School Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Hts. McDermott Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller Interdistrict Washington King Romine Magnet LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Principal Capacity Black White Total 93-94 Black Available Percent of 93-94 93-94 93-94 Percent Seats Capacity Booker Williams Carver Gibbs Carolyn Teeter Francis Cawthon La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Mac Huffman Lillie Carter Mike Oliver Pat Higgenbotham Julie Davenport Patricia Howse Scott Morgan Mary Menking Jerry Worm Otis Presler Mary Golston Eleanor Cox Gwen Ziegler Willie Morris Levanna Wilson Barbara Means Mary Jane Cheatham Teresa Courtney Frederick Fields Franklin Davis Robert Brown Samuel Branch Lonnie Dean Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Karen Buchanan Sadie Mitchell Lionel Ward Dr. Cheryl Simmons Dr. Ed Jackson Mary Guinn Donna Davis Incentive school capacities reflected in the 1992 Desegregation Plan Totals for Elementary Schools Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; Percent of Capacity 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 544 346 346 298 346 425 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 1482 1809 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51 47% 45.03% 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97% 102% 109% 115% 96% 106% 98% 103% 147 311 189 215 .263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 4074 1629 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 88 27 36 -4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73% 95% 89% 101% 85% 93% 91% 74% 88% 90% 91% 76% 75% 88% 90% 78% 87% 300 181 215 141 184 240 45 24 15 4 5 100 345 205 230 145 189 340 2305 * 1261 193 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63% 59% 66% 49% 55% 80% 63% 939 692 487 2118 656 517 613 353 2139 16332 2456 451 357 247 1055 321 257 325 170 1073 270 196 87 721 553 334 553 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 218 139 153 510 77% 80% 69% 76% 274 215 270 129 595 472 595 299 888 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 61 45 18 54 178 91% 91% 97% 85% 92% 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Total Black White Franklin Incentive 345 544 63 199 270 260 10 Garland Incentive 205 346 59 141 118 117 1 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 66 116 131 127 4 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 Stephens Incentive 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 Sub Total Incentive Schools 1,454 2,305 63 851 769 749 20 Booker Magnet 595 656 91 61 N/A N/A N/A Carver Magnet 595 613 97 18 N/A N/A N/A Gibbs Magnet 299 353 85 54 N/A N/A N/A Sub Total Magnet Schools 1,489 1,622 92 133 0 0 0 King Interdistrict 553 692 80 139 90 89 1 Washington Interdistrict Magnet 721 939 77 218 262 253 9 Sub Total Interdistrict Schools 1,274 1,631 78 357 352 342 10 Woodruff (Area) 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 Central Kindergarten 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A Satellite Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 747 722 25 Contiguous Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 Grand Total 4,503 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,081 117 Live downtown and attend downtown Total Black White 281 190 192 165 238 136 1,202 130 130 102 362 331 406 737 156 46 N/A N/A s 2,503 263 172 177 163 192 135 1,102 116 124 88 328 317 383 700 113 46 N/A N/A 2,289 18 18 15 2 46 1 100 14 6 14 34 14 23 37 43 0 N/A N/A 214 Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White 55 28 27 14 29 22 142 9 271 461 465 198 1,124 217 314 531 75 4 N/A 2,005 6 8 21 17 62 6 140 202 206 83 491 17 65 82 33 4 N/A 750 8 5 80 3 131 259 259 115 633 200 249 449 42 0 N/A 1,255 Note: Incentive school capacities are based on a 20 to 1 ratio in kindergarten through sixth grade, 18 to 1 in programs for four-year-olds, 18 to 1 in programs for three-year- olds, 17 to 1 in programs for trwo-year-olds, and 10 to 1 in the programs for infants.There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area: Brady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targed school 66 33 33 16 180 66 114 23 162 60 102 29 273 71 202 29 191 72 119 32 138 25 113 29 124 39 85 22Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended Incentive Zone School Attending School Franklin___________________ Garland___________________ Mitchell___________________ Rightsell__________________ Rockefeller_______________ Booker___________________ Carver____________________ Gibbs_____________________ Williams Badgett___________________ Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fullbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek_______________ Pulaski Heights Elem Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson__________________ Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Total of Incentive School Zone Blocks i I ! T T T I T ! I - i I cc c s u, o t IO O  I S! q\u0026gt; i W ! ib 194\n101 51 41 41 101 41 _IL 12! 21 261 31 151 51 01 141 181 161 81 201 7! 2! 351 30! ___r 18! 71 10 12' 1 3i ___0. 11 111 10! 1! 1 21 7i 136i 6i 211 II 0| 2i 3! 01 __4^ 3! 4 3 0 4 6 7 1 1 5 1 109 6' 71 2 6 9' 2\\ 31 4 8 539! 14 5 0 81 181 41 1| 21 191 141 11 7 11 141 41 -51 11 01 9 _3L 5j 31 lOi 51 4! 6 12i 5! 15\n14! 7' 7\\ 01 3! 3! 2! 41 01 9? 1\\ 11 0 II 312 318 Ol 11 8! 1291 71 8! 6 31 1| 01 31 21 31 ~6r~ 1! 31 1i 5, 61 131 4! 2'. 31 111 3! 9 0 01 61 6i 291 IT 2. 11 . 41 31 01 01 O I It ' 41 41 31 4 118 8 3 7 1 4 4 2 4 6 3 6 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 4 IO c v -c Q. o W 3 9! 11 Ol 1 0 o o c u tn -0 -o 320 01 2! 31 0! 1 0 9 31 11 3! 1 0 6 3 20 0 1' 3 4 6 2 1 257 2! II i\n8! 51 2! 01 151 O' Ih 1. 01 1 0 821 121 2 3 0 51 _L1 51 3! 01 01 200 a c J? S) 25 213 161 132 144 138 33 21 60 22 9 44 14 43 31 8 19 32 52 26 25 69 35 11 76 83 16 39 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 29 35 25 4 4 1946 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedSchools Sending Students to Incentive Schools Incentive School Sending Zone School Franklin_____________________ Garland_____________________ Mitchell______________________ Rightsell_____________________ Rockefeller__________________ Stephens____________________ Badgett______________________ Bale_________________________ Baseline Brady Chicot_______________________ Cloverdale Elem____________ Dodd________________________ Fair Park____________________ Forest Park_________________ Fullbright____________________ Geyer Springs______________ Jefferson____________________ M.L King___________________ Mablevale Elem____________ McDermott__________________ Meadowcliff_________________ Otter Creek_________________ Pulaski Heights Elem_______ Romine_____________________ Terry Wakefield___________________ Washington_________________ Watson_____________________ Western Hills_______________ Wilson Woodruff___________________ North Little Rock____________ Pulaski County Legal Transfer______________ No zone I I I I i I I I I I Total of Students Attending Incentive Schools .c c 194 1 5 01 41 3 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 - 31 Ti 01 71 201 61 4 31 91 21 9i 3l 21 3i 0! Oi 11 II I 1 336' O c \u0026lt;D c (0 O \"O) c: 4a  Qi  .O) S \u0026lt;b u o K 101 1361 11 11 4l 91 01 61 01 4' 1\n1! 31 1 0\n0 01 1' 01 0\n81 61 2\nO' 01 3, O' 4 01 1 2' 0! 0 01 O' 0 51 109 8 3' 1 0 1' 0 3 4l 11 6j 1291 4 0 0 4I II 21 71 4. 204\n01 11 2i 31 21 11 61 71 Ti 31 31 20 1i 21 1 0i 11\n3\n0! 4\n2^ Oi 01 Oi 0! I 221! 01 o' o' 3 2 o' 1 ' 0 4' 3! tT 01 81 2! 11 Qi 31 01 0: 31 11 0 1' 0! 01 4- 2 11 1 187' 1181 ZT 81 TT 91 T 61 31 21 81 121 ___ 391 __ 21 ___ 7! 6 61 31 8' 41 311 5i 1! 41 10 1 131 1. O' 380' c (1) c Q. .jU W 10 19 3 0 0 82 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 01 6 1  0 0 1 4 0 5i 0 0 4 1 1 0 01 145 o o _ c X a o Q C co 42 c c O QI o l~ W N 227 170 131 145 133 96 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 22 15 51 19 3 38 39 35 11 12 25 6 63 12 7 14 16 8 17 8 2 1473 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedWashington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 17 17 17 17 Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central McClellan McClellan McClellan 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Bale Bale Bale Bale Brady Brady Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett I Badgett Name Class K K K K IK K K K K K K 03 04 05 P4 01 05 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Student ID Zone Block 939926 940177 958755 959096 959252 959506 959807 959812 950081 960545 960805 929207 950598 918916 959373 952488 916865 936007 937049 927595 928747 930971 933965 934913 935342 936452 929232 931103 937535 919341 922211 925877 961005 908367 910318 913061 916045 918958 918964 918967 919347 920475 932327 895059 896341 896527 897157 905235 910119 910347 910385 913270I 913968 925876 926004 937531 482 482 481 481 484 481 240 483 124 301 484 481 123 481 220 474 478 240 483 220 240 220 123 240 220 220 240 126 483 220 126 126 123 220 240 220 240 482 123 483 220 220 240 220 124 123 482 240 220 124 126 220 474 126 483 483 Page 1Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett McDermott McDermott McDermott McDermott Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Name Class Student ID Zone Block 06 K K K K K K P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 01 02 06 06 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 K K 01 03 K P4 01 01 01 02 02 03 03 03 03 06 06 06 K K K 01 01 03 03 961311 939897 939944 939946 952423 959551 961273 956706 956789 956798 957014 957442 958430 959481 959478 909989 959477 936945 951189 930498 936457 936467 930382 930884 917043 924017 911525 915454 918878 932095 932096 951930 959515 934286 929357 960765 958854 938480 950814 960294 929108 960292 929935 935767 935783 960649 918997 935784 950740 951261 956384 959345 934018 935131 925116 930446 220 240 220 220 220 125 220 481 240 125 126 483 220 483 483 481 483 240 124 126 124 124 124 478 126 124 124 478 240 481 481 126 478 240 240 126 483 126 124 483 125 483 240 220 126 123 126 126 123 124 220 125 483 482 482 481 Page 2Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 25 I 25 I 25 I 25 25 26 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Garland Garland Garland Garland Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Western Hills Western Hills Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson I Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem 03 05 06 K P4 02 K K P4 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 04 05 05 06 06 K K 04 06 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 06 06 06 K 01 01 951919 930447 896347 938615 957032 952489 952490 960770 957595 935182 951670 951917 961153 961239 961470 928428 929776 933656 934065 934387 935564 935766 961152 930745 951869 923996 913547 951872 896357 951672 959482 961295 923304 896342 950885 961465 930524 930525 930865 932094 936961 924292 929835 930397 937012 937277 930572 932018 937851 957844 910115 911236 957846 956673 934242 951957 481 481 124 482 482 474 474 127 220 124 478 123 482 478 240 481 126 484 482 123 240 220 482 126 478 483 123 483 126 478 124 220 220 220 124 483 125 125 125 481 125 124 482 126 220 481 123 220 482 123 127 126 123 220 126 125 Page 3Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller' Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller 02 04 05 K 01 01 02 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 06 K 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 06 K 01 02 03 03 03 04 05 05 05 06 K 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 i03 04 04 04 05 935085 916339 918115 951336 931558 933883 937378 916712 916958 960998 910860 914224 912606 914018 960997 960360 951496 951497 926800 931798 935969 928641 936600 918895 936601 917160 896351 940141 961203 930135 922914 929087 932037 917590 910227 919152 920191 912910 959352 934077 934479 934849 935715 926278 928123 928183 928187 928301 928360 928510 930459 930461 918346 921616 922162 913922 125 483 484 125 126 127 126 482 127 484 484 127 126 124 484 127 124 124 127 483 124 124 481 124 481 127 124 482 240 220 240 482 481 220 220 126 484 125 240 482 482 220 483 220 220 478 220 301 483 301 220 220 124 220 220 220 Page 4Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Romine Stephens ' Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 K K P2 P3 P4 P4 P4 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 06 K K 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 06 06 06 06 06 K K 01 03 05 05 01 04 04 04 06 02 03 04 04 05 06 916520 917227 896368 905240 910579 910629 930206 939636 939895 939176 952196 956808 956973 958660 950305 953072 928204 929152 935764 935765 937347 937348 931438 932294 935781 961082 961083 959811 928486 933344 923617 959509 917620 957969 893243 894270 896417 910527 959005 959100 960511 934154 927548 910809 930496 935180 917504 923334 925326 895902 932736 930750 915829 924742 924360 896432 220 301 220 220 483 220 240 220 478 482 220 220 220 220 478 474 483 474 482 482 482 482 478 482 482 484 484 484 125 124 482 481 124 474 220 220 220 482 478 482 124 474 474 220 126 124 124 483 124 240 474 126 220 220 474 240 Page 5Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 44 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Terry Terry Terry Terry Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson 06 06 K K K 01 01 01 01 01 04 05 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 K 01 06 06 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 05 05 06 K K 01 02 03 04 06 06 907223 912946 957974 959908 960923 951862 934208 935650 950854 952103 930414 911752 950976 928038 959669 959670 951921 928039 936097 936420 925592 931927 919839 961394 951013 955199 955201 933364 952129 961258 925000 926057 928808 932135 908112 923295 931269 907724 910429 913208 910438 957988 961259 938481 930250 922739 927950 894474 914000 126 220 125 123 220 484 220 124 125 124 478 124 240 481 478 478 220 474 481 481 220 220 220 220 483 481 481 483 125 126 125 125 483 125 125 124 482 240 124 478 478 125 126 220 220 125 127 127 240 Total Students: 329 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Unaudited Page 6Dept. Name \"Western\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 47 24 20 38 48 30 18 40 Terry Forest Park McDermott Pulaski Heights Fullbright Jefferson Brady Romine * Excluding Williams T otals / Averages LRSD Per Pupil Expenditure by Elementary School 1993-1994 Budget Budget 93-94 $1,145,178.91 $988,864.02 $1,248,156.17 $978,390.22 $1,324,665.59 $1,299,887.52 $1,046,436.40 $1,267,911.36 $9,299,490.19 \"Southwestern\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 46 33 51 50 29 52 37 31 22 32 28 44 Mablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield Otter Creek Western Hills Watson Geyer Spnngs Cloverdale Baseline Dodd Chicot Wilson $1,127,741.07 $1,008,936.95 $1,062,990.19 $844,592.87 $846,932.77 $1,131,673.02 $748,975.30 $1,011,782.28 $974,301.85 $834,015.87 $1,550,045.51 $1,144,796.51 PTE 45 37 42 40 47 45 43 45 46 33 41 30 34 43 34 42 41 35 64 40 Enrollment Black Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget Spent on Black Children T otals! Averages $12,286,784.19 \"Fringe\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 23 17 19 Fair Park Bale Badgett $867,162.06 $1,117,713.33 $708,951.85 32 43 28 T otals / Averages $2,693,827.24 \"Inner Citv\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45 35 42 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Woodruff M L. King Washington Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $644,242.24 $1,588,019.16 $2,278,100.33 $1,567,895.14 $1,764,565.19 $1,311,925.10 $1,238,154.99 $1,408,766.58 $1,273,272.88 $70,411.25 27 77 90 62 72 50 44 50 46 \"Inner City Schools as a Group Incentive Schools Only Woodruff. King \u0026amp; Washington $13,074,941.61 $8,564,579.88 $4,510,361.73 *Excluding Carver,Gibbs and Booker Magnets Total Black Enrollment Black Enrollment in Non-lncentive Schools Black Enrollment in Incentive Schools 561 458 509 398 520 504 397 334 243 200 262 190 233 213 263 247 43 44 51 48 45 42 66 74 $2,041.32 $2,159.09 $2,452.17 $2,458.27 $2,547.43 $2,579.14 $2,635.86 $3,796.14 $496,040.06 $431,818.35 $642,469.38 $467,070.71 $593,552.08 $549,357.23 $693,231.17 $937,647.02 3681 1851 50% $2,526.35 $4,676,271.76 488 434 447 341 332 442 288 386 343 292 509 354 311 306 337 141 215 353 208 304 265 189 356 263 64 71 75 41 65 80 ,72 79 77 65 70 74 $2,310.94 $2,324.74 $2,378.05 $2,476.81 $2,551.00 $2,560.35 $2,600.61 $2,621.20 $2,840.53 $2,856.22 $3,045.28 $3,233.89 $718,703.84 $711,370.29 $801,404.24 $349,230.48 $548,465.50 $903,802.21 $540,926.61 $796,844.08 $752,740.50 $539,825.34 $1,084,118.27 $850,512.66 4656 3248 70% $2,638.91 $8,597,944.01 263 303 189 755 236 553 721 345 340 230 189 205 145 2964 1454 1510 200 225 132 557 147 357 451 300 240 215 184 181 141 2216 1261 955 7372 6611 1261 76 74 70 74% 62 65 63 87 71 93 97 88 97 75% 87% 63% 100% 84% 16% $3,297.19 $3,688.82 $3,751.07 . $3,567.98 $2,729.84 $2,871.64 $3,159.64 $4,544.62 $5,189.90 $5,704.02 $6,551.08 $6,872.03 $8,781.19 $4,411.25 $5,890.36 $2,986.99 $3,256.57 $2,739.83 $5,965.67 $659,438.83 $829,985.15 $495,140.97 $1,987,366.59 $401,286.48 $1,025,176.93 $1,424,997.57 $1,363,387.08 $1,245,575.43 $1,226,364.77 $1,205,399.57 $1,243,837.81 $1,238,148.11 $10,374,173.74 $7,522,712.76 $2,851,460.98 $25,635,756.09 $18,113,043.33 $7,522,712.76 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng based upon inforrnation supplied by the Little Rock School Distnct Based upon Octi, 1993 enrollment data and LRSD 1993-94 Budget Unauditedstudent Counts of Sending and Receiving Schools - LRSD Elementary Grades - Summary Sending Zone School  Attending School Badgett ______ Bale __________ _ _____ Booker _ _____ Carvw___________ Chicot 1 Cloverdale Elem D odd  _____________ Fair ___________ _ Fran^ FdIxyM____________ _ ____ __ \u0026lt;^er Spongy____ JeflerMn _ __ ML King _ ______ McOermqn ___ Meadowdifl _________ __________ __________ Pulastd Heights Bem Righlsei____________ RockefeKer___________ Ronine_____________ Stephere____________ ____________ W^ehetd WasNngIqn _ We^n HiMs _____ Woodufi Central Kindergarten Fair kmdagarten Hal Kindergarten_____ McClelan Kindergarten Partvrew Kindergarten 106 _ 1 b i Ip 1 11 1 q 2 0 0 0 0' 0 1 b q q q q 0 0 1 0 8 Zq 1 b q 1 Ji 2 ZI q 1 i J 2 158 _q 14 7  _ 4 0 ' 9 _5  5 14 3 _6 3 12 4 5 '0 _7 .1 2 6 0 14 14 Z_ 1 _5 21i _ b 11 12 7 '2 i S 1 _q 0 ' 196 Z's \"1 3 8 J2 6 2 2 5  o' _q 11 ' _2 3 'is _q _i 0 3 0 0 _2 _ q 0 _8 Z 111 2 __6 q 0 0 I _ q 3 n izi J _i _i -12 6 _l _4 _2 _7 11 _ 1 b J3  b 3 1 2 0 1 13 2 is 2 ^b J pi 2 5 ' b Grand Total Sendng Schod I 1 li 20  112 _ 4 ^io 269 28 J 3 i _q' _3 1 1 li' _4 0 5 _ii 2 __8 __3 __7 1 0 J2 __1 0 4 'i2 J2 35 Z_1 4 9 i 0 _i^ _q 9 ' 17 1^ _9 190 _1 11 _1 Z i _b 1 to 5 1 7 20 _1 4 0 6 1 -3 6 \"j Jq 2 14 ie 12 '0 3 0 b ' 0 1 2 _2 2 li ' J 11 1 146 2 1 1 3 3 1 i 1 .... 4 8 0 2 3 23 0 3 0 _4 b J12 9 it 0 0 1 I I c ? c i q 0 1 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 2 0 0 2 0 1 q 1 b 'i 1 q 0 0 1 b 1 2 135 369 336 361 533 375 276 0 _3\" q '13 6 _8 1 i o' 141 9 9 3 1 2 11 lb 2 q 25 6 __2 0 13 0 6 1 li 2 q 8 _41 2 6  i 0 3 0 0 343 1 5 11 5 1^ 0 _2 J2' 265  2 22 b 0 Z 9 11 3 11 __3 3 2 9 1 8 _o __q _2 4 8 0 '2 ii 1 19 1 q b 0 0 2 26 3 lb 15 4 5 0 _0 1] 10 194 16  10\" _0 2 '20 7  2 35 _3q 5 1 18 4 4 7 lb  12 3 lo _J1 12 ii io i 1 b 0 2 0 9 0 ' 19 \" 44 Zzi 4 _q' _2 5 7 5 336 0 2 _P __0 2 0 26 _3 2 1 10 0 12 21 3 19 q 23 Zl 2 13 JZ 5 b 2 '2 0 4 I 0 4 3 _0 4 2 3 4 6 _ I 7 i 136 1 4 J4 5 0 8 10 6 (rt o I is 1 0 0 2q Z 6 b 4 5 '9 0 _q 0 3 0 q 122 5 I 3 0 0 JO 6 38 2 0 3 8 30 1 9 1 ti o\u0026gt; c 2 1 314 441 539 637 _4 I 1 1 2 14 1 2 J 14 3 4 5 1 J b 0 0 q 2 '0 J2 1 2 4 6 _ 1 J 2 17 J4 4 1 6 q 2 0 b ' 0 0 0 10 1 7 JI 6 2 17 3 39 2 i J 2? 3 2 11 3 3 ' 2 Jo i 1 0 2 0 1 _1 _5 _6 10 2 '0 __7 __5 __3 1 _P _ 1 io 11 253 1 o I 0 2 6 i 5 28 26 i 0 q 0 0 0 3 'q q 0 7 264 0 Zq 7 18 6 7 2 -1 0 2 2 Zl 1 2 2 i ' i 2 b J  1 0 2 2 J 3 _q 0 ~2 J b 0 _i 9 23 q ^4 3 0 0 I b 2 b 312 271 5941 407 397 ! s 1 o \u0026amp; I _6 -I 5 \"13 ' ' lb' 1 ' 0 ' 7 _!? _1 7^' Z21 8 1 2 Ji 4 _b 295 q 3 ~~ b 10 8 _ 6 8 6 I12 q ZO b li .JI 5 9 0 1 1 b 0 0 11 _ 0 _i2 6 _P 2 _] 7 ' _4 Jl _ 5 '6 is Ji _7 2 5 5 247 _3 2 6 2 7 0 __1 5 '_7 7 2 2 _6 _ 3 8 0 0 527 450 .1.. J 3 6 '4 ' 7 8 6 9 3 Jl 3 11 J5 5 _ 1 4 9 6 12 J 5 _i5 II 109 _ 7 7 6 7 0 3 3 ' 2 2 JZl _q 2 9 7 II b b 0 1 318 J 3 3 0 2 2 16 sb _9 6 Z1 6 Jl 2 6 3 i 15 Z 1 J0 20 260 1 1 6 3 q 4 4 V1 16 0 6 '2 i 3 3 b  2 1 551 g m w  ra 3 0 2 0 3 3 4 1 2* g q '3 2 2 11 6 I 4 S g IX 0 4 2 8 4 3 5 2 7 17 ii I \u0026amp; 55 q ' 1 0 q 9 '0 g- q 0 12 2 _ 6 4 ' 5 q 0 19 10 5 b 6 1 i ~ b 205 2 _ 6 3 \" q 3 6 1 ' 3 1 ' i lo 2 1 6 31 ?3 4 2  3 II 0 3 __1 129 7 _ 0 q 6 6 3 q  7 0 4 Z2 7 1 2 2 4 3 '3 3 4 118 II b 6 2 b 24 3 ' 2 3 '2 '0 b 2 4 i i 9 ' b 2 _o 3 _3  3 2 \"i  i 8 5 3 2 9 q 2 15 5 b ii 7 I 0 1 b I 2 5 4 '16 12 '26 2 '4 \" i 2 8 9 3 3 \" 0 3 2 2 i 13 3 i i 1 g 2 \"7 9 15 12 6 ^2 I 4 1 4 2 _2 \" 0 17 7 15 0 8 177 0 2 1 41 0 7 0 q 8 I 19 i 0 I 0 0 327 6 29 i 3 'b 2 i i 4 3 b 0 q 0 1 i 3 4 6 2 b 0 1 0 4 1 19 3b II ' I 0 3 b q \"4 12 2 3 0 4 116 1 I4 0 0 b 4 2 _ 4 q 0 q _4 i \"b b 323 7 o R) s _52 4 Ii 32 2 23 ' 6 '2 4 9 ' 6 4 13 '4 20 ib 6 4 12 I 3 14 3 31  i 5 4 ' 16 '6 c   1 g I S S 5 q '2 8 PO b 1? 132 5 0 1 4 q 3 \" 2 2 3 31 b 2 J 8 q  1 5 _ 0 _q q \"it 'q 295 0 6 _1 2 3 I 2 1 i 3 2 J 1 b 5 b b 2 2 J q 0 J 0 Zi 8 q 7 1 2 i _q 12 q Z^'* ^1 _'3 Z 1 1 15  4 3 14 ' 2 \"q ' It 3 1 0 _i __4 0 __3 1 4  25 0 17 2 30 2 1 3 0 0 2 4 _2 i 0 ' 0 \" i 3 q P q 4 \" 4 2 b 2 _ 1 'i J2 0 12 0 10 R c e co a _l ex I b c z o s s OJ s I 1 s 320 257 411 S 1 c 5 3 i 5 3 q q q 0 J 20 t 5 2 q 2 '~o ' 1 1 4 2 i 0 0 1 4 b 2 5 ii i 6 b b 3 '0 1_ 2 0 1 1 b 3 0 190 _7 24 \"2 0 i b _q 1 JO 10 216 1 i b  3 _q 1 t 4 1 q 1 b 0 1 b 93 0 q 0 0 0 200 582 457 690 491 290 467 153 1 2 I 2 q 0 J 0 2 t _q q q q q q q 7 b q J J 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 P 0 0 J 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 00 11 111 q _1 _1 0 _ q q 0 0 b 30 q 0 i b Z_q 0 _i b 7 0 1 b 0 35 ZJo 0 59 _2 6 6 ' b Z P 0 b 0 _3 q _3 101 \" 0 0 3 _0 _b _ 1 7_ 0 \"0 _45 b 151 'i __b _ q _'q 0 10 2 J3 _4 _1 ~2 q 02 ' 0 1^ 117 Ip  3 0 Zb i q 0 0 q q 4 1 2 2 2 0 2 q 3 b q 12 2 1 2 q 0 0 1 0 b b Zq 1 \" 1 2 b 2 i  i 0 b b q 0 184 304 319 Ml 386 595 107 284 261 336 520 204 ^3 500 548 4^ 420 '221 ~345 392 187 335 'M3 448 7M 421 324 473 366 231 50 19 120 2Q 357 785 451 14032 Pnnled February 1994 Prepved by tw Office o\u0026lt; Oesege^aton Montoring based i\u0026lt;ion nfonnakon s^iphed by l\u0026gt;e LiMe Rock School Dtsticl UnaudtedLRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E Attending Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Bodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski HtS- Elem Race BL WH BL wh\" BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL Whi BL WH BL WH  BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL wh' BL WH BL wh BL_ wh BL WH BL Whi BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL 9 ot i 67 39 1 0 4 2 0 b 1 2 q 0 1 2 P 0 2 2 2 2 p 2 2 2 q 0 p 0 1 b 0 0 p 2 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 b p 0 1 n m 1 i 111 '47 0 8 6 13 __2 5 2 3 1 0 0 9 0 _4 __ __4 __1 12 '2 3 __q _5 1 i 6 6 1 3 3 2 P 0 4 3 4 0 6 0 2 2 9 C LU o  ta 0 b _P 0 153 43 11 4 1 ' 6 2 1 __3 5 14 5 1 5 __q 2 __q 5 __q q __q 0 0 __6 __5 __2 0 0 0 2 i 12 3 0 b 0 1 _P __q __3 0 __q e \u0026lt;a p 0 3 0 2 1 2 9 66 74 2 1 2 0 1 b 1 b 2 3 3 '9 2 4 1 0 4 0 2 0 2 '5 2 12 0 i 0 0 5 6 0 0 3 0 1 b 0 o u O 1 0 1 0 J? 6 4 8 3 1 _1 __3 173 96 M  ii _ P 3 P 0 P ' 0 o O 1 b _0 b 8 1 1 W 3 i _ 3 e 24 3 147 43 _ 1 ' b _0 b 1 p ' 2 1 ' i g n K n  6 5 c e o 3 1 2 1 ' 0 _1 b 5 6 3 1 0 0 3 '2 26 is 2 b 5 * 3 3 0 4 3 1 J 2 0 1 0 b 0 1 9 1 5 0 1 0 4 3 19 1 P 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 ' 0 8 '3 1 b 5 0 1 1 1 0 80 66 2 b 0 i 1  b 3 b 0 ' 3 _i i 1 0 0 1 1 b 2 2 0 i 1 b 2 2 4 4 0 0 3 0 b 4 9 3 5 3 5 1 0 1 '0 q  0 66 45 P 9 3 6 2 1 __l 0 2 b 1 \"ib 4 6 q 2 p  0 _ 4 i 6 0 2 \"o 0 0 3 1 b _5 0 0 b 3 2 4 b 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 __3 60 205 1 i _4 18 0 0 q 0 4 3 1 8 4 7 3 0 6 10 3 0 1 2 T 0 7 2 0 22 4 _ 3 0 7 3 13 ~2 _ 4 0 5 0 q 0 q 0 13 'i 18 0 190 4 15 'i 6  4 6 0 4 3 20 0 6  1 2 b 33 2 30 b _ 3 2 1 0 18 p 0 6 3 q 0 11 6 26 15 13 2 3 1 _ P 0 2 0 4 1 _4 3 3 2 126 210 _ 9 0 D C n c ra O 0 b _4 0 _p 0 0 b 4 0 0 3 0 P 0 4 0 6 0 _6 1 7 b 1 0 123 '13 1 1 3 6 3 5 1 i q 0 14 12 3 0 2 0 _1 0 6 1 b 4 0 14 0 4  i p 0 8 0 18 0 6 0 _4 0 1 0 D) C c   O 0 b --P 0 17 '3 4 2 P 0 3 i 3 2 9 0 0 b p 0 0 0 3 0 p 0 _P 0 ip3 49 _3 2 0 1 q 0 p 2 0 b 8 4 1 b 1 b 2 o It a\u0026gt; o\u0026gt; c E iu 5 3 b q '0 p o 1^ \"5 3  3 36 2 _ 1 1 P 0 3 0 5 14 16 _ 0 1 1 8 1 0 __b 5 6 75 239 9 i 1 b 0 1 1 0 _ 6 0 2 ' 0 15 2 q 0 _i b 0 b 14 0 5  0 6 b 10 0 2 b 0 0 1 b 4 i 3 b 1 b 0 b 7 b _16 Q 6 0 245 8 7 0 0 b 3 0 _5 2 IP 0 6 \u0026lt;Q 2 0 b _p 2 6 1 2 4 1 b 5 b J7 11 2p 6 _q i 0 b _ 0 b q 0 p 0 p 0 2 i _P 0 0 b 0 b 139 125 2 b 2 ' 0  o 2 0 1 6 0 3 1' 1 0 I' 1 Q p 5 6 1 6 4 p 1 _p 0 4 3 12 0 8 1 4 3 8 12 6 2 6 1 P 2 2 4 2 2 p 0 109 186 0 0 3 0 q 0  1 x (Q  2 0 b _14 5 _0 0 Ip \"2 6 0 _5 4 1 i o u 2 3 0 6 0 4 b 6 1 S o e s 1 b 3 0 Page 1 E LU (/\u0026gt; w 3 0 6 o c P 1 2 5 4 0 6 i 16 '4 5 0 6 b 9 9 i 1 0 \u0026amp; b 6 0 _8 1 3 0 5 0 3 0 1p 0 5 0 5 b 1 i 1 b 4 0 9 ' 0 6 0 1? 1 5 b 5 0 134 113 2 i 2 0 5 5 b 15 0 14 0 104 5 tt \"o 6 _ 1 2 8 0 2 0 2 0 11 5 43 7 5 4 6 0 3 b 5 i 1 b 2 b 6 ' 0 3 0 0 1 13 2 33 2i 0 b 16 '0 18 2 71 189 1 i 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 2 q 0 P 0 3 b 0 2 1 5 q 4 1 4 0 b 0 b 2 IZ 5 5 P 5 p 0 4 2 p \" 0  P 0 3 0 1 i 8 0 3 0 4 2 6 ' b 1 b 3 b 1 b 4 i 0 b 2 b 1 b 6 0 3^ 1 1 0 p 0 46 13 0 4 b 2 b 3 b 11 b 8 b 3 b 8 0) 1 or 4 ' 0 4 ' ' 0 2 _q. 6 2 4 0 3 0 4 ' 2 3 0 6 b 0 0 1 Q 4 0 0 0 4 b 6 0 3 4 1 0 2 b 2 b 4 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 e c E o or 0 0 5 ' 0 _2 b 6 i 14 '3 10 i o 0 0 1 i 2 b 0 0 19 '5 2 1 1 i 3 0 14 i P 0 0 0 2 b 4 2 0 1 1 2 9 0 p 0 2 0 q 0 3 1 b 0 2 0 2 9 2 0 2 0 1 b 1 b 8 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 5 b 0 b 11 b 1 0 2 3 4 b 6 10 5 11 5 21 2 0 4 0 9 c u ra g 2 ' b 5 2 8 1 o c 1 b 1 i 6 2 6 3 17 1'4 3 0 0 b 6 9 q 2 4 2 9 3 4 1 2 0 i 4 2 1 i V) (0 g 5 3 1 16 0 30 2 2 0 42 b 22 1 J 0, 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 2 1 PL 6 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 2 0 b 0 0 4  0 6 0 12 0 4 0 15 b 9 b 8 0 3 1 J2 'i 4 0 20 0 9 i c o 13 n g 0 b _2 0 8 2q 8 2 p 0 12 b 28 4 15 5 1 4 0 b 1 b 3 0 4 b 0 b 3 0 q 2 0 2 2 i i E  g 0 0 6 0 1 2 4 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 q 2 1 b 1 6 3 -Pj 0 g 0 b 8 4 0 0 4 ib 4 6 9 4 1 0 0 12 3 1 0 1 0 12 1 1 4 2 q 2 0 0 2 6 0 4 0 12 ~b 9 2 3 0 14 26 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 4- 1 1 1 3 2i ?! 0 1 b 2 0 4 ' 1 0 0 2 2 q 2 2 0 1 b q 0 0 0 3 _9 C e 5 o   c 3 o O jn 8 u jj W 1 2 5 9 1 1 0 b 2 9 1 2 1 b 0 b 7 4 q 'i 2 2 0 0 3 g p ' 0 p 0 2  0 0 2 0 p 1 1 0 0 n O) 0) 1 0 1 0 q '1 1 1 q 0 q 0 p 1 0  o z p 0 0 0 p 0 42 46 0 0 51 64 p 0 0 n w  O. _ 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 ioo _q 3 65 126 0 0 b^ 01 g Z P 0 0 0 0 0 _1 3 1 0 2 b 2 0 2 o 0 e e o \u0026lt; 135 49 '1^ 63 318 213 253 133 330 265 J48 139 295 0 0 b 0 j 0 0 0 3 b 0 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 b 0 0 Oi 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 b 0 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 0 i 0 1 3 2 b 0 0 2 0 1 b J 0 J 1 0 0 6 p 0 q 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 q 7 0 b p 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4. 9t 14-1 0 0 1 Q 6 0 0 0i _Pi -4 18 16! 27 o' 0 0 b 0 1 0 4 q 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 '1 p 0 _0 b 0  0 0 o' 2 0 0 3 6 0 b 0 0 1 1 ii 2 0 0 i 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 85 179 ibs 195 '66 164 261 291 '45 233 2ii 178 26 214 89 1?1 129 211 289 334 214 300 178 259 249 2^ 125 J 68 23 1^ 199 189Attending Schools Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Hall Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Grand Total Zone Schools [Race WH BL WH BL WH ' BL WH BL WH BL WH~ BL WH BL wh' BL- WH BL wh' BL wh' BL WH BL WH  BL bl WH WH BL WH BL t) e o 1 0 _ p 0 3  5 0 b 1  b p 0 _0 b 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 _b 0 0 1 b 1 p 0 0 0 1 b 0 9 4 0  0 5 * 9 4  jo 0 0 3 2 1 b 3 8 0 0 JO 0 9 3 6 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 _ P 0 0 135 369  c S 0 p\" 0 2 ' 1 A 0 o' 0 0 b 3 5 0 4 ^5 5 2 ' 0 6 b p  0 p 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 E 2  p ' 0 _P 1 9 \"4 _J 0 7 8 2 0 9 16 P 0 1 b 11 ib 1 i 1 4 0 0 2 _0 0 p ' 0 1 o o \"o -P 0 8 4 1 b _g 0 3 ' 1 9 3 4 8 26 7 _6 0 4 b 5 4 0 1 0 1 b p 0 p 0 1 336 361 533 LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E e ui 1 o O b 2 1 _ J '2 0 1 0 \"o 2 0 14 ' 0 JO 8 JO '2 0 0 _ 3 b 0 0 P 0 0 _ p 0 _1 b p ~ 0 0 375 o  0 2 0 2 1 6 15 0 0 _ 1 2 0 0 2 2 _0 0 JO 2 i 9 P P P p 0 P g J 2 276 K (S 10 p ~ 0 1 1 6 0 1 Zp p 3 2 0 3 17 0 0 8 0 6 35 1 i p 6 1 1 2 0 0 P 0 0 343 e  1 5 c e oi -c 3 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 i 4 0 5 3 p 0 2 Q 2 9 1 b 16 1 1 p 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 6 JO 0 12 0 1 'b 3 b 0 0 JI b 12 b 11 b 10 0 p p 0 2 4 _P 0 7  _5 16 '5 3 0 9 io _P 0 9 14 0 0 2 0 _7  6 15 2 4 1 0 1 i 2 0 P 0 4 o c 5 (0 O 0 1 0 vt O) c 'C (d c o c 2 441 539 637 J 'o 2 0 10 0 1J \"o 1 0 _7 b J ' 0 JJ 0 3  0 _ J 0 5 ' 0 1 P \" 0 1 _o 0 0 \"b 9 o 0 4 0 2 1 b 1 0 2 0 11 6 3 i 0 1 ~ 0 6 b P 0 2 ' 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 2 3 0 32 1 2 6 0 1 _1 b 3 0 25 4 3 \"o _ 2 0 p io 2 b 1 Q 2 '0 1 b 0 0 2 0 2 0 6 b E o UJ e 5 9  (0 2 b _o 0 A 0 1 0 0 0 p 0 312 271 1 2 2 1 2 0 P 0 _1 0 0 1 b 2 p 2 p 1 b 1 p 2 p 0 0 0 1 b 2 1 21 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 P 0 0 p 0 p 1 594 1 0 0 2 0 0 o \u0026lt;5 u 2 0 8 0 p' 6 3 _5 6  0 -3 9 p ' 0 3 16 0 0 5 \" 0 9 _9 5 0 4 5 0 _ p 1 0 0 g 0 0 1 s 2 1 2  2 1 6 407 397 527 Page 2 S d I 0 E e ui 1 4 3 0 1 b 4 i 5 2 4 2 1 i 1 i 4 2 3 6 2 1 1 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 '3 6 3 0 p 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9 'o 5 2 11 p 0 P 0 0 0 5 i 3 0 0 2 n  Q. 159 0 \"0 2 ' 4 2 1 0 \"b 3 2 4 0 1 4 12 4 0 0 6 0 P 2 1 0 J 0 0 J 0 2 0 1 1 450 318 551  O)  1 126 1  e 1 c 0 1 E a 0 2  1 5 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 3 -J. OI 101 '17 1 b _o 0 6 b 3 b 18 2 J 0 3 0 22 J 0 39 2 p 0 J 2 n' 0 1 b 11 o: 1 0 6 o: 0 gi t, o! 0 ft aI 0 0 8 4 3 11 1 1 0 P ~0 g p. 0 327 oL-l-: 3i 0 0 0 jO 0 6 0 2 0 ol 6 + 0. 1 1 b 16 '~3 30 0 11 \"b 1 ' 6 0 p 0 2 ~ 1 g ' 0 4 Vi   a q\u0026gt; W b p _o _g 1 0 b 62 0 12 b 2 0 3 b p 0 _5 0 3 0  3 0 0 6 2 1 1 3 1 85 261 1 b 4 id 0 b 0 0 11 \u0026lt;  b _g 0 1  3 1 0 0 0 0 0 237 66 3 4 J 2 1 .. 11- 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' - 0 2 j_ p 0 p 0 1 1 _b 4 Q 2 b 0 i 0 1 p 4 0 320 257 411 200 582 c  (A n $ b 3   0  26 5 1 ' b _5 0 4 0 16  ~ 0 263' 5 6 0 2 0 4 __i 11 b 1 0 __8 P 0  P 0 3 ' 0 0 457 5 0 1 b 5 0 6 0 P ' 0 0 0 7 4 5 3 235 60 1 \" b _6 b w i E i 5 0 0 0 0 1 i c E 8 I c 3 o o 690 1 1 p p p 0 1 p 2 J 0 491 2 '6 0 0 _6 1 1 0 _ 1 i _1 0 87 103 _5 __2 M i 2 0 __p P 0 J P 0 p S 5 0 _ 1\" b 3 1 ' 1 ~ is 0 b 7  lb 2' ' b 3 27 2 ~0 _13 '7 16 3 1JJ '72 0 1 __1 _ p 3 P 0 0 5 4 0 0 6 1 '0 4 ' 0 1 b _g 0 0 1 0 0 _ 0 b n S 290 1 1 b p 0 57 36 0 p 0 0 0 _0 0 0 P, p 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 p 0 1 b 4 b p 0 p ~o 0 b p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z i 0 b 3 4 0 b 0 1 0 6 p  0 p 35 0 0 0 ' 6 26 33 _ 1 i ) n  9 0 4 9 0 4 0 ' 1 0 g 8 z 0 J 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 2 0 467 153 0 8  o fl \u0026lt;/) o cn H c c c o' 0 0 0 26 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61 0 0 0  1 44 73 0 0 p 3 0 _0 1 0  0 P ' 0 0 1 0 1 b 2 b p 0 1 i 1 b 0 1 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 \u0026amp; s 203 _i6g  7 254 '126 243 '92 141 4 238 315 OJO ' 108 _JJ8 212 63 _2O7 117 258 215 267 99 _JJ5 85 50 ___1 ____12 _16 3 _18 2 20 357 7851 45 14032 Printed February 1994 _ led UM Rock based tyon Morrallon s\u0026lt;43^^ by Vw Ufa Rod   I 1 \"lurwuiiled [ ~ I t r t School DIstid I \"11TEL: Jun 02.94 10:35 No.002 P.03 LilUe Rock Scliool Di*tricl Stephens ^r^^Relocation Timely Task Date 1. 2. 3- 4_ Fs. Fiia motion with Court to relocate File revisions to current filings gb Hants from Stephenx Schoc^ miatinq to Stephens which_are------- ~ ~ LRSD Board of Directors \u0026amp; approved 5/18/94 before the courts 5/18/94 5/26/94 Business Case presejtedjothgj^Sg^ggEB^^ Contact the wh-^j-hould be contacted Incl .',?i!*!^?^.^'budget reduction strategy TTotify finance person to include this as a pu ---------------- '5/27/94 Person Williams Williams ~ ~~Willlam5 Ingram 5/27/94 Modeste Williams Neal \"Wagner Wagner 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 building ..\u0026gt;h the Stephens community , community informolion meeting tor. 7. Inventory puiiaing --------- 8 Plan and schedule public meeting 9. 1) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches, media (press release) a: b) c) 10. (neai dnor-to-door delivery ........................................ asking\" ^velop letter to Parents and community meeting. 'LlTXo^commJntt^ information meeting at S'r.phcav A'chno/ to answer for a Include invite to community---------- q uest\ngns^tch^^^-----------------------------sf^bTE^i^ti55d |..\u0026gt;-i. .He PTA president and ministers.-------------- ----------- Students who do not choose a school ------- with the principal, faculty, and staff , of all students living in the Stephen School meetings.__________ 12. De^gn follow-up plan for 13 Conduct Informational meeting attendance zone and those schedule d ,.naanco zone a) those who attend Stephens School but live outside of the attendance zone mrse Who Xd stephens School but live in the attendance zone\nand^ c) tltose Who do not attend Schon/ but live m the attendance zone b) 15.Obtairt' Gciy fir 'ii\n?.' iT send notice of relocation and d^e of community information meeting to: community groups and churches. a) b) press release students with announcement and choices asking for 17 Mail letter to parents and --------- -aunn a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at 57ep/7en.r \u0026amp;/ioo/ to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 1H noiivpr fliers door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting, l^implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their Choice of school______________________________________________ 20. Send assignment notices_____________________________ 21 Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline.-- 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 23. Reroute transportation of students__________________ 24. Secure building______________________________________________ 25. Reassign staff____________________ 26, Send assignment notices__________ * Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. EXHIBIT 2 6I\u0026amp;IQA 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/8/94. 6/15/94 6/20/94 7/6/94 7/29/94 7/29/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Williams Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Eaton Montgomery ~ Eaton Hurley LeeFAST TRACK EVALUATION PROGRAM\nSTEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I PROGRAM DESCRIPTION\nThis specific program is the construction of the Inter-District Elementary School. new Stephens It is an aspect of the tridistrict desegregation plan and the section pertaining to inter- -------- The program is to outline all steps necessary to locate and construct the second of two (2) schools in the Little Rock School District. district schools. new inter-district II GOALS\nThe goal of this program is the successful and timely construction of a new Little Rock School District inter-district elementary school. III - EVALUATION CRITERIA\nSchool The evaluation criteria is the successful completion of the school at the date agreed upon established by the Little Rock District. IV - EVALUATION RESULTS\non time, and The most accurate and successful evaluation result of this program would be the opening and operation of the school, on time, and within the desegregation racial composition as established in the Desegregation Plan. V - OBSTACLES TO GOAL OBTAINMENT\nThere appears to be numerous obstacles to obtaining the goal of completing this new inter-district school: 1. School location 2. School necessity 3. the Time to design and construct - (The obstacles laid out under this program description deal purely with the physical requirements of locating and constructing the school and not with such administrative matters as theme, program, nor recruitment.) VI RECOMMENDATIONS\nThis recommendation does not constitute a change to the inter- concept of the Desegregation Plan, but rather requests the addition of a criteria to be considered in the construction new Stephens Elementary School, of the 1. Background\nSection III of the Tri-Dlstrict District Desegregation Plan entitled II Inter- Student Choices and EXHIBIT 3Options It district outlines the concept of construction of interschools. Within that concept is the construction of the Stephens Elementary School to be located within the Little Rock School District boundaries, and is to be one of two schools constructed by the District to support this concept. The plan further states that the existing Stephens School would then be closed. The plan does not go into the background nor the rationale nor specifically mentioned any other considerations for the location and construction of the Stephens School other than to support the desegregation effort. Historically, there are two principal considerations that lead a School District to construct a new school: 1) or The student population is such that the present number size of schools in various locations is not capable of supporting the student population\ntherefore, a new school should be constructed\nand, 2) Periodic evaluations dealing with the age and condition of the existing facilities will warrant the construction of new schools to replace facilities that are too costly to repair or expand, or have outlived their usefulness to meet the current educational needs. I am addressing in this recommendation the criteria dealing with plant replacement. By separate study, as submitted to the Board in November of 1993, it has been shown that preliminary figures do not indicate sufficient student population in certain portions of the inner city to warrant adding additional seats through new construction. This is extremely important and is a critical factor in analyzing the total area to be impacted by the construction of a new school. It would lead consolidations, student population. one because to of believe that the overall possible decrease in 2) might require new schools to be constructed convenient to students, and subsequent closure of older, smaller facilities. Objective\nmore the The objective of this recommendation is to add to the criteria for the construction of the Stephens School, a consideration that reaches beyond desegregation and attempts to encompass the District's financial state with regard to the operation of schools, its need to possibly look at rezoning attendance zones in the inner city to support new construction and the need to look at its need to the age and condition of inner city schools with a view toward replacement where renovation and expansion is ^o^~prhibitive and will not meet the educational goals of the District. 23) 4) In evaluating this objective, we will need to review a general criteria of existing facilities in light of educational programs and present needs, and compare this to anticipated costs to meet current needs and future demands. It is expected that the constiruction and operation of newer, more modern, up-to-date facilities with possible consolidation and staff and the closure of older, more antiquated schools will lead to a more efficiently run financial operation and a program that better meets the students' needs. ImpactAnalysis\nThe overall program is that of integration. Larger, more modern, up-to-date schools with more innovative programs have a record of better modern attraction of a varied student body than do older, smaller schools who have had to have been haphazardly renovated to meet educational needs. This is generally true throughout the country. It is expected that a new, modern, up-to-date school in the inner city would better attract Pulaski County Students than our present existing facilities. It is expected that a new This impact is predicated on the fact that the end result would be the closure of at least two or more smaller schools with all students attending the new Stephens The risk of considering this concept of school closure of outdated schools to support new plants are two-fold: 1) If we are successful, we could conceivably be too successful, in which case the new school may not be of sufficient size to meet our needs. Careful analysis of census projections must be made and careful rezoning must be considered during the planning stage of this school. 2) The second risk is one of not considering plant within the normal course of action of School. new construction. The continued operation of schools that are becoming outdated and outmoded most definitely causes a rise in operational costs. It is imperative that we consider normal plant replacement of an entire school as well as we consider plant replacemejit of individual items such as heating ventilation units, intercoms, windows, etc., in order to insure that we are operating in a most efficient manner. Resource Analysis\n----------------------With the decrease in student numbers in the inner city and the consolidation into larger, more efficiently run schools, they'll most certainly lessen the duplication of instructional efforts as is presently found in teaching in multiple locations. Cutting back on administrative staff is obvious, and maximizing class size will allow -- \"----- Cutting back on us to decrease teacher populations. It is expected that operating costs for newer, more modern energy efficient schools will be less than that presently 35) 6) incurred for operating multiple sites of schools as old as 1906. Although a detailed analysis has not been done, the average elementary school cost per occupant for the Little Rock School District is $173.75. There are twelve schools above the average\nof these, twelve schools, six are Incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). Ish, Mitchell, The District has an average energy cost per elementary occupant of $113, There are fifteen schools that exceed this average\nof those, six are incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). average Little Rock School District maintenance cost is The $21,601 per elementary school, eooupent. Eight schools exceeded that average\nof those, three were incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell and Rockefeller), maintenance figure is skewed by the large amount of dollars spent in the past couple of years through bond projects to increase the general maintenance of the schools. The District has no historical data with regard to the operational costs of newer schools\nhowever, theoretical, operational costs can be calculated The once a specified school size Is determined based on the norm. Force Field Analysis\nSupport of a new elementary school appear to be generally positive within the community\nhowever, this support is over-shadowed by the facters of location and schools possibly identified for closing. is difficult at this time to predict the strength for the new Stephens School without a careful study and much community interface regarding possible closures, identify schools at this time for possible closure, without coupling that identification to the final selected premature. site for the Identification Stephens School, would It To be Data exists showing recommendations based on perceived maintenance costs and age of facilities. C______11^ speaking, the incentive schools date back to 1906 with the last ones being constructed in the late 1950' schools constructed in the 1950's years old. General Implementation Plan\nimplemented as follows: picked primarily to Generally s. Even are forty-some odd My recommendation would be If the Stephens School site is support the needs of the Desegregation Plan, that will mandate what schools immediately adjacent to that site are considered for plant replacement. on consideration If the Stephens site is picked based of implementation would be: plant 1) replacement. then the Of after having considered 4census block projections and cost analysis of ^chool operations a community effort would begin to gather support for the closing of certain schools. It Is perceived that both goals can be reached, i.e., the one stated in the desegregation plan that the Stephens School would be closed upon construction of the new Stephens School and an analysis of existing plants which could meet both criteria. I make my recommendation so as to offer a consideration for building a new inter-city elementary school based purely on the need to decrease the schools' operational expenditures and to enhance education through modern, and to close outdated up-to-date facilities, new, facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet our current needs. DCE/rlh/ftep 5-10- RECOMMENDATIONS The cost of epb'an'cen.s:hasVeeSes^X^^^^^ - -a.lor or n.u.cc Of specialized rooms that have been prodded and that . necessaiy to bouse the K alternative proposals have been assigned to these schools. buUdi^sseach of abou/eS s?ud clpa'cT^'S \"o bnng Its capacity to 600 students. rcqulniM founeen^k^ms'^-??'?^ Garland Schools ,V?nX' capacity of about 600 students. in one new bulldlniVihYSipb^^ :ire'tf,l to Franklin Elementary School a-Kasa a^aeoiiuin tiementaiy to Accommodate King Elementary School Ss\" ^S^ddiOoSaUlassmlms.\"Se.S mSns^f 780 sX?'yf based on the new Carver Magnet _size of rooms under space. Adding the necessaiy circulation mUeSsquare feet of m about 16.000 square fcetifXss aS At S5O S-r /\"T 'uld resuk Career Magnet School, the addlTor^X7id^oS SsS OOo?eSS\"' \"\"8 fo upgrading Franklin School, first through the minnru be added the costs for 622.350 and. secondly. the^tobKeS f fSrthe^lm\n?'\"\" *\" aiObPt S Frankhn School. These costs can be detSned rno^^ Jee necessary to upgrade parted on the project. The amount of $100 000 ha Jheeirately when architectural studies The total cost is estimated to be $922,350 ' tentatively allocated for the p students is based on the are project. Major enhancement of King Elementanr capacity of 136 students. unLngedX the erJianc^^^ cost $1,187,815. With a The new Carver Magnet School W1 have a co^fmPer student and the like, of about $4,000 per student. construction, equipment, grounds, fees,. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School The new Carver School has measures of crpaciZs\"P?\" and using the same classrooms by using the staffe as a muci analysis, of about 568 students Addin? twn would result a oapaXX\nXXstl^^^^^^ for spe^al^^d'^K capacity of approximately 600 students. ^Ing the cost of the Carver School The combined budgets for enhancerr^n^ school would cost about $2 500 000 bearmg walls and wood frame. Garland School is constructed with brick It Is suggested that ^^^c^edordyPaSt^e^e^^^^ rt f Garland and Stephens e.xpand the site.  abandoned houses that could be secured to EXHIBIT 4-59- Name of School: Stenhens El. (30.954 SF) Update of Estimates of Cost for Renovation of Little Rock Public School Buildings Comments: This school is to be replaced. No further expenditures are recommended at this time.EXHIBIT 5 EXECUTIVE SUWWRY 17/11/92 thru 16/31/93 SYSTEM SITE ID SITE WANE TOTAL COST TO DATE ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS NUnBER OF OCCUPANTS GROSS I OF SQUARE FEET COST GROSS COST PER OCCUPANT PER SB. FOOT A A A 8 A A A A A A C . A A A A A C A A A C c A A A A A A A A A A A C C A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A 154 ADMINISTRATION 861 ADMINISTRATION ANNEl 114 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING TI4 BACKHOE 119 BADGETT 117 BALE 122 BA5ELIIE 116 BOOKER 118 BRADY 858 CAFETERIA DEPT NI4 CARP. SUPPLIES 121 CARVER 881 CENTRAL HIGH 128 CHICOT 831 CLOVERDALE ELEM 115 CLOVERDALE JR HIS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 132 DODD 817 DUNBAR 853 EAST SIDE 1982 ELECT. SUPPLIES HU ELECTRONICS SUPPLIES 818 FAIR 123 FAIR PARK S83 FAIR STADIUM 189 FOREST HEIGHTS 824 FOREST PARK 825 FRANKLIN 848 FULBRIGHT 826 GARLAND 837 GEYER SPRINGS 127 GIBBS 111 GILLIAM H86 GROUNDS SUPPLIES H81 H/AC SUPPLIES 812 HALL HIGH 813 HENDERSON 149 ISH 831 JEFFERSON 135 KING 174 KLRE/UALR 162 LEE HI9 LOCKSMITH SUPPLIES 846 HABELVALE ELEN 116 HABELVALE JR 813 HANN 812 HCCLELLAN SI4 HcCLELLAN STADIUM 128 HCDERHOTT 133 HEADOWCLIFF 884 HETRO 834 MITCHELL 68,232.48 23,265.53 45,894.86 192.64 44,579.81 51,624.89 58,161.38 139,843.77 47,137.49 36,575.74 9,662.58 81,743.26 264,448.68 83,662.49 49,191.58 118,345.22 1,878.42 51,461.97 123,298.77 39,167.46 5,815.18 2,316.85 155,882.88 62,524.87 16,315.77 119,645.86 68,965.83 88,258.89 75,738.88 39,122.83 39,974.39 41,796.14 6,159.23 7,468.73 2,835.43 188,429.78 191,217.13 37,478.52 68,674.65 8.88 8.88 38,293.69 2,685.42 62,836.12 71,933.53 222,797.22 ,221,649.65 21,877.83 74,788.62 54,912.12 146,531.77 6G,539.66 51,784.48 13,971.92 33,783.38 1.81 27,248.82 33,437.83 49,929.82 67,681.11 34,689.61 29,686.13 8.88 68,185.41 212,583.58 57,893.11 28,481.81 89,645.79 8.88 33,898.55 183,868.42 31,949.71 8.88 8.88 129,977.19 41,887.79 6,474.94 86,764.87 48,327.83 53,178.83 55,188.82 29,134.18 33,318.38 29,618.86 3,148.87 8.88 8.88 158,165.98 125,813.52 17,254.94 49,116.88 8.88 8.88 25,876.75 8.88 44,763.87 54,588.61 152,139.24 173,851.48 2,187.23 53,327.86 31,864.45 138,614.43 58,957.17 16,517.19 9,238.68 11,386.28 192.64 16,891.85 17,711.27 7,987.69 71,188.11 12,411.71 6,841.46 9,662.51 28,464.16 51,758.16 25,563.78 28,732.49 28,315.67 1,878.42 17,218.23 19,673.22 7,217.75 5,815.18 2,316.85 25,641.61 28,589.42 9,848.83 32,621.88 28,491.82 26,935.46 28,111.21 9,838.64 6,516.93 12,814.47 3,811.16 7,468.73 2,835.43 21,785.83 64,188.55 28,883.96 19,432.88 8.88 8.88 13,188.66 2,685.42 16,848.63 17,346.22 78,538.68 47,613.88 17,889.88 28,843.58 23,788.46 15.836.38 17,459.88 11.89 62.93 4.48 I. II 439.94 475.79 242.79 274.65 26.17 48.15 l.ll 173.71 178.86 215.61 58.11 383.76 l.ll 161.19 549.13 l.ll l.ll 8.81 184.88 287.66 1.18 258.39 146.98 135.88 518.85 157.21 147.88 171.61 8.88 8.88 8.88 478.85 212.96 211.62 124.89 1.88 1.18 36.28 l.ll 424.42 78.71 127.38 984.45 1.18 537.26 147.21 88.96 122.61 I I 446 I 212 321 339 615 398 8 I 589 1,999 535 366 775 I 314 715 I 8 8 915 243 8 787 441 411 538 256 282 333 8 8 8 994 914 187 463 8 8 I 8 518 667 858 985 8 519 448 1,818 264 26,791 26,273 37,361 I 23,414 33,626 51,455 74,531 36,259 38,456 I 61,695 266,823 59,687 33,263 81,894 I 46,712^ 99,397 89,133 I I 131,628 28,867 I 71,137 31,914 68,588 66,892 38,632 41,788 37,237 23,727 I I 152,348 113,212 31,812 43,546 I I 47,951 I 55,568 59,981 113,131 118,425 8 48,121 36,931 129,546 39,283 l.ll l.ll 111.11 l.ll 221.69*- 161.63 171.56 226.19 - 116.1B l.ll l.ll 137.19 132.29 156.38 134.41 152.71 l.ll 165.99 174.86 l.ll\n:3 172.1^ 257.31  l.ll 152.13 138.24 195.26 - 142.98 152.82 141.75 125.51 8.81 8.88 8.88 181.52 288.11 288.38 - 142.18 1.18 1.88 8.11 1.18 124.17 117.85 262.11 225.13 1.18 146.78 .124.81 146.53 259.62 - 2.55 1.89 1.21 l.ll 1.91 1.54 1.15 1.87 1.31 1.95 l.ll 1.31 1.99 1.41 1.48 1.45 l.ll 1.18 1.24 1.44 1.18 8.88 1.18 2.17 1.18 1.71 1.91 1.17 1.13 1.81 8.96 1.12 8.26 8.88 1.18 1.18 1.84 1.18 1.58 1.18 8.18 1.81 8.11 1.12 1.21 1.97 1.87 1.18 1.56 1.49 1.13 1.75SYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUHHARY 87/81/92 thru 86/38/93 ENER6Y COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS GROSS I COST GROSS COST NUHKR OF OF SOUARE OCCtffANTS FEET PER PER SO. OCCUPAMT FOOT C A A C C A A A C A A A . A A A A A A C A C A A A 8 B 8 B A B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 8 8 HB7 ROTOR POOL SUPPLIES 135 OAKHURST 858 OTTER CREEK R28 P.H.SUPPLIES R85 PAIMT SUPPLIES 136 PARKIN/IRC 885 PARKVIEW 888 PLANT SERVICES n83 PLUHB. SUPPLIES 838 PULASKI H6TS ELEM 818 PtRJISKI HSTS JR 885 PtffiCHASINE SBl OUIELEY STADIUM 839 RI6HTSELL 836 ROCKEFELLER 848 ROMINE 119 SAFETY AND SECURITY SB2 scon FIELD H77 SMALL ENGINE REPAIR 811 SOUTHNEST H8B STADIUM SUPPLIES 841 STEPHEMS 864 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 847 TERRY TB2 TRACTOR 82 TBl TRACTOR 1 TB3 TRACTOR 3 TBS TRACTOR 5 883 TRANSPORTATION V48 VEHICL 48 V81 VEHICLE 1 VIB VEHICLE IB Vll VEHICLE 11 V12 VEHICLE 12 V13 VEHICLE 13 V14 VEHICLE 14 V15 VEHICLE 15 V16 VEHICLE 16 V17 VEHICLE 17 V18 VEHICLE 18 V19 VEHICLE 19 VB2 VEHICLE 2 V2B VEHICLE 28 V21 VEHICLE 21 V22 VEHICLE 22 V23 VEHICLE 23 V24 VEHICLE 24 V25 VEHICLE 25 V26 VEHICLE 26 V27 VEHICLE 27 V28 VEHICLE 28 V29 VEHICLE 29 VB3 VEHICLE 3 2,453.37 7,698.62 62,433.67 127.49 1,772.9B 14,588.65 187,132.64 88,797.85 1,173.48 68,349.37 138,129.83 27,736.84 36,288.33 83,727.71 121,393.38 96,964.85 7,858.78 21,599.81 2,248.62 133,867.83 145.94 54,253.21 11,218.42 62,922.68 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,881.87 2,386.77 68,865.68 39B.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.28 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88  2,897.82  692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1,839.99 B.BB 4,873.28 47,889.31 8.88 B.BB 18,988.66 159,766.18 29,264.35 B.BB 43,795.84 67,856.48 19,911.82 4,838.21 35,284.16 88,841.13 49,738.47 5,213.89 3,255.74 B.BB 88,843.86 B.BB 37,188.82 8,977.61 43,266.35 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 44,348.32 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 2,453.37 3,579.99 15,296.87 127.49 1,772.98 3,591.99 26,815.39 59,269.33 1,173.48 16,279.47 61,792.91 7,773.81 32,258.12 48,257.49 32,369.49 47,191.84 1,844.81 18,343.27 2,248.62 45,586.87 145.94 16,958.29 9 212.41 19,587.53 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,BB1.B7 2,386.77 15,437.76 398.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.2B 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88 2,897.82 692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1.839.99 8.11 37.43 127.49 8.88 8.88 8.88 551.87 263.37 8.18 274.86 488.52 58.41 8.88 186.86 182.76 42.54 8.88 8.88 8,88 318.78 8.88 186.18 28.48 148.72 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 287.52 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 B 252 353 8 B B 888 B B 379 774 B B 249 361 361 8 B B 67B B 2B9 B 541 8 B B B 8 8 B B B 8 B B B 8 8 B B B B B B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 33,788 36,551 8 8 8 166,477 28,914 I 58,252 73,216 28,914 I 37,638 64,561 42,314 6,881 B.BB 3B.S2 176.87- B.BB B.BB B.BB 218.73 B.BB B.BB 159.23  168.13 b.b| B.BI 336.2i- 1.88 8.23 1.71 1.88 8.88 8.88 1.12 4.25 8.88 1.84 1.78 r.33 8.88 2.23 336.27*^ 1.88 B 8' 82,968 I 268.61 1.88 8.88 8.81 199.88 8.18 2.29 I.IB 8.88 8.88 1.61 8.88 34,384 6,418 45,312 8 8 8 8 259.58*^ 1.58 19,558 8 8 8 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 8 B B B B 8 B.BB 116.31 B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB -B.BB B.BB 8.88 1.75 1.39 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 3.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 e.BI 1.18 l.ll 8.88 1.18 8.88 8.81 8.18 8.88 8.88 8.88 1.81 1.81 8.88 8.81 8.88 i ISYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUNNARY 87/11/92 thru 86/38/93 ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST SRDSS GROSS  COST GROSS COST NUHBER OF OF SQUARE TO DATE OCCUPANTS FEET PER PER sa. XCUPAHT FOOT B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B C A ti A h fl A V36 VEHICLE 36 V31 VEHICLE 31 V32 VEHICLE 32 V33 VEHICLE 33 V34 VEHICLE 34 V35 VEHICLE 35 V36 VEHICLE 36 V37 VEHICLE 37 V38 VEHICLE 38 V39 VEHICLE 39 V84 VEHICLE 4 V95 VEHICLE 5 V66 VEHICLE 6 V67 VEHICLE 7 V88 VEHICLE 8 V69 VEHICLE 9 651 WAKEFIELD HU HAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 642 HASHINGTON 852 WATSON 629 HESTERN HILLS 643 WILLIAMS 644 HILSON 845 HOODRUFF 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 45,516.23 3,743.72 86,597.63 73,398.25 48,527.55 54,161.86 57,679.73 43,825.84 6.68 6.86 6.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 6.88 8.86 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.68 6.68 8.68 32,592.84 8.68 65,115.52 48,583.42 35,425.18 46,131.21 42,543.48 38,836.61 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 12,837.66 3,743.72 21,849.77 24,456.28 12,938.92 13,896.79 15,868.48 12,182.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.88 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 08.53 6.88 432.34 358.55 163.53 133.86 67.85 6.36 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 588 8 822 451 335 499 355 234 e 37,395 8_ 89,688 53,646 41,991 47,266 37,875 38,688 8.88 8.66 8.68 8.66 8.88 8.88 6.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 8.66 8.68 6.66 8.68 6.86 91.82 6.66 165.35 162.75 1*4.86 166.5j 162.48 183.87*^ 6.88 6.68 6.88 6.68 6.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 1.22 6.68 6.96 1.36 1.16 1.15 1.56 1.13 5,251,694.87 3,621,656.78 1,616,918.98 13,118.39 27,888 3,699,811 188.8555 1.4198 sssssu (-71- Beriod: 1949-1960 Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES FDR RENCVATICN AND REPAIR, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, LITHE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Note: All unit costs, except as noted, are correlated to total square feet of finished building based on estimated ratio of amount of each item in average single story structure of 1949-60 period. All cost figures and quantities are approximate and unit costs are based on early 1981 data. All cost A. BASIC IffiCOMXENDATIONS Category and Task Estinated Lhit Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. II. Sanitary Replace plunbing fixtures (kitchen not included\nserving only) Exterior Replace non-functioning window operators .32-.40 50/lkiit III. Interior Replace asphalt tile remni ning Replace suspended ceilings-1950 Install insulation-1950 bldg Refinish doors, paint walls, i Install new toilet enclosures bldg etc. 1.12 .57 .30 .65-.75/SF 275-300 ea. IV. Electro-Mechanical Replace lighting-1950 \u0026amp; '58 bldgs Replace boiler/air handling units Mise, V. 80% 20-25 40% 12-13,000 SF 18 Stalls 1.49-1.50/SF 12-13,000 SF 1.30-1.55/SF 31,000 Subtotal Building Special Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - 30% Ibtal Building Cost per Sq. Ft. 8,000-10,000 1,000-1,250 14,000-15,000 7,500-8,000 3,600-3,900 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 16,800-19,500 40,000-48,000 103,700-121,150 31,100-36,350 134,800-157,500 4.35-5.08 Site Work Develop plan for utili2a,tion and landscaping Paving-play areas -basketball area -walks 2.20-2.50/SY EXHIBIT 6 5-6 Acres 2000 SF 12,000 SF 15-1800 SF 1,500-3,000 500 - 600 3,000-3,500 400 - 500-72- Table 26 ALTERNAIE ESTIMATES, STEHIENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDOL (cont'd) V. Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ Site Work (cont'd) Grass Area-seeding -sprinkling Planting trees/shrubs Equipment Lifting Fencing 5500/A 1500/A 7-8,000 3000-3500 1100-1200 10,50-11/LF 2 Acres 3 Acres Basic 1 Set 2 Boles 800 LF @ 6' Subtotal, Site Work Mise and Contingency - 10% Ibtal Site Work 10,000-11,000 4,500-5,000 7,000-8,000 3,000-3,500 2,200-2,500 8,400-8,800 40,500-46,400 4,000-4,600 44,500-51,000 B. LPCRADING \"Pie extent of work under (A) is essentially that required to bring the facility ip to reasonable \"as is\" standards. ~ ' ----- n S, reasonable \"as is\" standards. In the building the quality of lighting would be the cmly ipgrading resulting but the extent of site inprove- rants reconmended, while basic to a full utilization of an inteimediate level school with comnunity participation, would from the present lack of development. prove an autcmatic upgrading Looking forward to extending the proper role of this school VO extenoing me proper role of this school another 20 years, considerable ipgrading and major replacements would be in view. , present building upgrading to systenwide standards probably would involve converting to fully air conditioned environment which in turn would inply optimal insulation policies. Thus in addition to ceiling ' insulation as in (A), the balance of the buildings' roofs and all window areas should be considered. Ihns in addition to ceiling In any event, it is likely the standard steel sash of the 1950 structure would be replaced with lower maintenance aluminum insulated glazing perhaps and possibly reduced glass area. Consideration of providing a larger sized recreational unit than the limited sized (1800 SF) cafeteria, but for educational and grams, should be part of the ipgrading estimate. coranunity pro- storm drainage or diverting its location could vide grass playfield on the northwest corner of the overall site. pro--73- Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SOEOL (cont'd) B. imiADING (cont'd) Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. Sanitary Replace drinking fountains Food service (preparation) II. Exterior Replace all windows, 1950 unit Paint all trim 350-400 ea, Lunp Sum .75-.80/SF III. Interior Carpet all classrooms Refinish interior New toilet partitions IV. Electro-Mechani cal Replace present HV system, except for work under A. 1300-1500/Room As in (A) 3.50-4.30/SF 6 75% 18 25,000 SF Building Subtotal: Mise, Spec Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - Add 30% Building TOTAL: Cost per Sq Ft incl A., BASIC REC'S V. New Construction hiulti-purpose gym/stage A/E Fees, Contingency, Equipment 30-35/SF 20% 4-5000 SF Subtotal: VI. Site Work As in (A) Develop play field w/ baseball backstop, etc. - allow for 12\" fill Additional lighting Additional equipment Additional planting 7000/Acre 7-8/Cy 1100-1200 ea. Net 3 A 20,000 CF 4 Subtotal, Add'l work Mise, Fees, Contingency, + 15% Total Site Work 2,100-2,400 10,000-35,000 18,000-19,000 1,000-1,200 23,400-27,000 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 87,500-107,500 154,800-217,600 46,400-65,280 201,200-282,900 10.80-14.21 120,000-175,000 24,000-35,000 144,000-210,000 40,500-46,400 20,000-22,000 30,000-36,000 4,400-4,800 3,000-3,500 3,500-4,000 32,400-36,000 + 102,900-118,400 15,100-17,600 $118,000-136,000-1^- Ihble 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDQL (cont'd) SUMMARY OF COSTS Action Required Oode Range of Est Cost in 1981 Dollars A. BASIC RECCWENnATICNS R 134,800-157,500 B. UPGRADING, excluding air conditioning and energy conservation measures R 201,200-282,900 SCBTOTAL-R 336,000-440,400 Equipment E Site Development S 118,000-136,000 Construction C 144,000-210,000 C. TOTAL RENOVATION TOTAL, excluding air conditioning $598,000-786,406 The configuration of Stephens School and its siting are among the poorest of the entire system, Ihere is little or no flexibility to the plan or structure to adapt to substantial alteration such as grouping of classroOTs or expansion. The rooms, however, are good sized squares which can be equipped in numerous ways for varying assignnent. Once rehabilitated this school should serve at its present capacity for another 20-25 years at which point it will be over 50 years and, because of the above constraints, may well prove to be expendable as _ part of the total system. It is very doubtful that such a building would lend itself to the major renovation concept followed at Mitchell, for exanple. Thus it is suggested that in the 2000-2010 period the ^rd will face either demolition or another igjgrading effort to maintain the status quo. aCity of Little Rock Jim Diiley C Mayor City Hill. Room 203 SOO W. Mark him Litll* Rock, AR 72201-142T (SOt) 371-4516 FAX (301)371-4496 I February 24, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 cws\n.nioN_ Re: Stephens Intmdistrict School Site Selection Dear Dr. Bernd: ADMKSEC. I have been informed by City staff from the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, that the current Stephens Elementary School located at 3700 W. 18th St. has been selected as the site for the new Stephens Interdisttict School that will open in 1994-95. . .... . , ..................................... We applaud the efforts of the LMD Board and the diligence of the Site Selection Committee in the selection of this site that will provide an innovative and exeiting alternative to not only the Stephens School neighborhood students, but also to other students located in Pulaski County who wish to attend. The City of Little Rock has made a long-term commitment to revitalize and stabilize our older and traditional neighborhoods and by the selection of this new school in the Stephens School area, makes our continued commitment even more important I have taken the liberty to outline some of these programs and housing initiatives that has and will have a tremendous impact on the St^hens School neighborhoods quality of life in the current, as well as, its future realm.  Community Development Block Grant/Public Works Projects and Expenditures in the Stephens School Area The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program defines iu Stephens School CDBG area as bordered on the north by 1-630, on the south by Roosevelt Road, on the east by the Union Pacific railroad traclu and the west by Elm Street. In that area the program has completed reconstruction of 16,939 linear feet of streeu (more than three miles) and 21,700 linear feet of drainage facilities (more than 4 miles) at a total cost of approximately $3,875,805. In addition, the program will reconstruct Maple Street from 25th to Asher Avenue and 26th Street from Pine to Maple within the next year at an estimated cost of $152,000. In the immediate vicinity of Stephens School itself, the improvements include underground drainage along Oak Street and reconstruction of Oak Street from 16th to 19th. The program also reconstructed Valentine from 14th to 18th and placed underground a drainage system that paralleled Valentine. EXHIBIT 7A map depicting these improvements in the first 16 years of the CDBG program is atuched. Housing Revitalization Efforts The City of Little Rock is actively involved in numerous programs to promote the revitalization of neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area along with its housing stocL We have actively been involved in fostering neighbortiood partnerships and giving long-range planning to these neighborhoods. We have seve:^ programs, jeach design^ to meet the special ne^ in the Stephens School community - these programs include: Save-A-Home The City acquires a house and repairs it to code standards using C.D.B.G. funds, then sells it to a low or moderate income family at cost or below cost. The buyer must be able to secure bank financing to purchase one of these homes. Affordable Housing The City is allowed to build new homes on vacant lots in existing - neighborhoods. These homes are designed and constructed in a manner to keep the sale price low enough to obtain financing by low and moderate income families. (We are currently building (3) homes in the Central High Area.) ReaAal Rehab Funds Funds are made available to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of rental property to meet local code standards located within the neighborhood revitalization program area. Homebuyers Group The City assists 40-60 citizens by providing counseling on home purchasing and credit managing skills. Each person will participate in a 12 month consumer education program designed to train them on how to effectively use credit to improve their quality of life through the purchase of a home and/or other retail items that require a good credit history. Homebuyer Assistance Program The City provides financial assistance, paying one-half of the minimal downpayment cost, including insurance and taxes\nto assist low and moderate income families in purchasing a home anywhere within the city limits of Little Rock for a house not to exceed $55,000. Community Development Corporations CDC The City along with the banking and business community have developed a public/private partnership to provide assistance to developers and community- based organizations for building/renovating low to moderate income housing and improving commercial services in older neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area. 2We have garnered the services of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LlSC) which is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization with a proven track record in community development. With the 1.5 million loan pwl in place, they will provide support in three principal ways: Building neighborhood CDC's capacity through administrative support grants\nprovide project funding\nand working with others to estoblish reliable systems for volume production of housing and other CDC development projccu. The Greater Little Rock CDC has selected the Stephens School neighborhood for their initial project focus that will encompass (12) blocks of housing and vacant lots near the current Stephens School location. The major thrust of their program will be to provide affordable housing opportunities through both rehabilitation and new construction. Leverage Loon Program The City has developed a joint loan program with First Commercial Bank to provide help to low and nnoderate income homeowners to fix up their older Little Rock homes and meet City code standards. Through this joint venture arrangement an applicant, if approved, will receive a below-market interest rate loon. This is a city-wide program. .......Neighbariiood Alert Center -3924 W. 12th aad Cedar - The Neighborhood Alert System/Center is a neighborhood-based center designed for available resources and various City services to be more accessible to the residents of Little Rock. The system/ocatcr serves as a collaborative and concentrated effort between residents, religious groups, businesses, schools, neighborhood and civic organizations, youth groups, and City Hall to improve the conditions and quality of life for its citizens. Even though this Alert Center is located on the northern boundary of the Stq)hens School neighborhood, it serves as the nucleus for existing and pro^xed programs in this area. This center currently has integrated (3) city departments along with their delivery efforts to create positive image of change in this neighborhood. service Department of Neighborhoods and Planning - Offers code enforcement officers, and premise inspectors that are responsible for enforcement of environmental codes, deteriorating homes, abandoned cars and weed lots. Fighting Back InKbtive - Offers Neighborhood Alert Center Facilitators to help coordinate neighborhood-based efforts to alcohol and other drug abuse abatement and alternatives. Little Rock Police Department - Offers community policing to develop a working relationship with neighbors for overall safety and crime reduction. (Currently has 3 foot patrol officers.) Volunteers - The most important element toward the effectiveness and success of the Alert Centers is the neighborhood volunteers. There is a role for all citizens to be a part of the solution in unifying to take back our neighborhoods. 3Intensified/Sy sterna tic Inspection Program This is a program that is just getting started. It requires the code enforcement officer to regularly inspect all properties in this neighborhood for obvious code violations such as improper garbage disposal, abandoned autos, high grass, weeds, litter, and vacant we^ lots. The code officer assigned to this area is responsible for taking the necessary enforcement action to ensure conection of the violations. This program currently includes vacant and abandoned structures. Hopefully, in the future we will have the resources to expand the program to include occupied structures^ Drug House Elimination Program On February 27, 1993 this program will kick-off. It is a comprehensive effort to unite all avail^le resources, including the citizens in this naghborhood, to eliminate drug houses and drug activity in the area. This program includes participation by the Code Enforcement staff, Little Rock Police Department, Fighting Back personnel and citizens. Paiirt Your Heart Out '93 The Stefdiens School neighborhood was selected for this years program. On May 1, forty homes within a 2-3 block radius of Stephens Elementary School will be painted by volunteer citizens from throughout the City. Preceding this event on AprU 17, a neighborhood clean-up effort is being planned. This effort involves all citizens in this neighborhood having City resources available, i.e. dumpsters, knuckle boom trucks, chipper/shredder to assist them in removing discarded furniture and appliances, rutile, trash, etc. from their premises. Again, we applaud your efforts in retaining die school on the current site and we are in full support of the Stephens Interdisthet School Site Selection Committee's recommendation to the LRSD Board. Respectively Submitted, Sun Dailey Mayor JD/TP:sc Attachment DIRECTOR PAC. COOR. cc: Charles Nickerson, Interim City Manager Billy J. Bowles, Assist. Superintendent for Desegregation Doug Eaton, Little Rock School District Lou Caudell Jim Lawson Wendy Salaam Tim Polk MAJNTCNWCE _ CUSTODIAL CONSTRUCTION^ AOMIN. SEC. 4Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 664^3334 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, --4 Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection Committee EXHIBIT 8I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I I COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN 1 CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. IGLRCDC) COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I 1 Introduction......................................................... Building Community Capacity........................ The GLRCDC............................................ Management Structure................................... Staffing ................................................................. Financial Resources ............................................ Geographical Area Served............................... Housing ................................................................. Initial Target Area .............................................. Community Obstacles to Overcome............ Actions to Overcome Obstacles ................... Coalition Building ............................................. Network Members ........................................... Network Objectives ........................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary ............................................................. APPENDIX Census Tract Map .............................. Midtown Service Area Map ............. Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile ............... 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I I I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I I IBUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! 1 Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network Is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. I I The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a kriowledfleable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and individuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts arxJ brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks:  Gt the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I I I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. I * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wHiing and able to allocate to the network. I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford except through network participation. [ For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners In revitalizing Greater Little Rock's Inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved In planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC. (GLRCDC) I I i I The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residential/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I i To sell renovated structures to low-income Individuals arxJ small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services'of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4I I I INTRODUCTION i The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I I The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each communitynetwork member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I 1 I* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wMing and able to aNocate to the network. I I I i Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford excepi through network participation. f I i For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners in revitalizing Greater Little Rocks inner city communities. 1 To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. will 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I I J The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Reverrue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC Is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residenfial/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and smaM disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residentlal facilities in the area. 1 To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! i Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and irtdividuals about the networking concept, The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Get the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is in place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three (3) years. The manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined arxl controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation. The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience in the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: I i Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 5Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. Staffing I The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). I During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be contracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources I i- During the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 15% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1 992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6I state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE   The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area Is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing Infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong Impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). - The primary goal of the neighborhood and Its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. ( i ! i The quality of life, including social aspects, is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. I i f I I. I 1 There are three pockets of substandard housing\ntwo are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should-be identified as priorities for any home Improvement programs that ard initiated in the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading in these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are\ngang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME I I Recognizing the need for \"bottom up planning\" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy\nI Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems)\n) Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection\nOrganization Obstacles The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must prove that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES I Organization Actions A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. I Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members 1 The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I i I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities\nCommunity Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the project's financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities\nProvide safe recreational activities and social services for youth\n11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens\nIncrease code enforcement\nDevelop safe, decent and affordable housing. Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. I In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. I A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) (Syyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #4 #5 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning GLRCDC 12 1993-1994 1993-1994 1993-1995 #2 ^2Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives ( . |. ... I The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, housing opportunities and information about the purpose and services of the network will be mailed to residents of the service area. The network will attract and motivate area residents to care about and work to address the neighborhood's problems and inform them about the market advantages of the Midtown area (proximity to the interstate, shopping malls, ' downtown and affordable homes). Objective I: Crime Prevention The Stephens School area has recently experienced gang related activities. The primary gang in the area is the \"Oak Street Posse\". A cooperative effort between the Little Rock Police, the GLRCDC and neighborhood activists will help to rid the area of drug activity. Other non-profit organizations are necessary to address the drug education and rehabilitation needs of area residents. Initial program activities for this area will be to request that the city provide street lights on high crime streets, increase police presence and assist neighborhood residents in forming crime watch and reporting groups. To decrease crime and gang activity, the network will implement a crime prevention program. The Little Rock Police Department is the designated network crime coordinator. A youth task force will be formed 13 to develop youth programs for the area. The goal of the task force is to work through the city's young people to check the tide of crime and gang activities and to channel this energy to useful purposes. I The networks' Drug Intervention Program will implement drug education training activities targeted to adults and youth in the service area. EducationaJ activities will focus on providing literature and referrals i for drug counseling and treatment. The network will maintain a list of rehabilitation or treatment organizations which provide counseling and rehabilitative programs. The list will contain the following information: 1 Name, address, and phone number of the organization. Types of services provided. Hours of operation, including emergency hours. The contact person's name and phone rximbers. I Fee structure, including insurance coverage. I The drug intervention youth activities will include providing drug free social activities, and community work activities. Weekend social functions will be provided that are properly supervised by adults and security personnel for youths up to 18 years of age. Community work activities such as the Self-Help Paint Program, vacant lot cleaning, and yard maintenance activities will provide minimum wage earning opportunities for service area youth. Adult drug education and training activities will focus on training them to recognize symptoms of drug use and provide intervention training to combat the use and sale of drugs in their neighborhoods. In cooperation with the Little Rock Police Department, GYST House, the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Division and other drug and crime prevention programs in the community, training materials, training facilitators and training activities such as a Drug Awareness Week will be implemented. Priority drug intervention activities will be implemented in the Oak Street area and education and training activities will be conducted at Stephens school. 14Objective 11: Safe Youth Recreation and Social Activities During the summer months, there is little for the youth to do. The lack of excitement, zest, thrills, fun, and challenges have created a dull routine life that has fostered the increased involvement of youth in criminal and other socially undesirable activities. I The cooperative network will begin planning youth activities in the first quarter of 1993. New Futures will be asked to serve as youth activities coordinator. The network will implement educational, recreational and work activities for service area youth. I I I Educational activities will include career exploration and tutorial assistance for summer school youth. Recreational activities will include supervised and organized sports activities such as bowling, skating, swimming, softball and other sports-in which male and female youth can jointly participate. The disadvantaged youth in the service area win be provided work opportunities through the city's Job Partnership Training Program. Some work activities will take place in the service area with youth supporting the network's vacant lot enforcement activities. Emphasis will be placed on recruiting parents and other adults in the service area to participate as mentors, supervisors and other program support roles. Objective III: Senior Citizen Social Service Activities The explosive growth in the older population deserves our special attention. For older residents to maintain independent lifestyles, the network will have to develop a variety of housing alternatives and support systems that address the social needs and health limitations of this group. Many older residents live alone and may suffer from chronic and disabling diseases. The housing and support system needs of these mostly widowed, largely female, often frail elderly are of major concern for the network. Many of their homes are large enough to house a four or five member family, making shared housing a viable alternative that helps residents share expenses while providing them with companionship. Unused space can be converted to accessory apartments which permit the sharing of a house without requiring the merger of two nuclear families. 15For our older residents to retain their independent living status, however, a mix of transportation, social, nutrition, and health services to accompany housing programs is necessary. t Central Arkansas Agency on Aging will be asked to serve as senior citizens activity coordinator. The senior citizens network will plan and implement transportation services to aid older residents with access to supportive services and nutrition programs that provide them with at least one hot meal, frozen, or supplemental meal (with a satisfactory storage life) at least five days during the week. I i The network will provide health education, recreation, and referral services for health and recreational activities. The network will encourage and assist older residents to use the services available to them. ( Objective IV: Code Enforcement Fair Hoosing and Code Enforcement Many of the vacant lots, abandoned and boarded houses are owned by absentee landlords. Priority code enforcement will be directed toward the cleaning of vacant lots and the abandoned and boarded houses in the service area. I The GLRCDC is the designated code enforcement network coordinator and will identify vacant lots that need trash removal and grass cutting. A list of these properties will be compiled, their code deficiencies specified and the list will be presented to the Code Enforcement Department of the city. The city will provide the owners with a formal notice of the code violations and a deadline to make the needed corrections. If the corrections are not made within the specified time, the city or its designated agent will make the corrections and invoice the owner for the services. The network coordinator will also identify abandoned or boarded property in the service area. The network coordinator will request that the city inspect the properties for code violations and provide owners with a formal notification of the code deficiencies. If the owner is low income, elderly, handicapped or disabled, the program counselor will seek assistance from the city to bring the property within code. Other code violators who are unable or unwilling to make needed repairs will be asked to donate the property to the program for removal or repairs. 16Objective V: Safe, Decent, Affordable Housing A Homeowner Training Program is projected to begin during the second quarter of 1993. The Urban League of Arkansas is the designated network homeowner training coordinator for the activity. The training is projected to provide not less than 1 5 participants during the first year. I k ( f I The program will provide participants with credit counseling similar to the loan origination by a rnortgage company. The counseling will analyze a participant's sources of income and liabilities to establish whether the client's financial status is adequate to support the desired loan. A credit report on each participant will be obtained at a cost of five dollars per person. If the participant has credit problems, the program workers will assist the participant toward establishing good credit, writing letters of explanations and/or structuring payment plans. If the income of the participant is inadequate, the program workers will assist the participant in locating a more affordable house. The program will also provide pre-qualification services for people who have not selected a house, but want to know how much they can afford and if they will have problems at the bank. The program will assist participants with completing finance application documents, provide each participant with a bank referral letter and educate clients on the merits of using checking accounts. Housing Development The network will initially concentrate its rehabilitation and housing development efforts in the area bordering Stephens School. The GLRCDC is the designated network housing development coordinator. The area is experiencing a high percentage of deteriorating housing units. The structural conditions are deteriorating faster than other parts of the service area. The network will identify a four square block area adjoining the north boundary of Stephens School within the area, and seek to obtain the cooperation of block home owners. The network will seek to h\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_656","title":"Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School buildings","Wakefield Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/656"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nNews clippings and computer printed images of school destroyed by fire in 2002\nArkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 1. 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist, will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman. the schools tapes will be shown each Friday 1... Qjg school via closed circuit Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie dramatizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie, chairman of the theatre arts department at the UniAmericans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people who will make black history come alive for students in the Little Rock School District this month. Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield Africa or black history in the United States. Third-graders are television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous I Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark the month. -------------- In other schools around the studying Kenya this month while district similar events are being fipn. .........11 c-------------------------planned jerry Rayford, a district fifth-graders will focus on the civ- il rights movement in the United States. patron, will visit Terry Elemen- pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama department will perform a skit at tary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana, read books about black history and illustrate them in various art forms. At the end of the month. Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the fhz. .-.1, 1 I? u no .-----------\nschool will celebrate Underground the school on Feb. 23. A group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style.   ' performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. Stud- Other students vdll attend the At Gibbs Magnet Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of Buffalo Sol- School. which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium. The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit At Dunbar International Stud----------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- ent Mary Swift, mances of a musical entitled Kikukuu, a Swahili term that Railroad, at Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. Ajjv 11 r. 1 of the U.S. Army that was sent to Additionally Dunbar students guard the western frontier in will select or produce videotapes 1866.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie drama-  ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman, the schools tapes will be shown each Friday in the school via closed circuit tizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie. chairman of the theatre arts department at the Uni- Americans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous 1 Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark - --- Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people Africa or black history in the who will make black history United States. Third-graders are hT studying Kenya this month while distocLsimifaT^wnuare bemg tie Rock School District this fifth-graders will focus on the civ- -----' '  .. . ** rights movement in the United Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield States. come alive for students in the Lit- faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama dethe month. In other schools around the planned. Jerry Rayford, a district patron, will visit Terry Elementary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana read books about black history and illustrate them in various art Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance ------ of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the the entire school will celebrate Underground Railroad at forms. At the end of the month. partment will perform a skit at ccieuraie .  group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style, performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. 1 Stud- Other students will attend the Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of \"Buffalo Sol- School, which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium, The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit and Creole populations. At Dunbar International Stud---------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- mances of a musical entitled ent Mary Swift. Railroad,\" Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. of the U.S. Army that was sent to Kikukiiii  a Swahili Additionally, Dunbar students guard the western frontier in MKUKuu, a Swahili term that will select or produce videotapes ----- 1866.Atkansas l\u0026gt;\nnMM\nrat iW\u0026lt;O'Zfllc )  TUESDAY, OCTOBERS, 1999 Arkansas Domocfnl-Ga.otle'STEVE KFESEE a supervision aide at Wakefield Monday lor the first day of a joint preschool program sponsored by the Little Rock School District and Pulaski Counly Head Start. Rodrick Hicks, Elementary, dressed as Leo the Lion, leads 4-year-olds  _ _i._ 1  1. I :iln Dz-./'L' erhnn wearing ariimal masks into the Little Rock school LR preschoolers benefit from new space Multiagency program expands early childhood educational offeiings  Head Start is a long-standing, fed- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARfCANSAS DF.MOCR.\\T-OA7F.TTE tume of a lion mascot and snacked on animal cookies while assorted The elastic band on Brittany dignitaries looked on and video Austins chicken face mask had cameras rolled. erally funded preschool program for children from low-income families. About half the children in the Wakefield program qualified under Head Start's family income limits. The district and Head Start eu uui, __ J The parade and subsequent good day for the 4-year-old speeches marked the opening of -  -   ^1^. early childhood education classrooms at Wakefield, the result snapped but. otherwise, Monday was a on her first day of preschool at Lit-tie Rocks Wakefield Elementary. The ponytailed marched in a short parade with Brittany of a now multiagency collaboration that includes the Little Rock her 35 classmates, each of whom -S-c-h--o-o--l -D--i-s-t-r-i-c-t and the Pulaski was hidden behind an animal County Head Start program, which have served preschoolers for several years, but Wakefield is their first formal independently mask. She petted an infant lion cub, fearlessly touched the cos- Fourth  Continued horn Page 1D trict has provided preschool class-county iieau oiaii piugiuu., v,,...... - .- is operated by the University of joint venture. Tlre Littte^ Arkansas for Medical Sciences. See FOURTH, Page 3B After Monday's ceremonies, ------------ Brittany and her Wakefield class- increase in preschool prograins mates moved into two spacious partly as a result of new state tund-classrooms, each fVeshly decorated ig for elementary schools where and newly equipped with the kinds 75 percent of more ot students of things that stir a youngsters come from low-income families, imagination\nbrightly colored al- The money is earmarked tor P . . _____1 ____1.1  fhrniioh tir^t The district is able to finance an e.s for more than 700 children a imagination\nbrightly colored ai- me moiwy is eannaiKeu year at 21 of its 3.5 elementary phabet rugs, tricycles, sand tables prekindergarten through first  schools. Pulaski County Head Start play kitchens and a plastic tool grades. this year has 29 preschool centers bench. Staff from Satoi P^k serving almost 1,000 children. The classroom space was made Faulkner County pronded teo Hon  -  -    possible by the transfer this year of cubs and a tiger cub for the chil-all Little Rock sixth-grade classes dren to study Monday as part ol from elementary schools to middle their fii'st day of school activities, schools. Besides the space, tlie dis---------- trict is providing daily lunches and tu uApuuu . ............. .. v-v. a curriculum that gives children ex-grain from 800 to as many as 1,300 periences with dramatic play, children within a year. , blocks, art, language, hand eye-co-  Little Hock Superintendent Les  Carnine told parents, scliool district officials and university representatives gathered in the Wakefield library that the district wants to expand its early childhood pro... liaren wnnin a year. , This particular agreement with not only UAMS but with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock will help us maximize our efforts in the school district to serve 4-yciir-olds, Canline said. This is exciting to us. This is the first of what we think is a inaivclous agreeiiicnt among the agencies. Dr. Charles Ecild, a UAMS pediatrician at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and executive director of Pulaski County Head Start, in an inteivicw later in the day, praised ,Caniine's interest in expanding early childhood education. He said the Wakefield program should prove to be a model program that could work in all three of the Pulaski County school districts. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, like Little Rock, are partners in the collaboration. Pulaski County Head Start uses sjiace in some county and North Little Rock buildings but the agencies are not yet jointly planning preschool programs. ordination, science and matli. The classes are staffed with teachers and aides jointly provided by the district and Head Start. Both agencies helped to equip the rooms, as well. Head Start is paying for a family enrichment specialist for the early childhood program. In that position, Mysti Norman will coordinate the delivery of medical and social services, such as dental care, vision and health screenings, nutritional and developmental assessments and referrals to family service agencies. Plans are under way to establish a class for 4-year-olds at Meadowcliff Elementary within the next several weeks. Other potential sites for preschool programs are Western Hills, Terry, Otter Creek and Forest Park elenieiitaries, depending on the availability of space.  SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 2002  J Ferocious blaze guts grade school in LR Fire crew never had a chance to stop it BY DIANA RASCHKE AND CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Voegele Mechanic^ Contractors of North Little Rock began a $551,000 renovation of the school Little Rocks Wakefield Ele- this summer, including installa-mentary School was destroyed tion of central heating and air by fire on Friday, canceling a conditioning. summer community program for Ninety students in prekinder-about 90 children and throwing garten through fifth grades were into question where nearly 400 ^t the school earlier Friday parpupils will attend classes this ticipating in a five-day-a-week fall, summer program sponsored The southwest Little Rock by the University of Arkansas at school, at 75 Westminister Drive, Little Rocks Share America procaught fire around 6 p.m. and gram. The summer session, was still burning four hours lat- called Camp Medical Mania, er. No one was injured, and fire- provides day-long activities in fighters didnt know how the fire science, math and health for the started. children  many of whom live Firefighters said the build- in the Wakefield community ings age and structure made  as well as field trips to local fighting the blaze difficult. Sup- museums and parks. plies left behirid by construction Four weeks remain of the six-workers and doors propped week program. Next weeks ac-open to accommodate this sum- tivities have been canceled, mers renovations on the 43- Heather Gage, assistant to the year-old school probably helped director for the program, said fuel the fire, they said. late Friday night. Although pupils are on sum- School officials said a janitor Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/RUSSELL POWELL met vacation, the school was oc- was in the building Friday A Little Rock firefighter hoses down hot spots at Wakefield Elementary cupied Friday by contractors evening and reported the fire. School on Lancaster Road. The southwest Little Rock school was de- working on the schools heating The blaze consumed new strayed in the fire, which started about 6 p.m. Friday. and air-conditioning system. See SCHOOL, Page 9A School  Continued from Page 1A phones, new lights, a new ceiling, and 50 computers still packed in their boxes. We were going to get a really good start on the yeai\n\" kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said. Miller watched her classroom burn along with her posters, cassette tapes, the charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. The fire had a good start on us when firefighters arrived. Little Rock fire safety officer Bob Franklin said. \"The fire crew never really had the chance to stop it, he said. He said workers inside the building had propped the fire doors open, allowing the flames to spread, and that building sup- Gloria Miller watched her classroom bum along with her posters, cassette tapes, the , charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. plies left in the halls probably acted as fuel. The fire seemed most concentrated in the northwest area of the building, Franklin said. At one point, he said, firefighters were pouring 5,500 gallons of water per minute on the fire, and you could tell that was-nt even putting a dent in it, Franklin said. The roofs metal truss construction puts it at risk of collapsing in extreme heat, Franklin said, so firefighters were unable to enter the building and stood several yards from its walls. This, Franklin said, is going to be an all-nighter. Neighbors and teachers watched the flames hollow out a cornerstone of their community. Wakefield Neighborhood Association President Don Darnell said with pride that he had been a member of the first graduating sixth-grade class at Wakefield. If I stop and think about it long enough, its tough, he said. Wakefield has been a community meeting center for years, he said. Its more than a place for students to go five days a week,\" he said. 17118 has been a real center for community activity. Of the 384 pupils who attend the school, ordy 10 ride the bus. Principal Les Taylor said. Most of the rest live close enough to walk. For the teachers and the kids and the parents, its really a tragedy, he said. To have a school so close, its really, really sad. If theres any fortunate thing about this, its that well have six to eight weeks to plan where were going to be, Taylor said. If it happened during the school year, wed have one or two days. Officials will meet Monday to start planning, Taylor said. Three of Eduardo Ramos children were to start at Wakefield this fall. Yolanda, who will be in fifth grade, asked to transfer from Cloverdale Elementary because Wakefield is less than a block away from her home at I Daven Court On Friday she covered her mouth with her hands to block the thick smoke and told her father she could see the flames better from the other side of the house. He said the fire might bring the neighborhood even closer to the school. Now its going to make people take care of the school and improve the school, Eduardo Ramos said. Were going to have a new school now. Superintendent Ken James, who will mark his first anniversary as Little Rock superintendent on Monday, was in California on Friday to attend a Milken Family Foundation National Educator Awards ceremony. James staff said Friday night that he had been notified of the fire. Efforts to reach officials from Voegele Mechanical Contractors in North Little Rock were unsuccessful late Friday. Wakefield is believed to be the districts first school in active use to be destroyed by fire. It is a relatively small school compared with the other 33 ele-mentaries in the states largest school district, which has more than 25,000 students. The school was built in 1959 by the Pulaski County Special School District. The Little Rock School District acquired it in 1986. It was one of 14 county schools transferred to the Little Rock district in a federal court order Intended to remedy racial segregation problems in the two districts. The 14 schools were within the city limits but outside the Little Rock School Districts boundaries. Wakefields eastern wing of about eight classrooms was added in 1970. That wing was found earlier this year to be structurally damaged and was slated to be replaced over the next several months with proceeds from a school district tax increase passed by voters in May 2000. That tax, which is being used to renovate schools throughout the district, was also being used to finance $551,000 in work under way on the schools ventilation and fire alarm systems. Security cameras and energy efficient lighting were installed at the school only last year. Initially, it appeared the eastern wing was not as damaged by the fire as the older part of the building, school district spokesman Suellen Vann said. But she said sections of the roof appear to have fallen even in that area of the school. This is the second major fire in the Little Rock School District in 10 years. In October 1994, about 60 percent of Chicot Elementary School was heavily damaged by a fire started in the schools media center. Investigators determined that the blaze was set by two girls, 11 and 8, pupils who set the fire after hours with matches. The school was rebuilt but half the student body was sent to the districts Oakhurst School and the other half to Ish School for several months. More recently, the stage area at the historic Central High School was damaged by a fire that was extinguished before it spread. Repairs were made without closing the school. Vann said Wakefield is insured. The value of the school was unavailable Friday night. Its not just a building. Its a place where teachers and chil-dren come together and some- j thing special happens inside the classroom, Vann said. I 5-1 /  SUNDAY, JUNE 30, 2002  3B J\" I t ' A [ij 1 U \u0026gt; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIN KRAIN Little Rock firefighters on Saturday morning spray the smoldering remains of Wakefield Elementary School in southwest Little Rock. The school caught fire about 6 p.m. Friday and burned throughout the night. Wakefield fire deemed accidental LR district rnust decide where pupils will go before Aug. 19 opening BY AMY SCHLESING AND DIANA RASCHKE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The fire that destroyed Wake-field Elementary School in southwest Little Rock was ignited by an errant welding spark during renovations at the school Friday afternoon. We have no reason to believe it was arson. This was a very expensive accidental fire, Little Rock Assistant Fire Marshal Randy Davenport said. There is no question of negligence. Welding produces tremendous heat and sparks. It happens. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been working on air-conditioning brackets in rooms U and 12 of the school Friday afternoon. Voegele was un-uJ W. MARKHAM'g^ uj CD 1 fire engines didnt leave the The school district closed Bad-school until 4 p.m. Saturday, gett this spring to save money. when the building was little more than a field of rubble. Were looWng at the capacity of the elementary schools in Wakefield Elementary 1 N Arkansas Oemocrat-Gazefle The building had begun to southwest Little Rock, Vann collapse Friday night. As Wake- said, but most of our schools field Principal Les Taylor looked near Wakefield are pretty full. on Saturday morning, a bull- About 10 Wakefield Elemen-dozer leveled the unstable build- tary students rode buses. Most ing and churned the smoldering students walked to school, Vann remains as firefighters doused said. them with water. Well just have to take a look Davenport said Engine 17 at all those other schools, she would continue to make hourly said. If we move them, well inchecks at the site for the next cur additional transportation few days and cool the ashes with costs. water. Superintendent Ken James Little Rock School District of- was in Los Angeles on Friday at-ficials will meet Monday to look tending a national education at options for Wakefields 400 seminar at which a Mabelvale students  whether to use Magnet Middle School teacher portable buildings and rebuild, received a Milken Family Foun- Fire engines were called at to distribute the students across dation National Educator Award. der contract to complete a 6:04 p.m., but within minutes, other schools or use a recently He plans to fly back to Little $551,000 renovation of the the schools airy hallways and closed school. Rock today. school. combustible books, desks and Suellen Vann, spokesman for Its truly one of our neigh- The workers put away their chairs had spread the fire the Little Rock School District, borhood schools, James said, equipment and left the school throughout the structure. said a decision will have to be Its always tough to lose a about 3:30 p.m., and when a jan- It was rolling good, Daven- made very quickly. School starts school in any kind of situation, itor arrived shortly before 6 p.m., port said. Our guys didnt stand Aug. 19. Its one of those tragedies that he found heavy smoke and a chance. One option is reopening Bad- well have to regroup and look flames in the two rooms, Dav- Firefighters got the blaze un- gett Elementary School at 6900 at our options and see whats enport said. der control about midnight. But Pecan Ave. on the citys east side. See SCHOOL FIRE, Page 8B July 2. 2002 Wakefield school likely to rise again ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rocks Wakefield Elementary School  which was ravaged by fire last week  will likely be rebuilt, district Superintendent Ken James said Monday. In the meantime, he said, hes searching for a stand-in school site for the nearly 400 children displaced by the blaze. James will meet with School Board members at a special meeting at 5 p.m. Wednesday to review options for the children who are to start the new school year Aug. 19. James said it is his intent to find a site that will be the least disruptive to the pupils, many of whom walked to Wakefield from nearby homes. Possibilities include reopening and assigning the Wakefield children to Badgett Elementary, which was closed at the end of this past school year as a way to save the district money. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road, is 9/i miles down Interstates 30 and 440 from Wakefield, which is at 700 Westminister in southwest Little Rock. The use of Badgett, however, would likely preclude the prekindergarten and Head Start classes for 40 4-year-olds at Wakefield. The district doesnt bus 4-year-olds. Other options include dividing the Wakefield student body among other southwest Little Rock schools or housing Wakefield children in portable classrooms on the Wakefield site. However, James said he doubted that the site could accommodate the number of portable buildings that would be necessary. Wakefield was insured with a $100,000 deductible, James said. The fire was reported Friday evening by a school janitor. Investigators are focusing on the possibility that errant sparks from welding work done in the building earlier in the day on a new ventilation system went undetected and led to the fire.I  WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2002  School fire to send voters to church ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Election a light turnout is expected. Early voting is running Only 170 Little Rock residents smoothly at the Pulaski County Commission met Tuesday to ap- had voted early by Tuesday af- Courthouse, the only early vot- point a substitute polling site for ternoon. ing site for next weeks election, Wakefield Elementary School. The Peabody Hotel Group Election Coordinator Luke Dren- The school, which is the regular is asking voters for permission nan said. polling site for Precinct 756G, to use\"$19 million in revenue humed down Friday. Voters who went to the school to vote will now cast bal- bonds to renovate the hotel. A vote for the bonds wont in No problems. Were ready and roaring, he said. Early voters are using the crease taxes or leave Little Rock iVotronics electronic ballots, lots at Geyer Springs United liable to repay the bonds, but while people who wait until Methodist Church instead. Amendment 65 to the Arkansas next Tuesday to vote will use All other regular voting sites Constitution requires public paper ballots. in the city will be open for vot- votes on revenue bonds to fi- County-Circuit Clerk Carolyn ers next Tuesday in a special nance hotels, office buildings and Staleys office mailed out 574 bal- el^on on the bond issue for the recreational facilities. lots to absentee voters and had Hilton Inn on University Avenue. ~  . . The Peabody Hotel Group gotten 352 back Tuesday. Little Rocks 130,000 regis- will pay for the special election. t Absentee voters have until tered voters are eligible to par- which is expected to cost 7:30 p.m. next Tuesday to return ticipate in the July 9 election, but $42,000. their ballots. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2002  Get Wakefield school rebuilt, board orders Meantime, most pupils to go to Badgett BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE When Little Rocks fire-ravaged Wakefield Elementary School is rebuilt, a new marquee sign purchased by the school and its Parent-Teacher Association will be there to herald the opening. The districts School Board on Wednesday removed any doubt about Wakefields future when it directed Superintendent Ken James to start the process of rebuilding the school at the existing site as soon as possible. In the meantime, the $5,000 sign purchased shortly before last Fridays fire will go into storage, and nearly all Wakefield pupils and staff members will be temporarily assigned to Badgett Elementary School, which was closed earlier this year to cut district expenses. The only exception to the Badgett assignment will be for pre-kindergartners and children in the federal Head Start program. They will go to Meadowcliff Elementary. The board selected Badgett as the alternate site for the more than 300 displaced pupils and the staff with the blessir^ of the Wakefield faculty and its PTA leader. I think its a great decision, Principal Les Taylor said after the board meeting, which was attended by nearly two dozen See WAKEFIELD, Page3B Wakefield  Continued from Page 1B Wakefield employees wearing navy-blue Wakefield T-shirts. I think it is very, very important to the staff in light of the tragedy that we all stay together. Investigators believe the fire, which was reported by the school custodian about 6 p.m. Friday, was started accidentally by errant welding sparks earlier in the day. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been installing air-conditioning brackets in Rooms 11 and 12 of the 43-year- old school that aftemooa Some $550,000 in renovations, includii^ a new heating and air- conditioning system, were under way at the school at 75 Westminister Road. James suggested several options for the displaced pupils but recommended the one that Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in kindergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. would send pupils and teachers to Badgett. Badgett is 9.5 miles away at 6900 Pecan Road, near Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field. Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in londergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. Badgett can accommodate them ail if the four existing portable buildings on that campus are used and two additional ones are acquired. Other options called for assigning kindergartners and first- graders to the eight-classroom wing that is still usable at the Wakefield campus and sending older children to Badgett. That would keep the youngest children close to home, James said, but could provide an obstacle to the quick rebuilding of the school Additionally, the eight-room wing addition that was built in 1970 was structurally deteriorating before the fire and was slated to be replaced. James also offered the possibility of sending Wakefields children and staff to several different district schools but said he didnt believe that was a suitable option. The board also considered using nearby buildings not owned by the Little Rock district, including Pulaski County Special School Districts old Daisy Bates School, which the city of Little Rock now owns. The cost of readying the buildings for students was too expensive, though. District officials hope that insurance settlements will provide enough money to not only reconstruct the school but also compensate the district for student transportation to Badgett and at least partially reimburse teachers for their teaching aids and other belongings that were destroyed. Most of Wakefields pupils walked to the school. Building a new school the size of Wakefield is expected to cost about $3.7 million. However, district officials already are talking about adding classrooms to accommodate enrollment growth. A final insurance settlement is not expected for several weeks. Wednesdays School Board meeting was the first opportunity for a reunion of the Wakefield staff since the fire. After the board meeting, teachers gathered around a hastily compiled school album of before- and after- the-fire photographs. Here is one of the mats the children nap on, kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said as she pointed to a blue speck in the rubble shown in one picture. That looks like a pocket chart, she said of a pink spot in another photo. Erica Hughes said her fourth- grade daughter and fifth-grade son have cried over the loss of the school they have attended since starting school. They also were enrolled in the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America six-week summer program, which was moved to the Southwest Community Assembly of God Church. They made the best decision they could considering what they had to work with, Hughes said about the Badgett choice. But it will be difficult for parents as far as transportation because of lot of people in that community walk their kids to school.School fire  Continued from Page 1B best for the students and the staff at Wakefield. Meanwhile, a summer day camp that was in its second of six weeks at the school has found a new home in the neighborhood. The school was one of six sites for a five-day-a-week summer day camp sponsored by the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America program. Southwest Community Assembly of God at 7400 Lancaster Road has volunteered to house the program, which serves about 90 students, program director Cheryl Chapman said. The program, canceled this week, will resume July 8 and finish its final three weeks at the church just two blocks from Wakefield. The great news is that a community pulls together when theres a disaster like this, she said. Theyre a great church that does a lot of thmgs in the community. The Rev. Will Deerman, pastor of the church, said he had thought about offering the church to the Share America program when he first saw the flames Friday night. He met with Chapman on Saturday and made the offer. Ive known Cheryl for several years, Deerman said. I think its going to work out just fine. I just hope we have all the space they need. The Share America program serves children in kindergarten through fifth grades with the ed- ucational summer program The program lost books, food and i other supphes in the fire. Chap-  man said. The programs theme is Camp j Medical Mania. Chapman said i children who had just learned : about the Red Cross were\namazed to see the medical work-  ers show up at the school Friday and Saturday, where they fed and helped prevent heat exhaustion for the more than 100 firefighters. What a lesson, she said. They started saying, Look at all these people that are here to help out.  The loss of the school has left more than students and campers without a facility, however. The Pulaski Coimty Election Commission will have to find a new polling place for neighborhood residents before the July 9 special election. A bond issue for renovation of the Little Rock Hilton hotel is on the ballot. Charles King, the commissions chairman, suggested the^ Wakefield School site might be combined with another established polling place at the nearby Wakefield Baptist Chinrch. As city leaders worked to fill the void left by the demol-  ished school and community I center, neighbors gathered ' aroimd the rubble. I When officials removed the  yellow tape surrounding the rub- I ble Saturday afternoon, neigh- I bors crept up close with cam- eras. Joyce Kennedy attended sixth feet away, used to work in Wake- grade at Wakefield when it fields cafeteria. opened in 1959 and still lives nearby on Exeter Drive. She took pictures Saturday of heaps of tangled and warped metal, smoke stiU rising in places. Her mother, sitting in the ear a few Kennedy said she almost cried when she.h|ard V^efield kz4 --------------s had burned. Now, she said, the photos are all Ive got left of it. I could say I remembered it when. I 3'2 0, 2 0 0 2\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_555","title":"Loan agreement","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Loan agreement"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/555"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nArkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 6^2-4475^ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Divisj^^ arr. i .o January 31, 1994 FEB 1 1994 OUwo oi Cc\nMr. Jerry Malone 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jeriry and Chris: The Arkansas Department of Education would like to schedule a meeting with one or both of you and district representatives to discuss the Little Rock loan provision. Page 26 of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement specifically states, \"If at anytime between the date of this Agreement and December 31, 2000, the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. H The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the standardized test to be used to evaluate the progress of LRSD. Please call or write to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Elizabeth Boyter cc: All Counsel of Record EB/say STATE 50 .Members: CARLE. .EAUi D '- F ELLt FaE R-OE  \\i ios- CFuirmn  ELAISE SCOTT. Little Rock \\ ice Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH, JR..Tillar AILLIAM H. FISHER. Paragould -JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR.. Fen Smith JAMES A McLARTY Hl. Ne^^non : SRY. A'NadelrhiJ CHERRY WALKER. Lime Rock NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock Ar. Laual Opponunii\u0026gt; Emploser 05/11/1999 07: 47 PHILLIPS o  r} 4  pb   5016324336 I r I A * a * a Miebitta a  PESEaFCH 4MD DESIGM PHONE No. : S17 349 7874 I ]  vaiTBxitr W T 4 Sta 4 XOKl xsMoaxaaQM TO) Qayla Pofctac, XK Dapt. of Iduo. FROMt Buaan Phillipa Page Jul.23 1995 02 1:34rn S.x. PHILLIPS, CONSOLTAifT 0 r f J c K 4 2 3 4 X * r i a  r 0 k * * 0  , ( 4 1  1 1 XI base 4 M I 4 F22 SATS I July 21, 1995 XKi Raaponsa to Saeonmandat ion tgon Joaana Lanka I have revlawod tho you forwarded to ao. memo Dr. and aappotftlim dooaoantatlon from LanMa Jtaa sworidad uaofui data Joanne Lonko auremarited the Iseusg Involved In ehooeiing r Little Rock settlement. Sefere coO^entlng raguirament and teat score altoraatiwe, i offer a faw regarding my interpretation ot ihB languaQe at the settlement. altoraatiws, The Little Rook Sattlafwant **Tfffrmnt and Bueeinetly * metric for tho mandato of the opoelfically on the 90% a few general cofpjnenta Thera ara savoral key phrasaa 3a the pdirtiea thlrv^ ehar-rwlth  k7 Z Sattlemant daa\u0026lt;l i.n order to implement Its tarms. The ..ollowlng are some thoughts about thM definitions. ^'.4\"* time\"  indioeteB thatt the event need happen and can be meaaurad at any hisM period during the school year. only once \"atandardixed taat\"  ia a nationally normed, **2 *** payohetnetrie quality. the JaRaMorar Is Rook already adalntetara thija for the aattlanent mandate. - - . If Little lhstru*|}t, it would ba a logical choice 3. \"composita saoraa\"  uae g thia teralnolegy suggesta an M A UMmx acoc* Off one that aaor4iffM^n \u0026lt;cadBio eubjeot.^ *.. ith raspec? to the 3a:::s^:co:e\n brs:\nr J52r..rbr}\nother parte of the be attactea by wording in .kill. i. .Hue.. I*' I\" alluded to, the beelo hatte^ Were 1 SaSm. equalising the totality of eduoefeioos score may be more appropriate. acre may be moat appropriate. I have been made about the broader complete battary iF r 05/11/1999 07:47 5016324336 duo\u0026amp;tion PESEAFCH AUD DESI6N Itttle Hock Sattlamant . . . p. 2 'paoial aduoation atuRtonta\"  this probably studanta in th* Littla aook eohoole whg haw^ toa*:l.n9, plaood Psaaumably, fcMtonca aduaatlon In apealaX dtw\u0026gt;at4*n atudanta astt aa^tlaaant, what about otHM an XSP refers t tha Sof Evaluation but b taatad. to all tino of not yot by Although ipaolal the language ^WcH *9 vocational atudonta, I diieabiiitlaa under floetlon 304? of tha aa absent***, ox atudAata with gualleyl^ ncnguslifylng .tud.nts with dlaabllltiaa (.f. , a nen-a^^alaX adai^tlan atudont with dyolaxla or vloualXy Inpalsod student t th* aro^ti \u0026gt;tn$|liah psoflolMney ba'tit 4 X oXavaxoom) 7 a will atuddnti onl.?2inL  l*iMe an non-black students or only those of auropeen anmtry? ba* about hispanie Americans? inrttoded/ aeilit eil gradss ba tasted? results for different grade* to be oc^bi^d? studanta^ - Which gradat \u0026lt;loi tbl* all anoMtzy? How ora 6. \"90% or greeter\"  the  intent for the mean score at bltu^ : aeeme to indlcata an mean tcora for whitoa. at laast nine tantha of tha .. Thimaay be gn unreal lotic the time irana and ebstadOee to be everoome. approximately five yeart to drereaee learning deficit of poverty which have develed over ^udtote' lifsti^o?.' City, which spent latlllans in th* public doeegregation has bean to aohievement test ohstadtiaE axpactatlen given Little Rock haa a and tha effacte has orders, aklllsna .ta Sven Xanaas achools scores. algnifleantly unde\nIncrease In defining a presumption of I diaeriaiaiatien the federal  .in the employment arena, government has 'uppert\u0026lt;\u0026lt; an 30 rule. percent applicants hired. **- - ^ . . . refer Thus, applicants are hired, at suet also taet ssBraa hi\u0026gt;4 ta the However, the 304 9 avallahla So hired to Moreover, if an eraploysr opportunity to deisonatrete' aecions. 2n oassB such se thiSx rule, if 7C of gualifiad whita leeet f giMlifiad minority applicants *oid ipreeuaption of diserin-.' this ^et\n. the aniployer still a :\u0026gt;rMMBptlon dlaerlr.lnaticn. haa an * acwpdllKj intacsat to Justify its in cases such as Peers ?,i l,ga9 between ainority and aajorilj^ at issue. In such oasea^ adjainiatratoro to insure thd* ____ xiaon earn a high school diploma.\nRewe*eV|l minority scores to be a sertiin raguirsment seams to SuggestSn 9*ti3 rather than an aqual opportunity to e* ghposiaq a Tvoe gf ,fSbrentiaXs in paaaing ratsa W graduation taata have been [ Mir* ixpoead dutlaa On taat hftd X chajica to Nib oeurta have not required of majority acorsa. It to Such a specifled outcome 1 agree Lenka that J non* of 1 asoauo* no lonoitudlnal ___Z tgree with Dr. MJor types of atandaedited tast a B ------longitudinal ooapavisdde impl* interpretation of aara raw eeore di: the Little Hoek aettleraant. Jld the languaqa lands itaalf to :aa. Ona might. !or axampla,05/11/1989 07:47 5016024386 WE Mo. FESEaFCH AMD DESIGN : Si? 343 374 F45E 04 Jjl. 3 35 WttXa Rock Settleaiant . . . p. 3 I I  -4 -I c m  o co co \u0026lt;o oompute the baaio battery raw s^ra aMsae for blacks and whit lovol and check for attainment of the Jfjs arlterlon at each \u0026gt; Of Whether .11 Kowevvr, eempXy s at a* unanewesfd the ideation at yhothas is already a etsiseeat\na6dadard and 9radaa U9O of at d\u0026amp;Qh grada grade lavi. must nor:::kir:::ma::::::*^^ ukeiihooc that .uL nook \u0026lt; fltandBgagopgaft \u0026gt; reaaenabla appro.eh ay M to ak^ sing la comparison each year. 9o\u0026lt;^ he on the iui, ccmpsrsbl . would regale ^has aU etgdent .oo^.^\n\"rZ\" n'r*\"* ^**^^**** aoaled aaores jure typiedtlu daaianed to  acais. Zine'T- Srae*'' \"1^* motrib?^onecould eosled soot* for alttii^le Rock black is grades but exoluding epeoial edeeef .11 white students. ^yple^Jli^y designed 9\u0026gt;ua, uaUlB a. soaled to students (aumming the mean sealed score ahea^ .-w . O'eell 4^nprisoo would meet the tl ttlement Ifaguage. aoeerer, outside of the a^ttament te. -uch calculations -would Uv. llt\u0026lt;. wlevance. ^ett.amant a s 3ieiiltfTr, spirit and vine tha sr poaeibility would be t^..t a efcitaeion for success (e.g., -ator ierformonce level) and detarmina Thia rina! L ^*4 sWdents i, at least 90% of that inia Goea not soMCera axar^* onforme to the apirlt of 9rad0 level\" os a t* \u0026gt;at suecass es the percent ei hitea. W\u0026lt;anta i at least . ----------- providing nts. As stated, the 9qni stand, t drd than to an adequate or \u0026gt;pprwn.\u0026lt;.t pretation that provides ed may result in tion of Stated, a * zeeeoai an standard which aay be y U the wording of the settlement I ideguata education ia oleaer to for minority s maximal performance education atandard. .e opportunity Thus, an ------ w I wuiii-'\u0026amp;y for Little Rook to eAxcstqtonal improvement for i,flpn to National PiggagaBfe^a enka'J psopaeal oe cenperid* the hid rreeponding netional data ceaeoM allow Little aook to deaenilkrata prd leal standard. J' blacks than ae nearly irapossibla to aeet. fcZ!l^'fca dlffarantial i' and realistic. in Littla Reck Thia method ra Oonforns t to densonatr oonforme to the iangue^e end inti th9a thoughts art in 4*aj  feel free to contact JM ij! X cna being held to s strict of'the xettlemant. ata that such a l^th ths dilsRsca you axs facing, lay further aasiatanoa. u O 'i .DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 . GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 28, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Gene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 18, concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. ______________ committee include Robert Clowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Kerr, and Gayle Potter from the Arkansas Department of Education. The committee was joined at times by others: Russ Mayo of the Little Rock School District and Gene Jones of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.- 1994, and Members of the The Variables Committee provides within this document a description of the problem around which it was convened, a definition of important intervening variables which affect student achievement, a brief discussion of the assessment or testing instrument, and attachments with expert opinion. Problem Statement: . perception of a student achievement gap that is racially based, as evidenced by results on large-scale assessments. Considerations for Problem: Large scale assessment data analysis has been limited to sender alone. Data should be reviewed in the context of thefollowing four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement: socio-economic status, family structure, parent- education level, and early childhood education.Definitions of Variables\nSocio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SES data from free and reduced lunch information\nalso make use of the family link identifier -  Eamily Structure: Household where student lives most of the time (both parents, father only, mother only, father and stepmother, mother and stepfather, foster parents, legal guardian, other) Collectfamily structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education completed by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, trade school, other) Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Infoimation Form Early Childhood Education: Any of a variety of organized pre-kindergarten experiences, such as.Headstart, HIPPY, 4-year old programs, other pre-school Collect this data from the Pupil Information Form ASSESSMENT OR TESTING INSTRUMENT\nlanguage of the settlement requires the composite scores Lxttle Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the composite scores of Little Rock School District white (excluding special education students) on a c test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock 2^ District. This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-Committee discussions around ''standardized testing\" included tests, performance assessments, portfolios' and norm-referenced tests. w fcj nk\u0026gt;_xx u. .a yk/X u *3 f ..V, '7---: Minimum Performance Test has been ^andoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide ...  f ciiiu. xiu oLctuewiae testing instrument is currently available The Arkansas n-iTPct- M\u0026gt;-Tt--!TnrT ------ ___ . Direct Writing Assessment purposes. English Language Arts and Mathematics Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. xs not comprehensive before The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District IS the state-adopted based on our research and the norm referenced test. However, expert opinions from , , , ------ wjj/a.xxku\\.^xxo X.XV/Ul psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a testing instrument has a different purpose than the settlement purpose and uses metrics which to the requirements of the settlement agraamexiu.. no^-referenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement'of students within the District to the achievement of students within the standardization group. Therefore, it would T compare the achievement of black students in uittle Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of white students in Little Rock to the achievement t e standardization group. But that comparison is not the standard outlined in the settlement. are not well suited agreement A Therefore, it would group. of white students in Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the n black students white students in the Little  oc chool District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) been informed that...... purposes to use. . However, we have , T . . \"outside of the settlement mandate, such would have little relevance.\" (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used, tL- ____ consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing Should be the focus of the application of the 90% the committee rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, y sccacnments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive ice resident and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation an an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. R * *** J tAAX * XX Jk Jk Jk aU O f O J ^Xx^^kllC awyer and faculty member o Michigan State University, aira Qf working papers from the committee for have included a Also I your perusal. Please contact me if you would like to meet with the Variable Committee for discussion. *  a time convenient to both your schedules.  We shall be happy to do so at -3-HARCOURT BRACE Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement 555 Academic Court San Antonio, Texas 78204-2498 Tel 210-299-1061 Fax 210-270-0327 \\\\ A' Os  * \\ u\\ -9 t March 30, 1998 Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director of Accountability Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall, Room 305A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 \\^vv Dear Mr. Anthony: This letter is to summarize a conversation I had last week with Ed Jackson regarding the types of test scores reported for SAT9 that would be appropriate for reporting summary data for Arkansas students. Basically, there are two types of scores that are appropriate for reporting group summary data on SAT9Normal Curve Equivalents and Scaled Scores. Both are equal-interval measures and both may properly be subjected to arithmetic operations which are commonly used to summarize score datameans, standard deviations, coefficients of correlation. Normal Curve Equivalents(NCEs) can range from values of 1 to 99, while SAT9 Scaled Scores may range from 350 to more than 800. The advantage that Scaled Scores would have over NCEs is that they offer finer distinctions among students whose percentile ranks are at the extreme end of the score range, i.e. either 1 or 99. If we were reporting data for a group that included larger than usual numbers of students with very low achievement levels. Scaled Scores could make finer distinctions and allow us to measure gains for students who score in the 1 percentile. Scaled Scores then, are not only appropriate, but may also be a preferred measure for reporting dis-aggregated scores  for African-American and White students! In my opinion, they also are consistent with the language of the  desegregation decree under which you are operating. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please call me at (800) 228-0752, extension 5394. Sincerely, Thomas E. Brooks Manager, Applied Research Cc: Yvette Dillingham Maria Drees Bob Hudson Vicki Gray07/10/85 11:38 SaiO 270 0327 PSYCH CORP. 0002 TO: Department of Education from\nJoanne Lenke, rE\nFollow-up on Our DATE: July 10,1.995 Discussion In Phoenix of scores for Aswe discussed. I Xw a ratio of less than 90%. eimilar In order to achieve an middle CI me score range. ^cu can Black and While will see on the accompanying tables. I've examined raw oflhe\"90%j yield a In order to achieve an MCE ratio of 90% nr better, between the performances of Black and White students are ^^^^^^'\"gXtKlOpe'rcentiterankunns. - most rational approach to the Al,hough I underslec- national peers when their performance 1 hope that the informaUon I've additional information. I've provided Is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you needre. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7074 Jul.23 1995 l:34Fn S-K. PHILLIPS, CONSDLTAiiT ofc 4 \u0026lt; a IrlAkaciB Kall Kiehifiaa state ph O A  ( 17 J ***, KI IviHltT HOKI OTXXCl 4 3 3 6 H a r 1 a  r \u0026lt; a B a 4 . 0 k  B 0 1 , (  J 7 J XI I a a  \u0026lt;\u0026lt;( a47t74 TOt kemoranduk Gayla Potter, AK Dept, of Eduo. PHOHi Suaan Phillipa DATS! July 21, 1995 RS I Paoponaa to Raoommandation ftom Joanna Lnko I have taviowod tho memo and Supporting dooumsafeation from Joanne Lonko that - has provided uaaful data -uuuincujLV settlement u Choosing a metric for the mandate of the raguirament and teat score alternatr^\"^^\"^ specifically on the 90%  7of Se  comments -i of the language of the settlement. you foewardod to no. Dr. . ----- Lonke summarized the issues involved Little Rock uaaful and Bucctnctly taat coiwnsnfcing regarding my interpretation 1 offer The Little-Rock Settlement Aqrraeaant Ihere i th. portion of th. -.1 me which must be defined in order L some thoughts about these definitions. that you shared with Ths following are 1. phrases in Little Rook Settlement to implement its terms. \"If at any time\" and can be measured ~ indicates that the event need happen only at any time period during the school year. once standardized test\" a -------------------instrument, it would be settlement mandate. If Little a logical choice 3. \"composite scores\"  intent that the performance Stanford, use of this terminology suggests cir -re. iS' suggests that cither \" ba used. the measurement be this areas. on Battery Boorea other parts of the the Basic Battery or Coc^lete Tho choice may be affected settlement. by wording in W.Us is alluded to, thrbaSrLt7' ineguity in basic Alternatively, if mom  ^ttery score may be most appropriate, equalizing the totalitv of statements have been made .about  .core h.tt.ry appropriate.f Little Rock Eattleiaant . .  P. 2 4. -pcxai education etudanto\" thio probably refers otudonf in the Tittle PooR sohools who have an ISp\" *t the time o- Praeumably, atudente referred for evaluation but not yet diBabilitlee a *il*blo for nonqualifying students with ( .g., a non-apaoial education student with dyoloxia or a \"npaeial oduoatlon thio probably toeting. plaood who hava QtudentB education would an ISP to all aeo referred for evaluation but be teeted. clearly exempted by about othor groupo ouch as available for vioually impaired otudont in the rogul with limitod Englioh profioionoy ar bo toatod? alaeoroonj 7 Hill studanta 5. \"white Btudanta\" only those of Europe Which grades an does this include all ancestry? non-blaok students or What about hispanio Americans? results for included\nmust all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are InteL for tb^r language seems to Indicate an nine tenths of the the timA -F This may be an unrealistic expectation given the time frame and obstacles to be overcome. Little Rock h\" I years to overcome learning deficits and the  the settlement language approximately five mean score of blacks to be at least nine tenths -----r. This may be overcome. Of poverty which have developed City, which has spent millions dasagregation orders, achlavsmsnt test scores. over students' lifetimes. effects on has been unable the public Even Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination the federal in the employment government has supported an 80% rule. applicants^hlred but to the . percent of available PP hired. under thia rule, if 70% of qualified white at^ least 56% of qualified minority applicants to avoid a presumption of discrimination. does not teat arena, However, the 80% Thus, applicants are hired, j ' ust be hired to avoid a Moreover, if on employer fails this opportunltv tn ziL rnis me emproyer stiii has an dctiona? demonstrate compelling interest  to justify its also a teat, the employer still has In cases euch between minority nt issue. adrainiatrati as Pai^ra P., large differentials in passing rates and majority students on graduation tests have been In such cases, the courts have imposed duties caaea, P earn a high school diploma, minority scores to be minority students had a fair chance to However, these courts have not required requirement rather than a certain percentage of majority scores. Such a eeema to euggest an entitlement to a specified outcome an equal opportunity to aohlavo. Shopping R Type of Score 1 agree with Dr. Lenke that scores are well suited to the Jeoauee no longitudinal -- none of the major types of standardired test requirements of the Little Rock settlement. a B Upl. inJ:S:::at2:n are required, the language lends Itself erpretatlon of raw score differences. One might, for example. to. PHILLIPS PHOME Mo. 5 517 343 7374 Ju 1.23 1595 1:ooPM Little Rock fiattlemant . . p. 3 compute the bnoic battery raw moans tor oiacka and whitea at each orada level and check for attainment of the 90% oritarion at sack grade level However, thia laavea unanawered the question of whether all grades must Z^dei'^ac \" stringent standard and use of a Lnj^Lt^e norfulflirt?** increases the likelihood that Little Will noc zuXfxH xtiB XQ\u0026amp;ndditio* eaora maanB for blacks whites thio The 90% across unanswered la already grades X more roasonablo approach do BO 90% criterion at whcthor all grades use of Rook - .w, ou,l d. roqu,l ro that a\"ll y otudontmaka a clnglo eomparleon each' year. To Standardlred tost scaled scores be on the same, comparable scale. BcorsB are typically d.lgnad to deteraine^if tha'^mean ^^uB, using a scaled score metric, one could # uBvomxns xf Kha niBeui scaled - . \u0026gt; allow comparison of Thus, l____ mean scaled score for all Little Rock black across grades but excluding spacial education) for all white studants. the letter of the Such an Overall students (summing is 90% of the mean scaled score mandate. settlement language. comparison would meet the spirit and _,,_v 1 . , ---- outside oHf otwheev ers,ettlement such calculations would have little relevance. jjodlfvlRq the Standard Another possibility above grade lavsl\" would be to set a criterion for success (e.g., \"at or or a minimally acceptable performance level) and determine hether the percent of xor whites. but conforms to the spirit Bucceasful minority students is This does not at least 90% of that students. AAhs stated, standard than to an adequate or interpretation that conform exactly to the wording of the settlement of providing an adequate education the 90% for minority mandata is closer to a maximal performance appropriate education standard. Thus, an Buccaad mav i \"p rov-i-d--e--s  rreeaassoonnaabbllee opportunity for Little Rook to greater educational improvement for blacks than retention of an standard which may be perceived in as nearly impossible to meet. Coaparieon to Rational Differentialn tDor , cLorerneskoeo'sn fpHr onZpr os al -fo--r the bl ack/white differential in Little would allow Littl2^R^C^i reasonable and realistic: This method ittle Rock to demonstrate progress without being held to a strict However, it may be difficult to demonstrate that such a demonstrate reasonable and realistic^ Rook mBaBurrLnfn\"'^'f be difficult to demonstrate asure conforms to the language and intent of the settlement. JlS with th. dU.a you f.cing, l.l fro. to contact me if 1 can ba of any futth.t aaal.tance. 1 sL LrmjE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED DIRECTOR'S OFFICE July 31, 1998 AUG 3 1998 department of EDUCATION ^GENERAL DIVISION Raymond Simon Director Arkansas Department of Education d Q\u0026lt; '1 .yj. P Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Desegregation Settlement Loan Dear Mr. Simon: I am writing in response to your June 26,1998 letter requesting that LRSD deposit an additional $270,000.00 in an account established for the possible repayment of the loan authorized by the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The issue you have raised is one of several outstanding issues concerning the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. I would like to work with you and your staff to resolve ail of the outstanding issues as quickly as possible. From my perspective, the most important unresolved issue is whether LRSD has met the conditions for loan forgiveness set forth in Section VI-B (6) of the Settlement Agreement. We are supposed to use a standardized test to grade upon by the State and LRSDl to determine whether the scores of LRSD black students are within ninety percent (90%) of the scores of LRSD white students. A team composed of ADE and LRSD representatives was formed several years ago for the purpose of deciding which standardized test would be used to determine loan forgiveness under the Settlement Agreement, ihat team agreed to use the Stanford 8 Test with scaled scores as the metric. That agreement is reflected in ADEs August, 1997 Project Management Tool which was filed with the district court: In March 1997, recommendations were drafted proposing the use of he SAT-8 as the ADEs Monitoring Instrument and the use of an aggregate average for racial groups to measure achievement disparity using scaled scores as the metric' I recently read in the newspaper that another group within ADE will recommend the use of Stanford 8 scaled scores to determine loan forgiveness. It seems that the question of whether or not LRSD is entitled to loan forgiveness is a threshold issue which should be resolved at the same time as, if not before, the issue raised in your letter. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Desegregation Settlement Loan Page 2 Please let me know ADEs current position about how and when we will determine whether the settlement loan should be forgiven in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. I will be happy to meet with you so we can work together to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible. Yours very truly, 'Leslie V. Gamine Superintendent of SchoolsO. ^2 \u0026gt; '*^1 **i Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director April 21, 1999 Tim Gauger Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Request from Legislative Audit on Little Rock Loan Agreement Dear Tim: Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Little Rock School District is in default with regard to the payment schedule, as well as in default in the amount of the one payment made to date. The district has been contacted about this lack of compliance with the terms of the loan agreement and has yet to provide any meaningful response. This apparent disregard by the district for the terms of the loan agreement has prompted Legislative Audit to ask our agency to seek implementation of the default provision of the agreement: Any installment of principal or interest not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law until paid in full. LRSD, if it defaults by not timely paying any of the installments due hereunder, shall pay to the State its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in connection with the enforcement of the n obligation. As the Department of Educations legal representative in this matter, please assist the agency with addressing this issue. Mr. Simon, as well as the State Board of Education, seek a timely resolution of this matter. Sincerely. Theresa Wallent Staff Attorney co: Mr. Raymond Simon, Director Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director, Internal Administration Mr. John Kunkel, Finance STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chainnan - BETTY PICKETT, Conway  Vice Chairman - JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant Members\nEDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould  LUKE GORDY, Van Buren  ROBERT HACKLER, Mountain Home  JAMES McLARTY III, Newport  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Texarkana  ANITA YATES. Bentonville An Equal Opportunity EmployerARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM April 16,1999 TO: Theresa Wallent FROM: Bobbie Davis REGARD: Request from Legislative Audit On Little Rock Loan Agreement Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Department to date has been provided verification of one deposit of $30,081.44 from Little Rock toward this repayment. As you will note from the attachments, the first payment of $300,000 was due September 24,1997. Therefore, Little Rock is in default with regard to the payment schedule as well as in default in the amount of the one payment that was made. I have attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Simon dated June 26,1998, in which he requested correction on the name of the escrow account as well as default payments. To date the Department has received no response to Mr. Simons request. Legislative Audit is exploring why the Department has not implemented the default provision in Section 11, page 5, of the Loan Agreement. A copy of the Loan Agreement is included in the attachments. Could you please assist me by drafting a correspondence to Mr. Tim Gaugher at the Attorney Generals office informing him of this concern and requesting his guidance and leadership in addressing this issue. Legislative Audit will need documentation of ail actions for their files. Please send copies of all correspondence and documents to my office. I will forward to Legislative Audit. As you will recall the State Board is also concerned with this issue. I would propose that this item be updated at the next State Board meeting. I feel confident that Mr. Simon would like for that report to be that Little Rock is current on all payments. If I need to provide other information, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance in handling this issue. Cc: Raymond Simon, Director John Kunkel, ADE Finance o .o Aikansas .a DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director June 26,1998 Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Camine\nIt has been brought to my attention by the Division of Legislative Audit that the Little Rock School District has not deposited the proper amount into the LRSD/State Loan Repayment Account. According to the Loan Agreement dated September 24,1990, the principal amount of each Note will be repaid in twenty (20) equal installments. Installments shall be due on the 7th through the 26th anniversary of the date of the note. The Note dated September 24,1990, was for $6,000,000. Therefore, the amount due September 24, 1997 was $300,000. In March 1998, John Kunkel of my staff contacted Mr. Mark Milhollen, for verification of the deposit. We were provided a copy of a bank statement for the Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account #00-0073-610715. At that time.the bank records reflected a balance of $30,081.44. The balance consisted of $30,000 plus earned interest. The auditors also noted that the account name should be the same as required in the loan agreement. The Department is now requesting that the Little Rock School District change the name of the account to reflect tire name required in the loan agreement and deposit an additional $270,000 to be in compliance with Copies of the documents verifying these actions will be forwarded to the loan agreement. Legislative Audit, I appreciate your cooperation in correcting this error. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Raymond Simon cc\nTim Gauger, Attorney General's Office Ronnie Ridgell, Division of Legislative Audit STATE BOARD OF EDI CATION' Chairman  BETTY PICKETT. C onxi\n Vice Chairman - JoSELL CALDWELL. Bnanl .Members: EDW IN B. ALDERSON. JR.. El Dorado  CARL E. BaGCETT. Rofrri  MARTHA DIXO.N. Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould LI KE CORDl. \\an Buren  ROBERT HACKLER. Mountain Home  JA.MES McLARTl 111. Newport  RICHARD C. S.MITH. JR.. .McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON. JR.. Teiarkina  ANITA 1 ATES. BentonvilleC  CVi-6tdiXl\u0026gt; STATE O F ARKANSAS general assembly little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 September 18, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mike Huckabee Governor, State of Arkansas RECEIVED FROM\nRE: The Honorable Mark Pryor Attorney General, State of Arkansas Mr. Ray Simon, Director Arkansas Department of Education n Superintendent Little Rock School District Senator Jim Argue Senator Dave Bisbee Senator Jodie Mahony Suggested Resolution of Arkansas to Issues Pending Between the LRSD KOF OMQNJTQflJNG and the State SEP 2 4 20 A number of issues School District, each invX^^om^ofSllJ^ of Arkansas and the Little Rock each threaten to lead to protracted litigation We do tT A brief review of the pendittg issues might be helpM: Bonded Indebtedness Pe Little Rock School District current funding formula, i- s r .- . (FRSD), as the district at the 9S IS ma position to influence the th .0 school distnhts T bow to structure thepayment schedule farTO^l ?\" J ' of detenruthrrg U.C State dupugh dte ftudiug fomrula wrll rag?SXMSl?or \" amount of required state funding ir tkzi _________  dollars. This is money that would be owed to increased base funding. Unitary Statu.s approximately 270 school district that would receive The LRSD i the LRSD m a position to seek unitary status at t eld f tb^nn^^ designed to put achieves umtary status, the State wifibe in a position ^^RSD required it to pay LRSD for various deseerealin^ circumstances, which State should be relieved of its obligation to mat have changed and that the LRSD. The loss of all desegregatiol related st^e payments to the million dollars per year. Arfund $9 mfiU^ of tol  ^RSD about $15 desegregation efforts including magnet .rbnnf represents money for transportation aid. The other $6 milhtn i? ^J^^o-niinority transfers, and compensation and health^LsimLle The prospect of expensive and protracted htigatto7 ^^^h sides, but the effect on Ute LRSDs efforts to end federal coXn^S? and that the -- amount represents money for majority-to-minority transfers, and count supervision. Loan Forgiveness* The LRSD and ADE have discussed LRSD has met the and debated the question of whether the pursuant to the 1989 settlement and ADE to agree upon of ,.L ta by the ADE a test thaTw^usId to ^^^^D ----------- uxat agreed to use a certain ^rmme loan forgiveness. LRSD entitled to loan forgiveness. ADE disa^ees ^RSD is contends that ADE agreed to Monitoring and Compliance including helping the PuS settlement agreement tbATDcr,---------   J ''^ous ways and in monitorine the LRSDs progress. There is .heex.e..,,ehADEhasco^ a SStdarm th! S\" iTbe oeneiicial to the parties involved. met in a way that is most can have significant positive or and delay are acceptable means for seekg resolution Web Protracted litigation optimism that, when considered to^eth^l Z^ T ^gree of issues can be found.  ^'^^^^*y^^oeptable resolution to all of these explore the possibilitv of. l ^^^i^st . . Possibility of a mediation process that would consider all of amumaliy satisfactory resolution. WewouldsuX, - _ services of a neutral arbiter who the issues at once and seek to find that the parties discuss the possibility of employing the serviwould structure the process, allow all parties to make their best case on these issues, gather information, and then propose a resolution that would embrace certain compromises between the parties. Hopefully, the proposal would be acceptable to all parties, and would resolve these ag^avating issues once and for all. Issues and concerns from the intervenors in the federal litigation should also be heard. We understand that the process may not be binding on the participants, but that each would participate in good faith and do their best to resolve these issues. The LRSDs removal from federal court supervision should be cause for celebration. The State has legitimate concerns about its future, extraordinary obligations to the LRSD. Let s try to find a resolution that allows the LRSD to celebrate its progress, allows the state to address pressing needs elsewhere, and most importantly, focuses our limited resources on the needs of our school children rather than on continuing litigation. To rely on the courts to resolve these issues before trying some other method seems to be a abdication of our public duties, and in the end, wastes precious, limited school resources. The LRSD needs to chart a course that leads to success without court supervision, and given the State s track record in court, the State needs to be proactive in finding a reasonable solution that does not obligate and divert additional resources. For either party to succeed, we mus-fiunravel this Gordian knot. We would appreciate your prompt response to this suggestion, and would be pleased to facilitate in any way you might deem helpful.AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huck:ibee LRSD and the State shall the Parties. collectively be referred to as RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\")\nWHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end, WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court momtoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, under the States current funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue. Page 1 of 8 IXQ . tv fAA WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State\nWHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first 9 LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11,8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of the States obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD. the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the States ability to seek modification or termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8ijfj UU4 court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3.2 The State agrees to coojierate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate the Statess obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to any or all of the following: (1) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undermines this Agreement\n(4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. County In recognition of the LRSDs efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8U . ** ^2 r/iA ittl UUO as follows\n4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all frmds in the joint escrow account establi.shed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of 4.2 4.3 the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B. of the the State will forgive and release the LRSD from dollars) in loans 1989 Settlement Agreement, any obligation to repay these Ioans If the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July I, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of pnncipal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD Agreement. pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8UO/XO/Ui inv 0.40 r/iA igl uuo subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4 2 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court 4.5 In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotia te in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest: or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page 5 of 8UB/28/U1 THU 1(5:47 TAX 1^007 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shall negotiate in good 5. 6. faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD any disputes pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said Ioans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its terms of this negotiation or execution, shall be constmed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CrV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8UUZ MX r AA l^UU Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10 This Agreement is entered into as of the /^ay of March. 2001, by the undersigned oflBcers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom IS authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8MU/ ^/ MX ltl uuu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY: Dr. Les Cj tine, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: Rayland Simon, Director H:\\hhgioo\\tg\u0026gt;ugcr\\Ark\u0026gt;nsfl AG - Dccg\\fliisc\\3_13_01 agnnftLwpd Page 8 of 8 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES K. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN 0. DAVIS WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M.TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesQwij.com JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.** TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. BALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN* C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY** M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. MCKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.O. VIA FACSIMILE March 19, 2001 RiCBVED MAR 2 9 2001 * Licensed only in Fionda and Texas ** Licensed to practice before the Linked States Patent and Trademark Office a Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RE: Proposed Agreement between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Dear Chris: Thank you for sending over a draft of the agreement last week. As you know, I was in a two-week jury trial and the jury came back late Friday afternoon. I have reviewed the agreement and have had preliminary conversations with two school officials. We have not fully absorbed the intent and meaning of the proposed agreement and I have not had a chance to discuss it yet with you. Accordingly, the PCSSD must reserve the right, at this point in time, to object to Court approval of the agreement if it ultimately appears that such would be in the best interest of the PCSSD. 242298-vl Celebrating Years 19 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP March 19, 2001 Page 2 In the interim, I certainly look forward to discussing this with you in depth. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao M. Samuel Jones, III cc: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Stephen W. Jones Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Celebrating 1 0 0 Years 19 0 0 2 0 0 0f EDWARD L. WRIGHT (jsoa-ieTTi ROBERT 5, LINuSEV 0*13.1891) ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LtLE GONOON 8. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID U. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS auFORO. JR. PATRICK J. SCSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHH TISDALE KATNLYN CRAVES M SAMUEL JONES Hl JOHNWILL1AU st*ivev in L6E J. MULDROW N.M NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWt.N L. J.R CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPAODEN ROGER 0. ROWE ' JOHN 0. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HSffKY VIA: FACSIMILE rvigntrax WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SO! 3T CAPITOL AVENUc SUITE 2200 UTTLc ROCK. ARKANSAS TSlOUSSda {501)371-0808 FAX (SOI) 376-9*42 www.wlj.com Oi* COVKSIi. ALSTON JENNINGS ROnalO a uay JAMES R. VAN OOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 m)on8s@wq.com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER ray f. COX. JR.- TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAUe\u0026gt; M. moody JR KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARY. OAVtS Claire shows Hancock KEVIN W KENNEDY JERRY J. SALlINGS william STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O 8AAMES STEPHEN R LANCASTER JU5Y ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE Simmons allgooo KRISTI U. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CKKISTIME J. DAUGHERTY, P(tO- MICHELLE M KAEMMERLING ERIK* ROSE MOMTOOM5P.Y SCOTT ANDREW IRBY MOLLY A. AOEE MtCNELlB MAROIS OiLLARD PATRICK D. WILSON  (jEnsetfBfnoicaaaftmneLMea 3MU *hf u-.UH}.ii July 11, 2002 The Honorable Wm, R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District\net al USDC Docket No.\n4\n82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I have the Court's Letter-Order of July 11, 2002 and I write in my capacity as counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District I have tried to follow the recent proceedings and I have a general sense that the issues witnesses and exhibits have been pared down considerably. My sole interest in the hearings next week revolves around Joshuas designation of Ray Simmon. Director of The State Department of Education, as a witness virhom they intend to call. If memory serves, he is listed as witness number 29 on Joshua's witness list and will be called to give testimony concerning the agreement between the State and LRSD. That agreement respects terms and ccnditions of the loan forgiveness to Little Rock and also includes a bilateral agreement between Little Rock and the State concerning a sunset provision by which payments such as those for magnet schools and M to M transfers wiii cease. Let me first say 1 cannot fit this particular testimony and this agreement into the parameters or what understand to be the issues that will in fact be addressed next week. At the\ndo not recall an order which specifically addressed Mr. Simmon and this agreement. same time, I It IS my underetanding that this agreement has never been submitted directly to the Court for approval or disapproval. However, when it first suiTaced, I did have occasion to write Judge 3S04Q9-V1njLBUtfdx * WRIGHT. tINDSEY 4 JENNINGS LLP July 11, 20Q2 Page 2 Wright advising that the PCSSD had not been a party to either the negotiator of or the execution of this agreement and that we opposed it. If this evidentiary item is not going to be addressed during the unitary hearing, I would respectfuiiy request to be excused from those hearings. EverTif Ns going to be ad^ wouio asK trie inauigence of the Court to simply require the par to nSfy ^^^^0 approxirnateiy wnen dunng the proceedings this issue might be addressed so that participation couio be limited to that witness and this issue. my any kind of position to assess and address this matter today with the SDtendW morning would not be required, that would be dpiVllUlU It? KlrOW. Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wrmh .x'^^amuely^Jones, 111 cc: Honorable J, Thomas Ray All Counsel of .Record 1 350409-vli Chris Heije7 , j.,15,01 agrmnt.wpri 0002 Page AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT i This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through School District CTRSD\"), and the the Stare Board of Education, the Arkansas I I .! i i Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shaU colbctively be referred to as the Parties, WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are recitals  parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (1989 .Senior Agreement\"), WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement anposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end\nWHEREAS, LRSD wiU seek to be declared unitary and released from federal monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agr^ment\ncourt may seek to WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced baas to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million doflars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD those loans will be forgiven Settlement Agreement\nas to whether or must be repaid pursuant to Section V1.B.(6) of the 1989 I I fS WHEREAS, under the States cuiient funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fending which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue\nWHEREAS, the State wants LRSD financial impact on the State, to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the 1003 Pagezj ft WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the foflowmg terms and conditions: agreements ! f I 1. LRSD agrees to good pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has of this Agreement, whichever comes first. been obtained or until the terminatton 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual defat payments wiU be 11.8 million dollars beginning wiA the 2002 calendar service Education docs hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted year. The State Board of 3. In order to facilitate and on February 19, 2001. release from court supervision, the State the States obligations to the LRSD i encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement any enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement or court dccisrons I, 2008. This covenant shall Agreement up to and including June remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates p pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete umtary status and release from court supervision. I 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement docs not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as modification or termination of limiting in any way, the States ability to seek any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement I t I Agreement (including court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Linle Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement docs not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it 2 w I I f@004 I I I r 3.2 4. prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assen in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State agrees to cooperate with and the legality- of this Agreement the Statess obligations under the 1989 to the efiect that the State has assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate Settlement Agreement. Such and assistance shall include, but not be limbed to, filing jomt pleadings pleadings responding to cooperation any or all of the following,' (1) supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) fihng a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or mdirectly undeimmes this Agreement\n(4) fihng a jomt bnef opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refhsmg to modify or termmate the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nand (3) filing joint pleadings this Agreement to United States District Court to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of with the Pulaski County School CIV-LR-82-866. In recognition of the LRSDs efforts from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the the LRSD agree as follows: 4.1 Page 3 j B and to consolidate the challenge Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. I to obtain unitary status and complete release success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first 515,000,000.00 (fifteen million doUars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds m the yimt escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B ( the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be practicable. released to the LRSD as SOOS as 3 I ILChfis Heller - 'jTl s H agrrnnt.w^_ oos t 4.2 In addition, with loans advanced to the LRSD respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in I Agreement, the State will forgive and release pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement repay these loans if the LRSD obtains the LRSD from any obligation to 4.3 status and release from federal a final order granting it complete unitary Court supervision on or before July 1, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD a pursuant to Section i I I I i ! i I I i 4.4 I I VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order status and release from federal court graniing it complete unitary ^pealablc order of the United States District Conn for supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but i appealed and subsequently reversed in whole or m part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to rep^ the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(I) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and aU interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court fer Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that any modification of IS necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shafl take such fertile: action as may be necessary to obtain such a 4 J I i i I li I 1Haller agnrint.wpd  006 Page 5 ii' modification, mchidmg but not limiied to appealing any adverse decision of the District Court I I or ruling 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninaled pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effon to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the Ioans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resohition, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. not In die event such relief is g sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed I i or offered as evidence of any admission against interest the part of the State or the LRSD. or waiver of any kind on 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not tenmnated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the through 4.6 of this Agreement .'.hall be null provisions of paragraphr 4 and void but severable from the I remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that aU other promises and obligations of the Parties shall rcmam in frill force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shaU negotiate in good faith in an effort to amve at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes conccminB the loans flrivani-wj to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989.Settlemenl Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, inchiding but not limited to sexkmg appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the S i ng,iia.ia.i,. II I i I I I I I I H^Her  32.1 5 q'i agrmni wf^ Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed evidence of any aHmKoinn State or the LRSD. or offered as against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the 5. 6. The effective date of this Agreement shaU be the date of execution. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to atrolv to th? f sppty to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30,2004 7 The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School c^, u,S.D C, No CIV.LR.82.6, Uoiod So. Dteio, Co lull too jodsdicaon ,0 erforoo te ,o\u0026gt;ol,o dlspuus b=n die Ponios out of this Agreement and to hear ariqtng 8. This Agreement expresses the entire any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. altered except by a writing executed by the authorized It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement agreement of the parties and may not be modified approval of the LRSD and the State, after further intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal 10. or representatives of the LRSD and the State, may be modified or amended, with the consultation and discussion with the Joshua agreements and undertakings contained herein shall mure to the This Agreement is entered into as of the successors in interest and assigns of the parties. oflScers of the Little Rock School District and the whom is authorized to ----- day of March, 2001, by the undersigned Arkansas Department of Education, each of execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. 007 Page 81 I 3^1S_q-I agrrnnt.wpd  008 nrr^ ( I I i ^age?] LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY\nI Dr. Les Canune, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: 1 Rnymond Simon, Director t I H: aG - DW-P\u0026lt;wio.13.15.01 M=-twpd 1 )FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL 1^1001 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Regions Center 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-34S3 telephone (SOD 376-2011 FAX NO. (5011 376-2147 CORPORATIONS THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR\nAnn Marshall 371-0100 FIRM NAME: FROM: Chris Heller DIRECT NUMBER 501-370-1506 MESSAGE\nSee attached. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (including this information sheet): 8 DATE: March 15, 2001 TIME: A.M./P.M. TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LIOIO-90 _____________ CLIENT NUMBERMATTER NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE\nThe information in this facsimile grivileged and confidential information i individual or entity named above. intended recipient. or copy of the tran.LttL^^- tZsnsjnltCsJ. is Isgally ---- intended only for the use of the If the reader of this message is not the transmittal in rs error strictly prohibited. If you receive this distribution original transmittal to Service. Thanh you. , please rmmedrately notify us by telephone, and ~o us at the above address via the United States Postal and return the THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999 LR schools : 1  put^Slmillion in loan account State, district disagree over repayment terms . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL .. ARKANSAS DEMOCRATGAZETTE , \\ Little Rock School District offt\ncials have put nearly $1 million into what they have titled LRSD/State Loan Repayment Ac- ' count in response to state officials who said the district isnt complying with a 1989 agreement for repaying a million state loan. . But Assistant Attorney General Tim Gauger said Wednesday that the district controls the accounL which is not an escrow account jointly established by the state and district as required by the 1989 agreement. After a July 12 directive from   made a decision five years aan thof wo uro pnfitIpH tn ago that we are entitled to loan ____ , , , forgiveness.-, ..i  Cohtlnu^trom Pago ., In anticipation of the state ask- settlementfthe'aistncF'would not  ing a federal judge to enforce the have to'repay the state loan if be- settlement temis for tlie escrow fore December 2000 the composite account, school district attorneys scores' earned by black students have asked tlie Education Departon a standardized test reached at ment for. minutes and other docu- least 90 percent of the scores of ments dealing with test selection.^ white students. The test was to be I suppose it will go to court, agreed upon by the state and the Heller said. \"This may prove to be district fortunate for us because we didnt Chris Heller, an attorney for the seem to be making any progress school district, said Wednesday with the state to get them to make that the fact that the district has a decision on what the test for loan not deposited money into a jointly forgiveness is going to be  even    *' though it seems that it has been decided twice that it should be the held account arises from the states failure to agree on a test to measure student achievement, which would determine whether the Little Rock debt would be for- given.' Two state Department of Edu- Stanford 8 scale scores. Gauger said the state will simply ask in its court filings that the district comply with the settlement in teiTOs of the jointly held escrow cation committees recommended account. *  ' We are not going to allege that that scale scores from the Stanford they have not met the standard [for Achievement Test, eighth edition, tuvj. iw.v mve v.,v i.x be used to measure student loan forgiveness], Gauger said. achievement, Heller said. But he All we are asking is that they get the escrow current. In my mind, if said the proposals were never for- ------------- ----- mally adopted by Education De- you are holding the money, why partment administrators or the not put it into the joint escrow? state Board of Education. The district got its first mil- School district officials contend lion of the $20 million loan in Sep- i that the district meets the require- tember 19tW. It^was obligated by the state Board of Education^ Gauger said he plans to file a mo-\nments for loan forgiveness if the the original 1989 settlement agree- tion early next week for Chief U.S. Stanford scale scores are the mea- ment and by a more detaile^oan nistriet Tndpe Susan Webber ' sure. agreement in September 1990 to Uistnct Judge busan Webber , ..This issue should have and begin repaying that portion of the Wright to enforce the agreement against the district. He contends i could have been decided a long loan within seven years into a spe- time ago, and the decision should cial escrow account. The loan was    ............... - to be repaid in 20 equal install- that the district owes $996,000 . that we are entitled to loan for- plus investment earnings. giveness, Heller said. We In the 1989 financial settle- , shouldnt be sued over the ques-  tion of an escrow payment when niversary of the initial loan.' ments with a 3 percent interest rate going into effect on the Sth ailment, the state pledged a $20 million loan to the district to be paid over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every two years, TTie money was to help the the state could have and should According to a draft of the mo- tion Gauger intends to submit to the judge, the district was re-  X pr  X- - 1 X quired to make a principal pay- distnct offset desegregation-relat- of $300,000 into the escrow ed costs. account in September 1997 and an- According to the terms of that other $300,000 payment on the 1 See LOAN, Page 11A principal in September 1998, plus  ' an interest payment of $171,000 at Simon asked Gamine to change the account name from Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account to reflect the account name required in the 1990 loan agreement and to add $270,000 to the account, the balance the dis- trict owed at the time. Milhollen said Wednesday that he believes the district has com- -------- that time. Little Rock drew another $4.5 -- --------- million from the loan in Januaiy plied with Simon s requests from a 1992 and was to begin repaying year ago. as well as the terms ot that with an initial $225,000 in Jan- the September 1990 loan agree- mcnt We followed their recommen- into the escrow account, plus in- uary this year. According to the terms of the . 1989 agreemenL all money paid dations in the letter they wrote to --------- us. Milhollen said.  We did what they asked us to do, which was to adjust the $30,000 to $300,000, and we titled the account like they vestment earnings, would be returned to the district once the student achievement goals are met. asked us to title it. Thats what they asked us to do. Otherwise, the escrowed money and subsequent payments on the debt would go to the state begin- Superintendent Les Gamine, Larry Berkley, School Board ning in 2001  president, said recently that he Superintendent Les Gamine, thinks the State Education Boards who acknowledged early last vote to force the district to make month that the district was in de- escrow payments was a matter ol fault of its payments, said this politics. . -.r -----------u nA knnn .People in the rest of the state don't want to think about forgiving a ^0 million loan to a school district in Little Rock, Berkley said. week that the money had been put into reserves but he hesitated to say more before the court case.  Earlier, Carnine said the test issue should be resolved so that the dis- \"I can understand that, but it may trict \" could use its financial re- not be the smartest thing. There is sources on students. the potential that the state uld Mark Milhollen, tlie district's get dragged back into the desegre, manager of financial services, con- gallon case, which could end up firmed Wednesday that $968,375 costing the state more money. I was put into the LRSD/State loan don't think that is a wise move. rpnavmentaccountJune30,thelast The state was dismissed as a repayment account June 30, the last to the $30,815.89 already in the ac- repdyiiivnidLLuuiivuujicAaxv,xxAxji, day of the 1998-99 fiscal year. Added party in the now 16-year-old deseg- io iiie $30,315.83 already in the ac- rogation lawsud after the ap-. counL the account totals $999,190.89. proval of the 1989 fmancial settle-, Milhollen cited a June 1998 let- ment. However, Wright retains ju- ter from Ray Simon, director of the risdiction over the state to enforce Education Department, in which compliance with the agreement. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000  Arkansas Democrat azcttc Deadline set for compliance on desegregation case escrow BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Educa- state Departnient of Education oftion on Monday set a March 1 deadline for -the Little Rock about $1.8 million set aside in an School District to establish and account held jointly by the dis- fully fund a joint escrow account trict and the state. Latest docu- to hold the districts repayments ments on file with state Educa- on a $20 million state desegrega- tion Department staff show that a tion loan. The board directed Assistant ance of about $999,000. Attorney General Tim Gauger to, file a complaint with U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who ongoing dispute between the monitors the districts desegrega- state officials and the district _ . , tion efforts, if the escrow account over the terms of a 1989 financial funds in 1998 in the escrow ac- is not in place by the date. settlement between the district According to calculations by , and the state.  The state a^eed at the time to loan the district the money witli ficials, the district should have district-held account has a baiThe state boards vote Monday is the latest development in an the understanding that the loan would be forgiven if the district could narrow the academic dis- . . parity between black and white ' tatives of the state and school dis- students on a standardized achievement test. The district has until Dec. 31 this year to meet the goal. In the meantime, the district was obligated by the settlement agreement to b6gin periodically setting aside count to repay the state in the event the goal is not met. The board directed Gauger last summer to pursue joint access to the Little Rock account as well as full funding. On a related matter, represen- trict have never identified the test that is to be used to measure the disparity in black and white i students achievement. Discussions on that issue are continuing. Charity Smith, an assistant director in the Education Department, said Monday.I Arkansas Demcxrrat ^(ijitazcHc | THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000  LR schools set up plan to repay state . Move taken in time to keep from facing default lawsuit BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS BEHOCRArO.AZi\nTTE Little Rock School District officials put almost SSOO.OOO into a state loan repayment account and took other steps by a deadline Wednesday to avoid being sued for default by the state. Mark Milhollen, district manager of financial sendees, transferred $465,632 into a loan repayment account, bringing the account to $1.48 million, the amount - owed to date.\nAlso Wednesday, district and 'state officials exchanged drafts of la memorandum of understanding\nthat would obligate the Little Rock /district to convert its loan repay\ninent account into a joint escrow 'account that would be accessible two years. Ito both district and state officials,  not just district officials. terms, the drstrict will not have io Last month, the Arkansas j repay the state loan if by Dcc.-31 Board of Education directed As- ! the composite scores earned .by sistant Attorney General Timothy black students on a standardized Gauger to file a complaint in fed- test reach at least 90 percent of tlie eral court against the states scores of white students. .largest school system if district of- ---------------------------------------------- The test is to be selected by tlie ficials failed by Wednesday to es- j state and the district. That test, tablish the joint account and make however, has not been selected. overdue payments on a $20 million The proposed memorandum of un- loan made by the state to offset derstanding notes that a disagree- district desegregation costs be- ment exists between the parties on tween 1990 and 1999. . The proposed memorandum of understanding was not finalized by the end of the day Wednesday. But Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education, said the districts attempts to meet .Estate demands satisfied him. He .said he wanted time to review the :draft of the memo with his staff but did not expect to file a court ..'complaint. Even though the [joint escrow] '.account is not set up. Little Rock . has done what they needed to do,  'Simon said. I'm satisfied they . -ihave complied to this point with \u0026gt;*\nthe boards deadline. They have ,\nmade the good-faith effort to get  .^something to us. Its just that our 'staff needs today [Wednesday] to .z look at it.  In the two-page draft memoran- idum, the district pledges to repay See LOAN, Page 7B Loan  Continued from Page 1B\nprincipal and interest on the loan. The district also seeks to manage die account and have the authority to periodically draw from the account to offset lulls in llie flow of local tax revenues to tlie district'. Any amounts withdrawn from the joint account would-be repaid with interest within six months of tlie witlidrawal, accorfr ing to the proposed language'of the memo. Milhollen said another payment of $353,220 will be made' to the repayment account March To, and $75,000 more will be paid May Other payments of various amounts are scheduled into I at least the next two decades. The $20 million loan from the state was a provision of a 1989. financial settlement between the state and the school system. The state distributed the loan proceeds over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every According to the settlement whether the requirements for loan forgiveness have been met. The draft memo Birther says tlie district and the state wish to continue discussions aimed at resolving jlie dispute. If the district meets the student achievement goal, the money in the joint escrow account will be returned to the district. Otherwise it will be returned to the state.  The district got its first $6 million of the $20 million loan in September 1990. The district was obligated by tlie original 1989 agreement and by a more detailed loan agreement in September 1990 to begin repaying that portion of the loan witliin seven years into a special escrow account. , The loan was to be repaid in'20 equal installments witli a 3 per- :ent interest rate. ii 'i\n'. The districts first payment'of $300,000 was due to the escrow account in September 1997. Over time the district set aside some repayment funds but not into a jointly held account and not (br the full amounts owed.' ' f Members of the state Board of Education began publicly , questioning the lack of a joint account and delinquent payments last summer. er(  FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2000  LR schools,  I  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas attorney generals office have signed a memorandum of understanding whereby the district idedges that its payments on a $20 million state loan will go to a joint- lyjowned bank account. According to the memorandum, the school district has the authority to make investment decisions for the account. The district is obligated to provide the state Department of Education a monthly statement showing account activity. ''The agreement further gives the Little Rock district  with permission from the Education De- state agree on loan repayment plan partment  the ability to draw from the account at those times of the year when the flow of tax revenue to the district ebbs. Any such amounts withdrawn by the district must be repaid with interest within six montts. The memorandum follows a dispute between the state and district over the terms of the loan. The district obtained the low- interest loan as a result of a 1989 desegregation agreement with the state. The original agreement says that the district will not have to repay the loan if, by Dec. 31 of this year, it can narrow the achievement disparity between black and white students as measured by standardized tests. But the terms of the loan also called for the district to begin making payments in 1997 to a joint escrow account The state Board of Education complained that the district was making insufficient payments to an account that only the district controlled. State board members said in February that they would ask a federal judge to enforce the terms of the 1989 agreement if the district did not comply by March 1. The district complied by the specified date, and the two-page memorandum was worked out.October 17. 2 0 0 0 LR district, state work on solutions Desegregation, funding for schools on the agenda BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE At the urging of three Arkansas legislators, attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District are quietly working toward a settlement of school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and prolong the districts federal desegregation lawsuit. i Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, j said Monday that attorneys for the governors office, the state Department of Education and the attorney generals office have met at least twice in recent weeks with representatives of the Little Rock district on the complex issues. Those issues include the Little Rock districts possible payback of a million state loan, state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and the impact of a recent Little Rock tax increase on Jim Argue school funding elsewhere in\" the state. Argue, who has served as an informal facilitator at the meetings, said he was cautiously optimistic that a resolution of the financial issues is forthcoming. I dont want to talk about what the compromises might look like because we are at a very delicate stage, Argue said. But I do think the parties are negotiating in good faith, he added. I do think they are keeping the interest of school kids at heart. Hopefully, we can bring a resolution to some really difficult issues and clear the path so that the Little Rock School Districts removal from federal court can be a moment of celebration. District officials are hoping that See ISSUES, Page 10A FH o o CiSm p sS-o ff- O'S O S 5o S3 5' a3_.ffp^|3 jap?is.gs-|-\u0026amp;s-| o 2\nt\u0026amp;3S go-oE--csS:L \u0026amp;\u0026amp; Og )5-2. oKE-S:-ic8n?B: s _  . 0-0 e!O-ff\nS  2-^325^^ TO ?+ O'rtA!-3'\u0026lt;VP s3 c1 -50.^ o  Di Di O trt ! .o O  00 fp !3 2 cn U u uu uQ I Vt s gas 3 Ss 2^g2 3-^ CT 3 O a  *. '?c p S ' 3a S^-EH- S-p \u0026gt; |\u0026amp;S3g-o ^'S^Q.!^ g P ' \"p-ga p S. Di (O 3 \u0026gt; 3^ Di 5. P3SP-5-B V'\u0026amp; \u0026amp;3 ffffBSgSgC..  fo Q-P\"\" S-~s-.^ O'? R ^oS-pSp-oSKoP-o\u0026amp; E.pff'Sgsg'Po^gso. g-H-ia. S \u0026amp; a g \u0026lt; l-Sf 11P S.0 o 3 g li ff- s-p\"|g'isa' Sgsf PohS'p^p^W^ ? 3-2 3fB,23wS'^ y 3 O XO o a 5 \u0026gt;1 ^0.3 -3  \u0026amp; \u0026gt;3 CA CD  p 3 CA O CA V) o (D Q SB'S =1\" a o CA  3 g O w ^gg.hrJS o X n5 *\u0026lt; p o 2  s * 3-\" a rt\u0026gt; 5 fp a o CA \u0026amp;3 g o\u0026lt;fi g\" o  Sh g-S !.'S 2 g 5 StA O Ca O O- r* e g 5 o O rt tv jr-gS- gs CA c g CP fP S?- P O 5 s rti o-\" S-~g !c 5-cacpcpO^q2.o, 5o.-cp3Qi=:cp- 4 P' S o 2.P 2. P-3 p? 55 'P3 S 3s o cr Di CA - n gg O' p K? rs jS- a Q ti. (D T i off'S .. \u0026amp;\u0026amp;g g CS.2-3  Is Bo CA  alg S-W \u0026amp;!? S-g-P I\" 5'S S-a SS \u0026amp;S  \u0026amp; 5- o s-bL K'o og-w BlS ct^.q 2 rt\u0026gt; ca  M 2 fD o \u0026amp;  f? 5^3 5KC^S.^oQ.- w3 2CD 2Di. S is BS.ffaffS'' B\u0026amp;p q I'P Qh C^1S.^,\u0026lt;P (?p \u0026amp;3'^ 3\"'  QpI| ?s 's^ t?ip \u0026amp;\u0026amp; ia oSog'CS'SS' S? a.3'BSQ? I- CA CA s S 3 !?a s s  a S-S o-\u0026amp;^S 2. rt f-i fP C3 El. . r- 3 \u0026amp;s sr \"O fP O 3 - 3.  rti O fP fcj 1-j o XJ o oa ^O--S2.* *0!- ^9\n3 S3.2 2-3,3 o 2 o o 3 2-J?ao CP w ii^hir o 1 o 3 CA 2 o IS oa-2^^'3o   g as 0-^0 g^giS-'ga^ffgSo g ^iS.O ffi o O 0-0 o o Bo Eco!?^ \"- dap o * gl fP \u0026amp;\u0026lt; p n\u0026gt; (p o \u0026lt;p w .S H 2.H-Q.ctni a S 2. pP3 \u0026amp;Boo 212^3^5:3o c\u0026amp;x ^gP\u0026amp;^e\u0026amp;O'g g 3-^'^ S. 2 -2 2 \"* ............gB c gg E'Q EP^r. EP 0.2'? Eg-?- 11  2 CA 3 C It CT S.g  QC r w rr O3 g ^ '. 2 a\u0026amp;ff 3 3 ogrg.'^ o S.s:g  E'a S a o. g  Sg'gSS.wSso H S.3g.?.S'?5 teK\n3. \u0026lt;P o c w CA CP X p CA 2 03 S 3 3 \u0026amp;g5 J? fp s CA o P r (P aP ggc- 3i p t*- S*- T\" 3* cB g S'  ? o 2  g  o' g S' '!\u0026gt; 3,pGQ2SH ^pa3r3'B . ff 9 E- H- Ct 3 P C O 3- - \" 3 \u0026amp;. B |e 8 g\u0026lt;|'g ff-g 3 hS g aSg'Jp .3 CP I2 o w 3 S2. lIl'? Ill CP S K- -3 g fP U3  S S S  1 CA 0-3 g Jj' - ?r 3 o o ' w !ZR 2i K ^S 3-'fl Cr.T3 ttO-O O O S O o  fft o o 3 O CA n 2 BJ 2. CA iOf. M CiAs .-1 3M ^- 2\u0026gt; tJ r* s\u0026amp;'R g5 T.0.0 0??- S 0.1 o.Sa a'\u0026amp;SS5gS|\u0026amp; \"S-SpS-a\" gaS: Ssgs.gal ca  3\" O 3   . P 3 s. 2 fp B.g-'g B rf 2- O'. 2 'OR.B tt'O'o'S^\" P ' \u0026amp;.P35A\u0026amp; (S3Po\"=c' Eg?g(g P 9 SSo P (S o *0 fp tn 3-a (TO (P B c/i O 3 o \u0026lt;P 3-\nS S- B-ff o ff\u0026amp;d'^2 5'03 i^ffS'o 3. |ScSXS?^|'gS|ffBgt5. ss a 3-3-2 ^pw,. SfToW-oS \"S .S C3_ O SpgS, CA Q 3 5.^g'?- ^3 2 2: fP T .Q o  kTct M \" CA P I (P -3 w'2 A.sirjslIjHi 'A P CA  3. ^^OCA S El' CA O  S-2 3  O fti o pr a?-I CP CP  O ! e-f' rt\u0026gt; |sB s\n t 9Cr\u0026lt;'fDT3Oa3s: 32o332oo\u0026lt; 3 a .o CA CA p (p CA p I. CA S' \u0026amp; 2OmB*l2OO2 ^P ,,, CP 3  3 3'W =-5:^K o Q.-r*^2 \u0026amp; ft.fDT3M3'OOvO . 3 r TO . M n s o a(P aK-sB t  unuAT, 2UU1^ r LR schools, state near deal on BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Ijttle Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating:  The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district  nie impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no ' proof that the district Is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is going to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. desegregation funds Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and Timothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement. Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about tlie negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was . See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B frustrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming. A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dee. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether die loan should be forgiven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,: transportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody.8A  FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2001  Deal can ease LR schools loan burden Lawyers for state, district work out possible solution BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District have reached a tentative agreement that would relieve the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million loan and preserve millions in state funds for magnet schools and other desegregation costs until at least 2008. In return, the Little Rock district will structure its finances, particularly money from a recent tax increase, so that the state will not be required to pump $125 million to other Arkan^ school districts. The proposed a^eement allows the school district to continue efforts to win release from federal court supervision without jeopardizing state funding for de- se^egation programs. Both the Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board have scheduled meetings for Monday to decide whether to ratify the agreement that has been the topic of negotiations since last September. Im just pleased we were able to reach agreement, said Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education. It brings closure to these issues and it allows us to focus on student achievement for all students. Simon said he will recommend that the state board approve the agreement when it meets at 2 pun. Monday via telephone conference call. We are wearing big smiles See LRSD, Page 8A STTTil E -ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dese i  I _ BE ii I I ^^iS^ockSciiool^^iS^ M . - citing statistics ds evidence ........ .nl^iiareffnrt\u0026lt;i to comply with a 1998 ^fTlWWCTTHGHEHS z-OlsMensabllqated to maintain a E^affthat is approximately PEBCENI BUCK 3n ~sr MCX ~1S1 WMiE/onn 1205 UW HGOROUS COURSES^ ranomiiffliT MCIEKE AJflebra I Geometry Algebra II Biology ChorrifettY Physics 5 w Tzr I 1M TOTO. % MCKASt 3t% -----73% -----HIT rar 'LO^' BUCK % MCHJtSE W% 8% ------0% 51% ~~TW% ADVHKD PUCEMENT COURSE ENROIIMENT n SUSPENSIONS BUCK 5341 WMIE 900 052 ran. _yB 1997-98 2000-'01 % change TOIM L5 OK BUCK fll ~7S7 09% KT COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM TESFIAKERS ^gZ5g3BBaBWHMARKEXAM:lJIElU^ or above proficiency Hl _JiBL = +31% HJKX _291 +50% WMIE __as +1% h GRA0E5SnNF0RDKHIEVEMENTTEST:MAni Scores in percentiles 50 percent= national average Ml JL 31 iUCK 23 WMIE _S S5 'SOURCE: Little Rock School District 1997-'98 t9900 % change ran nt 31% BUCK MB =1 EXnUCURnCULAR ACTMIY PARrailMIION 1997-'98 1999-'00 BUCK 2g WMIE/Oim 393 --------902 DROPOUT RATE AT HIGH SCHOOLS 1997-96 1999-00 ran. 5Mm%i BUCK Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/KIRK MONTGOMERYI P for desegregation programs that in- kllwv elude magnet schools, student transfers, and special transporta-  Continued from Page 1A tion as well as money for extraor- afound here, Little Rock Super- dinary employee health insurance intendent Les Gamine said. We and retirement costs. The district, think the right things have been which has a $200 million budget, done and Im really excited for the gets approximately million a school district and for the kids year for those costs. here. This sets the tone for us to begin a whole new era. The negotiated agreement specifically says the state will not Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, try to modify or terminate any of its was equally pleased and said he obligation to Little Rock as enu- would encourage his fellow lawmakers to support the agreement. merated in a 1989 agreement until June 1, 2008. The newest agree- Its cause for celebration, he mentwhich would be an amendsaid. This agreement represents ment to the 1989 settlementdoes the resolution of some extremely not specify what happens at that important and chronically trouble- time. The state farther agreed to forgive and release the Little Rock some issues that we have focused oh for years. Argue was one of three lawmak- district from any obligation to re- ers who last fall encouraged state pay the first $15 million of a $20 and Little Rock district officials to million state desegregation loan pool together several outstanding given to the district over the course desegregation and financial issues of the 1990s. The state will forgive the re- and resolve them as a package. maining $5 million in loans if the Sen. Jodie Mahony, D-El Dorado, and Sen. Dave Bisbee, R-Rogers, district obtains a final order from were the other two. the federal courts granting it com- A lot of hard work has gone plete unitary status and release into this, Aiiue said. And I re- from federal court supervision by member that a lot of people July 1,2004. thought it was a pipe dream. It was $20 million loan was a con- an instance where we were looking tentious provision of the 1989 flnan- at four issues and we couldnt re- cial settlement between the state wed go right back to where we solve any of them as we dealt with mid the Pulaski County school dis- them individually. tricts. AccoMing to the 1989 agree- As for his legislative colleagues, ment, the district would not have to Im going to encourage them to repay the loan if the scores earned understand that all parties were at black students on standardized the table, that everybody is giving fest scores were raised to at least 90 and everybody is gaining, he said, percent of the scores earned by If they choose to spoil the deal, white students by Dec. 31,2000. ..^'d o- Ls, ..e However, the state and the Lit- were with four big problems and tie Rock district never agreed on no resolution. the standardized test or the type of Gov. Mike Huckabee was out of score that should be used to detertown Thursday but said through a mine whether the district met its spokesman that he wanted to re- obligation. .................. The Little Rock district is oblig- serve comment until after the boards acted on the agreement. The tentative agreement was ated by the new agreement to accelerate its efforts to sell construction bonds and raise its level of circulating among various state and local officials on the same day debt from about $6 million to about the Little Rock School District sub- $11.8 million by early 2002, saving District voters approved a 5-mill mitted to U.S. Chief District Judge the state up to $125 million. Susan Webber Wright, a 167-page report of statistics showing the dis- tax increase last year for renovat- tricts efforts to comply with its ing buildings and expanding tech- 1998 desegregation plan. nology systems. As soon as that dis- A motion accompanied the re- trict uses that money to finance port asking Wright to give all other construction debt, the money wont parties in the 18-year-old desegre- be counted as revenue available to gation lawsuit 20 days to make any educate students in the district. objections to the districts asser- Thats important to state offi- tions of compliance. The district cials because the amount of rev- also asked the judge to declare the enue per child in the Little Rock district unitary, or desegregated to district is the standard by which ..................................  state funding for all other school the extent practicable, on June 30. A declaration of unitaiy status districts is calculated. Every dis- would mean that the district would trict is guaranteed 80 percent of be released from continued feder- the funding available in Little court monitoring and involve- Rock. Unless the district uses its ment in its operations. The district new revenue to finance construe-  has been involved in federal tion, the state will have to pump in school desegregation lawsuits for more money for other school sys- more than 40 years. terns in 2001-02. The $125 million The current lawsuit began in cost could wipe out money that 1982, when the Little Rock district Huckabee and other lawmakers sued the state and the other two want to increase teacher salaries. Tulaoki CuuiiLy ouliuul uiauiuU, Those raises, if made law, are exseeking consolidation as an end to pected to cost $122 million annual- Pulaski County school districts, racial segregation in the Pulaski ly when fully implemented. County piAlic schools. The federal In the proposed agreement, the courts found that the defendants district and state pledge to work to- were at fault but stopped short of gether for unitary status for the Lit- consolidation. The districts and tie Rock district. The agreement the state ultimately agreed to a fi- states that it can be modified by nancial settlement of more than the district and state based on fur- $129 million to be paid out over the ther consultation and discussion course of the 1990s. However, the with attorneys for the Joshua interdistricts continue to receive money venors, who represent the black from the state for ongoing desegre- students in the district in the ongo- ing desegregation lawsuit John Walker, the attorney for gation expenses. The proposed agreement between the state and district was the intervenors, could not be not submitted to the judge with the reached for comment Thursday. compliance report, but the two are tied together. Some of the attorneys involved in crafting the agreement included Little Rock district attorneys Chris Heller for the Little Rock and School Board members have School District\nTimothy Gauger said they want to pursue unitary and Scott Smith for the Departstatus without a fear that the state ment of Education, and Olan would try to withdraw its funding Reeves for the governors office.o CM CM LR, state boards sign school funding pact Agreement maintaining desegregation programs called a marvelous step forward o JI V. I ! Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/JASON ANTHES LiWe Rock School District Superintendent Les Carnine signs an agreement that will continue state funding for the school system's desegregation programs. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board endorsed a landmark agreement Monday that will continue state funding for the citys desegregation programs and save millions in state funding to other districts. The state Education Board adopted the agreement with an 8-1 vote and little discussion in a telephone conference call. The Little Rock School Board followed suit three hours later with a 7-O vote. We're cautiously optimistic the settlement with the Little Rock School District will lead to a permanent conclusion of what has been a long, tedious court battle, Gov. Mike Huckabee said Monday through a spokesman. Little Rock School Board President Katherine Mitchell called the agreement historic and thanked all who were involved in its production. Baker Kumis, another Little Rock board member, said\nThis is bigger news than a presidential library, a new arena or anything like that. This is a marvelous step forward. The agreement paves the way for the Little Rock district to pursue release from federal court monitoring of its long-standing desegregation efforts without jeopardizing about $20 million a year in state support for the districts magnet schools and other desegregation-related expenses. The eight-page agreement crafted by attorneys for the district and the state at the urging of a handful of legislators, says the state will not attempt to cut desegregation funding to the Little Rock School Dis- trict at least until after June 1,2008. The agreement further relieves the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million state desegregation loan. In return, the agreement obligates the Little Rock district to vigorously pursue release from federal court monitoring of its desegregation efforts. The district also has pledged to structure its finances  specifically money raised by a recent 5-mill tax increase  so the districts revenue per student wont increase dramatically. That would force the state to infuse as much $125 million into other school districts to help them keep up with funding levels in Little Rock The amount of funding Little Rock has per student is the standard by which state funding for all See AGREEMENT, Page 8A Agreement  Continued from Page 1A other Arkansas school districts is calculated. Eveiy district is guaranteed at least 80 percent of the funding available to the Little Rock district. Hie district will accelerate the sale of construction bonds, increasing its debt from about $6 million to more than $11.8 million by early 2002. Money eamiarked for debt payments wont be counted as revenue for educating Little Rock students. After Mondays vote, attorneys for both agencies will submit a joint request to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to modify an earlier. court-approved agreement between the state and the school district that included the $20 million loan. According to that 1989 agreement the Little Rock district was to repay the loan if standardized test scores of black students were not raised to at least 90 percent of the scores of white students by Dec. 31,2000. The loan proved to be a point of contention because the two agencies could never agree on the test The newest agreement calls for the state to forgive the first $15 million of the low-interest loan right away. The district will be relieved of the remaining $5 million payment if it is released from court supervision by July 1,2004. The district asked Wright for unitary status  or a declaration that it is desegregated to the extent practicable just last week. Timothy Gauger, an attorney who represented the state in the agreement negotiations, said Monday that should the federal courts reject the modified language on the $20 million loan, the loan provision of the new agreement can be severed from the rest of the agreement, which would still stand. Ray Simon, director of the Department of Education, acknowledged that some of the states districts would like to share in a $125 million infusion of state aid based on Little Rocks increased wealth. Producing that money would likely jeopardize efforts going on now in the state Legislature by Huckabee and Education Department leaders to pass a $3,000 teacher raise over the next two years. The real detriment would have been to the state, trying to provide that money [to match the Little Rock funding], said Simon. State Education Board member Betty Pickett of Conway cast the sole no vote on e agreement She said later that she felt the state was pushed into the agreement by a provision of the state funding system that guarantees districts will get at least 80 percent of what Little Rock gets. That guarantee is commonly referred to as the federal range ratio. If that is too high a standard for us to keep and we have to manipulate it, maybe we should look at it Maybe we should do something about that rather than halving to enter into an agreement that has so many ramifications. During the meeting Pickett questioned whether the agreement would have to be renegotiated if the Little Rock district should win another tax increase within the next seven years. Gauger said that probably would be necessary. Reaction to the agreement from an organization that represents all school districts was tempered Monday. Charles Knox, associate director of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, said those educators who have followed the case never really expected Little Rock would have to repay the loam As for the potential increase of as much as $125 million into the state funding system based on increased Little Rock wealth, educators generally recognized that the state couldnt afford it, Knox said. The Little Rock board approved the agreement as former superintendent Don Roberts and incoming Superintendent T. Kenneth James watched. The agreement signed Monday, by Simon and Little Rock schools Superintendent Les Gamine is the latest development tn a lawsuit filed by the Little Rock district in 1982 against the state and the other two' Pulaski County school districts.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"mus_sovcom_1-79-0","title":"Lois Chaffee","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Lois Chaffee, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Lois Chaffee"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=126%7C1%7C79%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_6-55-0","title":"Loron L. Acker","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Loron L. Acker, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Loron L. Acker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=610%7C6%7C55%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["Text"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_1-37-0","title":"Louise Beason, Laurel Miss.","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louise Beason, Laurel Miss., Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louise Beason, Laurel Miss."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=54%7C1%7C37%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_3-22-1","title":"Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=305%7C3%7C22%7C%7C1"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_3-81-0","title":"Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson)","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson), Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=498%7C3%7C81%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_2-94-0","title":"Lowndes County","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Lowndes County, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Lowndes County"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=394%7C2%7C94%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_6-78-0","title":"MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=656%7C6%7C78%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["Text"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_97-83-0","title":"Mac Mohead","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Mac Mohead, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Mac Mohead"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1349%7C97%7C83%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1172","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1172"],"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.\nMagnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director June 1, 1994 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: (501) 758-0156 JUN 2 9 1994 The Magnet Review Committee has revised its letter transmitting the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget, due to the inclusion of additonal information which is necessary to explain changes in the budget. At its May 24, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1994-95 school year (Draft 2). The total amount budgeted, $14,952,534, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,901 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,833 students. In addition, a basic step or incremental increase in staff salaries and associated fringe benefits, as well as the effects of early retirement incentives, were factored in. On May 17, 1994, Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, came before the Magnet Review Committee with a presentation of Draft 1 of the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1994-95 school year. He explained the cost calculations to the Magnet Review Committee, and made any corrections that were deemed necessary. At this same meeting, each of the interdistrict magnet school principals (with the exception of the Gibbs principal) provided information with regard to their school's proposed budget and answered questions from the Magnet Review Committee members. After this meeting, the Magnet Review Committee representatives presented the proposed budget information to their parties in order to be prepared to vote on it at the May 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee meeting. As noted above, the Magnet Review Committee did approve the budget at the meeting of May 24, 1994 (Draft 2 which contained any The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 1, 1994 corrections from Draft 1). This approved budget represents an increase of 2.04%, or $78.00 per student. Factors which may require a further adjustment in the interdistrict magnet school program budget for the 1994-95 school year include the following: 1) The Professional Negotiated Agreement (PNA) between Little Rock School District CTA and the Little Rock School District Board is in the renegotiation process, which may impact projected salary figures\n2) The State's contribution to employees' health insurance funding is not yet determined. When this information is forthcoming, revisionsmay be necessary to the figures represented in this budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. A comparison of the approved magnet school budget for the 1993-94 school year, and the 1994-95 budget, indicates revised FTE numbers for personnel in the 1993-94 school year. LRSD's Support Services Office counted bodies for the 1993-94 school year, rather than actual FTE's. Careful study was given to the 1994-95 budget submission to accurately delineate the FTE's for each staff area, which include Media Specialists, Special Education, Gifted, Classroom, Secretaries, Nurses, Custodians and Other-Aides. Also, a line item cost for Stipends at Williams Magnet merits further explanation. An addendum to explain this change is attached. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools .. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget in an The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -3- June 1, 1994 effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, fr~4b\nf~, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments: 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet School Budget (Approved Draft 2) Staff In-Service Plan, Williams Magnet cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee STAFF IN-Sl-:H.V!Cl!: PLAN WILLIAJ\\1S MAGNET SCHOOL 1994-95 Five in-service sessions have been planned for the William's Magnet School StafT for the 1994-95 school year. Two of these sessions center around the effective and efficient use of the computers that have been purchased for use within the school\ntwo sessions emphasize the propcr use of the newly adoplcd rc:iding se1ics\nand one session focuses on the analysis of Slanfor\u0026lt;l-8 lc.\nsl\nand the formulation of proper goals addressing areas of concern. A tentative plan for the in-service hours and the objectives to be reached is summarized bdow: FIRST SEMESTER IN-SERVICE: 1. Basic Computer Literacy: Objective: This in-service will be a practical work session to train a.II certilied staff on the proper use of the lBM Computers. (Six IBM Computers have been purchased ,for the 1994-9 5 school year, three were purchased for the 1993-94 school year, and three were purchased for the 1992-93 school year.) Staff members will !cam the basic DOS commands, how to format and copy disks, basic troubleshooting techniques, appropriate use of the printers,and will preview appropriate software for their particular grade level. Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 2. Reading Te::\\.i.book In-Service: Objective: The staff will become familiar with the Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich Reading Series that has been adopted for the 1994-95 school year. Sample lessons will be demonstrated featuring whole group and small group techniques. Teachers will be presented a model lesson plan designed specifically for the new reading series and will be given the opportunity to construct model pl.ans for each grade level (This was done for the previous reading series and was a specific request for any new adoption.) Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/pcrson Total cost: $2,161.20 3 . .Standardized Testing: Objective: Staff will review standardized test results for 1993-94. Results will be analyzed and graphed outlining areas of concern. Individual plans will be developed to address any weak areas. Goal sheets will be developed during this session. Fall of 1994 SECOND SEMESTER I -SERVICE: In-service hours required: 3-6 25 persons@ $54.03/pcrson Total Cost: S 1,350.75 4. Additional Computer Training A. An Introduction to Computer Networking: Objective: Cuniculum specialists will present to staff members the research regarding computer networking within the classroom. An overview of the networking will be presented along with effective nel\\-vorking techniques within the classroom. A long-range plan for networking will also be d.iscus!\ned. -. In-service hours required: 1.5-3.0 B. Introduction to the Computerized Card Catalogue System: Objective: Staff will become proficient in using the newly purchased computer and card catalogue system for the media center. The media director will explain the correct and proper use of the system so that classroom teachers may use the system to assist in procuring teaching materials and will explain ways to assist students in the use of the new equipment. In-service hours required: 1.5-3.0 Total hours required: 3-G 40 participants@ $54.03,person Total Cost: $2,161.20 5. Reading Basal In-Service II: Objective: Particip:mts will review the appropriate use of using the basal reader. In addition, strategies for teaching remedial and enriched classes will be discussed. Teachers ,vill also be asked to identify important Stanford-8 skills taught in the basal reading program. Total Cost: $9,995.55 In-service hours rcq uircd: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/pcrson Total Cost: $2,161.20 TO: FROM: THROUGH: RE: _Little Rock School District E May 23, 1994 MAY 2 5 1994 Office of Deseg,ogat1or. o,utor:ng Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee ~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Sup_port Services ~s, .~ Proposed 1994-95 Attached for your review is draft 2 of the proposed budget for the 1994-95 school year for the six origi~al magnet schools. This document incorporates information known through May 23, 1994, including adjustments for fourteen (14) teachers who have applied for the early retirement incentive. The Draft 2 Budget is based on a projected three-quarter average ADM of 3,833 and a new contribution rate of $3,901.00 per ADM. The new rate represents a per pupil increase of $78.00 or 2.04%. I will be available for discussion at the May 24, 1994, regular meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)3743361 1~94-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9: 1992-9' 1993-9~ 1994-9 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T,E, Actual F.T.E . . Actual F.T.E. Budget F.T.E Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 $457,554 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238.592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 0.0 $0 I 07 Music 0.0 _ _.::.::...J $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so . 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 12.6 $483,414 10 Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 12 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 S5,816,001 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153.813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7\n$10,225, 141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0 S335,238  STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 S159,150 17 Custocians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 S375,432 --- 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0  $157,639 6.0 S139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0' $311,683 37.0 $292.027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxx:x. $1,254,324 xxxxxx:x. $1,366,607 .lOOOOOO( $1,342,873 XXXlOOO( S1 ,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 S2,684 ,040 TOTAL (10-20) XlOOOOOC $12,004,096 XlOOOOOC $11,883,532 XlOOOOOC $12,648,376 XXlOOOOC S12,9Q9,181 1 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx: $601,780 XXlOOOO{ $507,373 XXJOOOO{ $598,926 xxxxxxx S619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx XXlOOOO{ $33,980 XlOOOOO( $36,215 xx:xxxxx $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOOC lOOOOOOC lOOOOOOC xxxxxxx 25 Other lOOOOOOC $166,508 JOOOOOO: $92,772 lOOOOOO( $94,428 xxxxxxx $74,250 TOTAL (30) )000000( $768,288 )000000( $634,125 lOOOOOO( $729,569 xxxxxxx S727,223 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office XJOOOCXX XXlOOOOC XJOOOCXX .xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOOOC $343,433 XlOOOOOC $309,128 XJOOOCXX $315,284 XlOOOOO( s202,337 I (40) 28 Media XXlOOOOC $56,509 XlOOOOOC $53,842 XlOOOOO( $54,884 XXlOOOO{ $57,242 I 29 Other XXlOOOO( xxxxxxx: $11,647 XXJOOOO{ $11,856 XXXXlOO( $19,510 TOTAL (40) XXlOOOO{ $399,942 XXJOOOO{ $374,617 XXJOOOO{ $382,024 XXXXlOO( $379,089 I CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOOC $111,824 lOOOOOOC $106,283 lOOOOOOC $104,215 lOOOOO()( $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair. etc. JOOOOOO: JOOOOOO: :ooooocx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other )000000( XXXlOOO(. lOOOOOO( XXXXJOO( TOTAL (50) .lOOOOOO( $111,824 XlOOOOOC $106,283 XlOOOOO( $104,215 XXXXJOO( $93,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XlOOOOO( $8,358 XlOOOOOC $12,416 )000000( $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 (60) 34 Other XlOOOOOC )()00000( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $8,358 XXlOOOO{ $12,416 xxxxxxx $12,665 xx:xxxxx $15,655 TOTAL (30-60) XXlOOOO{ $1,288,412 XlOOOOO( $1,127,441 XXJOOOO{ $1,228,473 xxxxx:xx S1,215,613 TOTAL (10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 385.6 lS14,124,794 I TOTAL LINE ITE\nMS - (SECOND PAGE) JOOOOOO: $595,333 JOOOOOO: $537,465 lOOOOOO( $677,821 xxxxxxx ~927,741 GRANDTOTAL lOOOOOOC $13,887,841 lOOOOOOC $13,548,434 x:x:xxxxx $14,554,670 lOOOOOOC $14,952,534 Line ltem _Costs ::= .,. . ., . /  ., ... ./\" ''\"'\"\"'\"' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx )()()()0()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $827,741 Per PupH.Cast 1991-92 1992-93 '1993-94 '1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 3833.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $14,952,534 Per Pupil Cost $3,662 ,,,,, \\, .t. $3,662 $3,826 $3,901 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draf\\ 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted BOOker Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T,E. Salaries f.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salades CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 1.0 $52,103 03 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 2.0 S:35,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 1.0 $37,836 061 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 30.2 jJ,879 1 O Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 121 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $123,234 I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 2.0 U1,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 1.0 $28,104 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 4.0 $52,400 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 7.0 : j2,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $201,247 xxxxxxx $225,867 xxxxxxx $215,438 )0()0()00( $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) :ooooocx $1,890,430 :ooooocx $1,942,422 :ooooocx $2,006,780 :ooooocx $2,071,671 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJOOOOC( $81,637 .lOOOOOO( $71,492 .lOOOOOO( $87,854 xxxxxxx $84,115 SERVICES 23 Travel XJOOOOOC XJOOOOOC $4,654 JOOOOOCX $5,000 xxxxxxx. $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXlOOOOC XXlOOOOC XXlOOOOC :x:xxxxxx 25 Other lOOOOOOC $27,963 XXlOOOO{ $4,895 lOOOOOOC $4,800 lOOOOOOC ~ TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $109,600 JOOOOOOC $81,041 xxxxxxx $97,654 xx:xxxxx: S.il8,615 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx )OOQ()(X){ xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom lOOOO()()( $53,613 lOOOO()()( $37,774 lOOOO()()( $38,500 :ooooocx $34,900 (40) 28 Media :ooooocx $4,698 :ooooocx $4,743 lOOOOuO( $4,800 lOOOOOO( $4,800 29 Other .lOOOOOCX JOOOOOCX $1,255 .lOOOOOCX $1,255 lOOOOOO( $1,255 TOTAL (40) .lOOOOOO( $58,311 XlOOOOOC $43,772 xx:xxxxx $44,555 JOOOOOCX .Z40,955 CAPITAL 30, Equipment XXlOOOO( $6,377 XXlOOOO( $10,090 XXlOOOO( $6,100 XlOOOOOC $6,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx lOOOOOOC (50) 32 Other )OOQ()(X){ JOOOOOOC xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $6,377 xxxxxxx $10,090 )000000( $6,100 xxxxxxx $6,000 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees :ooooocx lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx (60) 341Other lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) lOOOOOO( JOOOOOCX JOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( - TOTAL (30-60) lOOOOOO( $174,288 JOOOOOCX $134,903 lOOOOOO( $148,309 XlOOOCXX $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 , 62.5  $2,217,241 TOTAL LINE lllEMS- (SECOND PAGE) lOOOOOOC $88,028 xxxxxxx $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,518\nXXXXXXX $122,300 GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOO( $2,152,746 XlOOOOO( $2,152,771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 XXlClOOOC $2,339,540 Una Item Costs ..' (/ .,,.. -,... \"' !!: 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $122,300 Par Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 $2,339,540 Per Pupil Cost $3,422 . $3,562  $3,55'1 $3,684 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-92 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 S42,422 I 1.0 $43,417 03 Specialisls 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 2.0 $62.791 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 1.5 S4J,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 24.3 S674,007 10 Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 I $32,460 , 1.0 2 ::\n, 305 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 S34,246 I 1.4 $48,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 S17,150 S17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 S1 ,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 S1 ,335,462 44.2, S1 ,361,045 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 3.0 $54,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other I 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0  $76,016 I 11.0 $91,426 - 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO( $167,825 xxxxx:xx $190,533 'JOOOOOO(' $192,561 xxxxxxx S.:.~J, 173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 I 19.0 i $423,997 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,553,693 xxxxxxx S1 ,557,097 xxxx:xxx $1,745,758 xxxxxxx S1 .785,042 PURCHASEC 22! Utilities xxxxxxx $68,924 'xxxxxxx $53,586 .xxxxxxx $69,730 1xxxxxxx S75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx: XlOOOOO( $12,253 .lOOOOOO( $12,500 )OOO(JQ(){ S9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements .xxxxxxx XXXXlCXX xxxxxxxl xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $22,843 xxxxxxx $9,911 xxxxxxx $10,100 xxxxxxx $10,700 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $91,767 )0000()0( $75,750 xxxxxxx $92,330 :xxxxxxx S95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx XlOOOOO( 'XXXXXXX :xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 271 Regular Classroom :000000: SSS,638 XXXlOOO( $52,759 xxxxxxx S53,814 1XXXXXXX $63,330 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $11,410 lOOOOOO( $13,271 xxxxx:xx $13,536 xxxxxxx S11,500 29 Other lOOOOOC( lOOOOOC( $2,593 xxxxxxx $2,645 lxxxxxxx $3,500 TOTAL (40) .lOOOOOO( $67,048 .lOOOOOO( $68,623 ,.xxxxxxx $69,995 .xxxxxxx S7c.l. 330 -- CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXXlCXX $22,128 IXXXXXXX $27,894 xxxxxxx $28,450 xxxxx:xx ~ .:l,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx lxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32IOther xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 'JOOOOOO( IXXXXXXX TOTAL (SO) 'JOOOOOO( $22,128 'JOOOOOO( $27,894 'JOOOOOO( $28,450 xxxxxxx S19,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ' lOOOOOO( $2,857 XXXlOOO( $3,908 lOOOOOO( $3,985 lOOOOOOC $3,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx lOOOOOO( xx:xxxxx 'XXXXXXX TOTAL (60) 'xxxxxxx $2,857 xx.xxxxx. $3,908 1XX:XXXXX $3,985 :xxxxxxx $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $183,800 XXXlOOO( S176,174 lxxxxxxx S194,760 xxxxxxx $195,995 TOTAL (10-60) 61.5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 63.2 $1,981~ TOTAL LINE lliEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx: $86,058 xxxxxxx $107,945 iXXXXXXX S131,114 I GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOCX $1,822,471 XlOOOOCX $1,819,329 XlOOOOCX $2,048,463 xxxxxxx $2,112,151 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 (S329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $131,114 Per PupiLCost  :::: 199-1-92  1992-93  1993~94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $2,112,151 Per Pupil Cost ~- .\n,. !.. .,  $3,036 $3,092 $3,386- $3\n446'. 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Dralt 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-!r.: Actual 11993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Gibbs Magnet School / :\n:\n: F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E . . Salaries IF.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. .,. Salaries ,., CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 ss6,s1s I 1.0 $59,234 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 I 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 s160,752 I 5.8 $158,107 5.8 $162,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 I 1.0 $40,670 . 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 I 1.0 $38,433 1.0 $:i9,257 06 Art-Perf./Prod. I 07 Music I I 08 Foreign Lang. I 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 I 15.0 $507,851 I 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 I 1.5 - ::5,896 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 12 Chapter 1 I 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 2.0 $59,580 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985,841 29.3 $1,007,242 29.3 $972,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 1.4 $2~ STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 s11,304 I 0.8 $11,530 , 0.8 $\n2,446 171 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33.776 I 3.0 $39,012 I 3.0, $39,803 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other I 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOO(X $129,439 xxxxxxx $141,032 xxxxxxx $136,618 XlOCOOO( s ..:4,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11.8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,204,513 IXXXXXX:X $1,226,435 XlOOOOOC $1,254,041 xxxxxxx $1,215,965 PURCHASE[ 22 Utilities .lOOOOOO( $35,102 XlOOOOOC $26,879 i.lOOOOOO( $38,531 'XXXXXXX $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx $2,066 'XXXXXXX $3,407 xxxxxxx $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XXXXXXX !xxxxxxx 25 Other XXlOOOO( $11,464 xxxxxxx $7,309 xxxxxxx $7,455 xxxxxxx $4,000 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $46,566 xxxxxxx $36,254 ixxxxxxx $49,393 xxxxxxx $48,792 1 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc,pal's Office xxxxxxx xxxxxxx IXXXXXXX ' JOOOOOO( SUPPLIES 27 1 Regular Classroom )0000()()( $25,426 XlOOOOO\u0026lt; S23,54  l:ooooooc $24,012 xxxxxxx $25,068\" (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,241 xxxxxx:x $6,489 i)CX:XXXXX $6,620 xxxxxxx $6,600 29/Other xxxxxxx: xxxxxx:x $1,0' 6 'XXXXXXX. $1,036 lxxxxxx:x S2,455 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx: $31,667 IXXXXXXX $31,046 xxxxxxx $31,668 :xxx:xxxx $31\\ 123 -- CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxx:xx $3,968 xxxxxxx $2,594 . xxxxxxx $2,646 )OOOOCXX -2,646 OUTLAY 31 i Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx x:xxxxxx . xxxxxxx IXXXXXXX (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx XlOOOOO( ,XXXXXXX xx:xxxxx TOTAL (SO) xxxxxxx $3,968 xxxxxxx $2,594 XXXXXXX $2,646 ixxxxxxx S2,646 OTHER i331 Dues and Fees )0000()()( XlOOOOO\u0026lt; $1,132 ,xxxxxxx $1 , 155 lOOOOOCX s1,15s I (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx txxxxxx:x IXXXXXXX TOTAL (60) xxxxxx:x $0 xxxxxx:x $1,132 !xxxxxxx $1,155 xxxxxx:x $1,155 TOTAL (30-60) XJOOOOO( $82,202 x:xxxxxx $71,025 lxxxxxxx $84,862 XXXXXXX $\"6-,716 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1,297,460 I 40.1 $1,338,903 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxxxx:x $41 ,553 xx:xxxxx 551,892 lxx:xxxxx $63,184 GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOO( $1,335,649 XlOOOOO( $1,339,013 IXXXXXXX $1,390,795 xxxxxxx $1,365,865 iHf\nl! r~~~ ,. ... ,,,: .. }\\.\\L.  \"'''' lo-\u0026lt; \u0026gt; ., , .. \\.,. ..... \u0026lt; (} 1991-92 1992-93 I 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $61,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 $348 )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( xxxxxx Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51,892 $63,184 Per Pupil Cost 199i,-92 1992-93- 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1,365,865 PerPupH Cost _::,. $3,933 $4,070 $4,21 .4 $4,164 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2)\" 1991-9 Actual 1992-9' Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted MANN Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 3.0 $150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 s109,509 I 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Pert./Prod. 07 Music I 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.o I $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 I S208,475 I 5.6 $214,772 10 Special Education 1.3 I $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 1.3 I $49,958 I 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $36,135 14 Other - TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 : 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0\n$67,206 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 , 6.0 $71,195 6.0 S69,490 I 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I I 19, Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 S21,650 1.0 S22,947 1.0 i $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4 $37,142 2.4: $35,982 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $275,853 xxxxxxx $292,062 .lOOOOO(X S296,293 xxxxxxx $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $2,697,653 xxxxxxx $2,584,578 XlOOOOO( S2,805,067 xxxxx:xx $2,840,566 PURCHASED 22: Utilities xxxxxxx $164,666 XlOOCOOC $137,280 XlOOOCJO( $168,667 XXlOOOOC $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx: $11,214 xxxxxx:x $11,438 JOOOOOO( S10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 x:xxxxxx $35,464 xxxxxxx $36,175 xxxxxxx $27,300 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxxx $213,554 xx:xxxxx $183,959 .lOOOOOCX. S216,280 xx:xxxxx $214,521 MATERIALS, 261Principal's Office xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOCXX $76,512 xxxxxxx $63,984 XXlOOOO( $65,265 XXlOOOOC $49,168 (40) 28 Media XXXXlOOC $10,301 xxxxxxx $9,352 xxxxxxx $9,540 lxxxxxxx .$15,700 291Other XXlOOOOC xxxxxxx: $2,172 XJOOOOO( $2,215 XXlOOOOC $4,000 TOTAL (40) XlOOOOO( $86,813 )000000( $75,508 XlOOOOO( $77,020 IXlOOCXXX $68,868 CAPITAL 30 Equipment I lOOOOOCX $26,417 lOOCOOO( $17,579 lOOCOOO( $17,930 IXXXXXXX $27,300 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lOOOOCXX (50) 321Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx. xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) l.xxxxxxx $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 xxxxxxx $27,300 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees JOOOOOO( $1,470 XXXXlOO( $1,377 XXXXlOO( $1,405 xxxxxxx $4,500 (60) 34 Other :xxxxxxx xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) :xxxxxxx $1,470 XlOOOOO( $1,377 XlOOOOCX $1,405 XXXXlOO( $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOOOCX $328,253 XlOOOOO( $278,422 xxxxxxx $312,635 xxxxxxx $315,189 TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) lOOOOCXX $143,218 x:xxxxxx $137,573 lOOOOCXX S172,083 xxxxxxx $205,272 GRANDTOTAL xxxxxxx. $3,169,124 xxxxxxx $3,000,573 xxxxxxx $3,289,785 xx:xxxx:x. $3,361,027 Una ltem ,Costs  . ?t ){\\:\n::-:-:-\n-\n-::::: .. :_.::::\n:: .. ::-:.:   ... .\n:\n....... [ \\,:. ....... ii.  ~:-\n://\\[ \\:\n? . ))\\:\n::: i??:::- .  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $205,272 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 :- 1992:-S{L 1993-94/ 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,361,027 Per PupH Cost  $3,694 .. $3,588 $3~760 $3,798 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-9c Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9: Budgeted Parl\u0026lt;Vlew Magnet School F.T.E, Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F.T,E. Salartes CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 S61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 1.0 SSS,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 $152,394 3.0 S153,428 03 Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118.446 3.0 I S123,123 3.0. S129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art-Pert./Prod. 07 Music I 08 Foreign Lang. I 09 Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 S283,945 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 ! 1.5 S53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 39.6 $1,529,341 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 ~40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 s126,650 I 6.0 S128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113.791 8.0 $119,039 8.0 $~ '9,819 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides I 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 S30,125 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XJOOOOO( $321,375 IXXXXXXX $346,012 lOOOOOCX $335,564 xxxxxxx: $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 S738,351 I 21.6 $765,297 ' 21.6 $751,876 TOTAL (10-20) :xxxxxxx $3,161,336 XXXXlOOC $3,107,595 xxxxxxx $3,256,576 XXXJOOOC $3,390,778 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $208,483 )000000( $179,513 xxxxxx:x: $185,462 xxxxxxx $183,100 SERVICES 231Travel xxxxxxx XXXXlOO( xxxxxx:x: xxxxxxx $1,500 (30) 24 Ma:ntenance Agreements lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x 25 Other lOOOOOO( $39,092 xxxxxxx $18,792 lOOOOOO( $19,170 xxxxxxx $14,750 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $247,575 xxxxxxx $198,305 lOOOOOCX $204,632 xxxxxxx S199,350 MATERIALS, 261 Principal's Office lOOOOOCX IXXXXXXX lxxxxxxx lxx:xxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $87,767 xxxxxxx $92,439 jXlOOOOOC $94,288 xxxxxxx 0 33, 173 (40) 28 Media !xxxxxxx $16,883 xxxxxxx $13,753 XlOOOCXX $14,028 xxxxxxx $7,642 29 Other xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx $3,136 xxxxxxx $3,200 xxxxxxx S6,100 I TOTAL (40) XXlOOCXX $104,650 xxxxxxx $109,327 xxxxxxx $111,516 xxxxxxx $111,915 CAPITAL 301 Equipment xxxxxxx $37,950 lQOOOOO( $23,092 lQOOOOO( $23,554 lOOOOOOC $16,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx llOOOOOCX (50) 321Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lOCXXXXX lxxxxxxx I TOTAL (50) XJOOOOO( $37,950 xxxxxxx $23,092 !XlOOOOCX $23,554 xx:xxxxx. $16,000 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees :xxxxxxx $3,496 XXJOOOO( S5.809 booooooc $5,925 xxxxxxx S5,000 (60) 34 Other XXXXlOOC xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $3,496 xxxxxxx SS,809 xxxxxxx $5,925 xxxxxxx $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $393,671 xxxxxxx $336,534 xxxxxxx $345,627 xxxxxxx $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 53,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 53,602,203 I 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTAL LINE lliEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $158,509 xxxxxxx $135.955 lOOOOOO( $167,720 lxxxxxxx s::J1 ,123 I GRANDTOTAL lOOOOOO( $3,713.516 xx:xx:xxx $3,580,083 lOOOOOO( $3,769,923 x:xxxxxx $3,924,166 Line ltle?}y~tt_,ff [i/}\n\u0026gt;    ct\"'\"'\"' -- --- C\u0026lt; t 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant SeNices $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $912 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $201,123 PerPupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,924,166 Per Pupil Cost   ... :--:e $4,434 $4,220 $4,333 $4,459 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-9: Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Willfams Magnet School ,,,. F.T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 5.0 $179,381 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 , 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 20.0 $667,841 10 Spacial Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 I 1.1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 2.0 $71,664 12 Chapter 1 I 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 I 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 i 35.5 $1,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 3.5 $51,453 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxxx $158,584 xx:xxxxx: $171,101 XlOOOOO( $166,399 XlOOOOO( $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 16.1 I $338,005 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,496,470 xxxxxxx $1,465,402 xxxxxxx $1,580,155 xxxxxxx $1,605,158 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XlOOOOO{ $42,968 xxxxxxx $38,623 XlOOOOOC S48. 682 ,xxxxxxx $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxx:x )000000( $3,793 JOOOOOO( $3,870 XlOOOOCX $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOCOOO( j)O()()QOO( lOOCOOO( lOOOOOO\u0026lt; 25 Other lOOOOO()C $16,259 XX:XXXXX $16,400 xxxxxx:x $16,728 xxxxxxx $8,000 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx ss9,227 !xxxxxxx $58,816 lOOOOOO( $69,280 lxxxxxxx S70,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx: !XXXXXXX xx:xxxxx I xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOOOC $44, 4 77 I XXXXJ00C $38,631 lxxxxxxx S39,405 lxxxxxxx $31,698 (40) 281Media )000000( $6,976\nXXXXXXX $6,234 IXXXXXXX $6,360 xxxxxxx $11,000 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $1,475 xxxxxxx s1 ,505 lxxxxxxx $2,200 TOTAL (40) . xxxxxxx $51,454 XlOOOOCX $46,341 JOOOOOO( $47,270 lxxxxxxx $44,898 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOO( $14,984 lxxxxxxx $25,034 lOOOOOO( $25,535 xxxxx:xx $22,700 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOCOOO( lxx:xxxxx lOOCOOO( xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other lOOOOOO( fJOOOOOO( lxxxxxxx lxxxxxxx I TOTAL (50) lOOOOOO( $14,984 lxxxxxxx $25,034 XlOOOOO( $25,535 xxxxxxx $22.700 OTHER 331Dues and Fees lxxxxxxx $535 xxxxxxx $190 XXlOOCXX $195 XlOOOOO( $2.000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxx:xx $535 xxxxxxx $190 xxxxx:xx s 195 lxxxxxx:x $2,000 -- TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxx:x $126,200 xxxxxxx $130,381 xxxxxx:x $142,280 XX)(J()OO( $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 s1 ,622,669 I 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 s1 ,722,435 I 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxx:xx $ 71 , 665 I )0()00()0( $60,881 xxxxxxx $78,563 lxxxxxxx $104,748 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOO( $1,694,335 x:x:x:xxxx $1,656,664 lOOOOCXX $1,800,998 xxxxxxx $1,849,784  .. ..:,,:,_,:.\n-:-.-:-::-:,:-:-:-:-::::- 1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i,i ...   ,, )(}{(}\\ 1,?:,:xrt :tt ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,:-,,,,:,:,:,,, ri@rnrn At ,t t\ni:-:.. .. ..., -:-:-:.\n.:\n:\n:,\n:\n:\n: -:-:-::\n1991-92 1992-93 1993 94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1 ,614 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $91,920 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $71,665 $60,881 $78,563 $104,748 P~d B@ff .~tt tr %$.$:1S~ittI : J $$.~A/$ll \\ %$.$$..${  1$$.{@~m 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 492.0 Total Costs $1 ,694,335 $1,656,664 $1 ,800,998 $1,849,784 iii.$#P0Pff\\:zj :9 t,rn.:nt lHlt {~M  $.:$\n$0.PH : :}J$.M$'t $$)1Pi' .  Received from Mc::rk J LRSD 10/4/94 t 1,~1,1\n!di u- ... '\"'\"'\"'\" m@1ijg1~.z\nr:: J],:(992~)] HW1e9$,494I:rn t1I:1~$~ifb' :m:@1194fe$% W) ~MA'.GNSt::$.18P.Ot\n$@lNff:m\n: JtA-mW::r:::: IJJ:AWfflIIt lMW$tU'~t:n1r :::t@!Atfflftt 1ttiii.Wie-t@it CERTIFIED 01 Principal $346,537 $357,193 $367,176 $375,279 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. $456,057 $438,462 $479,729 $433,972 $478,891 03 Specialists $1,274,519 $1,078,799 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 $1,290,162 04 Counselors $444,641 $356,314 $431,093 $405,435 $457,554 05 Media Spec. $218,210 $222,455 $233,751 $224,104 $238,592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational $507,273 $489,335 $492,420 $483,977 $483,414 10 Special Education $248,275 $245,166 $276,790 $282,681 $285,726 11 Gifted $163,550 $159,822 $174,623 $158,016 $191,740 12 Classroom $5,308,868 $5,354,901 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 $5,816,001 13 Substitutes $153,813 $147,417 $154,925 $182,975 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten $407,561 $426,571 $448,634 $448,552 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $9,529,304 $9,276,435 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries $301,141 $355,081 $353,310 $360,333 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses $148,859 $148,996 $154,424 $156,152 $159,150 17 Custodians $346,330 $335,694 $372,625 $360,957 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $108,103 $143,913 $157,639 $122,210 $139,163 20 Other-Aides $316,035 $256,806 $311,683 $237,662 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $1,254,324 $1,366,607 $1,342,873 $1,213,301 $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $2,474,792 $2,607,097 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 $2,684,040 TOT AL (10-20) $12,004,096 $11,883,532 $12,648,376 $12,035,368 $12,909,181 PURCHASE 22 Utilities $601,780 $507,373 $598,926 $598,876 $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,980 $31,215 $20,580 $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $166,508 $92,n2 $99,428 $119,669 $74,250 TOTAL (30) $768,288 $634,125 $729,569 $739,125 $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $343,433 $309,128 $315,284 $328,856 $302,337 (40) 28 Media $56,509 $53,842 $54,884 $34,2n $57,242 29 Other $11,647 $11,856 $18,873 $19,510 TOTAL(40) $399,942 $374,617 $382,024 $382,006 $379,0~9 CAPITAL ~o Equipment $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) ~2 Other TOTAL (50) $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 (60) 134 Other TOTAL (60) $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,127,441 $1,228,473 $1,201,1n $1,215,613 TOT AL (10-60) $13,292,508 $13,010,969 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE I rEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $413,629 $827,741 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 \"' 1881+92  1992,.,,93'J \". 1$3~  :::: :/ 1~+\u0026lt;  1(X\u0026gt;4\"'95 ' Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 {$2,058) $1,500 $1 ,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $6TT,821 $413,629 $827,741 Per PuOil cost , ., 1991~ ./1992~ I\u0026lt; 1993-94 ., 19$3--94 1$94\n.95 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 3TT1 .8 3679.6 3807.0 3570.5 3833 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 P Puon Cost  $3,682. $3,882 \u0026gt; $3,823 .....\n$3,823 $3,901 lOOt495.IBu ldl tifQtitt iirnmn\nm\n:wmn:rnnrnm:J@t: ::trn:1~nf~r:t tikil~4.8.$:\n\n @t:1~$4~\\?I\nw1\n~1 JMl~448'\u0026amp;\u0026lt; !UIIIR!f ~P. a::MA.G.NSW:!$.CBP.PCSmrtrnm- tWWWMttti ttfrAWffl.ilJFI ltWS.Ua?.ffi.tIJ t rn:@Aijrointrn rmtatr CERTIFIED C Principal $346,537 $357,193 $367,176 $375,279 $370,669  STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. $456,057 $438,462 $479,729 $433,972 $478,891 03 Specialists $1,274,519 $1,078,799 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 $1,290,162 04 Counselors $444,641 $356,314 $431,093 $405,435 $457,554 05 Media Spec. $218,210 $222,455 $233,751 $224,104 $238,592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational $507,273 $489,335 $492,420 $483,977 $483,414 10 Special Education $248,275 $245,166 $276,790 $282,681 $285,726 11 Gifted $163,550 $159,822 $174,623 $158,016 $191,740 12 Classroom $5,308,868 $5,354,901 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 $5,816,001 13 Substitutes $153,813 $147,417 $154,925 $182,975 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten $407,561 $426,571 $448,634 $448,552 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $9,529,304 $9,276,435 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries $301,141 $355,081 $353,310 $360,333 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses $148,859 $148,996 $154,424 $156,152 $159,150 17 Custodians $346,330 $335,694 $372,625 $360,957 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $108,103 $143,913 $157,639 $122,210 $139,163 20 Other-Aides $316,035 $256,806 $311,683 $237,662 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $1,254,324 $1,366,607 $1,342,873 $1,213,301 $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $2,474,792 $2,607,097 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 $2,684,040 TOT AL (10-20) $12,004,096 $11,883,532 $12,648,376 $12,035,368 $12,909,181 ~URCHASE 22 Utilities $601,780 $507,373 $598,926 $598,876 $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,980 $31,215 $20,580 $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $166,508 $92,772 $99,428 $119,669 $74,250 TOTAL (30) $768,288 $634,125 $729,569 $739,125 $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom $343,433 $309,128 $315,284 $328,856 $302,337 (40) 28 Media $56,509 $53,842 $54,884 $34,277 $57,242 29 Other $11,647 $11 ,856 $18,873 $19,510 TOTAL(40) $399,942 $374,617 $382,024 $382,006 $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL(SO) $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,127,441 $1,228,473 $1,201,177 $1,215,613 TOT AL (10-60) $13,292,508 $13,010,969 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE I .. EMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $413,629 $827,741 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 MfMllt!ill1iiil:l:1 :1111\n!i:11::!:1:i:::Wrt ih~ \u0026lt; .\nAqt~at., ... $.2-:~ ,.?. Actu~n:. ~~ ::Bwg~t~\\ \u0026lt;,AcN\nnp\n:: .$4 .. ~ J3\\tdg~t$\u0026lt;i . fl\n1\\E . Sa.tart\" F,:f.E. $a.larles  tt\nt.E t$alarles.   \u0026gt; .sa11rtest f/f,E  sa1arles CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 2 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 $52,028 1.0 $52,103 03 Speclallsts 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 $253,810 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 $79,221 2.0 $65,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 $37,012 1.0 $37,836 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 7 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 $907,324 30.2 $963,879 10 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 $24,191 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 $120,022 4.0 $123,234 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 $1,615,405 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 $46,344 2.0 $31,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 $27,301 1.0 $28,104 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 $44,290 4.0 $52,400 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 $37,000 7.0 $62,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOI $201,247 )()O()(i $225,867 x:xxxx $215,438 $198,345 lOOOOt $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 $353,280 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) )(X)()(X $1,890,430 'XXXlOI $1,942,422 lOOOOI $2,006,780 $1,968,685 XXXlOI $2,071,671 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities lOOOa $81,637 XXXXll $71,492 xxxxx $87,854 $75,676 xxxxx $84,115 SERVICES 23 Travel lOOOOC lOOOOI $4,654 ~ $5,000 $4,939 )0000( $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXX\u0026gt;O\u0026lt; XXlOO( X)OO()( \u0026gt;OOOOC 25 Other ~ $27,963 .XXX)O( $4,895 XXlOOI $4,800 $13,548 )0000( $9,500 TOTAL(30) X,000 $109,600 )OOO()C $81,041 ,)O(JO(X $97,654 $94,163 xioooc $98,615 MATERIALS, l2tl Prlnclpal's Office lOO(l0I XlOOOi )()Q00C llOOQ()I SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ll(X)(I()( $53,613 XXlOO( $37,774 xxxxx $38,500 $44,436 XXlOO( $34,900 (40) 28 Media XXXIOi $4,698 ~ $4,743 ~ $4,800 $5,380 )000()( $4,800 2S Other JOOCO( XXXlOI $1,255 XlOQ0 $1,255 $2,624 ~ $1,255 TOTAL(40) l)'.)Q()OC $58,311 ilOOl'.X)( $43,772 )CQ(X)I $44,555 $52,440 .X)O(l,() $40,955 CAPITAL 30 Equipment l\u0026gt;OOOOC $6,377 iiOOOO( $10,090 llOOOQI $6,100 $12,832 !XXlOO\u0026lt; $6,000 OlJTI.AY 31 Building Repair, etc. )l)(l(IO( iXXiOO\u0026lt; ~ llOOOOC (Su) 32 Other xxxoc llOOOOC ~ !xxiooc TOTAL(50) llOOC cc $6,377 IX:XXXX $10,090 XXXl(X $6,100 $12,832 Xl000( $6,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees XX\u0026gt;00C XXXXll XXXICX )0()0()( (60) 134 Other lOOOOI booooc )OOO(X )(X)QOi TOTAL(60) IXXXlCC XlOOOC !XlOO(ii )0000( TOTAL (30-60) llOOOOC $174,288 i)QOOO( $134,903 lOOOO( $148,309 $159,435 llOOOOC $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 $2,i28,120 62.5 $2,217,241 TOTAL LINEn EMS- (SECOND PAGE) XlOOOC $88,028 XXlOOC $75,446 IXXlOOI $99,618 $59,394 llOOOOC $122,300 GRANDTOTAL Xl000C '2,152,746 lxxm $2.152.771 XXl00( ~.707 $2.187.$14 Xl000C 42,339,54() . ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ,.,.,., . .,., .:\n:r:,m:1~\\irl?=hi f:::,\n,,,,,,i'i:C,:\u0026lt;\u0026lt;.\n::::c?'''' 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,500 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $57,435 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $459 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $59,394 $122,300 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 588.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,TT1 $2,254,707 $2,187,514 $2,339,540 ~!~~r~,-~:1\n1~:!~\niiilll!l::::::::::\ntc::i .n:::.gi :t!,ct:ua1 :::t i.a\n.~ ,r tictuaJ-'\u0026lt;l: 93:-~ .. J,wQoetedJ . \" AWa.l Ji $4~ f Pg~.  fi'r,E $alal't:G$' f/~1\\E Saladtw'=' fl't'.E $alal't8$ .Satlftes. F.T.e }Salarres. CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 $67,263 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 $42,422 $41,640 1.0 $43,417 03 Speclallsts 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 $245,103 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 $45,473 2.0 $62,791 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 $47,207 1.5 $48,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 $581,394 24.3 $674,007 10 Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 $32,460 $33,001 1.0 $33,805 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 $34,246 $47,830 1.4 $48,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 $17,150 $12,271 $17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 $117,112 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 $1,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 $1,335,462 $1,238,294 44.2 $1,361,045 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 $60,742 3.0 $54,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 $31,556 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 $43,531 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0 $76,016 $75,921 11.0 $91,426 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxri $167,825 iXXXlOC $190,533 IXXXXll $192,561 $171,444 XlOOOC $203,173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 $383,194 19.0 $423,997 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxx $1,553,693 xxxxx $1,557,097 xxxxx $1,745,758 $1,621,488 xxxxx $1,785,042 r\u0026gt;URCHASED 22 Utllltles iooocx $68,924 i'ICXJO(X $53,586 lOOOOC $69,730 $66,973 XXiooc $75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel i)OOOO( l\u0026gt;OOOOC $12,253 lOOQOj $12,500 $8,464 xxxri $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements !XiOOoc XXlOO( IXXl00C )(X)()O( 25 Other I~ $22,843 ~ nx $9,911 lxxiooc $10,100 $13,840 )(XXl()( $10,700 TOTAL(30) llOOcol $91,767 IXlC iOO( $75,750 IXXlOOC $92,330 $89,2n xxxxx $95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Office XXlOOC IXX)O()( lOOOO IXXXlOC SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classl'oom XXXIO! $55,638 IXXX\u0026gt;O! $52,759 )(X)()(X $53,814 $54,466 i)O(l()()C $63,330 (40) 28 Media XXXl0( $11,410 XXXiCX $13,271 xxxn $13,536 $5,356 lxxxxic $11,500 29 Other IXXXlD IOOOOC $2,593 xxm $2,645 $3,498 IXXlOOC $3,500 TOTAL(40) lioc:iooc $67,048 l0000 $68,623 ~xxxx $69,995 t63,320 xxxxx $78,330 CAPITAL 30 Equipment llOOOO $22,128 0000 $27,894 ~~ $28,450 $19,490 XXXl0I $19,000 OlJnAY 31 Building Repair, etc. IXXx\u0026gt;Oi ooo6c x\u0026gt;006c )(XXl0I (50) 32 Other llOOOOC 0000 XXlCCII xiOOO( TOTAL(50) IXlOOOC $22,128 XlOOOI $27,894 IOOOOI $28,450 $19,490 xioooi $19,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees XXXl0I $2,857 :m:iol $3,908 )(XXl0 $3,985 $5,643 l0000( $3,000 (60) 134 Other \u0026gt;CXXla. iOOoo iooo6 lOOOOC TOTAL(60) XlOOOC $2,857 l0000 $3,908 iXXXxX $3,985 $5,643 ~ $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) l0000C $183,800 Xl000C $176,174 00000( $194,760 s1n,130 moo $195,995 TOT AL (10-60) 61.5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 $1,799,218 63.2 $1,981,037 TOTAL LINEn EMS - (SECOND PAGE) :xxxx,c $84,978 ~ $86,058 IXXX)QI $107,945 $64,923 xxm $131,114 GAANOTOTAL XXlOCX $1,822.71 XXlOCX $1 819.329 xxxxx S2.. 048.\"6.1 $1,864,1 1 lQXXX $2.112.151 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, =\\.=}\\,,.{ .. ,.,.,. '''\"-\"',,,,,,,,,,,, 1992-93 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $6,044 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $58,412 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $467 $636 xxxxxx lOOOOO( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $64,923 $131,114 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 597.9 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $1 ,864,141 $2,112,151 ~l~~t~lliiili!111i!lllllr'Ii tJ1~ A.ct:uar \u0026lt; t,~\n.~ /.Actt1~Ui tJ3 .. 9\u0026lt;1 8uqg~t$(j) :~a1::\u0026lt; $t-i! 8udgei\nI  -rl't.E Satarres fl'\n,t,E Satarfes . .fl'/f,E \\'Salaffiw., Satarteis: t .r:.r.a :aa1artes: CERTIFIED 1 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 $59,233 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160,752 5.8 $158,107 $127,098 5.8 $162,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 $38,684 1.0 $39,257 06 Art-Perl./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 $462,587 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 $70,319 1.5 $55,896 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $11,733 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 $57,912 2.0 $59,580 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985,841 29.3 $1,007,242 $901,679 29.3 $972,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 $15,692 1.4 $22,613 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 $11,856 0.8 $12,446 17 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39,012 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 $33,307 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) xxxicx $129,439 \u0026gt;000CX $141,032 XXXlCX $136,618 $114,688 lOOOOI $134,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11.8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 $21-4,555 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL (10-20) i'xx)6(l $1,204,513 )(x,()O( $1,226,435 )OOO(X $1,254,041 $1,116,234 XXlOOI $1,215,965 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XioOc' $35,102 xx,ooc $26,879 XlOOO $38,531 $35,582 xxiooi $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel X)OOO \u0026gt;0000( $2,066 )0000 $3,-407 XXXlOC $3,407 (30) 124 Maintenance Agreements X)(X)O( XXX)0( )O(l()Q XXX\u0026gt;CX 125 Other )CXlClOC $11,-464 XXxiOc $7,309 )ll(l(:)()I $7,455 $6,591 xxxxx $4,000 TOTAL(30) )OOOOc $46,566 XXXX)I $36,254 XJCl\u0026amp;)i $49,393 $42,173 )(XiOo( $48,792 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Ofllce 'xioool XXlOO( )000()( .)0000! SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom m:ri: $25,426 l0000( $23,5-41 )(X)O(X $24,012 $20,882 .XXlOO( $25,068 (40) 28 Media )(X)00 $6,2-41 ~ $6,-489 )(X)OQ $6,620 $3,934 .X)OOO( $6,600 29 Other l0000I )0000( $1,016 lOOOO( $1,036 $1,397 X).:xx)( $2,455 TOTAL(-40) xxxx,c $31,667 1,POOOI $31,046 oooooc $31,668 $26,213 lOOOOI $34,123 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXlQO( $3,968 l,oooQC $2,594 )!)()()I) $2,646 $1,312 ~ $2,646 Olffi.AY 31 Building Repair, etc. )()000 IXXlOQI cI C))( XXXiOi (50) 32 Other lOOcc iOOOOI )OC )OOI XlOOOI TOTAL(50) l(l0(lC $3,968 )OO(l0I $2,594 xxxxx $2,646 $1,312 XlOOOC $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )(X)(l()( )(X)(l()( $1,132 iXXXl()I $1,155 $215 .X)(l()QC $1,155 (60) 134 Other :i(XXl(X )(X)()(l( )al()(): iooo( TOTAL(60) XXlOOc $0 l0000( $1,132 ilOcXioi $1,155 $215 i)()OOO\n$1,155 TOTAL (30-60) !lOOOOC $82,202 l)(l000( $71,025 ilOOOOC $84,862 $69,913 !)Q000C $86,716 TOTAL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 -43.1 $1,297,-460 40.1 $1,338,903 $1,186,147 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE r rEMS - (SECOND PAGE) XXXlOI $48,935 I~ $41,553 l0000C $51,892 $29,105 XXXl0I $63,184 ,,., GRANDTOTAL .Xl6ooc $1,335,649 l0000C $1,339,013 X)OO(X $1,390,795 11,215,252 l0000( $1,365,865 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $28,874 $61 ,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1 ,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Speclal Education $360 $187 $348 $231 $348 lOOOOCX lOOOOCX lOOOOCX lOOOOCX Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51 ,892 $29,105 $63,184 P.tf ~IU1.t1MM!ht@lM J$i1'{$.Z@lf@ J~~t::mt J~ttif Jfflil@ifaf@. J~,t?ti 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 295.7 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1,215,252 $1,365,865 fi(fflffilt.~tiiM@WlMf M%Wt:D.mmr mmwMtJt()(: ,\n@Mtlliliit: iMM~ iMI\\' t#i@tlU1t9.f f fflij!fff ~~ t JM1.tlft!i@ t $.i!/Ul~tl f\\T~i : f@~l.it:l~ J CERTIFIED 01 Principal $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF ~0-::12--:--Ass-t.--::P-,ri_n_------+---,--+-----,--,-+---+--:-:--:--:-+--,-+-----+---$3_8_,9_3_1-+---1.-0+--$-39~,9-65------1 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 $173,230 5.0 $179,381 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 $45,279 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 $25,446 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21 .0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 $630,446 20.0 $667,841 1 O Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 $25,764 1. 1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 $40,670 2.0 $71,664 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $17,314 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1 ,143,808 35.5 $1 ,233,533 $1 ,174,997 35.5 $1 ,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 $27,786 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 $33,664 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 $44,866 3.5 $51,453 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 $37,175 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOC $158,584 ~ $171,101 ~ $166,399 $147,956 ~  $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 $291 ,447 16.1 $338,005 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $1,496,470 \u0026lt;: :li)( $1,465,402 kX ~ $1,580,155 $1,M\u0026gt;6,4 ~ $1,605,158 bURCHASEC 22 Utllltles X,000 $42,968 )00 :,di $38,623 )IX iCo( $48,682 $44,468 :XlQQ $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel x,o\u0026amp; xxj # $3,793 IOt IOOI $3,870 $4,601 0000 $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements i~ ~ )OOOOt' :xi\u0026amp; ~ Other ~ $16,259 )OOOOI $16,400 )aiO $16,728 $9,938 ~ $8,000 TOTAL(30) xlOo6c $59,227 ~ $58,816 IO(XU $69,280 $59,007 10000 $70,280 MATERIALS,~ Prlnclpal's Office i\u0026gt;OCXl!) ,ooooc lOOO ~ XX)QO SUPPLIES ~7 Regular Classroom ii l(X) $44,477 XXM $38,631 ~ $39,405 $55,228 moOI $31,698 (40) 28 Media )C I()() $6,976 X)( 00( $6,234 ~ $6,360 $4,645 n)6Q $11,000 29 Other ic IOO ~ 00 $1,475 i6ooo $1,505 $2,095 !0000. $2,200 TOTAL(40) lOCXla $51 ,454 )(lj 00 $46,341 lOOOO $47,270 $61,968 lOOOO $44,898 CAPITAL l30 Equipment am $14,984 d 00 $25,034 )(X)O() $25,535 $6,799 ('co $22,700 OUTLAY 31 Bulldlng Repair, etc. XX)O(li ici\u0026gt;ooi ~ iiXn) (50) 132 Other lOOOO( XXXlO( \u0026gt;0000 X,000 TOTAL(50) ICl(l0C) $14,984 lO(l0t) $25,034 XXlOO $25,535 $6,799 XXXl() $22,700 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees IIXX $535 IIXX $190 ioooo $195 $720 ~ $2,000 (60) 34 Other io\u0026lt;l\u0026lt; XXXlO )l)(X)O )(XX)() TOTAL(60) [\u0026gt;0000 $535 IO(lOO $190 .XXJQCii $195 $720 )0000 $2,000 TOTAL (30-60)\nJ(lOQO $126,200 IOOOO( $130,381 XXXXll $142,280 $128,494 ~ $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 $1,594,938 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE r \"EMS - (SECOND PAGE) )OOOOI $71,665 )00()( $60,881 ~ $78,563 $49,480 )O(l00( $104,748 c'H J GRAND'TOTAL\\.\"' )QOO(X $1~.335 xxxxx $1.~6.664 XXXiO\u0026lt;. ti.800.998' U,644,418 Xl(lOOj .$1,B\"S,784 =:@:,:ti(Jt@,f t=::it,\nt 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1 ,614 $1,676 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $47,427 $91,920 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $3TT $516 lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( Total Line Items $71 ,665 $60,881 $78,563 $49,480 $104,748 f?i(fM)IP- \", .,.,  ,,., }'? tWH~ / 'J$.2~ U\\ J993\n.$4  \u0026lt; 19932$4 / \u0026lt; 1~:.\n.915 \u0026gt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro]. 506.8 473.3 492.0 485.8 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 $1.~.418 $1,849,784 1994~~ 8uqget( P(QP()~{Qf~ ~  :~ , , \" $'t .. f~ Actual  . 9,2 .. ~  AcWal 9a .. 94 ewgQtao . Actual 94~ , aw0et~F MMlN Marmtt~Q01 . . . -\n:::~:: ::::-: ::\"!~ . F.t.E Salaries F.t.E Salartes r:.t.e Satartes Sll.larl8$ f,'t.E sa1arl8$ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 $64,520 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 $148,979 3.0 $150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 $111,283 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 $69,852 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 $41,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 $207,954 5.6 $214,772 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 $49,016 1.3 $49,958 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 $1,424,850 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $71,832 $36,135 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 $2,190,015 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0 $67,206 $66,063 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 $32,359 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 $68,890 6.0 $69,490 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 $24,845 1.0 $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4 $37,142 $42,951 2.4 $35,982 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) xx,ooc $275,853 iXXXXJC $292,062 XXJOOC $296,293 $266,922 lOOOOC $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 $502,030 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) [XXXit.\"! $2,697,653 )()000( $2,584,578 [~ $2,805,067 $2,692,045 )OO(l()c $2,840,566 PURCHASED ~ Utilities XXJOOi $164,666 !lOOC\u0026gt;O! $137,280 XXiOOI $168,6e7 $162,874 lOOOOC $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel )(X)OQC iOOoo $11,214 xxxxx $11,438 $1,266 lOOCXX $10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXXla )(X)()(X XX)Q(X XXlOOC ~ Other ~ $48,887 lC:ioocx $35,-464 l(X)0(X $36,175 $34,819 )l)CX)OC $27,300 TOTAL(30) IXXlOOC $213,554 booooc $183,959 l0000c $216,280 $198,959 XXlOOI $214,521 MATERIALS, ~ Prlnclpal's Office )0000 Xl000C IX)(lOO( lOOOOI SUPPLIES 127 Regular Classroom IXXlOOC $76,512 IX\u0026gt;OOOC $63,984 !)0000( $65,265 $79,331 loooo $49,168 (40) 128 Media l0000I $10,301 )0000( $9,352 XXX)() $9,540 $9,547 )(XXlOI $15,700 ~ Other XXlOoc lxxxxx $2,172 XXiOO $2,215 $2,923 iOOOO( $4,000 TOTAL(40) IXiOocc $86,813 IXXlOOC $75,508 \u0026gt;000CC $77,020 $91,801 ,ooooc $68,868 CAPITAL 00 Equipment 1)()()()0 $26,417 i)(X)OOI $17,579 XXXl0I $17,930 $15,510 ~ $27,300 OlJTt.AY ~1 Building Repair, etc. )0000( XX)OQ )(XlO(X )l)000( (50) 32 Other llOOOOc )00,cJoc !XXlOOC IOOOOC TOTAL(50) IXXXXll $26,417 )Q000C $17,579 !XXJCOC $17,930 $15,510 .)000()( $27,300 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees X)(X)OI $1,'70 KXlC)0C $1,377 llOOCOC $1,405 $1,764 ,ooc\n,o: $4,500 (60) 134 Olh81' lllXX\u0026gt;OC XXlOO IXXlOOC l0tXlOt TOTAL(60) IXXXlOC $1,470 XXXlOI $1,377 IXXXXX $1,405 $1,764 lOOOOC $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) IXlOOOC $328,253 lCDOO( $278,422 xxxxx $312,635 $308,034 lOOOOC $315,189 TOTAL(10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 $3,000,079 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE IT :MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxx $143,218 xxxxx $137,573 lOOOOC $172,083 $109,678 liooooc $205,272 GRA\"NOTOTAL xxxxx 13169.124 XDDDI $3,000.,573 lOOOOC SS.289/185 .:J.109.757 xxxxx $3,361,027 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,530 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $80,835 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $8,890 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,777 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $646 $920 lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $109,678 $205,272 3rd Qtr. ADM or Prcj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 827.8 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,109,757 $3,361,027 re-t-IM\u0026gt;U ,,VW V  AiJ8.Jm.C. .  $:,,$If '\"'\"\"l~,'7 .,  , $3,?Sr  iJ~.~ i~~~U:~~,tgtfiflli!Ili!!~1IiFt::\" $'btJ1 /Ac.wal. 92 .... ~  Ai.Wal: $$~~  f3tJQg~tad ' \u0026lt; Aal./ (M.,,\nm ::r3woet1K1 F.T.e Salaries F.T.e Salaries r.T.E  Salaries\"'  satarl8$ ~it.ft? $alar1es: CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 $64,582 1.0 $65,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 $152,394 $152,394 3.0 $153,428 03 Speclallsts 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 $301,371 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118,446 3.0 $123,123 $124,940 3.0 $129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 $283,945 $276,023 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 $53,457 1.5 $53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 $1,371,266 39.6 $1,529,341 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $45,634 $51,640 14 Other-Klndergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 $2,464,363 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 $126,650 $143,706 6.0 $128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 $19,416 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113,791 8.0 $119,039 $120,368 8.0 $119,819 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofesslonals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 $97,365 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 $30,125 $11,308 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) 1)0()00( $321,375 llOOOCX $346,012 )0000( $335,564 $313,946 l\u0026gt;OOOCX $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 $738,351 21.6 $765,297 $706,109 21.6 $751,876 TOTAL (10-20) :ooooc $3,161,336 XXlOO( $3,107,595 XXlOOC $3,256,576 $3,170,472 ,cx)()OI $3,390,778 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ,ooooc $208,483 XXlOOI $179,513 xxiooc $185,462 $213,303 xiOci\u0026lt;X $183,100 SERVICES 23 Travel l0000I X)OOO(' i)(l()(l()C $1,310 )OOOOC $1,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXXJOc IOOOOI :,ooocx XXXX)j 25 Other XX)Q0 $39,092 l)(lOOCX $18,792 0000 $19,170 $40,933 XXioo( $14,750 TOTAL(30) xxxxx $247,575 i6oooi $198,305 ccm $204,632 $255,546 XXiooi $199,350 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Office )()()00( .lOCXlOi [)IIOO( XlOOOI SUPPLIES ~ Regular Classroom )000()( $87,767 \u0026gt;0000( $92,439 ocooc $94,288 $74,513 !0000 $98,173 (40) ~8 Media )0000( $16,883 .)()()00( $13,753 lOOOO( $14,028 $5,415 IOOOOI $7,642 129 Other :0000 !XXJOOI $3,136 ooocxx $3,200 $6,336 )OO(lQ $6,100 TOTAL(40) XlOOOI $104,650 ixiooo: $109,327 lioooo $111,516 $86,264 l0000C $111,915 CAPITAL l30 E.Quipment )(X)00I $37,950 il000CI $23,092 IOOOC $23,554 $11,086 )(Xl00C $16,000 OUTLAY ~1 Building Repair, etc. )(l()(iQ l(X)O()( ioooc )0000( (50) ~ Other lOOOCX iXlOOOC oooooc ~ TOTAL(50) l000CI $37,950 iXlOOOC $23,092 llOOOOC $23,554 $11,086 lOOOO( $16,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees )OOOQI $3,496 ilOOOOC $5,809 IXXXX- $5,925 $4,675 ~ $5,000 (60) 134 Other 1)0000( :ax'iOc XXlOO( ilcx\u0026gt;ooi TOTAL(60) !)C)QC)Q $3,496 lxxx'loc $5,809 llOOC()( $5,925 S-.,675 XXXXlC $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) i\u0026gt;OQCOC $393,671 l)(X)QOC $336,534 ix\nxxxx $345,627 $357,571 llOOOO( $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 $3,602,203 $3,528,043 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTALLINEn EMS - (SECOND PAGE) XX\u0026gt;OO( $158,509 )00()()( $135,955 XX\u0026gt;OO( $167,720 $101,049 .XXX\u0026gt;O( $201,123 GRANO TOTAL  XXXlO( 13,713,516 l0000( 13.580.083 l0000( 13,769,923 43.629,092 Xl00cX ~924,166 l1il1ru1~1ll::~ill!l::\n~ll!lll:llli!II! ~==\n~=~\n=,,,, ,,,,,,\n~=\n::\n=== ~=:\n::=,,.,,,,.,,  ~=\n:~  ~=\n::=: Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $2,519 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $75,743 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $8,332 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $13,850 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $605 $912 xxxxxx lOOOOO( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $101,049 $201 ,123 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 ns.3 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,629,092 $3,924,166 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director October 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: (501) 758-0156 or.r 2 t1 1994 As a part of the agenda for its October 11, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee {MRC) re-examined the 1994-95 budget submitted to the Court on June 1, 1994. This budget issue was placed on the agenda in light of recent enrollment developments in the interdistrict magnet schools program. A calculation of the number of students enrolled as of October 1, 1994, and the number of students projected for 1994-95, shows a discrepancy of approximately 300 students. This fact may determine changes in the 1994-95 budget submission. At the MRC' s October 11, 1994 meeting, Mark Milhollen, LRSD Controller, told the MRC that he is requesting a printout of all 1994-95 FTE positions in each interdistrict magnet school. He will plug this information into the budget and present this updated information to the MRC at a special-called meeting to be announced. (The MRC intended to address this at their October 25, 1994 meeting. Due to the recent fire at Chicot and attendant insurance and school plant-related activities, Mr. Milhollen has been unable to complete this information.) This presentation by Mr. Milhollen may underscore the need for additional Per Pupil Expenditure due to a lower enrollment than was projected in the initial budget. We will apprise you. of the information we receive and the outcome of our discussion as soon as possible. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. BA/DGC:sl . . . Magnet Review Committee 1900 orth Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (50 1) 756 0156 June 1, 1994 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: JUN 6 1994 Ollice of De greg \\ion Morntoi 1ng At its May 24, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1994-95 school year (Draft 2). The total amount budgeted, $14,952,534, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,901 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,833 students. In addition, a basic step or incremental increase in staff salaries and associated fringe benefits, as well as the effects of early retirement incentives, were factored in. On May 17, 1994, Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, came before the Magnet Review Committee with a presentation of Draft 1 of the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1994-95 school year. He explained the cost calculations to the Magnet Review Committee, and made any corrections that were deemed necessary. At this same meeting, each of the interdistrict magnet school principals (with the exception of the Gibbs principal) provided information with regard to their school's proposed budget and answered questions from the Magnet Review Committee members. After this meeting, the Magnet Review Committee representatives presented the proposed budget information to their parties in order to be prepared to vote on it at the May 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee meeting. As noted above, the Magnet Review Committee did approve the budget at the meeting of May 24, 1994 (Draft 2 which contained any corrections from Draft 1). This approved budget represents an increase of 2.04%, or $78.00 per student. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 1, 1994 Factors which may require a further adjustment in the interdistrict magnet school program budget for the 1994-95 school year include the following: 1) The Professional Negotiated Agreement (PNA) between Little Rock School District CTA and the Little Rock School District Board is in the renegotiation process, which may impact projected salary figures\n2) The State's contribution to employees' health insurance funding is not yet determined. When this information is forthcoming, revisions may be necessary to the figures represented in this budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~J/:t~f:m, ~hairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attnchment: 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet School Budget (Approved Draft 2) The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -3- June 1, 1994 cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 1992-9: 1993-94 1994-9: SUMMARY FOR MAGNE:T SCHOOLS F.T.S. Actual F.T,S, Actual F.T.S. Budget F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 \"'is7,554 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238,592 06 Art-Perl.IP rod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 12.6 $483,414 10 Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 12 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5 316,001 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0  335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154 ,424 5.4 $159,150 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,1 03 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 6.0 $139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXlCXX $1,254,324 xxxxxxx $1,366,607 )()Q()()()()\u0026lt;. $1,342,873 xxxxxxx $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,684,040 TOTAL (10-20) )OOC)(JOO( $12,004,096 XlOOOOO( $11,883,532 XlOOOOO( $12,648,376 xxxxxxx $12 909,181 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $601,780 xxxxxxx $507,373 xxxxxxx $598,926 XXXXlOO(' $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( XXXJOOO(' $33,980 XXXJOOO(' $36,215 xxxxxxx $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX 25 Other X)()OO()(X $166,508 X)()OO()(X $92,772 lOOOOOO( $94,428 xxxxxxx -$74,-250 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $768,288 .lOOOOOO( $634,125 lOOOOOO( $729,569 lOOOOOO( : 727,223 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office XXlOOCXX XXlOOCXX lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XlOOOOO( $343,433 xxxxxxx $309,128 XlOOOOO( $315 ,284 xxxxxxx $302,337 (40) 28 Media  XlOOOOO( $56,509 XlOOOOO( $53,842 XlOOOOO( $54,884 xxxxxxx $57,242 29 Other XXXXlOOC XXXXlOO( $11,647 XXXXlOO( $11 ,856 XXXXlOO(' $19,510 TOTAL (40) XXXXlOOC $399,942 X\u0026gt;0000CX $374,617 XXXXlOO( $382,024 XlOOOOO( $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOCX $111,824 lOOOOOCX $106,283 lOOOOOCX $104 ,215 lOOOOO(X $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other .lOOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( TOTAL(50) xxxxxxx $111,824 XXlOOCXX $106,283 XXlOOCXX $104,215 lOOOOCXX $93,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )O()()(X)()( $8,358 XlOOOOO( $12,416 XXXXlOO( $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 (60) 34.Other XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx )()0()000( TOTAL(60) xxxxxxx $8,358 xxxxxxx $12,416 xxxxxxx $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 - TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $1 ,288,412 X\u0026gt;0000CX $1,127,441 XlOOOOO( $1,228,473 XlOOOOO(' Sl ,215,613 TOTAL (10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 S 13,876,849 385.6 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE ITE\nMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $595,333 xxxxxxx $537,465 lOOOOOO( $677,821 xxxxxxx $827,741 GRANDTOTAL lOOOOCXX $13,887,841 lOOOOCXX $13,548,434 lOOOOCXX $14,554 ,670 lOOOOCXX $14,952,534 Line ltemCosts - /' \u0026lt; \"'' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $827,741 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 '1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 3833.0 Tota l Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $14,952,534 Par Pupil Cost $3,682 $3,682 $3,823 $3,901 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9~ Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Booker Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 1.0 $52,103 03 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 2.0 $65,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 1.0 $'17,836 - 06 Art-Pert ./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31 .2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 30.2 $963,879 1 O Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 [20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $1~ TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47,9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 2.0 $31,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 1.0 $211,104 - 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 4.0 S52,400 18 Paraprolessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 7.0 $62,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOCX $201,247 )000000( $225,867 XlOOOOCX $215,438 JOOOOOO( $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,890,430 )()()0000( $1,942,422 lOOOOOO( $2,006,780 )()()OO(XX $2,071,671 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $81,637 JOOOOCXX $71,492 JOOOOCXX $87,854 JOOOOCXX ~34.115 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( $4,654 JOOOOCXX $5,000 xxxxx:x:x. $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XlOOOOO( )0()0000( )0()0000( xxxxxxx 25 Other )0000()()( $27,963 XXlOOOO( $4,895 xxxxxxx $4,800 xxxxxxx $9,500 TOTAL (30) JOOOOOO(' $109,600 JOOOOOO(' $81,041 JOOOOOO(' $97,654 xxxxxxx $98,615 ' MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office JOOOOOO(' JOOOOOO(' xxxxxxx )00()()()()( SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom lOOCOOO( $53,613 lOOCOOO( $37,774 lOOCOOO( $38,500 lOOOOOQ( S34,900 I (40) 28 Media lOOOOOO( $4,698 lOOOOOO( $4,743 lOOOOOO( $4,800 xxx:x:xxx $4,800 29 Other .lOOOOOO( JOOOOCXX $1,255 JOOOOCXX $1,255 xxx:x:xxx $1,255 TOTAL (40) XXXlOOO( $58,311 XXXlOOO( $43,772 XXXlOOO( $44,555 xxxxxxx $40,955 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXXlOOC $6,377 xxxxxxx $10,090 XXXXlOOC $6,100 lOOOOOO( $6,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XXlOOOO( XXlOOOO( XlOOOOO( XXlOOOO( (50) 32 Other XlOOOOOC JOOOOOO(' JOOOOOO(' lOOOOOO( TOTAL (50) JOOOOOO(' $6,377 JOOOOOO(' $10,090 JOOOOOO(' $6,100 lOOOOOO( $6,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( (60) 34 Other lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( TOTAL(60) JOOOOCXX JOOOOCXX JOOOOCXX xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) .lOOOOOO( $174,288 XXXlOOO( $134,903 .lOOOOOO( $148,309 .lOOOOOO( $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 62.5 $2 2-, ',241 TOTAL LINE ltEMS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $88,028 xxxxxxx $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,618 xxxxxxx $122,300 GRAND TOTAL JOOOOOO(' $2,152,746 XlOOOOCX $2,152.771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 xxxxxxx $2,339,540 Une Item Costs - .. 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $668 xxxxxx )()()0()()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $122,300 Par Pupll Cost 1991-92 i992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 $2,339,540 Per Pupil Cost $3,422 $3,562 $3.,551 $3,684 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9: Actual 1992-0C Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9:: Budgeted Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 $42,422 1.0 $43,417 03 Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 2.0 SL2,i91 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 1.5 $48,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 24.3 $674,007 1 O Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 $32,460 1.0 $33,805 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 $34,246 1.4 $48-,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 $17,150 $17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 $1,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 $1,335,462 44.2 $1,161,045 -- SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 3.0 S:,4,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0  $76,016 11.0 $91,426 21 Fringe Benefits(20) JOOOOOO( $167,825 xx:xxx:xx $190,533 XlOOOOO( $192,561 XlOOOOO( $203,173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 19.0 $421-,997 TOTAL (10-20) lOOOOOO( $1,553,693 XJOOOO()( $1,557,097 lOOOOOO( $1,745,758 xxxxxxx $1,785,042 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities xxxxxx:x $68,924 xxxxxxx $53,586 xxxxxxx $69,730 XJOOOCXX $75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO(. XlOOOCXX $12,253 XlOOOOO( $12,500 XXXXJO()( $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements .lOOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( xxxxx:xx xxxxxxx 25 Other :xxxxxxx $22,843 :xxxxxxx $9,911 xxxxxxx $10,100 xxxxxxx  1 1\\ 700 -- TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $91,767 xxxxxxx $75,750 )000000( $92,330 xxxxxxx S95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office JOOOOOO( JOOOOOCX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $55,638 x:xxxxxx $52,759 lOOOOOCX $53,814 lOOOOOO( $63,330 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $11,410 lOOOOOO( $13,271 xxxxxxx $13,536 xx.xxxxx $11,500 29 Other xxxxxxx lOOOOCXX $2,593 lOOOOCXX $2,645 xx:xxxxx $3,500 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $67,048 xxxxxxx $68,623 lOOOOCXX $69,995 XXXXJO()( $78,330 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 XXXXlOO( $28,450 lOOOOOO( $19,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XJOOOOO( XJOOOOO( TOTAL (50) 1000000( $22,128 1000000( $27,894 1000000( $28,450 xxxxxxx $19,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees lOOOOOO( $2,857 lOOOOOO( $3,908 xxxxxxx $3,985 lOOOOOO( $3,000 (60) 34 Other XlOOOO()( xxxxxxx lOOOOQO( xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $2,857 lOOOCXXX $3,908 lOOOOOO( $3,985 xxxxxxx ~1-.)0-0 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $183,800 lOOOOCXX $176,174 xxxxxxx $194,760 xxxxxxx $195,995 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1 ,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 63.2 $1,981,037 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx $86,058 xxxxxxx $107,945 xxxxxxx $131,114 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,822,471 xxxxxxx $1,819,329 XlOOOOO( $2,048,463 XlOOOOO( $2,112,151 Upe lte~n Costs-. )  ...........   ......................... \u0026gt; )  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx )0()()()()( xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $131,114 Per PupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $2,112,151 Per Pupil cost $3,036 $3,092 $3,386 $3,446 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9'. Actual 1993-~ Budgeted 1994-9~ Budgeted Gibbs Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39.9-65 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160,752 5.8 $158,107 5.8 $ 2,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 1.0 $39,257 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 1.5 $'\u0026gt;~ 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35 ,493 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $J4,246 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 2.0 $59,580 -- TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 .3 $961,411 31 .3 $985,841 29.3 $1 ,007,242 29.3 $, 2,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 1.4 $22,613 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 0.8 $12,446 17 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Benetits(20) XX)()(lOO( $129,439 XlOOOOO( $141,032 XXXXlOO( $136,618 xxxxxxx $1'l4-,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11 .8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL {10-20) xxxxxxx $1,204,513 lOOOOOO( $1,226,435 lOOOOOO( $1,254,041 xxxxxxx $1,215,965 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJOOOOO( $35,102 xxxxxxx $26,879 xxxxxxx $38,531 )()()(XX)()( $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel XJOOOOO( XJOOOOO( $2,066 xxxxxxx $3,407 )()()(XX)()( $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx XXlOOOO( xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $11,464 xxxxxxx $7,309 xxxxxxx: $7,455 xxxxxxx '-14,000 TOTAL (30) XlOOOOO( $46,566 XlOOOOO( $36,254 XlOOOOO( $49,393 XXXXlOO( $48,792 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Oflice JOOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $25,426 lOOOOOO( $23,541 )00()(}()0( $24,012 xxxxxxx $25,068 {40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,241 lOQOOOO( $6,489 xxxxxxx $6,620 iXXXXXXX $6,600 29 Other lOO(XX)()( xxxxxxx $1,016 xxxxxxx $1,036 xxxxxxx $2,455 TOTAL(40) lOOOOOO( $31,667 XJOOOOO( $31,046 XJOOOOO( $31,668 XJOOOOO( $34,123 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $3,968 xxxxx:xx $2,594 .xxxxxxx $2,646 xxxxxxx 2-,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xx:xxxxx $3,968 XlOOOOO( $2,594 xxxxxxx $2,646 XlOOOOO( $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees JOOOOO()( lOOOOOO( $1,132 xxxxxxx $1,155 )O(X)()O()( $1 ,155 (60) 34 Other lOOOOOO( lOQOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx - TOTAL (60) lOOOOOO( $0 XXXlOOCX $1,132 XJOOOOO( $1,155 'xxxxxxx S1, 155 TOTAL (30-60) XJOOOOO( $82,202 XJOOOOC( $71 ,025 XJOOOOO( $84,862 XJOOOOO( $86,716 TOTAL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1 ,297,460 40.1 $1,338,903 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxxxxx $41 ,553 xxxxxxx $51,892 XXlOOOO( $63,184 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 xxxxxxx $1,339,013 xxxxxxx $1,390,795 xx:xxxxx $1,365,865 Line Item .Costs .. - \"' . ,,.,:}::/\\ .-\n-:-:-:-.. .-:\n-\n, ,\n:\n-_._. .?\\}\\ '\"\"' / \"'\"'? ., 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $61,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51,892 $63,184 Per Pupif Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1 ,365,865 Per Pupil Cost  ,. $3,933 $4,070 $4,214 $4,164 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-9' Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-95 Budgeted MANN Magnet Schoel F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 1.0 $6t,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 - $143,289 3.0 $148,979 3.0 S 150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41 ,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 5.6 $:'1 4,772 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 1.3 $49,958 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $36,135 14 Other -- TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0 $67,206 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 6.0 $69,490 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 1.0 $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4- $37,142 2.4 , 35,982 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO{ $275,853 lOOOOOCX $292,062 xx:x:xxxx $296,293 XlOOOOO{ $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) )000000( $2,697,653 )()00000( $2,584,578 xxxxxxx $2,805,067 xxxxxxx S2,840,566 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XlOOQOO( $164,666 XlOOQOO( $137,280 xxxxxx:x: $168,667 xxxxxxx $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx XlOOQOO( $11,214 xx:xxxxx $11,438 xx:xxxxx  1 J,000 - (30) 24 Ma,ntenance Agreements lOOOOOOC lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 xxxxxxx $35,464 xxxxxxx S36,175 xx:xxxxx $27,300 TOTAL (30) x:xxxxxx $213,554 lOOOOOCX $183,959 XXXlOOO( $216,280 lOOOOOCX $214,521 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxx:x:x lOOOOOCX xxxxx:x:x XJOOOOO( SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom x:xxxxxx $76,512 )000000( $63,984 XXXXJOO( S65,265 xxxxxxx $49,168 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $10,301 xxxxxxx $9,352 xxxxx:xx $9,540 xxxxxxx $15,700 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $2,172 xxxxxx:x: $2,215 XlOOQOO( $4,000 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $86,813 xxxxxxx $75,508 xxxxxxx $77,020 xx:xx:x:xx :C68,868 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lCXXXXXX $26,417 lOOOOOO( $17,579 xxxxxxx S.17,930 lOOOOOO( $27,300 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx lOOOOOCX x:xxxxxx (50) 32 Other lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 XlOOOOO( $17,579 XJOOOOO( $17,930 XlOOOOO( $27,300 -- OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )()()()000( $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxx:xx $1,405 XXlOOOO( -i,soo (60) 34 Other XXlOOOO( XXlOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $1,470 XlOOQOO( $1,377 XXX)()O()( $1,405 xx:xxxxx $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOQOO( $328,253 XlOOQOO( $278,422 xx:xxxxx $312,635 JOOOOO()( $315,189 TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $143,218 xxxxxxx $137,573 xxxxxxx $172,083 xxxxxxx $205,272 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOCX $3,169,124 lOOOOOCX $3,000,573 lOOOOOCX $3,289,785 x:xxxxxx $3,361,027 Une Item Cost,i :c ..)\\.-:-: .  . ) . -:-: .,. :- ,. \u0026gt; ::.:)\"':_. -\"' :,/\" :\n:\n.:,:/:\\:\n./ ... i':,::::\n:\n::/,\\/ :::: }':\\ \\)' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $920 )()()()()0( )()()()()0( xxxxxx )()()()()0( Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $205,272 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,361 ,027 Per Pupil Cost  $3,694 $3,588 $3,760 $3,798 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-9j Actual 1993-9~ Budgeted 1994-95 B \" J,ted Parkvlew Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E:. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E:. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 1.0 $65,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 S152,394 3.0 $153.428 03 Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118,446 3.0 $123,123 3.0 $129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art- Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocation al 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 $283,945 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 1.5 $53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 39.6 $ 2J,341 - 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 $126,650 6.0 $128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113,791 8.0 $119,039 8.0 $1-19,819 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 $30,125 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO( $321,375 xxxxxxx $346,012 XlOOOOO( $335,564 lOOOOOO( $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 $738,351 21.6 $765,297 21.6 $751-,876 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $3,161,336 xxxxxxx $3,107,595 xxxxxxx $3,256,576 xxxxxxx S~ J),778 - PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $208,483 XlOOOOO( $179,513 xxxxxxx $185,462 xxxxxxx $183,100 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOCX XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx )()()()()(JO( $1,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XlOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( )()()()()()0( 25 Other xxxxxxx $39,092 xxxxxxx $18,792 xxxxxxx $19,170 xxxxxxx $14,750 TOTAL (30) xxxx.xxx. $247,575 lOOOOOCX $198,305 xxxx.xxx. $204,632 xxxxxxx. $199,350 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office lOOOCXXX XlOOOOO( lOOOCXXX xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XlOOOCXX $87,767 xxxxxxx $92,439 )000000( $94,288 xxxxxxx $98,173 (40) 128 Media xxxxxxx $16,883 xxxxxxx $13,753 XXXXXlOC $14,028 xxxxxxx $7,642 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $3,136 xxxxxxx $3,200 xxxxxxx $6,100 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $104,650 XlOOOOO( $109,327 XlOOOOO( $111,516 xxxxxxx $111,915 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $37,950 lOOOOO()( $23,092 lOOOOO()( $23,554 xxxxxxx $16,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxx:xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other lOOOOOCX XJOOOO(X lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) XlOOOOO( $37,950 XJOOOO(X $23,092 lOOOOOCX $23,554 lOOOOOCX $16,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $3,496 XXXXJOOC $5,809 xxxxxxx $5,925 XXXXlCXX $5,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XXXXJOO( xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) XlOOOOO( $3,496 XlOOOOO( $5,809 XXXJOOCX $5,925 XlOOOOO( $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOOOO( $393,671 xxxxxxx $336,534 lOOOOO(X $345,627 lOOOOO(X $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 $3,602,203 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $158,509 lOOOOOO( $135,955 xxxxxxx $167,720 xxxxxxx $2~1,123 GRANO TOTAL lOOOOOCX $3,713,516 xx:xxxxx $3,580,083 lOOOOOCX $3,769,923 lOOOOOCX $3,~24,166 L)ri:ifh_efu\\C\u0026amp;\n,.,,:,,ii:ii,it:::::::::\ni\n::::: Ii,,-- ,:,:,,,,,,,,,,':'\\i'''''''''\"''''' 1:::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::,,-:,,:,:-:::::::::: \"''''''\"  .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \"'''''\"' \"''\"''''''\"''\"'\"\n:\n::::,:.:.:,,:,::-:,\n,:,:-:,\n,,:.:,:,:,:   1991-92 1992 93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $912 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $201,123 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,924,166 \"Raf PUpiLC6sG:\\ : \u0026gt; :$4~49\np : l $4/420{ t :,~ ~ ~a~at : : $4A59} 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9 Budgeted 1994-9~ Budg\u0026lt;:ted Willlams Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 5.0 $179,381 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. - 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 20.0 $667,841 1 O Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1. 1 $27,792 1.1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 2.0 s-'1 C64 -- 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 35.5 $1,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 3.5 s5 453 - 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) .lOOOOOO( $158,584 xxxxxxx $171,101 .lOOOOOO( $166,399 XJOOOOO( $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 16.1 $31 n.co5 - TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,496,470 xxxxxxx $1,465,402 xxxxxxx $1,580,155 xxxxxxx $1,605,158 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities XXlOOOCX $42,968 xxxxxxx $38,623 xxxx:xxx $48,682 xxxxxxx $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel XXXXlOO( XlOOOOO( $3,793 JOOOOOO( $3,870 JOOOCXXX $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX )00()()00( )00()()00( lOOOOOCX 25 Other lOOOOOCX $16,259 lOOOOOO( $16,400 xxxxxxx $16,728 xxxxxxx $8,000 TOTAL(30) XlOOOOCX $59,227 XlOOOOCX $58,816 xxxxxxx $69,280 XlOOOOO( $70,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( i lOOOOOO( - SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $44,477 XXlOOOO( $38,631 lOOOOOO( $39,405 XXXXlOO( $3\" ,698 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,976 xxxxxxx $6,234 XXlOOOO( $6,360 xxxxxxx $11,000 29 Other xxxx:xxx XXlOOOCX $1,475 xxxx:xxx $1,505 xxxxxxx $2,200 TOTAL (40) xxxx:xxx $51,454 JOOOOOO( $46,341 JOOOOOO( $47,270 XXXXXlO( $44,898 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $14,984 )00()()00( $25,034 )00()()00( $25,535 xxxxxxx $22,7-00 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. :000000: :000000: :000000: xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other XlOOOOCX lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx TOTAL (50) xxx:xx:xx $14,984 lOOOOOO( $25,034 xxxxxxx S25,535 lxxxxxxx $22,700 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $535 XXXXlOO( $190 xxxxxxx $195 xxxxxxx $2,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxx:xxx $535 XXlOOOCX $190 xxxx:xxx $195 lOOOOOCX' $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) XXlOOOCX $126,200 XXlOOOCX $130,381 xxxx:xxx $142,280 lOOOOOO( $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE I EMS - (SECOND PAGE) :000000: $71,665 :000000: $60,881 :000000: $78,563 xxxxxxx $10,:.,748 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOCX $1,694,335 lOOOOOCX $1,656,664 XlOOOOCX $1,800,998 XXXlOOO( $1,849,784 Line Item Costs - Ji .,. .:c .:::::::-::::::: I ,.,ec.,.,.,., ... ,.ce,, /,:, ..  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1,614 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $91,920 Vocation al Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx )()()(JOO( xxxxxx Total Line Items $71,665 $60,881 $78,563 $104,748 Per PupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 $1,849,784 Per Pupil Cost $3,343 $3,500 $3,661 $3,760 TAKE ONE TEL No .1-501-37 4- 37 12 Jun 2 ,94 16 : 07 No. 008 P. 03 STAFF lN-St~RVICE PLAN WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL 1994-95 Five in-service sessions have been planned for the William's Magnet School Staff for the 1994-9.5 school year. Two of these sessions center around the effective and efficient use of the computers that have been purchased for use within the school\ntwo sessions emphasize the proper use of the newly adopted reading series\nand one session focuses on the analysis of Stanford-8 tests and the formulation of proper goals addressing areas of concern. A tentative plan for the in-service hours and the objectives to be reached i'\u0026gt; summarized below: ElRST SEMESTER IN-SERVICE: 1. Basic Computer Literacy: Objective: This in-service will be a practical work session to tram all certified staff on the proper use of the IBM Computers. (Six IBM Computers have been purchased for the 1994-95 school year, three were purchased for the 1993-94 school year, and three were purchased for the 1992-93 school year.) Staff members will learn the basfo DOS commands, how to format and copy disks, basic troubleshooting techniques, appropriate use of the printers.and will preview appropriate software for their particular grade level. Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 2. Reading Tertbook In-Service: OJ:tj5\u0026lt;ctive: The staff will become familiar with the Harcourt-Drace-Jovanovich Reading Series that has been adopted for the 1994-95 school year. Sample lessons will be demonstrated featuring whole group and small group techniques. Teachers will be presented a model lesson pl.an designed specifically for the new reading seri~ and will be givm the opportunity to construct model plans for each grade l~l (This was done for the previous reading series and was a specific r~uest for any new adoption.) Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 TAKE ONE fi TEL No.1-501-374-3712 Jun 2,94 16:07 No.00B P.02 Magnet Review Comm.ittee 1900 North Main Stl'C'ct  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Cre6r Ex .. cutlve Director TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJ: DATE: Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Donna Grady Cree~ Magnet Review Committee Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee Response to Questions Regarding the 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget June 1, 1994 (501) 758-0156 By this memo, I am forwarding the responses to your questions regarding the interdistrict magnet schools 1994-95 budget as per our recent telephone conversation. 1. What is the indirect cost rate for each school? The indirect cost rate is calculated by the Arkansas Department of Education, Administrative Services Federal Finance Division, L. J. Wesley, Coordinator. According to Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, LRSD, the indirect cost rate is the same for each school in the district. As indicated on the budget, the indirect cost rate for the 1994-95 school year is 5.03%, 2, Why the change in the FTB's from 1993-94 to 1994-95? LRSD's Support Services Office counted bodies for the 1993-94 school year, rather than actual FTE's. Careful study was given to this year's submission to accurately delineate the FTE's for each staff area. 3. Explain the change in Williams Magnet stipend line item. See attached. DGC:sl Attachment I i I 1989-1990 Projected ADM 4123 Actual ADM 3757 Difference ADM -366 Budgeted Per Pupil $ 3,100.00 Actual Per Pupil $ 3,099.68 Total Budget $12,781 ,300.00 Total Reimbursement $11 ,645,491 .00 Difference $ (1 ,135,809.00) Actual Expenditure ITrue Per Pupil??? $ 3,402.00 Magnet School Budgets and Per Pupil Expenditure 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 3741 .29 3878 3807 3771.8 3679.6 3570.54 30.51 -198.4 -236.46 $3,682.00 $3,682.00 $3,823.00 $ 3,682.02 $ 3,682.04 $ 3,823 .00 $13,775,416.00 $14,278,796.00 $14,554,670.00 $13,887,841 .00 $13,548,434.00 $13,650,174.00 $ 112,425.00 $ (730,362.00) $ (904,496.00) $ 3,652.21 $ 3,880.53 $ 4,076.32 MAG9495.XLS 1994-1995 3833 3529 -304 $3,901.00 $14,952,534.00 $13,766,629.00 $ (1,185,905.00) $ 4,237.05 I ~equested -- Asof9/6 u, ... :.u: :n.tn*:u  ttt , * * * n,*::tt. ** * ***** *n:u:.:\n,::i *-** * U]n:i:t:~ :u:. *** nu :u .. ru::t ******* * * P.01 *  TRANSACTION REPORT DATE START c::\n~,r 'R ..., ..... IL r_ RX TIME PAGES OCT-28-94 FRI 15:03 TfPt NOTE * * * .t ---------------------------------------- * '( n(T-?8 14:58 so. -~ I 24cG J' tp\" 6 RE ~EI',~ ,._,.., L. I I J. . - 'JK t +. i~ i ' 0 . .n.tp:fHh\"! 1Hd t' '.f- 10 28 : 9-! 15:02 '5'501 iil 2420 .U!ERIC HO)!E LIFE CI\\Y. i 5Ul/771-2 '1 J.0 @001 $71- 0/CJO COMPANY Nl\\..'lli: ___ 0 ..,2) /Y7 _ _ FROM: DATE: -~ ~ d_Lr~r-~ .C~~ d~ .\n2..,\n/9'9 _~ -------------- / ------------- --- --- - ~------------------ ---- ----- ---- ---- -- 10 : 28 , 9-1 15:03 '5'501 iil 2-120 AMER IC HO)!E LI FE Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 f4]002 Donna Crady Creer Execulive Director 1.so1 l 1se-01 se. October 2B, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Feceral Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. ~arkham. Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. B:rown: This letter comes to apprise you of information received from Mr. Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, at an October 28, 1994 special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee. The meeting was held for the specific purpose of receiving this information from Little Rock School District (reference my letter to you dated October 24, 1994). A copy of the revised budget infor.mation (draft 3) is attached, as well as a copy of the budget which has been submitted to the Court for approval (draft 2). At this time, each representative will discuss the information received at this meeting with their party and the impact of the proposed changes to the budget. The Magnet Review Committee plans to vote on this issue at its ne~t meeting scheduled for November 14, 1994. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, ffi#-\n~/~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments 10 .' 28 ,, 9\"1 15 : 03 '6'501 i71 2-!20 A)!ERIC H0)IE LIFE 141003 ll~1.~JWi,1glifM~E\u0026amp;~if.f'.g}i~ ~ t~:imii'iat-t~:l,,, ~-M$~WiJN.% ~~~,:~ ~i. ~~~\u0026amp;~ ~.Tif$i ffSiifa~(is~t-: FitJ\n\\ ~2~~r1M:\u0026lt;0 -=F sEiaiiiiifilL CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 $375,279 6.0 $34-0,086 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 $433,972 10.0 $473,907 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 39.2 $1,224,208 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 $405,435 12.4 $452,360 OS Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 $224,104 6.5 S230,137 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 0,0 $0 $0 0.0 SO 07 MUSIC 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. o.o so o.o so o.o $0 so o.o so 09 Vocational 14.0 SS07,273 12.6 $489,335 , 12.6 $492,420 $483,977 12.6 $404,921 10 Special Education 7.B $248,275 7.B $245,166 7.7 $276,790 $282,681 7.7 $263,527 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 $158,016 5.4 $189,153 12 Classroom 1B1 .4 SS,308,868 1n.s SS,354,901 175.9 SS,689,340 $5,377,867 175.9 $5,582,275 13 Substitutes 0.0 S153,B13 o.o S147.417 o.o $154,925 $182,975 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Klndargarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 S44a,634 $448,552 14.0 $459,595 TOTAL CERTIFIED $Al.AR 294.S $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289. 7 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 289.7 $9,775,094 SUPPORT 15 Sacretarias 18.0 $301,141 19.0 f,355,081 19.0 $353,310 $360,333 19.0 $323,508 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,659 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 $156,152 5 . .( $155,272 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 $360,957 28.5 $355,219 18 Paraproles.slonals-Chptr 1 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofesslonals- Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 $122,210 6.0 $13.2,853 20 Other-Aldas 39.S $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 $237,662 37.0 $270,749 .21 Fringe Benerits(20) ~ $1,254,324 ~ $1,366,607 hiocd $1,342,873 $1,213,301 ~ $1,282,054 TOTAL SUPPORT SALAA'I' 96.4 '2,474,792 98 . .( $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 95.9 $2,519,655 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $12,004,096 ~ S11,883,53.2 ~$12,648,376 $12,035,368 ~ $12,294,749 PURCHASE22 Utilities ~ $601 ,780 umi S.507,373 ~ $598,926 $598,876 ~- $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ - ~ , $33,980 ~ $31,215 $20,580 ~ $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements f~ !(Odcl' ~ ~ 25 Other ~ $166,508 ~ $92,772 ~ $99,428 $119,669 ~ - $74,250 ----.L..-.jr-~=\n-\n---\n:.-=:-- -...,.,.,.-+:,,.\n..\n.,--:::=~:-:--f....,.,.\n,\nr-~~-=-~~T\"-==='==:+~=~::--F~~--\"'.==\"=-~ TOTAL(30) mcioc( $768,288 ~ - $634,125 ~ $729,569 $739,125 XlClOboc $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Prlnclpal's Olllce i~ ~ ~ Xliooabc' SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom mime $343,433 ~ $309,128 ,oocido $315,284 $328,856 ~ (40) 28 Media )ClOObb( $56.509 ~ $53,842 mM $54,884 S34,2n ~ - 29 Other ~ iXXlOOdi $11,6\"7 lCixm $11,656 $18,873 l0Ctibi:li TOTAL (40) ~ $399,942 XlCDOOI $374,617 ~ $382,024 \u0026amp;382,006 ~ CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $111,624 ~ $106,263 -~ $104,215 $67,029 xxXl!Xi OUTLAY 31BulldlngRepalr, etc. ~ i~ ~ ~ (50) 32 Other ~ xnicoc ~ !~ $302,337 $57,242 $19,510 $379,089 TOTAL(S0) ~ $111,824 l00000I. $106,283 Xl0i:fu $104,215 $67,029 ~ S93,64S OTHER 33 Dues and Fees diem $8,358 ~ - $12,416 !xicn $12,665 $13,017 ~ $15,655 (60) 34 Other I~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL (60) ~ $8,358 i~ $12,416 -ICliOOCOC $12,665 $13,017 ~ $15,655 TOTAL(30-60) iOOOOat $1 ,288,412 ~ $1 ,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 $1,201,177 l00000t: $1,215,613 TOT!.L(10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 TOTAL LINE_ TEMS - (SECOND PAGE) llbCXa: S595,333 Xl0r.l00\u0026lt; $537,465 l0000CX $677,821 $413,629 ~ $796,728 E~n\\fGRAN01'0'.fAC~f=i~\u0026gt; :mm iJUST~S.11 113..548~' ~ $'iA~,610~ Stl!,$0/114t ,oooocx ~1~.W.09Qi 10 128 19-1 15 : 05 '5'501 771 2-120 1\\JIERIC HOME LIFE @00-1 '. . 1\n11:2110 :mt,1'8!'~~:~i J@~~-'s:\nl ~@. ~.\" :~~~( ~tit!JHNf.ff,~i!t - Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,671 $20,739 S16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $685,103 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Sel'\\licas $18,271 $1.009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science Engllsh $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Educallon $3,9V $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 l00000( XXl000( xxxxxx. J00000( Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $877,821 $413,629 $796,728 10! 28 19-1 15:05 'fi'501 iil 2-120 A~!ERIC H(l)!E LIFE 1 si~~~~~!to~:,\n!~~~::$Qt{OOis\ne{'\ntif:T::\n:~~ ,/:~~1\n6 ~~~/ ~T::~\u0026lt;t \u0026lt;,i:~~~:93 SF, 6_0 $\n~r~~ f~'l\\!'.6' ,, -!=~:.~~~-,:1 ' S1AFF 102-Asst. Prin. I ,o.o $456 057 10.D $438,462 10.0 1 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 l03 Specialists I 37.4 1 $1,274.519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 1041Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431 ,093 12.4 , $457,554 1 05 Media Spec. 6.5 s2,a,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 S233,751 6.5 $238,592 l06 Art-Perf./Prod. , o.o i so 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 \\ $0 ' '071Music I o.o so 1 0.0 SO 0.0 so o.o $0 I I08'Foreign Lar.g. 1 o.O / $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0  o.o $0 09,Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 . $492,420\n12.6 $483,414 I 10 Special Edvcat:on I 7.8 1 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 I 7.7 $285,726 i 111 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 s.o $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 I 112 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5,616,001 1 13 Substit,.,tas ' o.o $153,813 o o $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 114 Other-Kin1ergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 I I I I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.S $9,529,304 267.1 I $9,276,435 289. 7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 I SUPPORT 115 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0 $335,238 STAFF i1 51Nvrses 5.4 $148,659 5,4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 $159,150 , , 117 Custodians 28.S $346.330 i 28.5 $335,694 28 5 $372.625 28.S $375,432 I 118 Paraprofessiorals-Chptr 1 0.0 SO 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 I 0.0 $0 I 119 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.D $157,639 6.0 $139,163 1 120 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 S292,027 :21 Fringe Benetlts(20) ~ $1,254,324 ~I $1,366,607 ~- $1,342,873 ~ $1,383,030 I TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,664,040 I TOTAL (10-20) __ $12,004,096 '   $11,883,532 ~ S12,648,376 ~ $12,909,181 I PURCHASEDl221Utilities ~I $60~ .780 ~ $507,373 ~ $538,926 -~ $619,066 ! SERVICES 123 Travel :JOOOOOQ( ~ $33,980 ~ $36,215 'lOOOOCXX' $33,907 (30) 124 Maintenance Agreements ,~ :lOOCXXl()( ~. ~ I ,25 Other ~ $166,508 .~ $92,n2 ~ - S94,426 .ix\u0026gt;boool: $74,250 r----:-----c--,------TOTA\\_ (30) :lCX'OOOCX, $768 .268 -~ $634,125 JQDOOOb( $729,569 lOOOOOCX. $727,223 ! MATERIAL$, 126 Principal s Otlice OOOOOOO{j ~ ~ f}(X)OOOO(: I I I SUPPLIES l2?1 RegularCl\n,s.sroorr xx:xxxxxl 5343.433 $309,128 ~I $315,284 $302,337 j $57,242 $19,510 (40) 28 M6d:a ~ $56,509 $53,842 XlOO(lO(X $54,664 ~ CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ ~ $11,647 :ipooocix $11,856 ~- TOTAL (40) ~menc j31 Building Aepalr, etc: ~ $399,942 XlOaXlOI' $374,617 ~ $382,024 XlOOOOCX -1-------'--'----f..XXXlOOCX..._.- ,\n-.--.-~. ,-.\n..c$1:.:1..:.1. :..:,8....c24 ' $~ 06,283 )ooaxx'x $104,215 'XXXX)()O! XlOOOOCX. l00CXXlOI ~ ~ 132 Other lQOOOPa' JOOQ000(. XlOOQOOC :ixxxxxx T01AL (SO) ~-- $111,824  $106,283 ' $104,215 133 Dues ancl Fees X)(X)CQQ( $8,358 ~ S 12.416 ~ $12,665 XXXXXlC( '34 Otrier xxxxxx,c xixxmc ~ XXXXXXX $379,089 $93,646 $93,646 $15,655 I t----c-T_O_T_A_L~(_60~) __lO O_!c _ o_CQC__,\nf-- $8,358 xxJixxxx S12,4'6 :JQOOOOO(: $12,665 $15,655 , ___T O_T_A_L_,_(3_0_-_60'-'-) __ ._,oo o-o-=o'-'o.,c_:~:...$1_2.:..:8:..::a.:..:.4..\n.1~ 2lO OQQOO $1,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 ')(XX)ClXX $1 ,215,613 TOTAL (1 0-60) 390.9 1S13,292.508 I. 3B5 5 $13,010,969 385.6 1$13,876,849 365.6 jS14,124,794 I TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) J000()()0( $595,333 X)OOOOO(' $537,465 )()0()0()0( / $677,821 .lOOOOQQCI $627,741 I_ G__ R _AN_D_T_O_'r_A_l _l, _lOOOOOOC___:\n.c...=C'-$-'-,1..:\n.3-'-',,~7.84, X'.X:IOCXXX $13,548,.:34 l000000( ~14~55 ,670 J)OcXlO(l(l( $14,952.534 I 15: 06 '5'501 7il 2-120 ,\\JIERIC HO)!E LIFE 141006 Line Hem Costs - I iSU~e~d$ .... , .. :11991-92 1992-93 11993-94 1994-95 I $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 ---  I0 tner Ob,ects I l l~d irsct Costs $503,365 ' $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Voc.:atio11aI : $30.837 $29.a64 $32,000 $32,000 ~cs I $31 ,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 IGi'ted Programs I ~5 1 $500 $500 Plant Servcos $18,271 $1,G09 i $15,000 $15,000 ~f::~\nn_g _ _ I $5,334 $500 $500 . !En\\,, Si\"\\ I $2,3681 ($2,058)1 $1,500 s, ,500 I Special Ecucat,ol' I s2,oe2 I $4,000 $4,000 I )0()000( - .,_,,, I I r XXlOCXX I I I - ---- XlCXXXX I I ~ta Lire Items ' I I I l ss9s 333 I ss37,t.55 I $677,821 t $827,741 I Pe( Pupiteost \n, '  . -l199l-92- :/  1992~.93 .jJ99.:-:SE /,:. }:S~8S, ,'.,\n-?! 3rd O:r. ADM or Pro1. I 3TT1 .8 3679 6 I 3807.0 3833.0 I Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548.434 I $14,554,670 $14,952,534 I 1.Par Pupi l Cost '\" / l i . \" $3:\n682 ,.,:\n:\n::., . $S\n682J,~- .,. ,,\n:~ 1823 .\n\"''~:filSS,SQ~'l Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 October 28, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter comes to apprise you of information received from Mr. Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, at an October 28, 1994 special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee. The meeting was held for the specific purpose of receiving this information from Little Rock School District (reference my letter to you dated October 24, 1994). A copy of the revised budget information (draft 3) is attached, as well as a copy of the budget which has been submitted to the Court for approval (draft 2). At this time, each representative will discuss the information received at this meeting with their party and the impact of the proposed changes to the budget. The Magnet Review Committee plans to vote on this issue at its next meeting scheduled for November 14, 1994. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, ~ ~/,ot Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC: sl Attachments - r, 'I CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kindergarten 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 $375,279 6.0 $340,086 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 $433,972 10.0 $473,907 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 39.2 $1,224,208 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 $405,435 12.4 $452,360 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 $224,104 6.5 $230,137 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 $483,977 12.6 $404,921 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 $282,681 7.7 $263,527 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 $158,016 5.4 $189,153 181.4 $5,308,868 1TT.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 175.9 , $5,582,275 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 $182,975 0.0 $154,925 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 $448,552 14.0 $459,595 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 289.7 $9,TT5,094 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 o.o SO 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 21 Fringe Benelits(20) ,xioclai $1,254,324 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $12,004,096 PURCHASE 22 Utilities :~ $601,780 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ - (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ 19.0 5.4 28.5 0.0 $355,081 $148,996 $335,694 $0 19.0 $353,310 5.4 $154,424 28.5 $372,625 0.0 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 lOOOOCX $1,366,607 lOOOOO(' $1,342,873 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 ~ -$11,883,532 ~ -$12,648,376 ~ $507,373 ~- $598,926 ~ $33,980 ~ $31,215 ~ - )t)(X)O(X 250ther ~ - $166,508 ~ $92,772 ~ - $99,428 TOTAL (30) xxiooa $768,288 xxioc:loc' $634,125 liXlCOOC $729,569 $360,333 $156,152 $360,957 $0 $122,210 $237,662 $1,213,301 $2,450,615 $12,035,368 $598,876 $20,580 19.0 $323,508 5.4 $155,272 28.5 $355,219 0.0 $0 6.0 $132,853 37.0 $270,749 )()()000(. $1,282,054 95.9 $2,519,655 ~ $12,294,749 ~ - $619,066 ~ $33,907 ~ - $119,669 ~ - $74,250 $739,125 xxiooa. $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal' s Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom -~ ~ i~ ~ ~ - $343,433 ~ . $309,128 !xxiX) $315,284 $328,856 ~ $302,337 (40) 28 Media ~ - $56,509 ~ - $53,842 i(x)()Oc)( $54,884 $34,277 ~ $57,242 29 Other ~ l(Xl00CX $11,647 XlOC00C $11,856 $18,873 :XX\u0026gt;OOOC $19,510 TOTAL (40) lOOOOa' $399,942 xiooooc $374,617 llOOOOCX $382,024 $382,006 l0000CX $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $111,824 ~ $106,283 X)(X)O(X $104,215 $67,029 X)Cl0Q(X $93,646 OUTLAY c3~1~B~ui~ld~in-g~R~e-p-ai~r.-e~tc-.--r~0~~1~~,~r----T-!(X)OCO\u0026lt;--.,.......t----~~~~-oo-9~~t---'---t----'---t-a\u0026lt;x.~----,------'----, (50) 32 Other TOTAL(50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE rrEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ........ ,.  GRANO. TOTAL.'\\/? XlOClCD $111,824 XXiCOa $106,283 liOOOOOC $104,215 $67,029 Xl!tXlOO{ $93,646 ~ $8,358 ~ $12,416 l(XlOOO( $12,665 $13,017 i)(X)OOO( $15,655 )a)OOO( ~ XX)00C)C iWOOcX, lOOOOOC $8,358 ,ooooa $12,416 lOOOCOC $12,665 $13,017 lOOOOOC $15,655 ~ - $1,288,412 Xl0000C $1,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 $1,201,177 lOOCCCX $1,215,613 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 X)OOQ(X. $595,333 !XXX\u0026gt;.OO\u0026lt; $537,465 XXX)Oa $677,821 $413,629 )OO()O(X $796,728 \u0026gt;OOOOOC $1 UB7~Mf xxxxxx S13$.4B,434 XXlOOO( $14,554,670 S13,650, 174 lOOOOCX $14\n307,090 t!ntJJijrtf~~smmrnmrn :it:1~\naitt. mm+asnn Mfflf \u0026amp;Jttf rntiifflflltt rtiifflf 9$'Wi :fa:t\n:\nj\n\nt'.t:\n?ff}{ft:ff\n\\F Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $685,103 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $6TT,821 $413,629 $796,728 t~em1tC($trtmmtti. t19Qlf ~ar mm +$$itt rt1~+~ m::: 1m1~~+ mr1~ 9'-Mt 3rd Ctr. ADM or Proj. 3TT1 .8 3679.6 3807.0 3570.5 3530 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,307,090 ~ ~M~tJtMifMtm. itMlIJ\ntt$2/ lltit@f$3t  IltltW i~ m %MlN/$3t~ { rmrnrn~t~ i 19947 95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) __ 1991-9, 1992-9~ 1993-9~ 1994-9~ SUMr,1AAY FOR MAGNETSCHOOLS )? F.T.E?/ . Actual - FaT:E\n/ \\?\u0026gt;Actual \"\"''-''' - F.TE . .. ,:: \\\n:\n,. Budget F,T.E. . ,,_ Budget I CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 I I STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 I 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274 ,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 I 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,G41 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 $457,554 I I 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $21 8,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238,592 I 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0  $0 I I 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0,0 $0  0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 _ $492,420 12.6 $483,414 I 1 O Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 I 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 I 12 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5,816,001\n13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 I 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $30 1, 141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19,0 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 $159,150 ' 17 Custodians 28.5 $346, 330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,1 03 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 6.0 $139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $31 6,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 $292,027 I 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXlOQ(: $1,254 ,324 XlOOOOO{ $1,366,607 .xx:xxxxx $1,342,873 xxxxxxx $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,684,040 I TOTAL (10-20) XXXXXl\u0026lt;X $12,004,096 xxxxxxx $11,883,532 xxxxxxx $12,648,376 XXlOOOCX $12,909,181 I PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $601,780 XlCXXXXX $507,373 xxxxxxx $598,926 xxxxxxx $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx xxx:x:xxx $33,980 ')()00000( $36,215 ')0()0000(' $33,907 I (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( l()OOOOO( xxxxxxx I 25 Other l0000\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":581,"next_page":582,"prev_page":580,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":6960,"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}}]}}